5 ms·

Articles like this promote a very absurd notion that there is a vast conspiracy to actively discriminate against women. While there is, of course, real discrim

by JPKab 11y ago

Articles like this promote a very absurd notion that there is a vast conspiracy to actively discriminate against women. While there is, of course, real discrimination against women, this simply isn't one of them. The only discrimination going on here is that men are more discriminant on price than women are with broad categories of items. I work with retail data, and I know this is 100% true. Items marketed towards men in the "Consumables" category (deodorant, razors, shampoo, etc) are priced lower than their female counterparts because decades of scientific analysis has shown that men are more likely to shop for these particular products based on price than women are. In economic terms, depending on the category, men and women have different price elasticity curves. An interesting twist on this is that certain Men's products within the "Consumables" category are at high price points due to the data showing their respective consumer group to be far less price sensitive, especially with the 18-25 male demographic with hair care products. This is all data and algorithms talking, not actual discrimination. Anyone with a son can also point out exactly why boy's underwear costs more than girl's underwear: boys get very excited about underwear with characters on it, so parents are less price sensitive on those products. But according to this story, this is just another form of evil discrimination towards boys wearing underroos. Source: I help my customers set prices for their product/store combinations using data.

Hermel 11y ago
As a further factor, I have heard that women tend to return clothing more often than men, leading to increased costs for shops that sell to women in comparison to those that sell to men only.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > As a further factor, I have heard that women tend to return clothing more often than men, leading to increased costs for shops that sell to women in comparison to those that sell to men only. Some of that is that fit is more complex for women (and sizing less consistent -- which unlike the other part, is a direct result of commercial practice -- compounding the problem.)
- mdip 11y ago
  I'd imagine the same can be said for trying on clothes. The more clothes are tried on, the more they are worn out, resulting in loss. Part of this problem, though, is the company's fault. To this day I can never make sense out of the "sizes" that appear on women's clothes. My wife's closet has size numbers that vary by 5! We are almost exactly the same size, but my jeans say "30/30", meaning 30" waste, 30" length (at least, that's what I think they mean) and since my weight doesn't ever fluctuate, I have the same size jeans spanning 10 years. Her jeans, same brand, which perfectly fit me (to the point that I mistakenly have worn them) have a single number on them. I rarely try things on and I don't think I've ever returned clothes because of a bad fit. I've been the same size since High School and I know if I buy a 15 shirt and a 30/30 pair of pants, they'll be within an acceptable margin of error that they'll fit. She can pick out a 4 or a 7 and not have any idea if it's going to fit.
  - Shish2k 11y ago
    > To this day I can never make sense out of the "sizes" that appear on women's clothes Why does nobody step up and fix this problem? (See also: clothes for women with useful sized pockets). Given the amount of complaining I see, I would have thought that somebody releasing a range of sensible clothes in women's sizes would instantly dominate the market...
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > > To this day I can never make sense out of the "sizes" that appear on women's clothes > Why does nobody step up and fix this problem? Because its a cross-industry consistency problem [0], so if someone tries to fix it, you've just created yet another set of inconsistent-with-everyone-else sizes. [0] Lying on top of a "reducing a multidimensional issue to a single variable" problem, sitting astride a "trying to avoid making people buying the product associating the negative body image feelings the fashion industry has deliberately manufactured to create the need for certain products with the products themselves by labeling some of the axes of variation in a clear manner" problem. So, you know, layers of issues...
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
Retra 11y ago
"Actual discrimination" is made solely of data and algorithms. The use of data and algorithms does in no way protect you from being discriminatory. The discrimination occurs when you say "in economic terms" as an excuse to ignore all the other data that people look at when determining what is discriminatory or not. Or maybe when you say "maximum profit" is the goal of your algorithm; it's clearly not the goal of the people determining what is discriminatory, nor is it the goal of society in general. Not all discrimination is bad, nor is always a problem. But you can't argue that it doesn't exist just by ignoring the variables you don't like or can't see. You can't say "all I see is numbers and price stickers" and think that gives you any credible expertise on quantifying the value of human interaction and culture. Oversimplifying the problem always introduces errors, even if it is necessary.
- dawnbreez 11y ago
  "Actual discrimination" ignores facts. This statement uses facts. These data shows that people who sell women's products can get away with a steeper price point, which suggests that people who care enough about having a girl's version are willing to pay steeper prices for it. This doesn't paint a picture of discrimination, it paints a picture of people who will happily spend more for pink paint. As noted in the parent post, it also paints a picture of people willing to spend more on cartoon underoos, which suggests that this isn't a gendered phenomenon--rather, that the markets for pink things and cartoon undies are filled with customers who are willing to spend more for their favorite color/cartoon, where other, less pink/cartoon'd products aren't as highly valued.

