Articles like this promote a very absurd notion that there is a vast conspiracy to actively discriminate against women.  While there is, of course, real discrimination against women, this simply isn&#x27;t one of them.<p>The only discrimination going on here is that men are more discriminant on price than women are with broad categories of items.  I work with retail data, and I know this is 100% true.  Items marketed towards men in the &quot;Consumables&quot; category (deodorant, razors, shampoo, etc) are priced lower than their female counterparts because decades of scientific analysis has shown that men are more likely to shop for these particular products based on price than women are.<p>In economic terms, depending on the category, men and women have different price elasticity curves.<p>An interesting twist on this is that certain Men&#x27;s products within the &quot;Consumables&quot; category are at high price points due to the data showing their respective consumer group to be far less price sensitive, especially with the 18-25 male demographic with hair care products.<p>This is all data and algorithms talking, not actual discrimination.<p>Anyone with a son can also point out exactly why boy&#x27;s underwear costs more than girl&#x27;s underwear:  boys get very excited about underwear with characters on it, so parents are less price sensitive on those products.  But according to this story, this is just another form of evil discrimination towards boys wearing underroos.<p>Source:  I help my customers set prices for their product&#x2F;store combinations using data.