Only registered users can comment.

  1. Thanks for watching today's video. Let us know any/all thoughts in the comments below and be sure to tune back in tomorrow for another Rogue Rocket video!

  2. But mens clothes are usually really boring. It's like black, Grey or brown for every item of clothing. At least girls clothes usually have a little more color.

  3. its not the same items. "essentially the same" is a loaded statement. nobody is making women buy pink razers and lavender conditioner. you are more than welcom to buy the same products as men for the same price. and there are more factors than you might consider, for instance with those scooters they may not have as much demand for pink so they stock less which means they buy less so they dont get the same bulk discount. however once again if you dont like it buy a red one. if everyone said "im not paying that", maybe they would change the prices but people fall for it too often. get shoe on head to debate the topic

  4. between this and the (captain marvel) rotten tomatoes inaccuracies that have yet to be addressed im unsubbing. sad too i thought this channel had a lot of potential. have fun with your sjw talking points im out

  5. what constitutes "basically the same"? also, to say that manufacturing costs don't drive retail prices just puzzles me. if the bottle of shampoo cost the store $4 then they may sell it for $8, if it costs them $8 then they may sell it for $12. you can't just tell a retailer to accept a lower profit margin on something because the items are "basically the same".

  6. Who is stupid enough to buy a pink razor when it costs more, just because it is pink?
    If products are functionally the same, then it's your own choise whenever you buy a pink one or a green one.

  7. This peace does a pretty poor job distinguishing between acctual problems and meaningless outrage. The taxation issue is a real important issue, while calling products essentially the same, is a broad stroke for most of the products in the quoted study. This is definitely the worst peace I've seen on this channel so far.

  8. I usually like these deep dives quite a lot but feel that this one leaves something to be desired… It really shows one side of the story, the “mean sexist businessman make being a woman more expensive” side (which I do agree with on the tampons, wtf). While leaving out the possibility that woman may choose for a more expensive higher quality shampoo then men when given the option. The fact that the only case they showed were two products were not “basically” the same but actually the same (the scooters) is very dated also doesn’t give a feeling that this is so prevalent (since you’d have newer cases of something similar happening if it was a big issue).

  9. Disappointing that they're starting to fall into this trap on here too. The tampon tax is definitely a real issue here, but the pink tax, the main point of this video, is very easily disprovable. And, given the language used in this video, they know that too. Women's products cost more for the very simple reason that there's more in them. All variants of hygiene products aimed at women have nearly twice as many ingredients as apposed to men's, so of course they're going to cost more. The examples with clothing and the scooter are also pretty simple. While yes, the stores COULD make them the same price as men's products, a company's goal is to make the biggest profit possible, and losing out on that extra bit of money that goes into making women's clothing adds up for them. The scooter costs more because they're not making as many of them, as there's a much smaller demographic for the pink scooter as apposed to the gender-neutral red. These don't take much more than a simple google search, and I expected more from Phil's company.

  10. taxing hygien products: No.
    taxing clothings more: no.
    Taxing pink shit more: If people are dumb enough to pay more for something made of pink plastic instead of buying the none pink ones take all their money.

  11. The reasons you mentioned are all correct but you neglected to include one significant reason. The market has found that men, in general, refuse to buy costly items whereas women, in general, don't pay as much attention to price and/or are more willing to pay more. This is obviously only a broad generalisation. Many women, self included, buy equivalent male products – razors probably being the most common example – to avoid the pink tax. Laws eliminating the 'tax' are needed, and lobbyist excuses for why such laws shouldn't exist are complete BS. But market dynamics related to gender differences in spending are still a factor and you should've included that fact in a rounded analysis of the issue instead of ignoring it presumably to avoid accusations of sexism. If you want to tell the whole truth of any issue in the current climate you need the courage to be able to offend 'both' sides. Polarisation won't end until people respect the True, the Good & the Beautiful above all else.

  12. Womens clothes for us middle class people are actually much cheaper than men’s. My girlfriend can get way more clothing than me from a H&M or an Urban Outfitters. I also regularly see unpopular colours, like pink, discounted on sites like Amazon, so it’s probably just related to demand. In response to tampon expenditures, I bet women don’t have to spend a fortune on razors, shaving creams, emollients, condoms, and body groomers — but I’m sure they spend that on their own gender specific needs. It all evens out at the end of the day. I think if products are identical and ubiquitous then than they should and will eventually be the same price, but a lot of this just boils down to consumer preferences and demand. I don’t think we need subsidize such a basic low-cost items as tampons. It’s really a waste of time talking about this kind of stuff. If someone can’t afford tampons, then we should really be focusing on the underlying economic problem of that before we start issuing state-subsidized, gender-specific toiletries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *