Women are paid up to 19% less than their male peers in the workforce, is it then fair that we are slammed with paying higher prices for products because they are branded towards women. NO! I collated some examples, courtesy of 9news of classic supermarket examples where you are paying extra just for being a women.
1) Razors – both Woolworths Select brand, both purchased to remove hair however the women’s version is priced $3 more expensive.
2) Hair Removal cream – Same brand, packaged differently and has a staggering $4.06 price difference.
3) Deodorants – supermarkets are clever with their marketing approach, even though the women’s version seems cheaper because it is at a reduced rate, the price per 100g is still $1.65 more expensive.
4) Socks – just because they are pink and marketed towards women bonds socks are still 20c more expensive.
Supermarkets tend to not display the male and female versions next to each other as it’s easier for consumers to compare prices. So next time you are at the supermarket have a look out for these sneaky tactics and send us your pictures.
Another classic example of gender price discrimination are haircuts. No wonder why we see so many budgets here at Prudent Cashflow Mentors where we are having to allow a bigger allowance for haircuts for women over men. In 2000 a women took a salon to court after she was charged $56 and her male friend paid only $38 for exactly the same haircut. The salon had to introduce a unisex price list but there’s no legislation to combat gender price discrimination.
So maybe supermarkets should be offering unisex products to consumers, I would quite happily purchase unisex razors, shaving cream and deodorants. Even though Pink is my favourite colour, why should we pay more for products because they are pink and are branded towards women, espescially if they are all manufactured to carry out the same purpose and have the same function.