The Price Of Gender - A Study On The Persistent Reality Of The Pink Tax
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Taxation
Published:
Updated:
THE PRICE OF GENDER: A STUDY ON THE PERSISTENT
REALITY OF THE PINK TAX
Pearl Borana, Nidhi Bhanushali & Ritvi Botadra, KES’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College
ABSTRACT
This paper addresses the Gender discrimination prevalent in modern times talking about the gender stereotypes and inequality especially towards women, cinematically known as ‘Pink Tax’. Pink tax not a quite known topic but has been along with the time for a long time. The objective of this study is to determine the scope of the Pink Tax on consumer products and services across sectors such as personal care, clothing, and health. The research examines how practices have affected women economically and their ability make purchases. This study also gives a better understanding about the marketing strategies, business perspective, industries affected, economic impact on the most affected area, that is, women. The Pink Tax continues to be an entrenched problem impacting women’s finances, with striking price differences appearing across sectors.
These results support the call for the increased regulatory monitoring and consumer knowledge to tackle gender-based price disparity. Keywords: Pink Tax, Gender-based pricing, Economic inequity, Gender stereotypes, Pricing discrimination.
INTRODUCTION
Gender discrimination, a prevalent, and a rising modern-day problem that talks about the big world problems that are the inequalities and injustice faced by both men and women which has led to a creation of a dysfunctional environment. Gender discrimination is a human right violation though the distinction between the ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ is a more recent development. Gender inequality can have some serious consequences, like limiting personal and professional opportunities, perpetuating stereotypes and contributing to a culture of inequality. With the ongoing distinction, not a very spoken issue but a distinguishable problem which has increased worldwide called the ‘PINK TAX’. The term “Pink tax” is used to generally refer to the difference in price between products and services offered to women and men.
Majority of the time, products marketed to women cost more than the products marketed towards men, even if both the products are similar. This highlights the differences in pricing based on one’s gender and has sparked controversy in the area of feminism and economic justice. Pink Tax is not a government tax rather it’s a form of price discrimination that results in women paying more for everyday items. One of the reasons why the pink tax exists is because of the marketing practices of the firms. Marketers tend to direct their marketing efforts towards women as the main consumers of some products, presenting them as requiring specific products for looks, beauty, and grooming. These products are usually packed in pastel color with some feminine designs which usually attract women and so they are tend to be more expensive.
Here, the assumption is that women would be more inclined to pay a premium for these products even if there is no difference in quality or functionality. Pink tax is not only applied to the products but also to the services. Meaning, that women tend to pay more for the services like haircut or dry cleaning as compared to men. A report by the US government has discovered that women pay more than the men for the same services, from car repairs to dry cleaning. The Pink Tax is often regarded as a form of economic inequality due to its basis on the assumption that women are more than happy to spend on goods and services that are targeted to them. This has prompted demands for ample scrutiny and equality of pay in several industries. The Pink Tax is not a real tax. Government does not impose the pink tax on women’s products.
It’s the companies who charge extra cost for the products marketed to women as compared to the similar products marketed to men. When the companies charge more for the pink (female) products compared to the blue (male) products, the profit does not go to government instead the companies keep it themselves. Pink tax is a crucial problem that hinders women’s economic empowerment worldwide. To address this issue, it requires both legal reforms and the changes in consumer behavior to challenge discriminatory pricing practices.
EMERGENCE OF PINK TAX
1. Origins of Gendered Pricing: The history of the pink tax has its roots in gender
discrimination and the marketing styles used from mid-20th century. Towards the end of the World War II, companies started utilizing gender to market their products. There were many advertisements aimed at women, which few decades earlier were rare. These marketing campaigns attempted to sell items like cosmetics, clothes, and children’s dolls as female products only. The products were usually modified to have varying levels of femininity, but they were often produced at the same cost or even cheaper than more masculine marketed ones.
2. (1980s-1990s) Consumer Awareness: In the 1980s and 1990s, during the rise of
consumer capitalism, there was more focus on gender equality, not just in the place of employment but also when it came to pricing. For example, a number of consumer rights group drew attention to the prices of women’s products and their marked differences from men’s products. Women began noticing that feminine razors, deodorants, and even dry-cleaning services were more expensive than those of men. In
1994 in California, the realization that brands in various cities are consistently charging
women higher prices for goods and services than men brought this issue to the forefront. The Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 in California highlighted this issue by prohibiting price discrimination on services.
3. Present day acknowledgement and research: Today in the 21st century, pink tax
gained more prominence with increased popularity of online shopping and product comparison. Social media campaigns and social activists’ groups are largely responsible to bring this issue to light. For example, in 2015, the New York City Department of
Consumer Affairs discovered that women’s products were, on average, 7% more costly than men’s. Some items such as personal care products had a much larger gap in prices.
