[wbill]

that women pay about 48 percent more for shampoo and conditioner, 11 percent more for razors, 6 percent more for body wash, and 3 percent more for deodorant. Women also pay 8 percent more for comparable clothing, including 3 percent more for socks and 15 percent more for shirts.

And whose fault is this?

Because a fool believes that a razor is better because it has a pink handle and costs twice as much as one with a gray handle, doesn't make that the manufacturer's fault. In fact, the manufacturer could triple prices and the same fools would continue to buy them.

[rollo tomasi]

Companies price accordingly.

Perhaps men would rather buy cheaper generic brands which is why the name brand items are priced cheaper than females.

These particular female products might have some price inelastic conditions too. It's about profit, not biology or privilege. Don't buy the stuff ladies, buy generic or "male" brands.

[disclaimer]

then women’s auto insurance should be priced the same as men’s as well, and women should be registering with Selective Services when the reach 18. sigh.

[bert]

the article fails to realize the advanced utility of the feminine products. Advertised or not, all have enhanced hydration properties demanded by women. If the product does not moisturize, it will not sell.

Since males do not require the additional hydration, their products are less expensive

[gigster]

I enjoy the commercial for women’s personal shavers where the pretty actresses are standing behind small bushes. Pure advertising gold.