I have repeatedly read that women's clothing is more expensive
than men's, and it seems that most people I've talked to believe it.
I'm curious if anyone here knows what reasonably-scientific
research bears this out?

I decided to do a little research on my own, so I went to a
fair-sized mall, and picked some stores that sell to both men
and women. It would have been a herculean task to try and
average the prices, so I tried to pick some representative
samples and derive ranges of prices. Here's what I found.

At Bloomingdales, women's athletic shoes ranged from $58-115.
Men's ranged from $50-$110. Other types of shoes ranged from
$58-250 for women, and $49-225 for men. T-shirts, women
might spend from $29-68, men from $22-60. Jeans, $59-180
for women, $59-172 for men. Sweaters would cost women
between $49-250, men between $89-395. Slacks or pants for
women ranged from $59-89, men $49-185. Women's belts
cost from $28-65, men's from $35-70. And a leather jacket
would cost a woman from $199-775, a man from $395-1395.

At Abercrombie & Fitch (and I'll just go tabular from here):
Pants: women $19-133, men $59-99
Sweat shirts: women $39-59, men $39-69
T-shirts: mostly $25 for men and women.
Other shirts: women $9.99-44, men $49-78
Sweaters: women $49-148, men same.

Lucky's Dungarees:
Jeans: women $84-148, men $74-134

Tommy Bahama's:
Sweater: women $145-165, men $145-195
Hawaiian shirt: women's $86-92, men's $85-115
Other shirt: women's $68-92, men's $60-125
Slacks: women $130-155, men $115-125
Shoes: women $99-179, men $99-176

The Territory Ahead:
Sweater: women $79-119, men $99
Shirt: women $59-99, men $39-79
Leather Jackets: women $269-599, men $300-389

Macy's:
Jeans: women's $50-189, men's $35-110
T-shirts: women's $20-34, men's $18-30
Sweaters: women's $45-169, men's $69-425(!)
Belts: women's $22-58, men's $20-79.50
Slacks: women's $49-284, men's $60-197
Athletic shoes: women's $40-95, men's $50-120
Other shoes: women's $50-340, men's $65-205
Leather Jackets: women's $329-450, men's $200-995

>From this admittedly small, one-person survey, it appears
as if all of the price ranges overlap, and the differences
at upper and lower ends sometimes favor men, and sometimes
women. Overall, I'd say it was a lot closer to equal than to
significantly different. Is there something radically wrong
with my analysis? I know averages might have been more
informative -- so where are the studies that have done that?

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	msnyder at redhat.com
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	5 Jan 2005 10:39:19 -0500

Robert Huff wrote:
> Dan Holzman wrote:
>
> > This is pretty representative, but you're only looking at half the
> > picture. The shoes I spend $225 on for myself last me a decade or
> > more. The $250 women's shoes will last a year if you're lucky.
>
> To elaborate:
> For (US) $225 either gender _can_ get a pair of quality shoes. But
> women have to work harder - much harder - to find that pair.

Well yeah -- because there are 3 times as many shoes and
who knows how many times as many styles available for women.

> Even if they're well made, women's styles have additional failure
> modes. Men don't wreck their shoes (and possibly) injure themselves
> by an incautious step on to a storm grate.

Wearing high heels is a choice. Very few jobs require it.

> Womens' styles "require" a much larger number. The idea one can
> operate successfully for years with five pair of shoes (like many
men)
> would make any self-respecting fashionista cough up their liver.

Being a "self-respecting fashionista" is a choice. If a man
chooses to wear the most expensive styles, he can spend as much
or more than a woman. But the price of the SAME pair of shoes
for women shows no evidence of being higher.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Eli
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	6 Jan 2005 21:33:22 -0500

Michael Snyder wrote:

> > The "style" may be the same, but the quality is much lower in the
> > women's jeans.
>
> Not the "qualities" that women look for -- obviously -- or else
> why don't they just buy men's jeans? Capitolism is market
> driven -- not gender-politics driven. Levi's doesn't design
> women's jeans to give women the shaft. They design them
> according to what women *buy*.

That is probably true, but not the whole story!

> Now why, one might ask, would women prefer to buy
> jeans that are designed more for looks and less for durability?
> Maybe they don't care how long the jeans last -- because they
> plan to replace them sooner than a man would anyway.

Maybe, but still not the whole story!

> Come on -- women *prefer* lighter cloth. They go out
> of their way to find thin, soft, "sheer" material.
>
> Anyway, we're getting far afield -- my only point was that
> it is not true that the same item of clothing costs a woman
> more than a man.

