The ugly glare of that dull, silver blade resting on the edge of your bathtub has finally given you its last hurrah. The time has come to buy a new pack of razor blades. You finally make it to the store and buy that shiny pink case of Venus blades and can practically smell the 69 cent up-charge for the decorative pink box. Eyes are rolled and a long, silent groan at dropping $14 for six cartridges that last about a week each (unless you’re one of those people who enjoy dry, flaky skin and a subtle but still noticeable 5 o’clock shadow around 3:30) is voiced. However, around October of last year, revelation struck.

I joined the dollar shave club.

And while I actually pay $3 for the "dollar blades," I have never experienced such bliss. Or silkiness. Or utter leg softness. My eyes have been forever opened: men’s razors are way better than women’s razors. Now, the dollar shave club is not just for men, nor does market specifically to men. Hello gender neutrality!

Now this should make you think. Men use razors to shave; women also use razors to shave. So why do women pay so much more for the same damn thing? Great question.

There’s really no great answer, though.

A good place to start is defining The Pink Tax.

The pink tax refers to the extra amount women are charged for certain products or services. Things like dry cleaning, personal care products and vehicle maintenance.

This is also referred to as marketing Bullsh*t.

So many utensils and other household items have been gendered over the past several years that society now associates certain things with one gender or another.

Marketing specialists, excuse me, “specialists” have decided that mundane objects everybody uses need to be gendered. Like Q-tips.

Note the "detailing" feature on the packaging; women’s Q-tips definitely lack that necessary dynamic for a cotton swap to be a “man's” tool.

Or tissues FOR MEN.

And, of course, Bic pens for her.

Because our fragile, feminine hands need special pens that, of course, have to be pink. Duh!

And in the words of Ellen, "We've been using man pens all these years." Thank God we have averted this crisis.

For a thorough list of unnecessarily gendered items, go here.

So hey, marketing specialists! Sorry not sorry, I’m a girl and as partial as I am to pink, my impartiality to paying more for something just because it’s classified as a femalecolor is not even measurable.

But for hundreds, if not thousands of years, humanity has separated men and women by their preferences of “male” colors and “female” colors. Because blue is a manly color and pink is feminine. And that’s how it’s always been.

Wait.

LOL, no.

Shout out to the clothing manufacturers of the 40s who forever set the stereotype that girls are meant to have pink things and boys blue things. But it wasn’t always like that.

Pink actually used to be a gender neutral color and was used to “brighten the mood” in rooms. Even in the early 20^th century, toddlers didn’t wear pink or blue, they wore white because it was easy to clean (and babies were as gross and messy in the 1900s as they are today). Oh, and boys also wore dresses because, you guessed it, it was easier to clean a baby's rump when they’re wearing a dress rather than very small trousers.

But by 1927, Time magazine came out with the claim that pink was a dainty color and made for women, whereas blue was a strong color and better suited males. But this was pretty much disregarded because why should people pay more money on buying color schemes that depend on gender? Yeah, those risqué flappers and alcohol-starved socialites didn’t think so either. But by the time the World War II was coming to an end, clothing manufactures decided with the discovery of cheap, washable clothing dyes, changes had to be made for the fashion industry. So, in the end, girls wear pink and boys wear blue so retailers could make more money. Surprise!

And unnecessarily gendered products are a marketing ploy to cater to advocates of gender separation? You don’t say.