Many of the replies (correctly) make Amy's point — buy the "blue" razors — but I'm astounded at the Lt. Gov.'s statement about shampoo, of all frigging things.

Shampoo seems to be about as expensive or inexpensive as you want it to be, and — unlike "Venus" razors or whatnot — I thought shampoo was as unisex a grooming product as soap.

I wonder why it never occurs to people like @NassauExecutive and Governor Cuomo to take five minutes to Google "difference between men's and women's razors" before they start ranting about discrimination.

Women's razors cost more than men's razors because of several practical features that make them more suitable for the areas and ways women shave.

I suspect there are also practical differences between the shampoos, conditioners and lotions preferred by women and men that affect the price they pay. That shouldn't surprise anyone who's seen women and men.

So, in 100 years, we've gone from "We Demand the Vote!" to "We Demand Cheap Razors!" Cady Stanton is turning over in her grave.

Razors are a consumer product. They are adapted to marketplace demands. If women wanted a pink men's razor, that's what Gillette et al would sell. This is not a political issue; it does not require government intervention.

As for shampoo, is there really a "men's" shampoo and a "women's" shampoo? It's liquid soap. Some are specially-formulated for dyed or treated hair. These special formulas tend to cost more.

Yes, buy the ones marketed towards men, but it still begs the question why things marketed to men tend to be better quality and cheaper.

NicoleK, those "cheap" men's razors? You do not want one anywhere near your face. Until Harry's and Dollar Shave Club came along and started giving Gillette some competition, decent men's razors were actually pretty expensive. It's gotten better, but it's still not cheap if you want a good shave.

why things marketed to men tend to be better quality and cheaper

Are they better quality?

This is feel good press release legislation so phony baloney politicians can show that they are doing their job. If you delve into the matter the tiniest bit you realize how stupid it is all is but the politicians know that a lot of people will never look further into it than their quick dumb tweet.

I buy pink razors because I share a bathroom with my husband, and if I buy blue/green/black razors for myself, he will use them. I like the triple-blade ones with the skinny heads. Not a big fan of the ones that have all the built-in moisturizers; they wear out and get gunked-up faster.

2018 Data:
Life expectancy at birth (in years)
Female 81.4
Male 76.3

Workplace Deaths (percentage)
Female 7.5%
Male 92.5%

She might also want to review the Cumulative Net Fiscal Impact (https://femoid.com/wp-content/uploads/tax-by-age-and-gender-2010.jpg). Men aged 35-80 are subsidizing the rest of us.

Men's beards are tougher and their face hardier than women's legs and ahem. So the razors cannot be the same.
As for shampoo, women are quite capable of picking the cheap shampoo but their hair is generally longer and they are more demanding so they require better shampoo. Many men have hair so short they could use bar soap. The conceit that they have the same needs and someone has tricked women into buying a more expensive product assumes that women are gullible and that manufacturers are an evil (and talented) cabal conducting brain-washing. None of this can be demonstrated.
The same when you look at dry cleaning. Women choose clothes that are more delicate, have tassles and beads and attached belts. Harder to dry clean. A man's shirt is pretty indestructible. Not the same. If it was pure price discrimination, someone could come along with lower prices for women's dry cleaning and get all their business.
For a counter-argument, look at shoes. Yes there are some outrageous women's shoe prices, but good dress shoes are cheaper than for men because not as sturdy. Women's tennis/walking shoes are same price as for men.
Everyone wants to find something that is "unfair" so they can fight for justice, but consumer stuff is tightly regulated by supply and demand. When women are ok with low quality shampoo, the fancy ones will go away. Won't happen of course.

IRA in my experience, yes, but the products I'm looking at in this phase of life tend to be toys. The blue microscope with pictures of boys on the box was cheaper and had better features than the pink one with girls on the box... that sort of thing.

Yeah, but CC, if I send a plain cotton blouse to the dry cleaners it's gonna be charged the same price as a fancy blouse unless I know the guy and he cuts me a deal.

It's like haircuts, butch women often complain about getting charged a higher price for a men's cut (though same sort of thing, if you're lucky you can charm the person into giving you the male price... but that's someone doing you a favor.)

assumes that women are gullible and that manufacturers are an evil (and talented) cabal conducting brain-washing.

If that were true, they'd also be brain washing men into buying the more expensive stuff. Why leave about half the market on the table?

A man's shirt is pretty indestructible.

*thinks of all the shirts I've worn out, sighs*

The blue microscope with pictures of boys on the box was cheaper and had better features than the pink one with girls on the box

Interesting. On the other hand, maybe NicoleK can teach these poor souls how to comparison shop? if someone can charge $2,500 to tell white women what terribull people they are, you could teach shopping techniques for half the price.

"but it still begs the question why things marketed to men tend to be better quality and cheaper."

That's easy - because women shop differently than men. They tend to place a higher value on esthetics and social cachet value in products. Look at the fashion industry and press - it's mostly targeted toward women. Men tend to be more pragmatic, have a better understanding of what makes a product perform better, and care less about how trendy it is. Vendors respond to market demand.

Before anyone gets their back up about stereotyping, notice that the verb in those sentences was "tend" - it's not a strict 100% correlation. However, massive corporations with access to reams of data reflecting actual choices consumers make in spending their hard earned money, and lots of tools to analyze it, have chosen to design, make, and market their goods and services based on their perception of these tendencies, and their bottom lines are empirical proof that these were sound decisions. Stereotypes express validly observed correlations, the problem arises when people assign causality to them.

"It's like haircuts, butch women often complain about getting charged a higher price for a men's cut "

Not if they go to a typical barber shop with a deer antler coat rack and copies of Field & Stream and Popular Mechanics in the waiting area, or even to Best Cuts, with one advertised price for every type of service.

"The blue microscope with pictures of boys on the box was cheaper and had better features than the pink one with girls on the box"

The blue microscope doesn't have a bajillion screaming activists telling parents how horribly backward they are if they don't push their sons into STEM going for it.

Supply and demand is the one single product of the social sciences that is as reliable as anything in the hard sciences.