And here is the rest of the story: your *only* point is incorrect! The
items you are comparing are not *the same* items, even though they are
the same style. One is higher quality, which means more expensive to
produce. Same price for different quality items means the higher
quality one is cheaper. Regardless of all other social factors that
render your previous points relatively true, the bottom line is that
the *same* item of women's clothing cost more than men's. Levi's
charges more for women's jeans, by making them lower quality, and
selling more of them to women. The fact that women may like it better
this way (which is not an established fact) doesn't change the reality
that they pay more than men for the *same* cloths.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Nevermind
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	14 Dec 2004 14:51:23 -0500

Regency Reader wrote:
> > Womens' styles "require" a much larger number. The idea one
can
> > operate successfully for years with five pair of shoes (like many
men)
> > would make any self-respecting fashionista cough up their liver.
>
> You don't even have to be a fashionista. Maybe not with shoes, but
with
> other clothes - women have to have more outfits than men, just to be
> considered "average". [snip]
>
> I think workplaces are more casual now, but I think it would still be
> less acceptable for a woman to wear the same outfit as often as a man
> could, especially in an office with a business dress code.
>
> And then there's the quality issue - finding good quality women's
> clothing (particularly business clothing like suits) is very
difficult.
> They just aren't made as well, and there are fewer options. Most
> women's clothing stores are more interested in "trends" than in
selling
> you a navy blue suit that's appropriate for a job interview. And if
you
> find that navy suit, you'll probably find it much more shoddily made
> than the equivalent men's suit.
>
> I work in a casual office, and although the prices of casual clothes
are
> more comparable, the gap is noticeable there too - so many women's
> "casual" clothes are simply inappropriate for the office. I often
have
> to shop for more expensive brands to find items that aren't low cut
or
> too tight or badly fitted. Inexpensive men's casual clothing seems
more
> business-appropriate, although I couldn't say for sure since I
haven't
> worn it. But I think it's easier for a man to walk into Target or
Kohls
> and find inexpensive, business-appropriate clothing. I go there and
> find T-shirts cut so low my breasts are showing, "stretch" fabrics
that
> are more appropriate for exercise than work, and colors that would
look
> more at home in a fun house than on the job.
>
> Karen

You hit it on the head, Karen. Sure, I can find cheap clothes with no
problem, but they generally look awful. Women have more stuff going on,
body-wise. There's the way tops cling or don't cling to the bust;
there's where they hang in relation to the hips, .... Cheap clothes
tend to just hang all wrong. The skinnier and more boyish you are
shape-wise, the more you can get away with cheap clothes, which may be
why teenagers in my day used to shop at cheapie places like fashion bug
and still managed to look great. Now, teenagers tend to be heavier than
we were in the late 70s/early 80s (or so it seems to me) and
advertising blitzes have affected kids to the point where even the
skinny ones who could probably get away with semi-junkie clothes feel
the need for high-quality name-brand stuff.

Take Old Navy. My husband can buy clothes there that look great on his
40-something body. Long, straight cotton sweaters, baggie pants, ...
But all the women's clothes are totally inappropriate for adult women.
The tops end at the belly button and the pants are cut low to show off
your thong.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	SmartyPants
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	24 Dec 2004 08:55:08 -0500

I find it odd that any one looks at gender specific clothing prices
without noticing that
stores, and fashion itself, is devoted to women. Men are expected to
wear the same cookie cutter **** that is offerred in either color
available.

Having looked over some of the numbers, I noticed the men's clothing is
more expensive than women's clothing on a scale quite similar to the
difference in our square foot surface areas.

Having said that, I'm very pleased that no one told me I needed a
negligee' to be attractive to my partner, and even more pleased that I
never would have believed it if they did.
Waiting for you to catch up.

Geoff

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Dan Holzman
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	11 Dec 2004 23:51:34 -0500

In article <004101c4dbb5$46a68c20$677ba8c0@sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>Other types of shoes ranged from $58-250 for women, and $49-225 for men.
[...]
>Is there something radically wrong with my analysis?

This is pretty representative, but you're only looking at half the
picture. The shoes I spend $225 on for myself last me a decade or
more. The $250 women's shoes will last a year if you're lucky. I
will also be under no pressure to "update my look" next year if I
continue to sport the shoes I bought last year.

My clothing also costs less to clean.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Michael Snyder
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	13 Dec 2004 14:49:26 -0500

"Dan Holzman" wrote:

> In article <004101c4dbb5$46a68c20$677ba8c0@sonic.net>,
> Michael Snyder wrote:
> >
> >Other types of shoes ranged from $58-250 for women, and $49-225 for men.
> [...]
> >Is there something radically wrong with my analysis?
>
> This is pretty representative, but you're only looking at half the
> picture. The shoes I spend $225 on for myself last me a decade or
> more. The $250 women's shoes will last a year if you're lucky.

Well, I have to admire you... I've never gotten ten years' use
out of a pair of shoes. What about you female readers? Do
you often throw out a $250 pair of shoes after a year or less?

