It’s 2023, and it’s still expensive to be a woman. From razors and deodorant to housing and healthcare, women spend — on average — $1,350 more than men on similar products and services each year. The culprit: the “pink tax.”
While not a literal tax, the term refers to a general price markup of products marketed towards women, such as shampoo, body wash, toothbrushes, haircuts, clothing, skin care, nail products, supplements and more. Even girls’ toys — sometimes indistinguishable except for color — can cost as much as double the price of a similar product marketed to boys. It is necessary that gender-based pricing is regulated and that female consumers are aware of the pink tax in order to form smarter consumption habits.
In 2011, Bic released a line of “Bic for Her” purple-and-pink-inked pens, boasting the slogans “Look Like a Girl” and “Think Like a Man.” They were marketed as pens that suit a girl’s style and add pop and personality, but were priced up to 70% more than the company’s regular pens. The line was discontinued in 2016, but similar products persist: Sleep Pretty in Pink ear plugs, pink Ouija boards and — let’s not forget — “A Modern Girl’s Guide to Granny Squares,” a book about crochet blocks, seemingly a no-boys territory, were all subjected to markups based on gender.
Children aren’t safe from gendered marketing and the pink tax either. A 2015 study from the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs revealed stark differences in prices between scooters, helmets, backpacks, toys and clothing meant for girls versus boys. On average, girls’ toys and accessories cost more than boys’ 7% of the time. The prices of the exact same stroller cars on Amazon differ by almost $4, the only distinction being that one is blue, and the other pink. The study also revealed that women’s products across all categories (including apparel and personal care items) cost more than men’s products 42% of the time.
However, gender-based pricing stretches far beyond just personal care products. A data analysis from Jerry, an insurance comparison company, revealed that women pay up to $37,000 more than men for home and car ownership, which includes buying, selling, maintenance and insurance. Women also pay a 0.04% higher mortgage rate, which can account for nearly a $13,000 difference in the average first mortgage in the United States.
Certain expenses can’t be helped. According to Comper, a beauty research and manufacturing company, the average woman in the U.S. spends about $40 per month on makeup, which is far less popular among male consumers. When it comes to healthcare, men don’t require the menstrual products and gynecological care that women do, which includes regular checkups, pregnancy exams and menopause care. But even required items like pads and tampons can be out of reach. In 21 states, period products are still taxed as luxury items — and thus considered non-essential — which contributes to a phenomenon called “period poverty,” or an inaccessibility to menstrual hygiene items, particularly for low-income period-havers. A study about period poverty’s impact on students in the U.S. showed that 20% of the country’s teens have struggled to afford menstrual products.
“When you consider the vast amount of homelessness in the United States or people living below the poverty line or people who are taking it paycheck-to-paycheck, period care products are unconscionably expensive,” said Sophie Ascheim, co-founder of the non-profit The Pad Project. “We are not doing enough to increase access as a country for vulnerable communities.”
With a pay gap difference of around $10,000 a year, women already spend more, proportionally, of their salaries than men do. A pink tax on top of that is unacceptable. But what can be done about it? Shop in the men’s aisle. Look for gender-neutral products. Don’t fall prey to gendered marketing.
Earlier this year, a social media trend called “de-influencing” emphasized avoiding indulgent spending on skincare, makeup and other beauty products. Creators discouraged users from buying expensive viral items that weren’t worth the price and instead suggested cheaper alternatives. (Realistically, nobody needs a $10 Touchland hand sanitizer.) Refraining from buying costly, overhyped products is a way to evade the pink tax and be a smarter consumer.
But when it comes to housing, insurance and healthcare, simply boycotting is unrealistic. It requires a systematic shift, one that is long past due. Thus far, only the states of New York and California have outlawed discriminatory pricing based on gender, and despite several attempts to pass the Pink Tax Repeal Act, a federal ban has been unsuccessful.
But, progress has been made. Since 1991, 24 U.S. states have abolished sales taxes on period products, with five states having no sales tax at all, according to Alliance for Period Supplies, a program that collects and distributes menstrual products. In October 2022, CVS lowered prices on menstrual hygiene products like pads, tampons, cups and liners by 25% in 12 U.S. states. They are working with states that legally prohibit companies from covering the tax on any product to find a way to offer more affordable feminine hygiene items.
In 2022, Scotland became the first country in the world to provide free menstrual products. Yes, this bill eliminated period poverty, but it also aimed to tackle the issue of missing school because of one’s period and lessening the stigma surrounding periods. Being a relatively smaller country, it’s easier for Scotland to enforce and regulate these policies, Ascheim said.
“Do I think that we could see that in the U.S. nationwide? I’m not sure. Do I think that there are states that could definitely put these policies in place? Absolutely,” Ascheim said.
We can start by keeping menstrual products stocked up in libraries, schools, coffee shops and wherever people congregate. Start conversations to raise awareness and offer comprehensive sex education in schools to put an end to the stigma surrounding women’s bodies and care. Put more women in positions of authority and lawmaking to ensure vulnerable communities are represented. The road to eliminating the pink tax would be an arduous one with no single simple solution, but it is one that is necessary and absolutely worth embarking on.