Monday, August 18, 2008
Why Do Women Pay More for a Haircut?
My stylist is truly democratic. And just how can I make such an observation about her? Well, for starters, she charges the same amount to both men and women for a haircut. Whether she's cutting an inch off of my hair, or five inches off of my male folks, she unwaveringly abides by her cutting principles. A haircut is a haircut and the price is the same for all. Liberty, justice, and equality of clipping charges to all.
Hence, when doing my quotidian newspaper reading this morning, I was a tad flummoxed upon reading this. A bit says:
"Trying to keep your hairstyle in line with Agyness Deyn's latest androgynous do can be expensive for a girl. A monthly trim at a unisex salon costs around £40. But, if you're a man, you'll pay up to half that for the same haircut.
For decades, it's been standard practice for hairdressers to charge women more for haircuts, based on the idea that women have longer hair and therefore their cuts take longer and require more expertise. No allowance has been made for the increasing popularity of short hair on women, particularly with the current trend for boyish crops, like mine. Indeed, when I went for my monthly trim last week, I found that the price had gone up £5 to £45, while the price of men's cuts had risen only £2 to £28. I was so insensed, I decided to seek legal advice.
"Recent amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act in April have strengthened the protection from sex discrimination, not just at work, but also in the wider world, from businesses who discriminate against individuals in the goods and services they offer," says Samantha Mangwana at Russell Jones & Walker. "Where a man and woman have the same haircut, and the same skills are required, the salon is acting unlawfully to charge them different prices. There does not appear to be any justification for the cost difference," she says."
What say ye?
graph per guardian.co