> I will also be under no pressure to "update my look" next year if I
> continue to sport the shoes I bought last year.
>
> My clothing also costs less to clean.

Cotton is cotton. I think we have to differentiate between
'need' and 'want' here. I could buy lots of clothes that have to
be dry cleaned if I wanted to -- that's a choice. So is "updating
your look" every year.

Isn't this an example of the difference between "equality of
opportunity" and "equality of outcome"? My brief survey
suggests that men and women have the same opportunity when
it comes to the price they pay for clothes. How much they
actually spend, though, involves a lot of choice.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Dan Holzman
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	14 Dec 2004 14:51:22 -0500

In article <01e601c4e012$2d983740$677ba8c0@sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>Well, I have to admire you... I've never gotten ten years' use
>out of a pair of shoes.

Then let me highly recommend Johnson and Murphy. Even if you only get
five years out of a pair of shoes, you're still doing much better than
most women.

>> My clothing also costs less to clean.
>
>Cotton is cotton. I think we have to differentiate between
>'need' and 'want' here. I could buy lots of clothes that have to
>be dry cleaned if I wanted to -- that's a choice. So is "updating
>your look" every year.

It may be a choice, but it's not a choice made in a vacuum. If I
chose not to buy suits -- which I have to dry clean -- I could not
hold the job I do, where wearing suits to when facing clients is
mandatory. My female colleagues are under a similar pressure. They
wind up having to spend more than I do in order to meet the same
requirement of presenting a professional appearance to our clients.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Michael Snyder
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	21 Dec 2004 21:34:13 -0500

> In article <01e601c4e012$2d983740$677ba8c0@sonic.net>,
> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>
>>Well, I have to admire you... I've never gotten ten years' use
>>out of a pair of shoes.
>
> Then let me highly recommend Johnson and Murphy. Even if you only get
> five years out of a pair of shoes, you're still doing much better than
> most women.
>
>>> My clothing also costs less to clean.
>>
>>Cotton is cotton. I think we have to differentiate between
>>'need' and 'want' here. I could buy lots of clothes that have to
>>be dry cleaned if I wanted to -- that's a choice. So is "updating
>>your look" every year.
>
> It may be a choice, but it's not a choice made in a vacuum. If I
> chose not to buy suits -- which I have to dry clean -- I could not
> hold the job I do, where wearing suits to when facing clients is
> mandatory. My female colleagues are under a similar pressure. They
> wind up having to spend more than I do in order to meet the same
> requirement of presenting a professional appearance to our clients.

OK, then, maybe it would be more appropriate to say that
"women are under cultural expectations to spend more on clothes",
rather than "women's clothes cost more than men's" -- since by all
indications, equivalent women's clothes do not cost more than men's.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	John Royer
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	23 Dec 2004 14:14:43 -0500

A couple of years ago a friend and I wandered through a mall in Hilton Head
S.C. Our wives were shopping and so we thought we'd look around for some
mens articles. We found some at the extreme end of the mall in the furthest
corner of the store. Let's be honest here. If a woman wants to look good she
can do so much more cheaply than a guy can. Yes if you buy the best prices
are pretty much equal, but when women have a clothing selection that is at
least 20 times greater than a mans they are obviously going to get sales and
bargains and discounts that men don't get. Try walking through a mall and
count the stores dedicated to women and men.

"Michael Snyder" wrote in message
news:011b01c4e78c$ace65370$82a56b80@msnyder8600...
>> In article <01e601c4e012$2d983740$677ba8c0@sonic.net>,
>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, I have to admire you... I've never gotten ten years' use
>>>out of a pair of shoes.
>>
>> Then let me highly recommend Johnson and Murphy. Even if you only get
>> five years out of a pair of shoes, you're still doing much better than
>> most women.
>>
>>>> My clothing also costs less to clean.
>>>
>>>Cotton is cotton. I think we have to differentiate between
>>>'need' and 'want' here. I could buy lots of clothes that have to
>>>be dry cleaned if I wanted to -- that's a choice. So is "updating
>>>your look" every year.
>>
>> It may be a choice, but it's not a choice made in a vacuum. If I
>> chose not to buy suits -- which I have to dry clean -- I could not
>> hold the job I do, where wearing suits to when facing clients is
>> mandatory. My female colleagues are under a similar pressure. They
>> wind up having to spend more than I do in order to meet the same
>> requirement of presenting a professional appearance to our clients.
>
> OK, then, maybe it would be more appropriate to say that
> "women are under cultural expectations to spend more on clothes",
> rather than "women's clothes cost more than men's" -- since by all
> indications, equivalent women's clothes do not cost more than men's.
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Michael Snyder
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	26 Dec 2004 20:49:49 -0500

"John Royer" wrote:
>A couple of years ago a friend and I wandered through a mall in Hilton Head
> S.C. Our wives were shopping and so we thought we'd look around for some
> mens articles. We found some at the extreme end of the mall in the
> furthest
> corner of the store. Let's be honest here. If a woman wants to look good
> she
> can do so much more cheaply than a guy can. Yes if you buy the best prices
> are pretty much equal, but when women have a clothing selection that is at
> least 20 times greater than a mans they are obviously going to get sales
> and
> bargains and discounts that men don't get. Try walking through a mall and
> count the stores dedicated to women and men.