4. Legislation and action: As the pink tax came into focus, lawmakers and activists made
efforts to change it. Some local and state governments have begun investigating or regulating price discrimination on the basis of gender. For example, California enacted a law in 2020 that outlaws gender-based pricing of services, such as when one pays for dry cleaning. There is, however, a persistent pink tax on various industries from children’s toys to clothing. This shows that while the discussion around the pink tax is certainly increasing, the actions taken are insufficient. The pink tax is an issue within society that is persistent, showcasing the socio-economic gaps that exists between men and women in regards to consumer items, and serves as evidence of where gender discrimination can occur, where women pay more for the same or similar goods that are geared towards men.
INDUSTRIES AFFECTED UNDER PINK TAX BURDEN
There are a lot of industries that are affected by pink tax. Here are some of them:
1. Personal care and Beauty products: Personal care and beauty industry is
considered one of the important areas where the pink tax is observed. Products that are marketed to women such as razors, deodorants, shampoos and skincare cost more than the products marketed to men, even if the ingredients and functions are similar. • Razors: Women’s Razors are of high cost even if they are same or the same technology is used as compared to men’s razor. The only difference might be the color, shape or the added branding. A set of women’s razors may cost 30- 50% more than a set for men. • Deodorants: Deodorants marketed to women are priced high than those of men despite them serving the same purpose. In some cases, the only difference is packaging and fragrance. • Shampoo and conditioner: Women’s shampoo bottles are priced higher
because they are often marketed with the “luxury” or “gentle” qualities. Although the ingredients are nearly identical that are used in men’s hair products. • Skin care products: Many face creams, sunscreen, moisturizer and lotions are marketed with the specific tag that it is anti-aging. However, they also serve the same purpose like the men’s skin care product but it tends to be of higher price as compared to men.
2. Clothing and fashion: This is one aspect of the pink tax that is easy to spot,
especially when looking at men’s and women’s clothing made from the same material and to the same design specifications. • Clothing: In general, women’s clothing tends to be more expensive than men’s clothing of comparable T-shirts, jeans, or jackets. A basic T-shirt constructed from the same material may have a higher price tag if it says “women” on the label, even if it is identical to the men's version. • Dry Cleaning: Women also tend to spend more for dry-cleaning services than men simply because of the higher cost of clothes women wear. This is often the case for both parties using identical fabrics. For Men’s shirts and trousers, skirts and dresses are billed at a significantly higher rate, regardless of materials used as the service charges are standard for both sets of clothing.
• Alterations: More often than not, women’s dresses, skirts, and blouses tend to call for more expensive alterations than men’s suits or trousers because of the style and sizing particulars. These additional costs serve as cost drivers which will make women’s clothing relatively expensive.
3. Toys and children’s products: Toys and products designed for children, especially
sexed toys, tend to have varying costs based on sex. The pink tax is present in this sector because items designed for girls tend to fetch a higher price than items designed for boys. • Toys: A set of building blocks for boys tend to be sold for lower prices than a set of dolls used by girls. For example, a pink toy set for girls is often more
expensive compared to blue or gender-neutral sets designed for boys. • Children’s Clothing: There is some separation in the pricing of clothes between the girls and boys. Girl’s clothes, for example, can at times be priced higher than boys' clothes. This is particularly true for garments with added embellishment like bow, sequins or frills marketed for girls. • School Supplies: Other items for school such as bags, lunch boxes and writing materials tend to have different prices for boys and girls. Younger girls tend to like pretty designs like princesses or unicorns, so such items are sometimes priced higher than similar items for boys.
4. Health and Hygiene products: The category of health and hygiene products,
especially feminine hygiene products, is one of the most sensitive aspects of the pink tax. Although these products serve analogous purposes, they seem to be more expensive than similar items designed for men. • Feminine Hygiene Products: Items like tampons, menstrual cups, sanitary pads, and panty liners tend to be priced higher when compared to similar products like incontinence pads designed for men. Even though the two products have a similar personal hygiene function, feminine products are often in more expensive because of additional marketing and more elaborate packaging. • Medical Products: Women’s certain health products, such as some women’s medications and supplements, tend to be sold for more money than corresponding men’s products even when similar active ingredients or benefits are provided.
5. Insurance: - The insurance sector is another that has had its share of discriminatory
pricing models, where in certain cases, women ended up paying higher premiums. • Car Insurance: In various nations, women have traditionally been at a disadvantage and have had to pay higher premiums for car insurance. This practice stems from an analysis that indicated women had fewer car accidents than men. However, some women claim that recently insurers have equalized
the rates which has resulted in women’s rates being increased. Where car insurance is gendered, women may be in low paying places but are still charged higher than men. • Health Insurance: Some healthcare insurance companies had, and in many cases continue to have, an outdated approach that women should pay higher premiums. This applies especially with individual health plans. Although this pattern is rapidly changing, women are still disadvantaged when it comes to a certain level of coverage, particularly for pregnancy and reproductive health services. Health care expenses are also more costly for women. According to a Deloitte report, female workers enrolled in single-coverage employer provided health plans incurred an average expenditure of $266 more per year incurred than their male counterparts, which is over 18 percent higher annual expenditure on health.
This is attributable to women’s greater use of health services, including more routine examinations and specialized screenings.
