[Submitted] Pink Tax Ban

[Sciongrad]

There is no reason women pay more for a pink "women's" Bic pen, special tooth brushes or deodorant, that can be explained by your intro level economism.

There are women's toothbrushes?

Wait, there are men's toothbrushes? Is there something fundamentally different about male and female teeth that I'm missing?

No, there isn't. It's culture, and that producers and marketers have successfully taken advantage of our highly gendered conceptions of ourselves, and created a way for women and men to buy identical products for different prices.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I think "women's" toothbrushes are pink and glittery or something, I assume that is what is being implied here. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Maybe they're toothbrushes that are better optimized for women- we're getting off topic.

OOC: It doesn't matter what they look like, it matters that there are functionally identical objects of consumption that are marketed toward men and women. There's nothing about women's deodorant or razors that justify higher prices.

And as a brief response to the earlier claim that women's razors are more expensive because they have some different type of functionality. They don't.

[Wallenburg]

There are women's toothbrushes?

Wait, there are men's toothbrushes? Is there something fundamentally different about male and female teeth that I'm missing?

No, there isn't. It's culture, and that producers and marketers have successfully taken advantage of our highly gendered conceptions of ourselves, and created a way for women and men to buy identical products for different prices.

Or, you know, women can just buy normal toothbrushes, like everyone else. If you want to go off looking for luxury hygiene products marketed towards one specific gender, that's your own prerogative, not some institutionalized form of economic sexism.

[Jebslund]

Maybe they're toothbrushes that are better optimized for women- we're getting off topic.

OOC: It doesn't matter what they look like, it matters that there are functionally identical objects of consumption that are marketed toward men and women. There's nothing about women's deodorant or razors that justify higher prices.

And as a brief response to the earlier claim that women's razors are more expensive because they have some different type of functionality. They don't.

While the moisturizing strips are great, that's about all the added functionality of women's razors, and I can tell you my two-year-old razor cut nearly as well dry as my friend's brand new one did wet as of nearly two weeks ago, so that should tell you about the blade quality.

Also, the first comment on that article was priceless!

[Sciongrad]

No, there isn't. It's culture, and that producers and marketers have successfully taken advantage of our highly gendered conceptions of ourselves, and created a way for women and men to buy identical products for different prices.

Or, you know, women can just buy normal toothbrushes, like everyone else. If you want to go off looking for luxury hygiene products marketed towards one specific gender, that's your own prerogative, not some institutionalized form of economic sexism.

Right, you're overlooking the possibility that women choosing to buy "luxury" (read: literally functionally identical) products is still a form of oppression to the extent that the cultural pressure of gender conformity can shape our decision-making in a negative way without some form of physical force or violence. If you stand by your claim, I take it you think men paying for the bill on a date is purely a choice, rather than an expectation with some cultural force that arises out of gendered expectation?

[Wallenburg]

Or, you know, women can just buy normal toothbrushes, like everyone else. If you want to go off looking for luxury hygiene products marketed towards one specific gender, that's your own prerogative, not some institutionalized form of economic sexism.

Right, you're overlooking the possibility that women choosing to buy "luxury" (read: literally functionally identical) products is still a form of oppression to the extent that the culture pressure of gender conformity can shape our decision-making in a negative way without some form of physical force or violence. If you stand by your claim, I take it you think men paying for the bill on a date is purely a choice, rather than an expectation with some cultural force that arises out of gendered expectation?

Exactly what about the existence of luxury products makes it impossible to buy their normal equivalents? The existence of Teslas and Lamborghinis doesn't make it any harder to buy a used sedan on the cheap. They are, more or less, functionally identical, but that doesn't mean that Tesla products further class warfare.

[Jebslund]

Right, you're overlooking the possibility that women choosing to buy "luxury" (read: literally functionally identical) products is still a form of oppression to the extent that the culture pressure of gender conformity can shape our decision-making in a negative way without some form of physical force or violence. If you stand by your claim, I take it you think men paying for the bill on a date is purely a choice, rather than an expectation with some cultural force that arises out of gendered expectation?

Exactly what about the existence of luxury products makes it impossible to buy their normal equivalents? The existence of Teslas and Lamborghinis doesn't make it any harder to buy a used sedan on the cheap. They are, more or less, functionally identical, but that doesn't mean that Tesla products further class warfare.

When was the last time you had an entire society telling you that you were only a real person if you bought a Tesla or a Lambo?

[Sciongrad]

Right, you're overlooking the possibility that women choosing to buy "luxury" (read: literally functionally identical) products is still a form of oppression to the extent that the culture pressure of gender conformity can shape our decision-making in a negative way without some form of physical force or violence. If you stand by your claim, I take it you think men paying for the bill on a date is purely a choice, rather than an expectation with some cultural force that arises out of gendered expectation?

Exactly what about the existence of luxury products makes it impossible to buy their normal equivalents? The existence of Teslas and Lamborghinis doesn't make it any harder to buy a used sedan on the cheap. They are, more or less, functionally identical, but that doesn't mean that Tesla products further class warfare.