I did. At the mall where I collected my price data, there were four
clothing stores for men (Barcelino, L'uomo, Pacific Sun, St. Croix),
twenty for women (Ann Taylor, BCBG, bebe, Bennetton, Cache, Cielo,
Coldwater Creek, Eileen Fisher, Express, Georgiou, Harolds, J. Jill,
Lucy, MaxMara, Pea in a Pod, Talbots, Victoria's Secret, White House
Black Market, and Nike Women), and sixteen that sold to both men and
women (Armani, Abercrombie & Fitch, Banana Republic, Brooks Bros.,
Territory Ahead, Gap, J. Crew, Lucky Dungarees, Polo Ralph Loren,
Stanford Shoppe, Tommy Bahama, Wilkes Bashford, Bloomingdales,
Macys, Neiman Markus, and Nordstrom).

Of the stores that sold to both men and women, all except Tommy
Bahama had about twice as much floor space for women as for men.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Dan Holzman
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	23 Dec 2004 14:14:41 -0500

In article <011b01c4e78c$ace65370$82a56b80@msnyder8600>,
Michael Snyder wrote:
>>
>> It may be a choice, but it's not a choice made in a vacuum. If I
>> chose not to buy suits -- which I have to dry clean -- I could not
>> hold the job I do, where wearing suits to when facing clients is
>> mandatory. My female colleagues are under a similar pressure. They
>> wind up having to spend more than I do in order to meet the same
>> requirement of presenting a professional appearance to our clients.
>
>OK, then, maybe it would be more appropriate to say that
>"women are under cultural expectations to spend more on clothes",
>rather than "women's clothes cost more than men's" -- since by all
>indications, equivalent women's clothes do not cost more than men's.

That's not accurate, since the expectation has nothing to do with what
is spent. The expectation has to do with the image presented by the
clothing. Women's clothing only costs the same as men's clothing when
you compare clothing of differing quality. If you wanted to, you
could say, "All other things being equal, women's clothing costs more
than men's," but it strikes me as obtuse not to see that implicit in
"women's clothes cost more than men's."

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Michael Snyder
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	26 Dec 2004 20:49:51 -0500

"Dan Holzman" writes:
> In article <011b01c4e78c$ace65370$82a56b80@msnyder8600>,
> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>>
>>> It may be a choice, but it's not a choice made in a vacuum. If I
>>> chose not to buy suits -- which I have to dry clean -- I could not
>>> hold the job I do, where wearing suits to when facing clients is
>>> mandatory. My female colleagues are under a similar pressure. They
>>> wind up having to spend more than I do in order to meet the same
>>> requirement of presenting a professional appearance to our clients.
>>
>>OK, then, maybe it would be more appropriate to say that
>>"women are under cultural expectations to spend more on clothes",
>>rather than "women's clothes cost more than men's" -- since by all
>>indications, equivalent women's clothes do not cost more than men's.
>
> That's not accurate, since the expectation has nothing to do with what
> is spent. The expectation has to do with the image presented by the
> clothing. Women's clothing only costs the same as men's clothing when
> you compare clothing of differing quality.

No, that's not true! I compared directly brand-for-brand.
In the same store, men's Levis 550 jeans and women's Levis 550 jeans
cost the same. Men's Lee relaxed fit jeans and women's Lee relaxed
fit jeans cost the same. Moreover, the -range- of prices for jeans,
belts, sweaters, shoes etc. within the same store (which somewhat
suggests the same quality) on average was the same.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Dan Holzman
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	27 Dec 2004 09:46:36 -0500

In article <000001c4eba0$54f69f40$647ba8c0@msnyder8600>,
Michael Snyder wrote:
>> That's not accurate, since the expectation has nothing to do with what
>> is spent. The expectation has to do with the image presented by the
>> clothing. Women's clothing only costs the same as men's clothing when
>> you compare clothing of differing quality.
>
>No, that's not true! I compared directly brand-for-brand.
>In the same store, men's Levis 550 jeans and women's Levis 550 jeans
>cost the same. Men's Lee relaxed fit jeans and women's Lee relaxed
>fit jeans cost the same. Moreover, the -range- of prices for jeans,
>belts, sweaters, shoes etc. within the same store (which somewhat
>suggests the same quality) on average was the same.

