There is no doubt that women spend a ridiculous amount of money on products that are specifically tailored to their needs.
When comparing women’s and men’s products, we are essentially purchasing the same item, but at a taxed price.
“Pink tax” is a term used to describe the extra amount of money charged for products or services that are marketed toward women shoppers, according to a Oct. 31 article by The Balance, a website that simplifies personal finance topics and news.
Although that is not an actual tax, it is an issue that must be addressed.
New York banned the pink tax practice on Sept. 30, 2020, making it the only state to do so, according to The Balance article.
Consumers may not always spot the difference because the men’s and women’s aisles are separated, but it’s evident when you compare the price tags.
My problem with the pink tax is that it’s hardly ever addressed, resulting in no changes in stores.
I have been buying men’s deodorant, razors and pomade for as long as I can remember. It is easy to spot the quality of the products too, women’s razors are cheaper quality for the same price as an exceptional men's razor.
The key differences I have noticed have been the color of the product, price and the aisle.
Women are paying more money because something is floral scented and bright pink or purple.
That roots back to sexism because women are viewed as “high maintenance” and told to have a hairless body.
But, how is that standard obtainable when the needed products are not affordable?
Society applies so many expectations on women, yet not making products accessible is pure irony and inconsiderate of those in marginalized communities.
The pink tax doesn’t only apply to hygiene products, even parents have to face that issue when shopping for their children.
A New York City Department of Consumer Affairs study found that “girl toys” cost an average of 2% to 13% more than “boy toys,” the only difference being the color, according to a Jan. 11, 2021 article by Bankrate, a New York-based consumer financial services company.
Not only are toys up-charged, but their clothing is too.
On average, girls’ clothing cost 4% more than boys’, according to a December 2015 study by New York City Department of Consumer Affairs.
Making parents face that surcharge to satisfy their child’s needs is terrible because all children’s necessities and entertainment items should cost the same, regardless of what gender the product is targeting.
It’s difficult to find a solution to the pink tax, unless women start purchasing gender-neutral or men’s products, but that isn’t suitable for everyone.
It’s unfair for women to have to even think of other ways to buy their day-to-day products when companies should be making that change.
Hygiene products should be high quality and low cost because women should not be forced to constantly swap out their holy-grail items to fit their budgets.
Sizing, which is something that many brands need to get rid of, is unfortunately another victim of the pink tax.
Plus-size individuals have a tough time finding clothing that fit them, there should be no reason why it should cost more too.
Old Navy was caught in a quandary in 2014 when a customer, Renee Posey, noticed that their women’s plus-size jeans cost $12-$15 more than their regular-sized jeans, according to a Nov. 12, 2014 CBS News article.
When Posey compared the prices of men’s plus-size jeans, there was no difference in price as their regular-sized jeans.
The problem would surely grab more attention if men spoke about the pink tax, that would further amplify women’s voices and highlight the unfairness of the prices.
Unfortunately, I don’t think brands will step up and lower their prices, simply because they know that women are naturally going to gravitate toward their products.
But that being said, we still have to try.
