Poll: gender imbalance at weekenders

[Dreadful Scathe]

So, women who already get paid less than men, and have to pay more for haircuts, and get stung for VAT on our "luxury items" (meaning tampons)

Women dont need to pay more for haircuts, they chose to - you can go to the barbers like me As for VAT - it has long ceased to be a "luxury tax" when have lighting and heating been "luxury" items

I'd celebrate the fact that we now leave in an equal society
Pity some elements of society are more equal than others

[TiggsTours]

Women dont need to pay more for haircuts, they chose to - you can go to the barbers like me As for VAT - it has long ceased to be a "luxury tax" when have lighting and heating been "luxury" items

I'd celebrate the fact that we now leave in an equal society
Pity some elements of society are more equal than others

I think you'll find that, if I were to try to make an appointment at a barbers, they would tell me its just for men. However, all the unisex salons charge women more than they do men, even though short hair actually takes more styling than long hair. When I used to have waist length hair, I got charged even more!

However, the only reason I put in the bit about hairdressers was to try to show that, once again, I was stressing something serious, in a light hearted fashion!

I did once hear the suggestion that for one month of one year (alone) all women should choose not to buy the "luxury items", I bet the resulting furore that would be caused by that would cause VAT to be dropped immediately! But, like the martyrs we are, we will continue to suffer in silence, in order to save your (meaning men in general) discomfort and embarassment.

[MartinHarper]

All the unisex salons charge women more than they do men, even though short hair actually takes more styling than long hair.

It's interesting that the huge sexist conspiracy against women you're describing takes place in a profession which is largely run by women.

I've got shoulder-length hair myself. Perhaps at the next weekender with a hairdresser, we could run a quick experiment to test out this theory?

[TiggsTours]

It's interesting that the huge sexist conspiracy against women you're describing takes place in a profession which is largely run by women.

I've got shoulder-length hair myself. Perhaps at the next weekender with a hairdresser, we could run a quick experiment to test out this theory?

Are you suggesting its not true? Its a very widely known fact! How much do you spend to get your hair cut? For me, around about £35 - £40, and I don't go to really fancy salons!

http://www.clericalmedical.co.uk/Bus...?id=MZ2005_012

[Dreadful Scathe]

Ive had female friends that have gone to a barbers and got charged the same as a man would have - if thats not the case in other places you are right to be outraged. One time I couldnt find a barbers and went to a "salon" and got charged 27 quid...eeek its usually 8. So I assumed its the quality of the establishment and the kind of "style" you want. My style request of "cut some of it off please" is what cost the 27 pound in the salon I assume a more fussy cut costs you extra.

Saying that, I am of course aware there are imbalances in the world - hopefully most of them can be addressed or they balance themselves out. Any more examples anyone ?

[ducasi]

I'd celebrate the fact that we now leave in an equal society
...

Freudian slap?

[David Bailey]

I think you'll find that, if I were to try to make an appointment at a barbers, they would tell me its just for men. However, all the unisex salons charge women more than they do men, even though short hair actually takes more styling than long hair. When I used to have waist length hair, I got charged even more!

I agree, female hairdressing is indeed a rip-off, if you compare it "haircut-for-haircut". £30-50 quid for a women, £6-10 for a man, slight difference...

However, I suspect female hairdressers would defend their prices on the basis of selling an "experience"; the theory being that women often get their hair done to feel good, whereas men just want shorter hair. Additionally, women can take an hour or two; men usually get done in £15 minutes.

I don't say I agree with it - and certainly if you're a woman and "just want shorter hair", you're being ripped-off. But that's the argument.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Freudian slap?

I left the equal society. I have my own society now

[MartinHarper]

If you compare it "haircut-for-haircut". £30-50 quid for a women, £6-10 for a man, slight difference...

If a woman goes into a barber's and asks for a grade 4 all over, she'll pay the same price as a guy, and get some funny looks for free.

[TiggsTours]

I agree, female hairdressing is indeed a rip-off, if you compare it "haircut-for-haircut". £30-50 quid for a women, £6-10 for a man, slight difference...