I'm willing to believe there are cases that are exceptions. Whose
office wear did you compare? My suits come from Joseph A. Bank, and
they don't make women's wear. What would you compare to it?

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Michael Snyder
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	29 Dec 2004 23:01:50 -0500

"Dan Holzman" wrote:
> In article <000001c4eba0$54f69f40$647ba8c0@msnyder8600>,
> Michael Snyder wrote:
> >> That's not accurate, since the expectation has nothing to do with what
> >> is spent. The expectation has to do with the image presented by the
> >> clothing. Women's clothing only costs the same as men's clothing when
> >> you compare clothing of differing quality.
> >
> >No, that's not true! I compared directly brand-for-brand.
> >In the same store, men's Levis 550 jeans and women's Levis 550 jeans
> >cost the same. Men's Lee relaxed fit jeans and women's Lee relaxed
> >fit jeans cost the same. Moreover, the -range- of prices for jeans,
> >belts, sweaters, shoes etc. within the same store (which somewhat
> >suggests the same quality) on average was the same.
>
> I'm willing to believe there are cases that are exceptions.

Exceptions? For these to be exceptions, you'd have to show that
similar items of women's clothing were typically more expensive.
You haven't, and it's just not the case. Here's more of what I've found:

Jeans:
Sears, women $20-36, men $20-35
Walmart, women $10-20, men $11-32
Target, women $20-27, men $10-26
Macy's, women $50-189, men $48-136
Bloomingdales, women $59-180, men $60-172
Lucky Dungarees, women $84-148, men $74-134

Sweaters:
Bloomingdales, women $49-251, men $89-295
Abercrombe & Fitch, women $49-148, men $49-148
Tommy Bahama, women $145-165, men $135-195
Macy's, women $45-169, men $69-425
Target, women $10-23, men $15-22
Walmart, women $8-15, men $12-20
Sears, women $26-52, men $36-60

Leather Jackets:
Macy's, women $329-450, men $279-995
Target, women $50, men $100-130
Walmart, women $60, men $60
Sears, women $100-240, men $250-360
Bloomingdales, women $199-775, men $395-1395

Ralph Lauren blue-label ('Polo') 100% cotton button-down shirts:
women $59-125, men $69-185

> Whose
> office wear did you compare? My suits come from Joseph A. Bank, and
> they don't make women's wear. What would you compare to it?

I wouldn't, since as you rightly point out, there's no way to
establish a basis for comparison. However, if you want,
I've got more figures for shoes, belts, t-shirts, slacks...
they all look pretty much like what I've posted above, ie.
no sign whatsoever of women's comparable items being
more expensive than mens -- if anything, the reverse.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	tucb at bellsouth.net
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	5 Jan 2005 10:39:18 -0500

On 26 Dec 2004 20:49:51 -0500, "Michael Snyder"
wrote:

>"Dan Holzman" writes:
>> In article <011b01c4e78c$ace65370$82a56b80@msnyder8600>,
>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It may be a choice, but it's not a choice made in a vacuum. If I
>>>> chose not to buy suits -- which I have to dry clean -- I could not
>>>> hold the job I do, where wearing suits to when facing clients is
>>>> mandatory. My female colleagues are under a similar pressure. They
>>>> wind up having to spend more than I do in order to meet the same
>>>> requirement of presenting a professional appearance to our clients.
>>>
>>>OK, then, maybe it would be more appropriate to say that
>>>"women are under cultural expectations to spend more on clothes",
>>>rather than "women's clothes cost more than men's" -- since by all
>>>indications, equivalent women's clothes do not cost more than men's.
>>
>> That's not accurate, since the expectation has nothing to do with what
>> is spent. The expectation has to do with the image presented by the
>> clothing. Women's clothing only costs the same as men's clothing when
>> you compare clothing of differing quality.
>
>No, that's not true! I compared directly brand-for-brand.
>In the same store, men's Levis 550 jeans and women's Levis 550 jeans
>cost the same.

Men's Levis 550 jeans are made of 14oz, 240 thread count denim, ring
spun. Women's are made from 10 oz, 180 count denim. Turn both jeans
inside out and you'll notice that the finish and seams on the men's
are lockstiched and taped or felled and the Women's jeans are serged
(chain stitched) and not bound or taped. Seam allowances on the men's
jeans are larger. The pockets on the men's jeans are larger and made
of a better quality material. Take the jean's apart and the difference
screams at you.

The "style" may be the same, but the quality is much lower in the
women's jeans.

> Men's Lee relaxed fit jeans and women's Lee relaxed
>fit jeans cost the same.

See above.

