Women pay the price of being women

AFEW weeks back, having just turned the house upside down looking for a clean pair of briefs, I did what any time-poor, grown woman with a serious underwear shortage would do. I jumped online.

Typing in the words “Bonds briefs Target” (hey, comfort is paramount when you’re four months pregnant), I was thrilled to see a link to the Target website where they were selling a five pack of Bonds hipster briefs for just $29. But just as I reached for my credit card, I noticed the briefs were for men not women.

Undeterred, I headed for the women’s underwear section in search of a similar pack. But there were none.

Instead, they were selling Bonds women’s hipster boyleg briefs individually and for $15 each.

No, $15 is not an exorbitant amount of money to pay for basic cotton underwear but when you can buy the equivalent garment for men for just $5.80 a pair, it is outrageous.

In 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs conducted a gender pricing survey of goods in New York City across a range of sectors including toys and accessories, children’s clothing, adult clothing and personal care products.

They compared nearly 800 products with clear male and female versions from more than 90 brands and found that on average, across all sectors, female products cost 7% more than similar products for males. Astonishingly, it found women paid 413% more for personal care products and 38% more for clothing.

I, for one, don’t fancy the idea of getting around in men’s jocks. How about we boycott these discriminatory retailers instead? Maybe then they’ll get the message that just as women are no longer willing to put up with the nation’s ugly pay gap, we’re also not willing to put up with paying more for goods just because they’re pink.

Victoria’s Secret, here I come.