The Pink Tax: Gendered Price Disparities

An image showing how products designed for women are often quite a bit more expensive than those for men, despite production costs being almost identical.

Imagine two people walking into a grocery store. They have the same goal: to buy a pack of razors, two sticks of deodorant, and a bottle of body wash. These individuals head to the personal care aisle and pick up products from the same brand, made from the same ingredients, of the same weight. When they reach the register, one pays $28 while the other’s total comes out to $36. There were no discounts involved, nor was there a mislabeled or miscanned  item. The only difference was the gender identity of the customers. The latter was a woman, meaning she would automatically pay an invisible fee. 

This upcharge on products advertised for women is known as pink tax. It’s a way for companies to increase their revenue because women are more likely to splurge on products tailored to them. While it may not show in their pocketbooks immediately, this couple dollars’ difference will compound over a lifetime, costing women an estimated $188,000.Though today’s citizens are more familiar with pink tax, its origins are far from recent.

World War I profoundly impacted America’s economic growth, transitioning the country from a debtor nation to the world’s largest creditor. Through liberty bonds, taxes, and loans, the United States provided billions of dollars to sustain its European Allies. The U.S. economy was further stimulated as women filled manufacturing positions vacated by men who were drafted into the war. With increased financial autonomy, women became primary consumers and the advertisements of the 1920s reflected their new status. At first, companies advertised modernized home appliances but the rise of flapper girls and later on, Hollywood stars, led the common woman to become more interested in makeup and fashion. Sinisterly, advertisers would begin to use women’s hobbies against them. They exploited women’s insecurities, pushing cosmetic products with the threat of age-related “ugliness” to ensure husbands wouldn’t stray.

The pink tax we see today is fueled by this same societal pressure. Although women are compelled to spend time dolling themselves up for prospective partners, they also are expected to look attractive in the workplace. For decades, women have faced complex professional appearance standards, requiring makeup, tailored clothing, and meticulously styled hair. To add insult to injury, these products are sold at a high price point.

Here, inelastic demand comes into play, defined by the federal reserve as when the price of a good goes up but demand doesn’t change much. If the price of razors increases, men can opt out of shaving their beards with little social consequences. If a woman stops shaving or wearing makeup, she often faces “grooming gaps” in the workplace, where studies indicate that women who are more “well-groomed” earn higher salaries. It’s no surprise that advertisers bank on this social penalty, lest women stop spending money.

Perhaps the most egregious form of the pink tax is the “Tampon Tax.” Although the U.S. government classifies menstrual products as “medical devices”, they aren’t taxed as such. In fact, 18 states place a sales tax between 4% and 7% on items including pads and tampons, increasing the price. This creates Period Poverty, where the tax burden makes essential hygiene products unaffordable for low-income individuals. While the other states have repealed these taxes, it remains an example of how corporations take advantage of women’s needs with no regard of how it will affect them financially.

A real world example showing a women’s personal care kit being $2.40 more expensive than the same kit for men.

In 2015, a report from the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs found that women pay an increased:

• 13% on personal care products

• 15% on shirts

• 8% on senior care items

• 29% on underwear

Based on a 2020 study by the California Senate Committee on Judiciary, it is estimated that women pay an average $2381 more per year than men for the same lifestyle. This directly affects the economic status of women by diminishing their opportunities to save and invest. When you take the gender pay gap into account, companies increasing the price of women’s products appears to be even more predatory.

In 2024, women earned 85% of what men earned according to the Pew Research Center (and that number is lower for Black and Latina women). Women are paid less to enter the workforce, yet it costs them more to be in the workforce. This reduces a  woman's discretionary income, meaning she has less money to buy a house, start a business, or contribute to an emergency fund. Pink tax isn’t taking a vacation anytime soon but there are ways women can bypass it so they can afford one.

As consumers, being deliberate with where we spend our money is how we control the market. When shopping, women can compare prices and opt for generic brands. Generic brands are perceived to be lower quality, but in actuality have many of the same ingredients as their name-brand counterparts. In addition, thrifting is a great way for women to avoid being the victims of increased prices for clothes, not to mention the sustainability aspect of the choice. Or, though it could be seen as taboo, women can even take a peak into the men’s section. Opting for these cheaper alternatives is a great example of the substitution effect which empowers consumers to live a more affordable lifestyle. Overall, women don’t have to be completely subjugated by manipulative marketing strategies.