However, I suspect female hairdressers would defend their prices on the basis of selling an "experience"; the theory being that women often get their hair done to feel good, whereas men just want shorter hair. Additionally, women can take an hour or two; men usually get done in £15 minutes.

I don't say I agree with it - and certainly if you're a woman and "just want shorter hair", you're being ripped-off. But that's the argument.

I hate going to the hairdresser, the only nice bit is having your hair washed by someone else, and I'm usually in the chair for about 25 mins.

In my hairdressers, last time I was there, there was a man in there having his done, his was already being cut before mine was even washed, and he paid at about the time they started drying mine (which takes about 10 mins), his haircut was £11, mine was £35.

You can tell me to change hairdressers if you like, but they are all the same, if you ask for a quote for a haircut, without them even seeing you, they will quote far more for a woman than for a man.

Anyway, this has all come out of a throw away, light hearted comment! Why is everyone making a big deal out of it! Why is everyone determined to make me look like the big bad monster in all this!

[stewart38]

That's our tough luck. It's not fair, but neither is life. Sure I would be disappointed. But I'd be even more disappointed if I'd spent £100-odd on a weekender and spent half of every freestyle anxiously looking for my next partner, worrying about whether I should approach them to ask for a dance or whether I should let them rest/pick their own partner, standing on the sidelines.... blah blah blah. I was way more p***ed off after the 20+ women over night at Chesham on a regular freestyle night than I was about not being able to go to Greenwich because I'd left it too late - I've learned my lesson for next time

Well chesham is more even now and over all nos are way down on Monday

Its not 'tough luck' its a imbalance that needs to be addressed, its done on dance holidays so why not weekenders ?

It would get worse, i bet 3 times as many women have already put a deposit for Southport June 2006 . I bet my feb wont be any more women places till a few come up by May following cancellations ?

[stewart38]

I think you'll find that, if I were to try to make an appointment at a barbers, they would tell me ............

your having a laugh, what hair

[David Bailey]

I hate going to the hairdresser, the only nice bit is having your hair washed by someone else, and I'm usually in the chair for about 25 mins.

In my hairdressers, last time I was there, there was a man in there having his done, his was already being cut before mine was even washed, and he paid at about the time they started drying mine (which takes about 10 mins), his haircut was £11, mine was £35.

For what it's worth, I don't agree with it, but those are just the arguments I've heard.

If you're a woman, and you go to a hairdresser's, you'll be ripped-off.
But then, if you buy perfume, you'll be ripped-off.
If you buy expensive clothes, you'll be ripped-off.
If you... Notice a pattern here?

Bottom line; lots of women spend lots of money on "image" products and services, and a lot of that money is spent on "intangible" feel-good factors. Or, from a male perspective, you're being ripped-off.

It's a con, I agree. But as it's not me being ripped-off, I'm not so steamed-up about it.

Anyway, this has all come out of a throw away, light hearted comment! Why is everyone making a big deal out of it! Why is everyone determined to make me look like the big bad monster in all this!

I'm not, I'm supporting you - I think you're being ripped-off. In case you missed that...

Admittedly, the difference between me supporting someone and me attacking someone may be a little unclear, what with all the auto-sarky-comment mode I normally operate in

And we should all be used to threads being mutated out of shape by now - sit back and enjoy it, that's what I say.

your having a laugh, what hair

- one benefit of being follically-challenged is the money you save by using clippers.

[TiggsTours]

If you buy expensive clothes, you'll be ripped-off.

A-ha! Now this is one place I feel we get our own back, women's suits, always cheaper than mens!

[LMC]

Its not 'tough luck' its a imbalance that needs to be addressed, its done on dance holidays so why not weekenders ?

I don't understand what the "it" is that you are referring to.

If you are saying that gender is balanced on dance holidays but women and men are still charged the same, then that's the same as Storm or Southport - some women who want to go may not be able to go. If gender is not balanced on dance holidays then I certainly wouldn't want to spend upwards of £500 to spend time on the sidelines.

