'If I charge the same price for women as I do for men, I'll go broke' Hairdresser, Edward Beale
'... if it's a basic trim, the same as a man would have, there shouldn't be a price difference' Complainant, Ms Amanda Atkins

On October 11, 1999, Ms Amanda Atkins, 23, made a formal complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission, claiming she had been discriminated against because of her gender. Ms Atkins had been charged $56 for a hair cut at Edward Beale's Toorak salon. On the same day, at the same salon, a man had received a very similar hair cut and been charged $38. Those opposed to the price difference maintain that the Equal Opportunity Act prohibits gender-based discrimination in the provision of goods and services. Supporters of the different pricing regimes argue that they are not the result of gender discrimination.

Background
Gender pricing is not specifically illegal in Victoria. Its critics claim that it is effectively made illegal by provisions of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act.

It has been taken up as an issue in recent years by a number of consumer affairs organisations, including the Consumer Law Centre of Victoria. Amanda Atkins is being represented before the Equal Opportunity Commission by lawyer Chris Field, who is the director of the Consumer Law Centre of Victoria. In the United States, gender pricing appears to be an issue which has attracted more consumer and legislative attention. It is specifically illegal in some states and counties.

Arguments against women paying more for services such as hairdressing
The main argument offered against women being charged more than men for services such as hairdressing is that this practice is discriminatory.
According to this line of argument, where the difference in the cost of a service is based on no more than the fact that it is a woman who is receiving the service then this is unjust.
Those who hold this view maintain that if it takes the same length of time and degree of skill to give a woman a certain type of haircut as it does to give that haircut to a man then they should pay the same price for the service.
This point has been made by Ms Amanda Atkins, who has lodged a complaint against Edward Beale's Toorak salon.
Ms Atkins has stated, '... if it's a basic trim, the same as a man would have, there shouldn't be a price difference.'
This point has also been made by The Herald Sun in an editorial published on October 12, 1999.
The editorial states, 'Most people would agree that it is reasonable to expect that the charge should be the same for equal work, regardless of gender.'
Critics of gender pricing do not object to price differences where a different service is being supplied.
This point has been made by Ms Atkins, who has stated, 'If a woman gets a fancy, complicated style, yes, I understand she should pay more.'
It is suggested that price differences should be based on fair and objective criteria such as the level of skill required to supply a particular service and the length of time it takes.
The Herald Sun's editorial of October 12, 1999, puts this position.
The editorial states, 'Hairdressers should start charging by the hour.'
The same point has been made by The Age in its editorial of October 14, 1999.
This editorial claims, 'A haircut is a haircut, whatever the sex of the person beneath it.
A hairdressing service should be priced according to the complexity of the task and the length of time taken to complete it, not according to the gender of the customer.'
It has further been argued that not only is gender pricing unfair in principle, it is also illegal.
This point has been made by Mr Chris Field.
Mr Field is the director of the Consumer Law Centre of Victoria and is representing Ms Atkins before the Equal Opportunity Commission.
Mr Field has stated, 'The Equal Opportunity Act makes it illegal to discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sex alone.
We think this is a very clear case of discrimination and we want it stopped.'
It has further been claimed that gender pricing which discriminates against women is particularly inequitable as women are generally less well paid than men and so are less able to afford to pay more for services.
The general point has been made that it is because women are generally less welthy and less influetial than men that they are charged more for some goods and services.
This point has been made by The Age in an editorial published on October 14, 1999.
The editorial states, 'American psychological studies suggest power in the marketplace is linked to a person's perceived social standing ... [It has been found] that black women had the least bargaining power in negotiations and so paid the highest prices. White men were accommodated with the best deals.'
It has further been claimed that discriminatory practices are not confined to hairdressers.
It has been suggested that drycleaners, car dealerships and banks, in the provision of credit facilities, all sometimes appear to discriminate against women.
Finally, it has been argued that this issue is not one that affects only women. Critics of gender pricing are also opposed to men being charged more or treated less favourably purely on the basis of their gender.
Ms Anne Hall, co-convenor of the Women's Electoral Lobby, has stated, 'If someone felt they were being discriminated against on the basis of gender, whether they are males or females ... they should feel the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission is an avenue to hear their complaint.'

Further implications
It will be interesting to note what ruling the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission makes with regard to Ms Atkins complaint. Whatever the final ruling, the mere fact that Ms Atkins has made the complaint and that it has received substantial publicity is likely to affect many hairdressers' pricing practices. It is also likely to affect some women's willingness to continue paying higher prices for essentially the same service.
What is likely to be the effective outcome of this issue is that many hairdressers will start itemising the different components of their services, so that it is clear that a customer is being charged according to the type and quality of the service he or she has received, not according to their gender.
This appears to have been one of the consequences of anti-gender pricing legislation in the United States.
It may be that the Equal Opportunity Commission will actually require all service providers who charge different rates for different genders to demonstrate in their promotional material that these price differences are based on the quality of the service, not the sex of the customer.
The Consumer Law Centre of Victoria has indicated that it sees the current case as the start of a wider campaign and that it will challenge instances of gender pricing wherever it finds them.

Sources
The Age
11/10/99 page 4 news item by Darrin Farrant, 'Hair salon accused of pricing by gender'
12/10/99 page 4 news item by Darrin Farrant, 'Tonsorial tariff splits hairs on sex and labor'
12/10/99 page 8 news item by Sue Cant, 'Chat is cheap if you're a chick'
13/10/99 page 3 news item by Farah Farouque, 'Women's lib doesn't reach the shopping mall'
13/10/99 page 16 letter from Leisha Browning, 'The right to be charged equally'
14/10/99 page 16 editorial, 'Female customers are being clipped'

The Australian
12/10/99 page 3 news item by Nicole Strahan, 'It's a cut and dried landmark legal case'

The Herald Sun
11/10/99 page 9 news item by Fiona Hudson, 'Hair cutter sued over price snip'
12/10/99 page 9 news item by Fiona Hudson, 'Hair tizz at cut prices'
12/10/99 page 18 editorial, 'Keep your hair on'
15/10/99 page 21 comment by Sally Morrell, 'A snip at half the price'

Who Weekly
25/10/99 page 47 news item by Karina Machado, 'Cut and tried'