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.