by JPKab 11y ago

Hermel 11y ago

As a further factor, I have heard that women tend to return clothing more often than men, leading to increased costs for shops that sell to women in comparison to those that sell to men only.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> As a further factor, I have heard that women tend to return clothing more often than men, leading to increased costs for shops that sell to women in comparison to those that sell to men only. Some of that is that fit is more complex for women (and sizing less consistent -- which unlike the other part, is a direct result of commercial practice -- compounding the problem.)
mdip 11y ago
I'd imagine the same can be said for trying on clothes. The more clothes are tried on, the more they are worn out, resulting in loss. Part of this problem, though, is the company's fault. To this day I can never make sense out of the "sizes" that appear on women's clothes. My wife's closet has size numbers that vary by 5! We are almost exactly the same size, but my jeans say "30/30", meaning 30" waste, 30" length (at least, that's what I think they mean) and since my weight doesn't ever fluctuate, I have the same size jeans spanning 10 years. Her jeans, same brand, which perfectly fit me (to the point that I mistakenly have worn them) have a single number on them. I rarely try things on and I don't think I've ever returned clothes because of a bad fit. I've been the same size since High School and I know if I buy a 15 shirt and a 30/30 pair of pants, they'll be within an acceptable margin of error that they'll fit. She can pick out a 4 or a 7 and not have any idea if it's going to fit.
- Shish2k 11y ago
  > To this day I can never make sense out of the "sizes" that appear on women's clothes Why does nobody step up and fix this problem? (See also: clothes for women with useful sized pockets). Given the amount of complaining I see, I would have thought that somebody releasing a range of sensible clothes in women's sizes would instantly dominate the market...
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > > To this day I can never make sense out of the "sizes" that appear on women's clothes > Why does nobody step up and fix this problem? Because its a cross-industry consistency problem [0], so if someone tries to fix it, you've just created yet another set of inconsistent-with-everyone-else sizes. [0] Lying on top of a "reducing a multidimensional issue to a single variable" problem, sitting astride a "trying to avoid making people buying the product associating the negative body image feelings the fashion industry has deliberately manufactured to create the need for certain products with the products themselves by labeling some of the axes of variation in a clear manner" problem. So, you know, layers of issues...
- Grishnakh 11y ago

Retra 11y ago

"Actual discrimination" is made solely of data and algorithms. The use of data and algorithms does in no way protect you from being discriminatory. The discrimination occurs when you say "in economic terms" as an excuse to ignore all the other data that people look at when determining what is discriminatory or not. Or maybe when you say "maximum profit" is the goal of your algorithm; it's clearly not the goal of the people determining what is discriminatory, nor is it the goal of society in general. Not all discrimination is bad, nor is always a problem. But you can't argue that it doesn't exist just by ignoring the variables you don't like or can't see. You can't say "all I see is numbers and price stickers" and think that gives you any credible expertise on quantifying the value of human interaction and culture. Oversimplifying the problem always introduces errors, even if it is necessary.

dawnbreez 11y ago
"Actual discrimination" ignores facts. This statement uses facts. These data shows that people who sell women's products can get away with a steeper price point, which suggests that people who care enough about having a girl's version are willing to pay steeper prices for it. This doesn't paint a picture of discrimination, it paints a picture of people who will happily spend more for pink paint. As noted in the parent post, it also paints a picture of people willing to spend more on cartoon underoos, which suggests that this isn't a gendered phenomenon--rather, that the markets for pink things and cartoon undies are filled with customers who are willing to spend more for their favorite color/cartoon, where other, less pink/cartoon'd products aren't as highly valued.