Pink Tax Debatte: Community-Diskussion bei FriendZone
Zusammenfassung
Der FriendZone | Make Friends & Chat ⋅ Active Social Fun ⋅ Chill ⋅ VC Server veranstaltete kürzlich eine lebhafte Community-Debatte über die Existenz der Pink Tax und die Zugänglichkeit von Periodenprodukten. Die Mitglieder tauschten unterschiedliche Standpunkte zu wirtschaftlicher Verantwortung, Produktpreisen und sozialer Gerechtigkeit aus. Diese Diskussion unterstreicht die aktive und meinungsstarke Natur unserer Community, in der Mitglieder anregende Gespräche über reale Probleme führen.
This isnt a pink tax or a blue tax or a green tax for all I care. This is what marketing is.
Brand choice and gender markup are different. People choose to pay more for Coca-Cola. No one chooses extra cost just for a gender label. That is not preference. That is targeting. One is free choice. The other is unfair pricing. They are not the same.
you can happily view the coca cola label the same as the "woman" label. For example why is coca cola charged more if cola tastes the same?
you wont argue that though will you?
It is not the same. Willingness to pay means choosing a brand or quality level. Gender markup means the exact same item costs more just because it says for women. That is not marketing. That is targeting people based on gender. One is choice. The other is unfair pricing. They are not equal.
Both are choice.
Coca-Cola costs more because people choose the brand and marketing. It is still the same product for everyone. The pink tax is different. The exact same item costs more only because it is labeled for women. There is no brand difference no quality difference just a gender label and a higher price. One is a choice everyone sees equally. The other targets one group unfairly. They are not the same!'ckxk djdcjicdinvdnidivn
AHHHHH
so you agree its marketing.
Notice how the pink tax is also marketing?
Calling it marketing does not make it fair. Coca-Cola charges the same price for everyone. Pink tax charges more only when labeled for women. One is brand marketing open to all. The other is gendered pricing that targets one group. They are not the same thing919283737$+;+((!*
and pink tax isnt real as it applies for both genders.
You are actively TRYING to be oppressed.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Saying it happens to both so it is fine is the same flawed logic. The data proves women are systematically charged more. That is not equal. Asking for equal treatment is not trying to be oppressed. It is fairness.
12345678910
11121314151617181920
Bro
I genuinely want to take a nap
I genuinely do not know what youa re talking about. I didnt say it was fine or good, but its a marketing strategy and you cannot change that. The pink tax isnt real, whoever is willing to pay is a real thing that looks unfair however follows basic humanity. Everything is unfair and that doesnt exclude it sure but that doesnt change that it isnt real.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGHHHHHHHHHFHCCHCHDHJDXJZKLALSOXKX
It being a marketing strategy does not mean it is not real!!!! The studies prove identical items cost more when labeled for women. That is not willingness to pay. That is companies exploiting gender. Just because something is common does not mean it is not real or not unfair. We can recognize it exists and still want it fixed. That is the whole point!8+:34790954#"-99/!&
I even found another source that argues this. Womens toiletries and body wash, shampoos, shaving cream all have special ingredients typically hidden which cost more overall. Whereas men use less product.
Even economist says that it makes sense "If women could buy a product they deemed near-identical for cheaper in the men’s aisle, why wouldn’t they?"
I get what u mean by marketing and willingness to pay do shape pricing. That is real. But the data also shows identical items are consistently priced higher when targeted at women. That pattern is strong enough to name and examine. So it can be both a business strategy and a real observed gap that disproportionately affects one group. Recognizing it exists does not mean the market is broken. It just means we can acknowledge how it works and still ask for fairer pricing for everyone.
Even research by Kayleigh Barnes and Jakob Brounstein stated that the reason they do charge more on some products is because of what I said, whoever is willing to pay more. "They sought to ascertain why, precisely, women paid more."
The studies already checked for ingredients. Identical items still cost more when labeled for women. If it was about formula the price would match. It does not. Everyone would just buy men's products if they were truly the same and cheaper. That economist quote actually proves it. Women only shop the men's aisle because the women's version is overpriced. Equal products should cost the same. They do not. That is the pink tax!!?!!?!!&'cessvkl
But they dont go to mens aisles though, they go to the womens aisles because they are willing to pay more and companies can get more out of them. The pink tax isnt real its smart thinking.
That study actually supports the pink tax!!!!!!!! It confirms women are consistently charged more!!!!! The fact that companies set prices based on who they think will pay more does not make it fair!!! It just means they are using gender as a reason to charge extra!!!! That is exactly what we are calling out!!!! It is not a coincidence. It is a pattern that targets one group. And that is the problem 😵😵
AHHHHHHHDHDHFJCKSOWOKXMXMCMCKXKSOXMVMKXKXKKSKXMXMZKAKKAKA
I DO GO TO THE MENS AISELS
AHHHHH
It is a marketing strategy that targets both groups firstly, remember this. Yes some charge more and some charge more for men. Its again called whoever pays more.
THe pink tax isnt real its called smart thinking.
Thats like saying ah I know this trick! The hoopoocooboojukiepultigie.
ITS A MADE UP THING.
Its called a debate.
The pink tax is a made up thing.
Its called marketing.
It is not smart. It is gendered price discrimination. Data proves identical items cost more when labeled for women. It is not equal or random. People shop the men's aisle to avoid it. That proves it exists. Calling it smart does not make it fair. The pink tax is real.
This isnt about the marketing strategy and saying people arent affected by marketing strategies because they are. Definitely. But the pink tax isnt real and doesnt exist, you are mixing it for marketing strategies that play you.
It is not made up. Official studies prove identical items cost more when labeled for women. It is consistently one sided not equal. That is not marketing. That is gendered price difference. The pink tax is real data not a made up idea.
Wow one woman over half the world. Huh. if my personal experience doesnt matter than neither does yours.
Nxxkk🥊💯🪑🐟🦅
Nxjxjsksloxoxoxkdkspaoxmdkd
Then you are wrong as when an identical item costs more it can apply to both men and women.
you couldnt have use thus logical when i said statistics over personal
I am mocking your point.
Wow.
Notice how you use personal experience and I do also? You tried to call me out on it then used it yourself.