Dancing is a hobby of choice, not something that is forced upon us. So I maintain that if a woman is unable to go on a dance holiday or a weekender - or to the Greenwich freestyle - because the organiser wants to gender balance then that is tough luck - she should have booked earlier. That includes me.

As I said, it's not fair - but neither is life. More women dance than men. So we either have to a) learn to deal with the consequences - which may mean not being able to go somewhere or b) get more men dancing.

[TiggsTours]

I don't understand what the "it" is that you are referring to.

If you are saying that gender is balanced on dance holidays but women and men are still charged the same, then that's the same as Storm or Southport - some women who want to go may not be able to go. If gender is not balanced on dance holidays then I certainly wouldn't want to spend upwards of £500 to spend time on the sidelines.

Dancing is a hobby of choice, not something that is forced upon us. So I maintain that if a woman is unable to go on a dance holiday or a weekender - or to the Greenwich freestyle - because the organiser wants to gender balance then that is tough luck - she should have booked earlier. That includes me.

As I said, it's not fair - but neither is life. More women dance than men. So we either have to a) learn to deal with the consequences - which may mean not being able to go somewhere or b) get more men dancing.

The only thing I don't think we should have to do is, PAY MORE!

[David Bailey]

The only thing I don't think we should have to do is, PAY MORE!

Yes, I think that's pretty clear from the poll results - interesting, because I'd generally pay more for a higher-quality experience. So all thse cunning varying-price models are pretty much pointless, as it looks like women don't want that method. (Small-and-unrepresentative sample caveats apply).

But yes, it looks like the "number-restriction" route is the most popular. Assuming the organisers don't get sued to smithereens for sex discrimination of course

[TiggsTours]

Yes, I think that's pretty clear from the poll results - interesting, because I'd generally pay more for a higher-quality experience. So all thse cunning varying-price models are pretty much pointless, as it looks like women don't want that method. (Small-and-unrepresentative sample caveats apply).

But yes, it looks like the "number-restriction" route is the most popular. Assuming the organisers don't get sued to smithereens for sex discrimination of course

Maybe your poll isn't clear, I would say that a weekender without a gender imbalance is a better weekend, if that takes more work for the organisers, and so puts up the administration costs, I'd be happy to pay more to get it, but, I wouldn't be happy to pay more than the men that are there, which is how your poll reads (to me, at least).

As for them being sued, that wouldn't be possible, they are purely controlling numbers, not discriminating. If more men booked than women, they would have to put out announcements that they are not taking bookings for men.

[stewart38]

I don't understand what the "it" is that you are referring to.

If you are saying that gender is balanced on dance holidays but women and men are still charged the same, then that's the same as Storm or Southport - some women who want to go may not be able to go. If gender is not balanced on dance holidays then I certainly wouldn't want to spend upwards of £500 to spend time on the sidelines.

Dancing is a hobby of choice, not something that is forced upon us. So I maintain that if a woman is unable to go on a dance holiday or a weekender - or to the Greenwich freestyle - because the organiser wants to gender balance then that is tough luck - she should have booked earlier. That includes me.

As I said, it's not fair - but neither is life. More women dance than men. So we either have to a) learn to deal with the consequences - which may mean not being able to go somewhere or b) get more men dancing.

The reason why more women want to go to Greenwich is men find the music a little too 'different'

As I said before the Barcelona holiday promoted men places by offering a £25 discount for men if they booked during a promotional period, which i think lasted a week ? (The fliers were at Bisley at the time)

So instead of addressing the issue by saying tough qu) how do you get more men dancing (at weekenders)

How ?? mmmmm economics !

Its ok for women on this forum who account for 3 or 4 % of all female dancers who have all inside info and lets face have probably book for Southport 2012 already. I'm looking at a praticle solutions for my 'fellow' sisters who come to me with sad little faces and say they didnt 'hear' about Southport June 2006 until April 2006 and by then it was too late

[stewart38]

As for them being sued, that wouldn't be possible, they are purely controlling numbers, not discriminating. If more men booked than women, they would have to put out announcements that they are not taking bookings for men.

Positive sexual discrimination, i had though about this