80 Years of Subtle Sexism

[luchog]

Truethat, have you considered that perhaps Luchog shaves other body parts too, like ... legs??

Obviously not. Obviously guys never do that sort of that. That would just be weird and sick and wrong.

 

[Klimax]

What you want me to provide evidence backing up is, the female rulers of England were largely puppets of males? That assertion? I'm making sure before I put time into locating information to find out you wanted me to show something different (I am a bit forgetful).

That's the one.

 

[cullennz]

Obviously not. Obviously guys never do that sort of that. That would just be weird and sick and wrong.

Well weird

Unless they are and athlete

 

[truethat]

So, in other words, not noticeably different at all from shaving the face.




No, it really doesn't. In fact, those ridiculously wide handles on some "women's" razors make them harder to use. I use the same exact razor for both with no problem. Are the majority of women that weak and uncoordinated?

Truethat, have you considered that perhaps Luchog shaves other body parts too, like ... legs??

Obviously not. Obviously guys never do that sort of that. That would just be weird and sick and wrong.

Did you guys read what was written? My response was about luchog's comment about shaving his FACE the same way.

 

[casebro]

...... Are the majority of women that weak and uncoordinated?

Some of them sure are. I teach trap shooting as part of an NRA "Women on Target" day. I swear a pencil has too many moving parts for some. But the same holds true for some guys too.

And having had seven surgeries to my hands, I need fat handles. Not form fitting, just big around. I've found some tableware. But for a razor, I want a straight handle so I can turn it to all angles. I want a screwdriver handle, not a revolver handle.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well weird

Unless they are and athlete

It's 2016 here, how about where you are?

 

[Modified]

Well weird

Unless they are and athlete

What if their leg hair is patchy? That's why I shave my chest.

 

[luchog]

Did you guys read what was written? My response was about luchog's comment about shaving his FACE the same way.

No, it wasn't, since that is not even remotely what I said.

You're clearly not paying attention to anything I've been saying; because you're trying too hard to create some sort of bizarre special pleading argument to justify your claim of sexism, regarding a practice that is nothing more than a fashion design geared to take advantage of the gullible.

 

[truethat]

No, it wasn't, since that is not even remotely what I said.

You're clearly not paying attention to anything I've been saying; because you're trying too hard to create some sort of bizarre special pleading argument to justify your claim of sexism, regarding a practice that is nothing more than a fashion design geared to take advantage of the gullible.

luchog the cool thing about quotes is that they are...you know....quotes....


and um in case you haven't been READING (there's that magic word again) I've been calling ******** on the accusations of sexism through the entire thread I mean JFC read!

 

[luchog]

luchog the cool thing about quotes is that they are...you know....quotes....

And cherry picking quotes out of context changes their meaning and is dishonest. Calling a paraphrase a "quote" is also dishonest, and I can see very well that you did not, in that post, quote me; as can everyone else.

and um in case you haven't been READING (there's that magic word again) I've been calling ******** on the accusations of sexism through the entire thread I mean JFC read!

And doing a piss poor job of it, considering that you're so badly misquoting me by taking my words out of context and distorting them.

Let's try this again: Charging more for pink or oddly-shaped "women's" razors is not sexism, it's fashion. Anyone who pays more for something that is functionally identical to a "men's" razor just because it is marketed at women specifically is not being discriminated against, they're just being gullible.

Agree or disagree, and why?

 

[truethat]

LMAO I responded to ONE quote and you concluded I meant that men don't shave their legs.

You mentioned your FACE, nothing about shaving your legs,

Like I said READ

go read , you are paraphrasing what I've been saying the ENTIRE THREAD and acting like you are arguing with me.


READ

 

[Roadtoad]

Let's try this again: Charging more for pink or oddly-shaped "women's" razors is not sexism, it's fashion. Anyone who pays more for something that is functionally identical to a "men's" razor just because it is marketed at women specifically is not being discriminated against, they're just being gullible.

Agree or disagree, and why?

Agree, up to a point. My wife uses the Venus razor, simply because if she were to use my Gillette Fusion, it would drop from her hands to the floor of the shower. Our health is a matter of concern, and while, if we had a tub to use in our bathroom, it might work for her, the Venus is easier for her to hold on to. Otherwise, she'd use whatever cheapo razor she could which would do the job. (We're frugal that way.)

It's not always a matter of fashion. It depends on features and benefits, and these aren't always parsed so easily. If what you're using works for you, and works well, that's what you go with. If you can find a cheaper alternative, you go with that, provided it meets with the appropriate criteria on the indifference scale. (It used to gall the hell out of me when Peggy would use my razor to shave her underarms, because it dulled the blade a lot quicker with two of us using it. Times do change, of course. At the time I also had a Fu Manchu, and a dull blade did not help.)

I am not the one to tell you you're an idiot if you're paying more than you need to for what you're using. I am, however, going to question it quietly until I see the evidence for why you're doing so, which may, in fact, be absolutely relevant to your choice, whether it's comfort, utility, safety, etc.

YMMV.

 

[TragicMonkey]

LMAO I responded to ONE quote and you concluded I meant that men don't shave their legs.

You mentioned your FACE, nothing about shaving your legs,

Like I said READ

go read , you are paraphrasing what I've been saying the ENTIRE THREAD and acting like you are arguing with me.


READ

You know, when this sort of thing happens repeatedly in multiple threads it begins to look like the problem is you, not everyone else.

 

[Corsair 115]

In regards to the alleged 'pink tax' and the price difference between men's and women's products, this 32-minute video may be of interest. (The description section for the video contains links to the sources used for the video.)

