A Big Pink Burden
Photo from Women’s eNews.
Shannon O'Dwyer
Gender Gap
It is no secret that gender has been at the forefront of discussion in recent years. Typically, this falls around the idea of what gender is and what society considers “gender norms.” Amongst this debate is the “gender pay gap.” What is widely known is that women working full time positions may earn, on average, only 80% of what her male counterpart earns. This means that, while both a man and a woman are performing the same job with the same duties, the woman earns significantly less than the man. For example, the pay gap sums to roughly $10,500 in a year and nearly $500,000 for a typical female worker. This is not only seen in blue collar, but also white collar work.
Pink Tax
However, what has seen a lack of discussion in today’s society is gender based product pricing differences. This phenomenon is known as the Pink Tax: not only are women earning less on average, but they often pay more for purchases on goods and services. These goods and services are nearly identical to their male counterparts. Some of these include razors, bath products, or anything marketed for women specifically that also can be gender-neutral or marketed for men. This tax does not include the related, but separate taxes on menstrual products or makeup.
This mark-up is seen in a variety of items sold, including children’s toys and clothing. For example, toys such as a pink Radio Flyer scooter sold for double its gender-neutral targeted red scooter. In addition, a Minnie Mouse Girls Toddler Bike Helmet was marketed online for $29.99, while the Mickey Mouse Toddler Helmet initially sold for $26.99, but then decreased to $22.99. Although the Mickey Mouse Helmet may not be explicitly sold as a “boy’s” helmet, it still stands that gender-neutral items cost less than items with the color pink on them.
According to the Joint Economic Committee, further examples include:
BIC’s “For Her” pens cost double the equivalent gender neutral pack. A pink wireless mouse by Microsoft was priced 39 percent higher than the identical model in blue. A 12-pack of women’s Schick’s “Slim Twin” sensitive disposable razors cost 51 percent more than a 12-pack of men’s “Slim Twin” sensitive disposable razors. The price on women’s Narciso Rodriguez Eau de Toilette spray was 20 percent higher than the men’s version. And the pink and purple “fairy” version of [the] simple wooden train set with a figure-eight track came with an 11-percent markup over the nearly identical version in primary colors.
In general, women’s products cost 7% more than men’s and personal care products (razors, body wash, deodorant, etc.) cost 13% more than essentially identical products. Not only do these products cost more, but women over 65 face a markup on items such as canes and braces. These older women already face a 44% income difference to men their age, making this price increase an added disadvantage.
This tax can also be applied to services such as haircuts and dry cleaning. In 2011, a study done with 100 hair salons surveyed and of that, 85 charged more for a basic haircut for women than a basic haircut for men. In addition, according to the Joint Economic Committee, “A study by the State of California in 1994 estimated that the pink tax on services alone cost a woman roughly $1,350 over a year, the equivalent of about $2,135 today.”
Although it is a hard comparison to make, being that these products are generally never identical, they are incredibly similar and therefore should not see significant price differences. These gendered based prices, however, have been present in consumer goods for as long as we can remember.
Federal Acts
Several states have attempted to pass laws against gender-based pricing in attempts to regulate unjust price discrepancies. However, this has not terminated it out of existence.
As stated by Investopedia, in 1996, Governor of California, Pete Wilson, implemented the Gender Tax Repeal Act. This act was specifically aimed at services (haircuts, dry-cleaning, clothing alterations, etc.) to charge women and men the same price if the service took the same amount of time, cost, and skill to complete.
The sponsor of the 1995 California act also created the Pink Tax Repeal Act for a federal level in 2016. However, this act has been reintroduced on several occasions but has not passed. Its main purpose was “to prohibit the pricing of consumer products and services that are substantially similar if such products or services are priced differently based on the gender of the individuals for whose use the products are intended or marketed or for whom the services are performed or offered.”
Why?
The largest and most unanswered question that comes into play with the Pink Tax is: Why? Why would items marketed for women or even products that are simply colored pink have any sort of price difference than identical “male” products?
Differences in the production of these products are a legitimate reason to have varied prices. Tariffs on imported goods for women have a higher tax rate than men’s products—15.1% as opposed to 11.9%.
One interesting explanation provided by the Joint Economic Committee is the idea of product differentiation. They state, “One common marketing strategy firms employ is ‘product differentiation.’ Sellers frequently distinguish a product or service from others to make it more attractive to a particular target market, for example by changing the packaging and altering the color of a product. However, doing so may increase the cost of production. For example, a manufacturer may choose to produce a smaller number of pink razors, which could increase the cost of producing each pink razor relative to the larger run of black razors.” This explanation, although it may seem unlawful in theory, is entirely legal, but a costly differentiation for those wanting to buy the pink product. The simple solution to this is to buy the cheaper item regardless of the marketing if the product is the same.
However, another unlawful example is what is known as price discrimination. This is when two identical products are sold at different price points in order for the seller to attract certain buyers. This means higher prices for those who are willing to pay more for a product in a different color or slightly different style. Common examples of price discrimination include a senior discount, and higher prices for fast track or last minute airline sales. Therefore, if sellers find consumers who are less price sensitive and are willing to pay a higher price, they will more likely charge a higher price for the same product or service.
Tampon Tax
Menstrual products are subject to what is considered a tampon tax, which is imposed on feminine hygiene products by the government. These products are not subjected to a unique tax, but are considered luxury items. This brings up the question: Why are these considered luxury items if they are a necessity for any individual who experiences menstruation? According to Investopedia, “As of 2021, 30 state governments in the U.S. levy sales tax on menstrual hygiene products, such as pads and tampons.”
In California, after a failed tampon tax relief bill, the state halted their taxes on hygiene products for two years. State legislature believed this would mean a decrease in public revenue. “In New York State, where the tax is no longer imposed, the loss in revenue was estimated to be $14 million a year, according to a lawsuit filed in 2016,” states Investopedia.
Critiques of the tax argue that the tax coupled with the already high prices of these necessities are crippling to low income people. Even for those who are not low income, these prices compile after each purchase of menstrual products and become a bank draining burden. This is all for something that millions of people worldwide need in order to manage a natural occurring process each month.
Final Thoughts
It is unclear as of now whether society will ever see an act passed that bans the price gap between men’s and women’s products. This act, however, will hopefully encompass not only products, but services offered to both men and women that are virtually identical. Women should not have to pay more for identical services or products to that of men’s. It is, however, all too common that those who are already being paid less than the average man, now have to pay more for their razors, their shaving cream, their clothing, their deodorant, or laundry services. One should not have to jeopardize their want of a certain scent or color on their products because they cannot afford it. This can all fall under the same belief that gender-based products should and will hopefully morph into gender-neutral products instead.
Resources
The Pink Tax How Gender-Based Pricing Hurts Women’s Buying Power