Moreover, the -range- of prices for jeans,
>belts, sweaters, shoes etc. within the same store (which somewhat
>suggests the same quality) on average was the same.

Look at fabric weight, weave and construction details in all the
clothing at any point on the range. You'll notice that the woman's
clothing is made of lighter cloth with a much looser weave and the
construction details are always poor.

I haven't seen a man's dress shirt that has serged seams and 3/8 or
less seam allowances at ANY point on the price range, and yet even the
high end (over $75) blouses have this crappy construction.

So the women's clothing that costs the same IS of poorer quality
within the same style and manufacturer. The style may be the same,
but the cheap cloth will "pill" and wear faster than a tighter weave
or heaver knit. Serged seams with tiny to nonexistant seam allowences
tend to come apart when washed, and the chain stitch allows the whole
seam to come apart if sombody pulls a thread.

Barbara

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Michael Snyder
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	6 Jan 2005 09:26:24 -0500

writes:

> On 26 Dec 2004 20:49:51 -0500, "Michael Snyder"
> wrote:
>
> >"Dan Holzman" writes:
> >> In article <011b01c4e78c$ace65370$82a56b80@msnyder8600>,
> >> Michael Snyder wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> It may be a choice, but it's not a choice made in a vacuum. If I
> >>>> chose not to buy suits -- which I have to dry clean -- I could not
> >>>> hold the job I do, where wearing suits to when facing clients is
> >>>> mandatory. My female colleagues are under a similar pressure. They
> >>>> wind up having to spend more than I do in order to meet the same
> >>>> requirement of presenting a professional appearance to our clients.
> >>>
> >>>OK, then, maybe it would be more appropriate to say that
> >>>"women are under cultural expectations to spend more on clothes",
> >>>rather than "women's clothes cost more than men's" -- since by all
> >>>indications, equivalent women's clothes do not cost more than men's.
> >>
> >> That's not accurate, since the expectation has nothing to do with what
> >> is spent. The expectation has to do with the image presented by the
> >> clothing. Women's clothing only costs the same as men's clothing when
> >> you compare clothing of differing quality.
> >
> >No, that's not true! I compared directly brand-for-brand.
> >In the same store, men's Levis 550 jeans and women's Levis 550 jeans
> >cost the same.
>
> Men's Levis 550 jeans are made of 14oz, 240 thread count denim, ring
> spun. Women's are made from 10 oz, 180 count denim. Turn both jeans
> inside out and you'll notice that the finish and seams on the men's
> are lockstiched and taped or felled and the Women's jeans are serged
> (chain stitched) and not bound or taped.

Why do you suppose that is?

> Seam allowances on the men's jeans are larger. The pockets on the
> men's jeans are larger and made of a better quality material.
> Take the jean's apart and the difference screams at you.

Why do you suppose that is? Because the manufacturers don't
like women? Or because these are qualities that women *prefer*?
Thinner, softer fabric -- seems like a "feminine" virtue. And
smaller pockets? Women don't put large objects in the pockets
of their jeans -- it would spoil the lines.

> The "style" may be the same, but the quality is much lower in the
> women's jeans.

Not the "qualities" that women look for -- obviously -- or else
why don't they just buy men's jeans? Capitolism is market
driven -- not gender-politics driven. Levi's doesn't design
women's jeans to give women the shaft. They design them
according to what women *buy*.

Now why, one might ask, would women prefer to buy
jeans that are designed more for looks and less for durability?
Maybe they don't care how long the jeans last -- because they
plan to replace them sooner than a man would anyway.

> > Men's Lee relaxed fit jeans and women's Lee relaxed
> >fit jeans cost the same. Moreover, the -range- of prices for jeans,
> >belts, sweaters, shoes etc. within the same store (which somewhat
> >suggests the same quality) on average was the same.
>
> Look at fabric weight, weave and construction details in all the
> clothing at any point on the range. You'll notice that the woman's
> clothing is made of lighter cloth with a much looser weave and the
> construction details are always poor.

Come on -- women *prefer* lighter cloth. They go out
of their way to find thin, soft, "sheer" material.

Anyway, we're getting far afield -- my only point was that
it is not true that the same item of clothing costs a woman
more than a man.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Dan Holzman
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	6 Jan 2005 21:33:21 -0500

In article <011901c4f34c$832f5d80$677ba8c0@sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder wrote:
>>
>Why do you suppose that is? Because the manufacturers don't
>like women? Or because these are qualities that women *prefer*?
>Thinner, softer fabric -- seems like a "feminine" virtue.

The rampant gender stereotyping aside, you don't know what you're
talking about.

Threadcount is number of threads per inch. The higher the thread
count, the finer the weave and softer the fabric. Incidently, also
the more durable it is. So it's the opposite of what you were
rationalizing: the women's Levi's 550 jeans will feel less soft
and have to be replaced sooner.

