A reader writes:
I’m sympathetic to most cases of gender pricing, but some of these examples are a bit silly. Deodorant? The reason women pay more for deodorant is because they’re willing to pay more for their deodorant. Laying everything at the market’s feet can often times be lame, but this is a perfect example of it. If women wanted cheaper deodorant, cheaper deodorant would be available. Or is there a company that has a monopoly on the women’s market? The same can most certainly be said of razors, and a host of other products. Again, this isn’t excusing all cases of this, but let’s be serious.
Another writes:
One detail in response to Lea Goldman's claim that women pay more for mortgages: The authors (one of which is female) of this paper researched that question and concluded that the behavioral way in which women select a lender explains much of the gender disparity:
While the persistence of gender disparity may suggest discrimination, we offer a different explanation: women pay higher rates because they are more likely to choose lenders by recommendation while men tend to search for the lowest rate. Our empirical test confirms that search effort is rewarded in the marketplace, and suggests that gender disparity in mortgage rates may be addressed by policies aimed at improving women’s financial literacy and search skills.