Are you not listening? How the hell is a pink pen a luxury product? There are intrinsic elements of luxury cars like Teslas and Lamborghinis that make them more expensive. They go faster, they run smoother, etc. There's also the cultural capital of owning a luxury car that gives it additional value beyond its intrinsic value. A woman's razor, by contrast, is not a luxury good and it is not branded as a luxury good by advertisers. Women buy "women's products" because ad campaigns appeal to gender difference by saying "women's razors are better for x, y and z, so don't use a man's razor," even though they're not. But let's unpack this a little further. If it's actually true that women's products have some different functionality than men's products, then it is not a luxury good, unless you consider a bra a luxury good because it has a different functionality for a similar purpose as men's boxers. Or, if it does not have any functional difference, then it is the same product, but merely rebranded to create the illusion of difference. If that's the case, then it is not a luxury product any more than a blouse is the luxury analog to a shirt. Women's products aren't luxury goods — they're ordinary goods that are more expensive despite offering no additional utility or cultural capital because producers and retailers can take advantage of gender expectations.

I'm not really sure where class warfare enters into this discussion, either.

[Wallenburg]

Exactly what about the existence of luxury products makes it impossible to buy their normal equivalents? The existence of Teslas and Lamborghinis doesn't make it any harder to buy a used sedan on the cheap. They are, more or less, functionally identical, but that doesn't mean that Tesla products further class warfare.

When was the last time you had an entire society telling you that you were only a real person if you bought a Tesla or a Lambo?

Coincidentally, it was the last time an entire society told me that I was only a real person if I bought a men's toothbrush or men's shampoo.

[Wallenburg]

Exactly what about the existence of luxury products makes it impossible to buy their normal equivalents? The existence of Teslas and Lamborghinis doesn't make it any harder to buy a used sedan on the cheap. They are, more or less, functionally identical, but that doesn't mean that Tesla products further class warfare.

Are you not listening? How the hell is a pink pen a luxury product? There are intrinsic elements of luxury cars like Teslas and Lamborghinis that make them more expensive. They go faster, they run smoother, etc. There's also the cultural capital of owning a luxury car that gives it additional value beyond its intrinsic value. A woman's razor, by contrast, is not a luxury good and it is not branded as a luxury good by advertisers. Women buy "women's products" because ad campaigns appeal to gender difference by saying "women's razors are better for x, y and z, so don't use a man's razor," even though they're not. But let's unpack this a little further. If it's actually true that women's products have some different functionality than men's products, then it is not a luxury good, unless you consider a bra a luxury good because it has a different functionality for a similar purpose as men's boxers. Or, if it does not have any functional difference, then it is the same product, but merely rebranded to create the illusion of difference. If that's the case, then it is not a luxury product any more than a blouse is the luxury analog to a shirt. Women's products aren't luxury goods — they're ordinary goods that are more expensive despite offering no additional utility or cultural capital because producers and retailers can take advantage of gender expectations.

I'm not really sure where class warfare enters into this discussion, either.

You aren't even trying to have an honest discussion, are you? Very well, then. I'll just put you back on ignore.

[Grenartia]

But please I am not a horse.

Its an expression.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/You+can+lead+a+horse+to+water

[Xmara]

Seeking to end gender-based discrimination, this resolution aims to take a major step forward in advancing the cause within the commercial and consumer sector by enforcing a tax exemption on essential "pink" items. This resolution ensures that all women have access to basic sanitary aid.

Definitions:

"Pink" items - Commonly associated with female products, this resolution does not exempt all gender-based products, but those essential to everyday health and hygiene. Specifically, sanitary-related products.

This resolution ensures that:
1. No tax can be levied on the transaction of "pink" items. These items are either exempted from tax, or zero-rated.
2. This tax-exemption be applied on every stage of transaction - from factory to shelf.

This proposal seems a bit lacking. I think you should have waited for more feedback before submitting.

[Quantipapa]

I really wanted women of all economic classes to have a bit of basic help in their natural monthly cycle - which costs money and directly impacts their hygiene and health, but delegates decided to get technical over which razor is better. Sure, you're smart, but compassion? WE can do better.

[The New California Republic]

I really wanted women of all economic classes to have a bit of basic help in their natural monthly cycle - which costs money and directly impacts their hygiene and health, but delegates decided to get technical over which razor is better. Sure, you're smart, but compassion? WE can do better.

OOC: Then address the criticisms, if you really want this to succeed.

[Jebslund]

I really wanted women of all economic classes to have a bit of basic help in their natural monthly cycle - which costs money and directly impacts their hygiene and health, but delegates decided to get technical over which razor is better. Sure, you're smart, but compassion? WE can do better.

[OOC: Your proposal is incredibly poorly worded. Had you written it better, that avenue of debate would not have been able to come up. This is why you draft BEFORE submitting, and wait until the general consensus is that it's a good proposal that is ready to submit before you put it in the queue.]

[Roast Pork]

I really wanted women of all economic classes to have a bit of basic help in their natural monthly cycle - which costs money and directly impacts their hygiene and health, but delegates decided to get technical over which razor is better. Sure, you're smart, but compassion? WE can do better.

