Débat sur la taxe rose : Discussion sur FriendZone
Résumé
Le serveur FriendZone | Make Friends & Chat ⋅ Active Social Fun ⋅ Chill ⋅ VC a récemment organisé un débat communautaire animé concernant l'existence de la taxe rose et l'accessibilité des produits menstruels. Les membres ont échangé des points de vue variés sur la responsabilité économique, la tarification des produits et l'équité sociale. Cette discussion souligne la nature active et engagée de notre communauté, où les membres participent à des conversations stimulantes sur des problèmes du monde réel....
The point was that it is ther market. It isnt a tax and it isnt unfair, its called the market.
They may have very well used more cotton for the wider frames and made it cost more.
You know what that is?
THE MARKET.
It is a marketing strategy same for every single so called "pink tax" item that exists. It isnt pink tax, it is fairly priced and you cannot see that so you all go into an outrage.
It is not just the market. Theres products that have already been compared and found out to be identical items and women's versions cost more for no real reason. No extra materials no better quality just a gender label and a higher price. That is not normal market pricing that is unfair.
Outrage, we are calling for something that isn't fair.
Again you havent provided the slightest bit of evidence whilst I have. If this pink tax is so prominent in "near identical" products then I need you to show me where exactly all this pink tax is.
Its an outrage because you cannot handle normal marketing.
A debate cannot go on with the lack of proof Silvvy. You need evidence to back it up.
You can always go word for words but if you dont bring sources then you are fighting a battle without troops.
Do you expect me to think of every single feminine product I've bought? I'll show you the difference in prices when i do buy them again
I would hope you know atleast what company you bought them from?
So all the studies i gave you just meant nothing
Since this pink tax is so real you must be very picky in the prices you choose.
Yes because they have been laid out again and again.
You disproved professional studies with your own single experience
"Yes the increase is from the products" okay then "The increase is from special or other formulas being added into it to suit longer and typically more feminine hair"
Where's the rest of your evidence Silvvy?
Can you not back it up?
Or are you still stuck on the same source.
I disproved it with professional studies.
You continue to come back with the same professional studies that you cannot back up.
Those studies already controlled for formulas and hair types. They compared identical products and still found women cost more. That means it is not about ingredients. It is about gender. The reports checked hundreds of items including razors and cotton swabs that have nothing to do with hair. If formulas explained it the gap would vanish on identical items. It does not. One personal experience does not beat systematic evidence. The gap is real and it is proven
You know when someone argues against your point you actually need another source to argue against it or else in short its a game of "yuh huh" and "nuh huh".
Insane
I need cheesecake now
U owe me one after this
Did it actually say that or are you mixing your own personal data into a source?
Yea right, I'll eat it infront of you.
Secondly mine is a source just like your which argued your point and you still didnt disprove it.
I could say the same for you, give me a study about how pink tax isnt real and I'll find a study that disproved it
😾
Well I argued your pink tax already and you have yet to disprove it.
You are still on the same source I disproved.
Genuinely because you don't GET it, I wouldn't be going back to the same topic if i knew you've already understood what i said
Ohhhhhhh boi
I understood fully and told you why you were wrong.
It is not just one source, like i said before NYC and California both found the same gap, multiple studies confirm it. You did not disprove them. You only looked at different products while they compared identical ones. Consistent results across different checks mean strong evidence not just one source
Its a heck of a scroll up on this debate
Idk id ppl are join this anytime soon
You realise NYC and California isnt a source? Thats a state. I looked it up and it exactly fights against what you are talking about. You cannot have a near identical product because companies dont make them. And who knows, maybe there is but there isnt an ounce of proof for this which you have given me that I have been asking for.
Genuinely did not read this huh
Again numerous sites clearly claim how the so called "pink tax" is a marketing strategy.
I did and you didnt provide anything.
Omgmgmgomgogmgkggidbjscjxdilx C atvulfshbldcLuljfzvjlhfulalud
I looked at identical products and they were different.
I have evidence of this on my PC.
Identical products marketed differently against MEN.
They are official studies not just places. NYC and California checked real products. Identical items cost more for women. Companies make them all the time with different packaging. You denying it does not erase the evidence. The proof is there.