That's why higher threadcount bed sheets cost more than lower count
ones, by the way.

Refuting your thesis.

I'm now done with you. You've made it clear that you are approaching
this discussion with a "religious" faith in your conclusion. You've
also made it clear you're not competent to perform the analysis you
seek to do.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Robert Huff
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	13 Dec 2004 14:49:22 -0500

Dan Holzman wrote:

> This is pretty representative, but you're only looking at half the
> picture. The shoes I spend $225 on for myself last me a decade or
> more. The $250 women's shoes will last a year if you're lucky.

To elaborate:
For (US) $225 either gender _can_ get a pair of quality shoes. But
women have to work harder - much harder - to find that pair.
Even if they're well made, women's styles have additional failure
modes. Men don't wreck their shoes (and possibly) injure themselves
by an incautious step on to a storm grate.
Womens' styles "require" a much larger number. The idea one can
operate successfully for years with five pair of shoes (like many men)
would make any self-respecting fashionista cough up their liver.

Robert Huff

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Regency Reader
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	13 Dec 2004 20:09:17 -0500

> Womens' styles "require" a much larger number. The idea one can
> operate successfully for years with five pair of shoes (like many men)
> would make any self-respecting fashionista cough up their liver.

You don't even have to be a fashionista. Maybe not with shoes, but with
other clothes - women have to have more outfits than men, just to be
considered "average". A man can get away with wearing the same 3 or 4
suits over and over, but not women. I worked as a secretary for a
while, and the boss took me in his office and told me that I needed more
clothes in my wardrobe. (Not in a ual way - he just said that it was
noticeable I wore the same 5 outfits every week.) And it's harder for
women to wear "out of date" clothes without looking inappropriate - not
necessarily following trends, but even basic women's clothing goes
noticeably in and out of style. And it makes a difference in how you
are perceived in the workplace - promotions, raises, etc.

I think workplaces are more casual now, but I think it would still be
less acceptable for a woman to wear the same outfit as often as a man
could, especially in an office with a business dress code.

And then there's the quality issue - finding good quality women's
clothing (particularly business clothing like suits) is very difficult.
They just aren't made as well, and there are fewer options. Most
women's clothing stores are more interested in "trends" than in selling
you a navy blue suit that's appropriate for a job interview. And if you
find that navy suit, you'll probably find it much more shoddily made
than the equivalent men's suit.

I work in a casual office, and although the prices of casual clothes are
more comparable, the gap is noticeable there too - so many women's
"casual" clothes are simply inappropriate for the office. I often have
to shop for more expensive brands to find items that aren't low cut or
too tight or badly fitted. Inexpensive men's casual clothing seems more
business-appropriate, although I couldn't say for sure since I haven't
worn it. But I think it's easier for a man to walk into Target or Kohls
and find inexpensive, business-appropriate clothing. I go there and
find T-shirts cut so low my breasts are showing, "stretch" fabrics that
are more appropriate for exercise than work, and colors that would look
more at home in a fun house than on the job.

Karen

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Robert Huff
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	14 Dec 2004 19:40:16 -0500

Regency Reader wrote:

> And then there's the quality issue - finding good quality women's
> clothing (particularly business clothing like suits) is very
> difficult. They just aren't made as well, and there are fewer
> options.

(Sticking my neck out in the interest of provoking discussion)
I believe it's in _The Beauty Myth_ where Naomi Wolf talks about the
histories and clientele of Victoria's Secret and the /Hanes Her Way/
lines, her point being women _will_ buy (in great heaping gobs)
quality clothes at a reasonable price even if they aren't the height
of fashion. Let's ignore - if possible - the question of whether
under- and outerwear obey the same rules and ask: given the seemingly
colossal fortune to be made (est 100 million potential customers in
the U. S. alone) ... why hasn't someone targeted this market?
Or have they, only to go down in flames, and is there a lesson to be
learned?

Robert Huff

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Regency Reader
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	15 Dec 2004 09:09:02 -0500

> why hasn't someone targeted this market?

I think some smaller companies have - but they tend to be mail order
companies, which limit their reach. But no big blockbuster, so far.

One issue is that women have only been wearing "business" clothing in
large numbers for about 30 years, and the standard of what's appropriate
for women in the workplace keeps changing. Men have a fairly
standardized idea of what's appropriate, so it's much easier to serve
that market.

The fashion industry is also not necessarily representative of what
women want. Their job is to get women to buy clothes, and more broadly,
to get women to want to buy clothes - which means they depend on keeping
women unsatisfied. Selling women basic clothing that can be worn for
years isn't nearly as profitable as changing the rules every few years
and expecting women to follow along, or making poor quality clothes that
look "cool". (I also think the fashion industry has an unrealistic view
of what women actually look like - why are most fashion models size 2
with no hips or busts?) Many people who make and sell clothing are more
interested in image than making money - for example, most women are a
size 14 or higher but most clothing stores and clothing makers treat the
plus size market as an unwanted side business that they look down on -
despite the profits to be made there.