I think I'd be more sympathetic to this statement of good intention if you were less unnecessarily combative earlier.

Now, if we specifically targeted certain products instead of broadly defining pink is, would it help?

[Separatist Peoples]

I really wanted women of all economic classes to have a bit of basic help in their natural monthly cycle - which costs money and directly impacts their hygiene and health, but delegates decided to get technical over which razor is better. Sure, you're smart, but compassion? WE can do better.

OOC: No, what you wanted was everybody to kiss your feet with how amazing your idea was. Every time you got constructive criticism or genuine questions, you complained.

Guess what? Nobody in the GA is liable to shower you with praise when there is critiquing to be had. You can respond to the criticism and make the effort to improve it, or you can either get hostile or ignore it. That will not improve your odds of passing your policy.

Choice is yours.

[Quantipapa]

I really wanted women of all economic classes to have a bit of basic help in their natural monthly cycle - which costs money and directly impacts their hygiene and health, but delegates decided to get technical over which razor is better. Sure, you're smart, but compassion? WE can do better.

OOC: No, what you wanted was everybody to kiss your feet with how amazing your idea was. Every time you got constructive criticism or genuine questions, you complained.

Guess what? Nobody in the GA is liable to shower you with praise when there is critiquing to be had. You can respond to the criticism and make the effort to improve it, or you can either get hostile or ignore it. That will not improve your odds of passing your policy.

Choice is yours.

Don't be negative. I'll resubmit and post as draft soon with all the comments above in mind. I'll be sure to mention razors and brushes are pointless.

[The Sheika]

OOC: No, what you wanted was everybody to kiss your feet with how amazing your idea was. Every time you got constructive criticism or genuine questions, you complained.

Guess what? Nobody in the GA is liable to shower you with praise when there is critiquing to be had. You can respond to the criticism and make the effort to improve it, or you can either get hostile or ignore it. That will not improve your odds of passing your policy.

Choice is yours.

Don't be negative. I'll resubmit and post as draft soon with all the comments above in mind. I'll be sure to mention razors and brushes are pointless.

I would recommend posting your new draft here for members of the GA to look over before you submit. They really are trying to help you, although it may not seem like that outright. The best resolutions start with drafting, revising, discussing, more revising, more discussing/debating, followed by even more revising before they are ready for submission.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: No, what you wanted was everybody to kiss your feet with how amazing your idea was. Every time you got constructive criticism or genuine questions, you complained.

Guess what? Nobody in the GA is liable to shower you with praise when there is critiquing to be had. You can respond to the criticism and make the effort to improve it, or you can either get hostile or ignore it. That will not improve your odds of passing your policy.

Choice is yours.

Don't be negative. I'll resubmit and post as draft soon with all the comments above in mind. I'll be sure to mention razors and brushes are pointless.

OOC: Clearly the entire point went whizzing overhead, so I'm gonna let this crash and burn of its own volition. Until then, don't expect us to gush over the drivel you put up.

[Quantipapa]

Sorry, I'm just lousy at dealing with disagreements. Sorry. I'll try again. I get worked up too easily.

[Jebslund]

When was the last time you had an entire society telling you that you were only a real person if you bought a Tesla or a Lambo?

Coincidentally, it was the last time an entire society told me that I was only a real person if I bought a men's toothbrush or men's shampoo.

Bull. Lambos aren't even advertised to the general public (barring magazines specifically discussing cars, and, even then, most of the advertisements are in the form of articles on them, rather than ads to buy them.).

I'm also going to point out that there is a huge difference in the performance of a Lambo and the performance of a 2k beater, or even a brand new mom car. The Lambo costs more because it is much higher quality. They didn't just paint a regular sedan pink and say, "Well, that justifies a higher price!".

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Thank you for explaining this more thoroughly than I did. Full agreement.

Hello there, sorry for jumping in. I notice the gentlemen actually submitted this proposal and I've been following this thread. Regarding the subject of discrimination, I just wanted to clarify - would it be considered discriminatory if an argument is sufficiently made that women's hygiene products are more of a necessity compared to - say - shampoo?. I'm not so much agreeing or disagreeing, just trying to understand where the gridlock is and figuring out the proposal mechanics.

If a good enough argument is made to that effect, in the proposal's text, yes.

[Dirty Americans]

So you don't consider a pad a basic need. Ok

Well, you see ... it "Depends."

No, seriously, at a basic fundamental level sanitary needs has nothing to do with gender. It's just that when you get to non senile citizens and infants the majority of people who need to use the products are female (from a biological standpoint).

But seriously, why not ban taxes on things that are a "basic need" and yes that would include diapers.

[Aclion]

So you don't consider a pad a basic need. Ok

Well, you see ... it "Depends."

No, seriously, at a basic fundamental level sanitary needs has nothing to do with gender. It's just that when you get to non senile citizens and infants the majority of people who need to use the products are female (from a biological standpoint).

But seriously, why not ban taxes on things that are a "basic need" and yes that would include diapers.

Doing so would a least not be fundamentally discriminatory as this resolution is.