Why should I pay for yours?
Sure, some women do indeed take haircuts that are similar to male. But the vast majority don’t, which rather neatly explains why female haircuts cost a different amount from male.
One pretty obvious note to make is that the distaff stuff takes longer – and the labourer is worthy of their hire, no?
The vast gulf between haircut pricing for men and women is unjust. I live on a London street with a number of hairdressers and barbers. My boyfriend can get a haircut at the Turkish barber for £12. The cheapest option for a woman’s haircut is £53, and they won’t even wash your hair for that. (Charging extra for a wash is an unforgivable hairdressing scam, as if dunking your hair in a basin of tepid water is worth £30.)
It’a amazing that a woman can have been an adult for some years and not have worked this out. Her suggestion is:
But charging women triple or even quadruple for a service that is basically the same as the one men get doesn’t sit right. A fairer system would be for hairdressers to price haircuts based on the length of time they take, regardless of gender.
Idiot. The gender price difference is a proxy for the time difference.
(This is the approach used by the hairdressing chain Chop Chop, which I have visited in the past, and I can confirm: the haircut was fine.)
And if this is what everyone wanted then all would already be going to Chop Chop, eh? Which is the thing that really grates here. The consumer choice she desires is already available but still she whines. Presumably we’ve failed her but not making her approved choice.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
When I paid for haircuts, they never washed my hair. Waaaaaaaah!!!
Now I cut it myself. After all, I don't have to look at me.
To be fair the version of the story I read (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50691249) was complaining of being charged more even when they wanted a male haircut that would presumably take the same amount of time as on a male. And that is the point in the quote of why aren't haircuts priced just by the amount of time they take.
There are some justifications for this (valid or not) such as
1) Women seem prepared to pay more, partly probably as the see a visit to the hairdresser as an experience (being pampered and having someone wash your hair for you) whilst the majority of men probably just see it as a chore.
2) The training and skill needed to be a hairdresser rather than a barber is undoubtedly higher, even if you are only occupying their chair for a trivial cut, the skills of the hairdresser remain the same and they are charging what they think their skills are worth.
3) Some barbers will only cut men's hair as they won't touch women for cultural/religious reasons.
4) Charging by the minute is great in theory, but in practice people tend to want to know fixed and consistent costs, otherwise you start getting arguments of the hairdresser is deliberately being slow or taking longer than needed (or might just being careful, or ill/hung over and so slower) which tends to break the atmosphere.
So I do think it is a fair question to ask, particularly when apparently people are turning her business away. Its a shame the article didn't try and answer it (e.g. go to the barbers and ask them why). It might be a sign that their is a niche in the market ripe for exploitation, or she might be part of such a small market that things won't change.
Here in the sticks I pay £7.50 (+£2.50 tip) to my man for his efforts: two minutes, number 3. The good lady pays £80.00 and considers it a steal (in comparison to what she used to pay in London). Her hairdresser is something of an artist; mine is half-blind, has shaky hands and is of a liability (but needs the business and is good for local gossip).
Yikes! don't want to know about your surgeon
Two of my previous GPs died from drink and drugs.
My headmaster topped himself too.
Lots of ladies have haircuts similar to males haircuts nowadays and my barber caters for both, and doesn't charge ladies any more than the males.
Time was when men and women got their hair done in different places: men at the barber shop; women at the hairdresser. Then when fashionable young men decided they wanted more than just short back and sides and something off the top shelf for the weekend, perms and colouring for example, Bob the barber was not up to it, so men started to go to ‘unisex’ hairdressers who charged men more for theses services.
Women never just want a haircut like a man, they want it styled which takes longer, more skill.
Well, then. Quite clearly there are excess profits to be made from being a ladies hairdresser, so why are there not more of them? Perhaps because excess profits are not being made....
Mrs G’s current hairdresser has just purchased a new shiny Range Rover. Her London hairdresser drove a Porsche and owned a yacht. There really is lots of money in ladies hairdressing.
Hair is important. Women can wear whatever they want, can afford, but a decent haircut defines them, their social status.
The subject of the price of haircuts should be the core of a massive post-doctoral thesis in economics. There are multiple inputs - most significantly the productivity and pay of industrial workers (so Tokyo had the most epensive haircuts in the world in the 1970s), the "real" value of the median wage, legislation/regulation, fashion and whether the customer really cares about the result which are far more important than the skill and time involved. Sixty years ago my short-back-and-sides cost 1s 6d (four-and-a-half-Mars Bars). Now it costs £9 (15 Mars Bars) so it has trebled in price. The skill and time involved have both increased but not to the extent of doubling, let alone trebling, the price.
The main reason why women pay more is that they care more about how their hair looks. I shall never get my hair dyed to hide the fact I am going grey: most women (when they get to that stage) do. It is their choice so the Grauniad would, quite rightly, denounce us if we said that they may not do so.
Don't pick the barber with the best looking haircut. One of the other barbers did it.
She has a bit of a point, the price should reflect the work involved, a complicated male haircut should cost more than a very simple female. However, life seldom affords us all the luxury of fine tuning every detail or process to achieve "fairness". If she has a simple haircut she could presumably negotiate with the stylist. All that said, I will note that in my experience not only do women require more complicated styling, they are rarely happy with the results and often require a couple of touch ups to get to "OK". I'd also note that most men are happy if they're in and out in flash, most women would perceive a fast cut as a rush job, no matter how it looks.