And there are other reasons - women go along with this for a whole host
of reasons that would take a book to explain.

Karen

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Dan Holzman
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	19 Dec 2004 09:24:14 -0500

In article <1gosxbm.1tg32yk10ojmr0N%regencyreader@yahoo.com>,
Regency Reader wrote:
>
>(I also think the fashion industry has an unrealistic view
>of what women actually look like - why are most fashion models size 2
>with no hips or busts?)

Because the job fashion models are hired to do is wear clothing that
people will look at and think "that clothing looks good" and as
someone noted elsewhere in this thread it's easier to make clothing
hang attractively on a body that doesn't curve very much.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Robert Huff
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	20 Dec 2004 09:15:33 -0500

Dan Holzman wrote:

>>(I also think the fashion industry has an unrealistic view
>>of what women actually look like - why are most fashion models size 2
>>with no hips or busts?)
>
> Because the job fashion models are hired to do is wear clothing that
> people will look at and think "that clothing looks good" and as
> someone noted elsewhere in this thread it's easier to make clothing
> hang attractively on a body that doesn't curve very much.

Haute couture, to quote someone, is not about making clothes - it's
about performance art.
While I'm at it, someone came up with a phrase to describe walking
through the fragrances section of American department stores:
"olfactory terrorism".

Robert Huff

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	SmartyPants
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:31:55 GMT

cracked black pepper

Season and sauté the cutlets in olive oil till golden brown, remove.
Add the garlic and onions and cook down a bit.
Add some lemon juice and some zest, then de-glaze with stock.
Add a little cornstarch (dissolved in cold water) to the sauce.
You are just about there, Pour the sauce over the cutlets,
top with parsley, lemon slices and cracked pepper.
Serve with spinach salad, macaroni and cheese (homemade) and iced tea...

Spaghetti with Real Italian Meatballs

If you don?t have an expendable bambino on hand,
you can use a pound of ground pork instead.
The secret to great meatballs, is to use very lean meat.

1 lb. ground flesh; human or pork
3 lb. ground beef
1 cup finely chopped onions
7 - 12 cloves garlic
1 cup seasoned bread crumbs
½ cup milk, 2 eggs
Oregano
basil
salt
pepper
Italian seasoning, etc.
Tomato gravy (see index)
Fresh or at least freshly cooked spaghetti or other pasta

Mix the ground meats together in a large bowl,
then mix each of the other ingredients.
Make balls about the size of a baby?s fist
(there should be one lying around for reference).
Bake at 400°for about 25 minutes -

From:	SmartyPants
Subject:	Re: Cost of women's vs. men's clothing
Date:	Sat, 25 Dec 2004 19:04:11 GMT

a little cold water
1 egg beaten

Make the stuffing:
Marinate the flesh in a mixture of soy and teriyaki sauces
then stir fry in hot oil for till brown - about 1 minute, remove.
Stir-fry the vegetables.
Put the meat back into the wok and adjust the seasoning.
De-glaze with sherry, cooking off the alcohol.
Add broth (optional) cook a few more minutes.
Add the cornstarch, cook a few minutes till thick,
then place the stuffing into a colander and cool;
2 hours
Wrap the rolls:
Place 3 tablespoons of stuffing in the wrap, roll tightly -
corner nearest you first, fold 2 side corners in,
wrap till remaining corner is left.
Brush with egg, seal, and allow to sit on the seal for
a few minutes.
Fry the rolls:
325° if using egg roll wraps, 350° for spring roll wraps.
Deep fry in peanut oil till crispy golden brown, drain on paper towels.

Lemon Neonate

Turkey serves just as well, and in fact even looks a bit like a
well-dressed baby. By the time you turn the child?s breast into
cutlets, it will be indistinguishable. The taste of young human,
although similar to turkey (and chicken) often can be wildly
different depending upon what he or she has consumed during its
10 to 14 months of life...

4 well chosen cutlets (from the breasts of 2 healthy neonates)
2 large lemons (fresh lemons always, if possible)
Olive oil
Green onions
Salt
pepper
cornstarch
neonate stock (chicken, or turkey stock is fine)
garlic
parsley
fresh cracked black pepper

Season and sauté the cutlets in olive oil till golden brown, remove.
Add the garlic and onions and cook down a bit.
Add some lemon juice and some zest, then de-glaze with stock.
Add a little cornstarch (dissolved in cold water) to the sauce.
You are just about there, Pour the sauce over the cutle