The pink tax. No, it’s not rose-colored bills, or bright, fuschia coins; the pink tax is the added cost of being a female consumer. Numerous stores mark the same product with a significantly higher price tag when the target demographic is women. Children’s toys become more expensive when painted pink, shampoo jumps by almost half their original cost in the women’s aisle, and even shirts in the same size, print, and color aren’t exempt from this practice. Altogether, women lose up to $1300 a year compared to men from the skewed system.
The first discovery of the pink tax dates back to 1994 when California’s Assembly Office of Research found that in several popular cities, 64% of stores charged more to wash and dry clean ladies’ clothes rather than men’s. After the shocking news, more studies arose, exposing the dismal truth of gendered pricing. Women pay more for goods 42% of the time, seen across all types of merchandise: clothes, self-care items, toys, vehicle repair, and even menstrual products. Combatting the pink tax by buying men’s products can be effective, but there are no tampons for men, and thus the injustice continues.
Protestors across the nation have gathered to combat the pink taxand in recent years, their efforts have not been fruitless. Many companies now emphasize fair pricing in response to this public outrage. Billie is a shaving subscription service for women with much lower costs than other similar products marketed toward women, Boxed reduced sale prices on feminine goods, and Snowe offered discounted prices on items geared toward women. More recently, CVS decreased the price of their tampons and eliminated the sales tax by paying it themselves.
In a wider scope, many countries have banned the price gap, and 28 U.S. states have removed the sales tax, dubbed the “tampon tax,” on period products. This number is quickly growing and serves as proof that the pink tax can be completely outlawed, a crucial milestone in the path to gender equality.
Comments