There are differences between men's and women's razors besides color.

What this nurse has learned from adolescent girls in a psych unit who bothered to find out why women's razors cost more than men's:

Women's razors have thicker blades because women shave a lot more area than men do - 15 times more - so the blades have to last longer or they'll need two or three razors every time they shave. The angle of the blades is different because of the difference in the coarseness of the hair and the shape of the surface they're shaving over. The shape of the head is usually different - more rounded on women's razors to fit better under arms, behind knees, and other areas they shave. The heads pivot differently because women shave at different angles; on some women's razors the blades themselves pivot and flex independently. Men's razors usually have one lubricating strip that follows after the blades; women's often have two with the blades in between, or a solid lubricant encased with the blades. The shapes of the handles are different, the women's being a little more complicated because women hold the razor in more different ways to shave at more different angles. Women using men's razors might get a closer shave because of the blade angle and shaving thinner hair, but they get more nicks and razor rash. When men use women's razors it takes longer to shave, going over the same area more times, they don't shave as close, and they get more nicks and razor rash.

I've tried explaining all this many times to managers and administrators where I work (who are mostly women) so we can get some decent razors (and soap, shampoo, conditioner, lotion, etc.) for the girls on my unit. But it seems women are a lot less willing to pay that so-called "pink tax" for other women's benefit than they are for their own. And they seem especially unwilling to do anything nice for - or even speak nicely to - teenage girls with mental illnesses.

Some politician is going to get a law passed to ban the pink tax, and women are going to end up paying the same price as men for pink and baby blue men's razors.

Baby poo isn't brown. It comes in a variety of neon colors from fluorescent green to psychedelic orange. That was one of the weirder things to learn from having a kid.

Cuomo has recently insisted that he's going to make the so-called "pink tax" illegal, according to the New York Post.

So, Cuomo's going to override the free market and have prices set centrally by the government. That always works out well.

The reason for the so-called "pink tax" is that women pay it. If women were satisfied with men's razors, they'd buy and use men's razors. The razors are not priced the same because, as KenR points out, they are not the same product. Each one meets a distinct need.

We might reconsider giving women the right to vote. They might even *shudder* vote for the wrong people!

There are complaints about women's clothing costs but women are much pickier than men, their clothes are harder to make, and they go out of style frequently, leaving the store with unsold inventory. I can buy the same shirts year after year because men's fashions don't change much. For women's dry cleaning, their clothes are much more delicate, have beads and tassels and lace therefore higher cost. Shoes? I can buy a men's dress shoe for $125 and wear it to formal events for 8 years. It is women who insist on the changing styles--not the "patriarchy". Shampoo? Men use the same one for a decade but women insist on all the variety. Check the shampoo aisle--almost all are aimed at women.

As for razors, women can buy men's razors--nothing stopping them. However, women have requirements not met by men's razors (as noted by Ken above).

It is almost never the case that men's vs women's products are the same except for the price.

The belief that the market is rigged and must be fixed haunts politicians (or is simply an excuse to seem useful). Yet these politicians can never demonstrate that manufacturers got together and came up with a scheme to trick women (and if they did this implies women are babies). It is not politicians who provide special foods for diabetics or gluten free or low salt or ethnic at the store--it is the market.

There are complaints about women's clothing costs but women are much pickier than men, their clothes are harder to make, and they go out of style frequently, leaving the store with unsold inventory. ~ cc at December 24, 2019 10:11 AM

I spent seven years working in fashion and it's not just about being picky or changing fashion. Women are sized differently than men. Most men's clothing can be sold in specific sizes - e.g., 32 waist 30 inseam, 15 neck and 32 sleeve, or Small, Medium, and Large - with most men knowing what size they need to buy. And it's fairly consistent across brands.

Women's sizes vary, even in the standard sizes. And they have Petite, Plus, Juniors, etc. variants. No woman knows from one store to another what size is her best fit, even from one brand to another.

Watching my wife shop for clothes is a bizarre journey into what it takes to dress a woman these days. She started out in Size 2 Petite pants when we were married over a decade ago, but now has to find pants in Size 0 Petite, an almost impossible task. She didn't change sizes, the sizes dropped. No manufacturer wants to alienate its women customers by telling them (honestly) that they now wear a size two sizes up from what they used to wear. I, on the other hand, simply buy a waist and inseam that fits.

For example, women's jeans must accommodate women's measurements, which vary widely. Men's jeans must accommodate the waist and inseam measurements. Women's must fit hips, waist, and leg length. That requires production of considerably more inventory to sell to the same number of potential buyers.

To make things more complicated, as women age and have children, their bodies change. Men might gain some weight around the middle as they get older, but women gain weight along several axes.

> but women gain weight along
> several axes.

Ain't it the truth? Near the end, my ex picked up a 24-pound splitting maul.

We might reconsider giving women the right to vote. They might even *shudder* vote for the wrong people!

Well, in the first election after the 19th Amendment struck down all laws that prohibited women from voting, we elected Warren G. Harding.

I'll let you take from that what you will.

We might reconsider giving women the right to vote. They might even *shudder* vote for the wrong people!
Well, in the first election after the 19th Amendment struck down all laws that prohibited women from voting, we elected Warren G. Harding.

I'll let you take from that what you will.

Patrick at December 25, 2019 6:37 AM

Just about anyone would have been an improvement over Woodrow Wilson.

Probably a substantially greater number of women than men vote on their emotions, and are quite easily manipulated to make their presidential choice personal rather than tactical.

Obama was a Prom King presidency. And substantially less competent than Harding in any objective measure.

On the other hand, most people, even men, don’t recognize their long term self interest even when it bites them on the ass.