I, strive for the prosperity of the motherland! 【system】

After Su Xing opened Weibo, he was not surprised to see that all the comments, likes, reposts and other messages were red.

The set of simple cartoons about "pink tax" that she updated two days ago was highly discussed.

In the comment section, there are many female accounts speaking out about the "pink tax" situations they encountered when shopping.

"I really didn't pay attention to these situations before, until I started dating a boyfriend, and found that many of his things were cheaper and better quality than mine..."

“Sometimes, even if it’s the same brand, the men’s version is cheaper than the women’s version.”

"Once, my husband and I were shopping for shoes in the same store, and his was more comfortable. I have larger feet and wear size 39-40 shoes, so I had an idea and bought a size 40 men's shoe. It was indeed more comfortable and more comfortable than the women's shoe I tried on. Since then, I have only bought men's shoes."

"It's outrageous. Look at this store. The same pair of shoes, sizes 35.5-39, are sold for over a thousand dollars, while sizes 40-45 are sold for less than five hundred dollars! (Picture)"

"The situation with clothes is even worse. The quality of women's clothing is like plastic, and the sizes are like children's clothing. 90% of the pictures are for reference only. They still want to sell hundreds or thousands of dollars to female consumers, and then they say the return rate is high and blame the customers for being difficult to serve."

"Some skin care products for men have similar ingredients to those for women, but are several times cheaper. Now when I buy facial cleansers and moisturizers, I search for men's products."

"In order to get women to buy bags, the pockets of women's coats are usually smaller than those of men's coats. They can't even fit a mobile phone. So many girls like clothes with big pockets, which are really comfortable..."

"Women's things are generally more expensive, but women also have lower salaries than men, fewer job opportunities, and more requirements for appearance... Sigh..."

Many female customers feel the same way, but there are still many sarcastic comments in the comment section, some even rationalizing the "pink tax" and "price discrimination" against gender.

"First of all, no one forces you to choose pink. Do women have to be associated with pink? Second, women are emotional creatures. For women, visual impact is more important than quality reliability. This is the result of countless businesses' practice. Third, men and women have different requirements for the same product. The first priority for men is cheapness and durability, while the first priority for women is good-looking, even if some products do not need the commodity value of "good-looking" at all. So why do they do this? Most men can be very lazy and will not change items as long as they are not broken. Women, on the other hand, will want to change items as soon as they see a good-looking one. It can be said that they love every product they see. Therefore, purely profit-oriented businesses will definitely make products for men cheap and durable, and make products for women good-looking and fragile, so as to maximize their own profits."

"Because women are easy to deceive!] Any gimmick will lead to a consumer trap, but most men tend to be rational and will not pay for such marketing products. Isn't this a tax on IQ?"

"But to be honest, it's because women like to buy things indiscriminately. They just love consumerism and can't help themselves!"

"Woman: As long as it looks good, this set has been worn before and is old. Man: As long as it works, this pair of pants has been with me for ten years and it can still be worn with only a string."

"In fact, boys are reluctant to spend money. If something is too expensive, they won't buy it. They need to save money to buy a house, a car and a wife. Girls don't really care about spending money. They will get married in the future anyway, so there is no need to save too much money. So they don't need to think about these issues. Merchants have discovered this, and your products are relatively more expensive."

There are a lot of comments below these posts, and the discussions are very heated.

Some of them are no longer in the discussion stage, but have become mutual insults and curses.

Su Xing picked out some comments that were still under discussion and took a quick look.

"Haha, this seemingly "objective analysis" comment is essentially using one-sided gender stereotypes to defend business routines, ignoring the social construction and power relations behind it. "Women = emotional, only look at appearance" is a constructed stereotype, not nature! You said "women are emotional creatures", but "visual priority" is more like the result of long-term business discipline. From toys to daily necessities, merchants continue to instill in women that "good looks are more important than practicality". This targeted marketing in turn reinforces prejudice, rather than "nature"! For example, women also need durable tools, but the tools designed for women on the market are often deliberately made fancy but not practical - this is not the result of women's "choice", but the merchants' preset "women should like"! To put it another way, even if someone pays attention to appearance, they should not be labeled as "love everyone they meet" or "fragile". There are also groups of men who pursue design sense. Why don't you mention it? Using a single standard to frame a certain gender is itself a manifestation of discrimination."

"Profit orientation cannot whitewash gender discrimination, but may be an accomplice of discrimination! You said "businesses only want to make money and never thought about discrimination", but "profit orientation" may actually take advantage of gender bias to make profits! For example, for products with the same functions, the version for women is more expensive and of lower quality. In essence, it is assumed that women are "easy to cheat" and "don't care about practicality", which is in itself a contempt for women! The real business logic should be "meeting needs" rather than "reinforcing prejudice". If women have a demand for durability, but businesses deliberately do not provide it and instead use appearance to harvest, this is not "conforming to needs" but "creating and taking advantage of gender differences for profit", which is essentially a deprivation of equal right to choose."

“The statement ‘don’t care about the visual experience’ is also a victim-blaming theory. It is clearly a business practice that deliberately exploits prejudice, but it makes the victim reflect on himself for “caring too much about the visual experience”. Men can pursue durability and enjoy appearance, such as high-performance sports cars with both design and appearance. Why can’t women have both? Why do women have to choose between “practical” and “good-looking”?”

"How funny, it's as if you don't have to make money or buy a house or a car if you don't get married. Besides, aren't all these things in your name? Aren't they your pre-marital property? And they weren't transferred to the woman, so she has to bear such a big blame! In addition, are there any male compatriots who bought a car, a house, and got married with their own abilities? Some people enjoy the support of the whole family, but they don't say a word about it."

"Some people not only look down on women's brains, but also hijack men's lives, and package the greed of businesses as "conforming to the law". It's simply a hodgepodge of prejudices. It's ridiculous, lamentable, and pathetic."

“‘I’m going to get married anyway, so I don’t need to save money’? Are women commodities waiting to be packaged and sold? How many women now buy their own houses and cars and save money for retirement? How can you define their lives as ‘getting married in the future’? Saying that women ‘don’t care about spending money’ is like saying you are blind - the aunties comparing prices in the supermarket and the girls waiting for coupons on shopping platforms, which one of them is not careful with their money? Do you really think women’s money comes from the wind? Merchants dare to price women’s products high, not because women ‘don’t care’, but because merchants are just like people like you, full of arrogance and prejudice!”

"Binding women's life values to "getting married" and assuming that "women don't need to be responsible for their own future" is a denial of women's independent personality! "No need to save money" essentially deprives women of the initiative in life! Moreover, even if women choose to get married, it does not mean that they can "not care about spending money". Marriage is an equal partnership, not the "end of life" for women. Asking women to give up the consciousness of saving is itself reinforcing the outdated concept of "women are dependent on men."

"In the final analysis, whether to spend money or not, whether to save money or not, is the result of personal choice and life planning, and has nothing to do with gender. Labeling consumption differences with outdated concepts such as "you will get married in the future" and "you must get married" not only ignores women's autonomy, but also restricts men's diverse lifestyles."