&#x2F;&#x2F;Edit: Welp, looking at the wrong number is going to hurt my karma a bit. Thanks for the corrections, I&#x27;ll allow this slip-up to remain for posterity reasons.<p>One screenshot hurts their entire argument, because I cannot take the rest of what they say at face value. Notice that the $18.49 package gives <i>five</i> razors while the $14.99 package gives <i>four</i> razors. The $3.50~ markup is due to <i>an additional razor being provided</i>. The package is misleading because it is <i>called</i>  &quot;Hydro 5&quot; but provides 4 razors as indicated in the bottom right corner of the packaging.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;p3Z2lnJ.png" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;p3Z2lnJ.png</a><p>&#x2F;&#x2F;End Edit - The above was my mistake of looking at the wrong number on the women&#x27;s packaging as explained by the replies to this comment.<p>Tacking on a reasonable counter-argument to the tail end of the article hoping people will miss it is also an annoyingly common practice I see these sorts of hatemongering articles.<p>And you know what? <i>They probably have a valid point.</i> But they couldn&#x27;t take the time to carefully make their comparisons, clean the data of any faulty issues (like the razors), and give any counterpoints some proper space. So I&#x27;ll dismiss it like I would any other topic that tried to do this.<p><i>&gt;Ravi Dhar, director of the Center for Customer Insights at the Yale School of Management, said how we perceive “women’s” products could help explain why gender markups persist in the marketplace.<p>&gt;“Many men&#x27;s products are not seen as men&#x27;s products,” he said. “They might just be seen as products in the category.”<p>&gt;Which makes the “pink” version a specialty product, he said. </i>