The Pink Tax: The Cost of Being Female

The 167 million females across our nation, should not have to suffer for being healthy women. However, adding an additional tax on products that we NEED to use, is saying that there is a cost of being a woman. Claiming that the pink tax is justified is feeding into sexism, discrimination and everything our generation is trying to fix. The pink tax affects women all across our nation, but what is it really? Well, gender-based pricing is an upcharge on products that are intended for women with no cosmetic differences from comparable products traditionally intended for men. It's not a tax, rather a phenomenon. Research shows that toys, clothing and personal hygiene products such as shampoo, deodorant and razors cost more if they are marketed to females than men. The discrepancy in the costs is called the 'pink tax' as sometimes the only difference between products is the colour. There are clearly many negative repercussions, in specific being the fact that it exists for no reason, it is extremely discriminatory, and it is incredibly harmful on so many women.

Let's start with the it’s purpose, or lack thereof. The market values a particular good or service a certain way. The more expensive a product is, it should have increased features. It should be qualitatively different. But in the case of the deodorant and razors, that are popularly marked up for females, it is clear that women are not paying more because their version of the products are better. They’re paying more because of marketing. There is nothing that sets certain womens’ products aside from the same mens’ items. Many people who advocate for the pink tax believe that it is rooted from the different tendencies that occur within the different genders. The argument that women are willing to pay more for a product is similar to the logic behind the idea in the wage gap. Women care more about personal care so will pay more, compared to women who are willing to work for less, so pay them less.

Secondly, the pink tax is insanely discriminatory. “Taxing” women specifically for products that are slapped with a pink label is blatant discrimination. It is not justified to markup products intended for women when there are no real differences that set these products apart from men’s items. This tax cannot harm men because it only affects products that are directly aimed at women making the pink tax definitely discriminatory on the basis of sex. This hereby fits the definition of discrimination. We are secluding men from a tax that they don’t have to pay, that women must suffer because they were born with two X chromosomes. To show an example of this in real life, Ace Hardware made identical hotel kits, with the same products inside. However, with the Pink Tax the one made for “her” was $2.40 more than the one made for “him”. The pink tax affirms the idea that an item that is intended for a woman should cost more than the same product for men. It provides a further gender divide in society both economically and socially. We think that we have escaped the time of sexism and discrimination against gender, but the Pink Tax goes right against it.

Lastly, the pink tax is harmful! A gender wage gap already exists and adding the extra weight burdens millions and harms women. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, women still only make about 80.5 cents for every dollar men make in the same occupation. Additionally, the pink tax has cost a 30-year-old woman more than $40,000. A woman in her 60s will cough up nearly $82,000 in fees that men don’t have to pay. The economic impact of the pink tax is that women have less purchasing power, especially paired with the gender-based pay gap. The wage gap already puts women at a disadvantage when it comes to purchasing power. The pink tax is detrimental to the livelihood of women all across our country and is unjustified.

As far as what is happening right now, Rep. Jackie Speier proposed a bill called The Pink Tax Repeal Act. With the intention to abolish the pricing of products that are similar to other products that are priced differently because of the gender they were marketed for. The bill was introduced twice before in 2018 and 2016, but never received a vote, although the house was controlled by Republicans both times. Supporters of the bill argue that it levels the playing field, rather than economic punishment based on fixed characteristics. The pink tax has many harms and is a burden that affects so many people. It is unjustified and should cease to exist.