 

[truethat]

You know, when this sort of thing happens repeatedly in multiple threads it begins to look like the problem is you, not everyone else.

Nope. It's a cop out to say that, and it's not true. Especially on this site.

People decide you are on a SIDE and then lump you into their preconceived notion of what that side means and argue with you about things you never said.

For a long time on here I had people telling me I was a closet Christian. I'm an aggressive atheist and have been for years. It didn't matter how many times I explained, confirmed, explained. ETC.

You must be a great friend to gay people who live in homophobic communities or African Americans that work for racists companies right?

"If everyone else is saying the same thing, the problem must be YOU?"

I've heard that my whole life from uneducated people. Meanwhile the educated people seem not to have a problem understanding what I'm saying because they don't DECIDE they KNOW what I'm saying before they actually read what I said.

You know like assuming that I'm against the BLM movement just because I criticized one thing that they did.

For many people they can only see things in black and white. yes or no. Agree or Disagree.

They struggle to understand that you can UNDERSTAND SOMETHING without AGREEING WITH IT

And that you can be critical of something, someone, a particular point or choice, without DISAGREEING with them altogether.

I've found many more people operate this way. And most people don't like to actually read things.

That's why you get sensationalized headlines and comments in the bottom where people are arguing and flipping out in outrage about things that were never said because they never bothered to read the article before making a comment about it. They only read the headline.

It's sadly, very common.

 

[truethat]

This is what I said about this topic.

You're blaming capitalists responding to supply and demand on "sexism?"

I'm a chick who doesn't buy a lot of clothing. For example, I have two pairs of shoes. I wear my black flats throughout the spring summer and fall and then switch to black boots or ugg type shoes for the winter and switch back again.

Most women I know are floored that I only own two pairs of shoes. It's interesting to me because most men I know only own a few pairs of shoes as well. Sneakers or sports shoes, casual shoes, dressy shoes (special occasions and rarely worn) and business shoes.

How is responding to women constantly wanting different products, new products somehow a SEXIST move?

Again, I raised three boys and because of this was in a house with 4 males. My shampoo was Treseme basic big jug bottles that lasted a while.

No one is FORCING WOMEN to buy pink razors, fancy shampoo, tons of different shoes.

What kind of market system would it be that a business didn't capitalize on women's preferences and make as much money as they can off them in the process?

Why do women BLAME OTHERS for their choices. It's not like they check for ID when you buy things. The "men's options" and "boys options" are RIGHT THERE and able to be purchased.


You are buying tee shirts for your kids. There are two kinds, the ones in the boys section and the ones in the girls section........what is stopping you from buying the ones in the boys section?

IT'S YOUR CHOICE to buy what you want. No one is FORCING YOU to buy the other product. Why are you playing the victim here?


This cracked me up





http://www.fashionablecanes.com/sea...z5a82qHGe8XSZ59MH-SpqnFA8QeGc_pnRyRoC50Tw_wcB

So buy the man's cane!

Sweetie you are still missing the point. The functionality of a male cane is a wooden one. When you go to the website for canes and you click under women's canes, the "male cane" is right there as the first option.

You yourself say you like the other one because it's pretty. You like the flowered design. The manufacturer and business knows that you'd PREFER the flowered design, so you'd be willing to PAY MORE for it than the plain one. Even though functionally they are exactly the same.

That's not SEXISM. That's BUSINESS.

Just like a woman who wants to make her office space pretty because she sits in it every damn day, and is willing to buy a pink or purple pen.

The question I'm asking you is why you are saying this is Subtle Sexism and a "PINK TAX" that women are forced with NO CHOICE (as you said) to pay more for the same object.

You chose to pay for the flowered cane. The regular brown one is right there for sale. So why did you spend more when you didn't have to?

Girls can't ride blue bikes. Their delicate feet can't work the pedals and they always chip their nail polish on the handlebars.

I say this as a mom who had a son walking around in Pink Dora the Explorer shoes when he was little because he liked pink and and liked Dora. I was actually happy because they were $5 cheaper than the Spiderman ones that were exactly the same.


People need to stop blaming buying decisions and personal choices on "sexism in the industry"


ETA seems the shoe prices are holding steady


http://www.amazon.com/Nickelodeon-D...ords=dora+the+explorer+light+up+toddler+shoes



http://www.amazon.com/Stride-Rite-U...14703&sr=8-3&keywords=spiderman+toddler+shoes

and here is luchog's response to me.

No, it wasn't, since that is not even remotely what I said.

You're clearly not paying attention to anything I've been saying; because you're trying too hard to create some sort of bizarre special pleading argument to justify your claim of sexism, regarding a practice that is nothing more than a fashion design geared to take advantage of the gullible.

Does that MATCH? How could anyone actually read what I said, and then say I'm making the claim of SEXISM when I have clearly, repeatedly said the OPPOSITE of that the entire thread?


Seriously, and I'm the one with the problem here? LOL No matter how many times I bold, write in capitals, repeat the same thing over and over again. It doesn't matter.


So no, Tragic Monkey, I am not the problem here. It's exactly what I said. People do not READ.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know, when this sort of thing happens repeatedly in multiple threads it begins to look like the problem is you, not everyone else.

I never had a problem understanding truethat.

But then, I paid attention.

 

[a_unique_person]

It is weird that women get better University scores and lower pay than men.

 

[truethat]

I never had a problem understanding truethat.

But then, I paid attention.

Well at least one person understands me....sniffle....it's lonely ya know....

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Well at least one person understands me....sniffle....it's lonely ya know....

Two, FWIW.