As a college student living on my own and paying for a lot of my own expenses, I’ve started to really take notice of the cost of all of my necessary items. It was a little shocking to realize how expensive little things such as razors, deodorant, and other necessary hygiene items cost. I began to hear in the media about something called “pink tax” on items like razors and other feminine products. After more research, I found that pink tax not only applies to razors and shaving cream, but the prices of numerous women’s products and services are priced higher than men’s. This has issued a debate as to whether or not this so-called pink tax is a form of gender discrimination against women. In this column, both sides of the argument will be analyzed to demonstrate how the pink tax truly is facilitating gender discrimination towards women.
Although the term “pink tax” has been coined recently, price differences in products and services between men and women have been around for years. Let’s dive into the history of gender discrimination in pricing. According to Rocket HQ, “Before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010 and prohibited the practice, health insurers routinely charged women higher monthly premiums than men. The rationale for charging women more for health insurance was that women have more health – specifically, reproductive – costs than men” (The Pink Tax: What Is It And How Can I Avoid It, 1). This rationale is still present today as to why many women’s products and services are more expensive than men’s. Some claim that women’s haircuts are more expensive than men’s because cutting women’s hair is a more complicated process. However, this logic is flawed when you look at other situations such as the car industry. The car industry has used manipulation tactics on women for years to get more money out of them. According to a study, “In 1991,YaleLaw professor Ian Ayres found that car dealerships were systematically offering better prices on identical cars to white men than they were for black or women shoppers” (The Pink Tax: What Is It And How Can I Avoid It, 1). This doesn’t stop at the selling of cars; women are often charged more for car repairs as well. The Affordable Care Act and other legislation have been put into place to prevent racial discrimination in health care and other settings, but this has still not been achieved at the product level. That is why people are still fighting against the pink tax and demanding that there be changes made to ensure that goods are priced equally for men and women. Although some historical gender discrimination has been righted by legislation, the debate is whether or not the current pink tax on products is still discriminating against women or if it is just normal economics.
“Lawmakers have found it more difficult to regulate the pricing of goods, as evidenced by the 2016 legislative attempt in California to update its law to include prohibition of gender-based discrimination on goods. The bill was ultimately withdrawn following criticism that it could open a door for excessive litigation. A similar bill is currently moving through the New York State Assembly” (The Pink Tax: What Is It And How Can I Avoid It, 1).
There are copious examples of evidence that demonstrate the higher prices of women’s items. Pink tax is seen the most in personal care items such as razors, deodorant, medicine, and even in items like clothes and children’s toys. 
According to Dora Mekouar, “The price differences suggest women pay a yearly “gender tax” of about $1,351, despite buying the same products and services as men” (Mekouar, 1). Although the price differences may seem small on individual items, this shows how much they can add up over the course of a year. Image the cost difference over an entire lifetime. The New York City Department of Affairs conducted a report on pink tax. They examined 794 products that were comparable between the men and women’s version. They also used 91 different brands in the study. The study included, “five different industries, such as persona
l care products or senior/home healthcare products. These encompassed 35 product categories, such as body wash or shampoo. In every single of those five industries, consumer goods marketed to women and girls cost more. The same was the case in all but five of the 35 product categories” (Pink Tax: The Real Cost of Gender-Based Pricing, 1). The evidence from the study was overwhelming in proving that pink tax is legitimate in almost all categories of consumer goods. Women are faced with higher prices on a multitude of items that they need to purchase for everyday use. Some arguments say that women’s products may cost more to make, however, when looking at the price of children’s toys, that argument loses some validity. Many girl’s children’s toys are more expensive than boys. According to a study, “Researchers looked at 106 products in the toys and accessories category and found that, on average, those intended for girls were priced 7 percent higher” (Pink Tax: The Real Cost of Gender-Based Pricing, 1). Companies will sell the exact same toy, however, the pink version meant for girls will be priced higher than the blue or red version meant for boys. 
A simple color change does not justify an increase in price. This is again seen with personal care products, for example, a five-pack of Schick Hydro cartridges in purple packaging cost $18.49, while the same count of Schick Hydro refills in blue packaging cost $14.99” (Pink Tax: The Real Cost of Gender-Based Pricing, 1). These examples demonstrate how the price increases on many women’s and girl’s products are unfair and unjust as they are not due to any valid cost differences. These demonstrate the gender discrimination that companies exploit in their marketing and pricing to get women to spend more money on items that they need for everyday life. Without legislation to disallow these practices, corporations will continue to exploit the needs of women.
The other side of the debate’s argument is that there if sensible reasoning as to why the women’s products are priced higher. They claim that price differences are simply due to differences in audience and production costs and should not be considered gender discrimination. According to research, “women are more likely to pay more to buy an exact product that addresses an exact need that they are looking for, and the brands supply this demand with these curated products” (Faber, 1). For example, if women have frizzy hair, they are likely to buy a shampoo that specifically targets frizzy hair rather than a more general option. They claim that, “extra varied products cost money to research and formulate, and graphic designers and marketers are then needed to make the product a reality that is added to the array of products on your local Walgreen’s shelves” (Faber, 1). Although this information is valid and makes sense, it is not explaining the price differences in comparable products like the Schick razors or Dove deodorant that are basically the same product at different prices. The differences in the pricing of identical products is what illuminates the injustice and gender discrimination of pink tax.
Although some women’s products may cost more to produce than others, that does not change the fact that women are being charged more than men for comparable and even almost identical products. Corporations are unfairly targeting women and charging them heightened prices for essential products. Not only is this happening to women, but companies are targeting young girls as well as seen in the pricing discrepancies in toys and clothing. Legislation has ended gender discrimination in the past in other industries but has failed thus far to end it in the product industry. Although we have not touched on gender discrimination much in this class, we have addressed other types such as racial discrimination. For example, in the novel “March”, black freedom fighters used many methods to demand changes in legislation such as sit ins, protests, and marches. Legislation has not yet been able to be passed on pink tax, therefore there is still work to be done in order to right this injustice. Without change, the market will still target women with higher priced items as long as we continue to pay for them. I leave you with the following actions that you can take to fight against the gender discrimination of pink tax:
- support companies that provide gender-neutral pricing of their products
- buy more gender-neutral items while shopping to avoid pink tax and boycott the products that companies are unjustly inflating the price of
- always compare prices when shopping to make yourself aware of pink tax items
- Talk to state representatives, retailers, and educate others on social media regarding this issue. Your voice can make a difference!
Sources:
Faber, Faith. “Pink Tax? Economically It Makes Sense.” The Index, 11 Nov. 2019, www.thekzooindex.com/pink-tax-economically-it-makes-sense/#:~:text=Pink%20Tax%20is%20the%20idea,is%20a%20discrimination%20against%20women.&text=Women’s%20products%20and%20men’s%20products,to%20economics%20rather%20than%20discrimination.
Mekouar, Dora. “Does ‘Pink Tax’ Force Women to Pay More than Men?” Voice of America, www.voanews.com/usa/all-about-america/does-pink-tax-force-women-pay-more-men.
Pink Tax: The Real Cost of Gender-Based Pricing. www.healthline.com/health/the-real-cost-of-pink-tax.
“The Pink Tax: What Is It And How Can I Avoid It?” Rocket HQ, Rocket HQ, 21 Sept. 2020, www.rockethq.com/learn/personal-finances/the-pink-tax-what-is-it-and-how-can-i-avoid-it#:~:text=One%20side%20argues%20that%20the,fought%20or%20even%20regulated%20against.