BUSINESS RATIONALE FOR GENDERED PRICING
Industry leaders and marketers offer various justifications that seek to rationalize the premium, even though pink tax is viewed as a discriminatory pricing tactic. A line that is frequently used for defense is that price disparities result from differing product formulation, production expenses and design. Companies point out that various personal care products aimed at women which possibly could include additional ingredients, fragrances or fancy packaging that raises production costs. Similarly, women’s apparel and clothing require more convoluted workmanship and selection of materials which could make the production expenses rise.
The claim of market supply and demand is another explanation given my companies where they argue that women’s keenness to purchase a selection of items at a higher price demonstrates perceived value, for instance, better quality, beauty or specific attributes. A familiar interpretation is when marketers set prices for female products at a surpassing level to match the brand image or label them as premium items, claiming that it’s not a form of discrimination but the market norm to set such prices. In addition, advocates of “Laissez-Faire” economies oppose that there is no limit to how low or high the prices can go set by a firm based on demand and competition.
CONSUMER TARGETING & MARKETING STRATEGIES; MEDIA’S INFLUENCE
ON PINK TAX
Marketing strategies around gender-based pricing are deeply embedded in consumer psychology. The division between men and women has a lasting impact on strategies related to pricing marketing and sales. Gendered language, imagery and product design that makes a customer feel completely connected to that product through emotional attachments are being used by companies frequently. Women’s self-care products can be taken as an example, they are almost always advertised using soft pastel colors and floral scents and they are packaged delicately which adds to the softness that a feminine woman represents stereotypically. Backed up by emotional sentiments, making use of branding techniques that are targeted towards a specific gender makes it acceptable for businesses to charge more.
Anyone with a basic understanding about the pink tax can see that this practice is unethical and companies are made to modify the way they market. Some brands have started using gender neutral branding which does not reinforce stereotypes by using neutral colors and minimalist designs and packaging. There is a significant rise in number of campaigns aimed at improving public perception of the company that promise fairness and honesty in pricing. With price discrimination based on gender, using social media as a communication tool resolves many issues. Media is not merely used to deliver information, but is a part of equation of how firms communicate with the consumer. Media has transformed marketing functions to make it central to achieving business success in the world of competitive marketplace.
When we talk about the role of Media used as a marketing strategy in promoting pink tax, a few angles are to be noticed:- • Advertising and Targeting Audience. Platforms like Television, social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and many more platforms commonly used to promote products targeted towards women, and it is here that the pink tax becomes applicable. The tendency is to promote women’s product with features that are ‘deemed’ feminine but are not surely worth the price hike. • Followed Gender Norms.
Business continues to keep gender norms and the idea that women have to pay more and this happens easily with the means of media. The media legitimates the price disparity by consistently showing it to be the standard, shaping consumers opinions and behavior. Example- Personal and beauty care products tend to be aggressively promoted in media locations, where products are stated to meet ‘women’s special needs. A 2024 article on America, has given a data that Women pay on an average 3%vmore tariffs than that of men. It is said that women paid $2 billion than men in 2018 which was exclaimed ‘outrageous’ by majority. • Modern day Influencers and Endorsements. With the time, influencers have been the force behind the marketing trends. Influencers, especially those who endorse women’s products on social media, have been the influencers that have shaped the consumer’s mindsets.
As influencers could also make people aware of the price gaps but they, unknowingly, promote the overpriced products because of the media fueled phenomena. Example- A beauty influencer will promote a certain brand of skincare that costs more with similar ingredients, perpetuating that women’s cost more even with very little variation in quality and functionality. • Forming a ‘Luxury’ or ‘Exclusivity’ Narrative. These brands utilize the media to sell products that have an ‘exclusive’ or ‘luxury’ appeal. The products targeted towards women maybe sold with a high price, presented as provided with better quality or specialty experience. The media are able to construct stories that make such products appear aspirational or luxury, regardless of the facts that the products have no real difference from gender- neutral or men’s products.
Example- A "premium" fragrance lotion sold to women would likely be priced higher than a comparable product sold to men, simply because it is packaged in a manner that women tend to prefer, commonly in pink-colored or flower-themed packaging. In an article it was mentioned that a woman- mother of 2 was influenced by social media by showing ‘unrealistic standard of success’ which made her fall in £40k debt.
LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO GENDER-BASED PRICING
1. Pink Tax Repeal Act
The main aim to pass this bill was to get rid of the additional costs charged on goods and
services whose target audience are women. This legislation seeks to abolish gender-based price discrimination, which has been existing in the market since a very long period. The act intends to ensure price equity by not allowing businesses to charge differently for similar products just because they are marketed or even advertised differently based on gender. The gender-based price disparity that includes women’s personal hygiene products, clothing, stationery has been given the term “pink tax". Many studies have proved this pattern of gender-based discrimination in pricing. Originally proposed in the U. S. Congress in 2016, the Pink Tax Repeal Act was re-introduced in later years. This act criminalizes such pricing tactics to eliminate these disparities.
Ban on gender-based pricing, consumer protection, price transparency and legal action for consumers are the main provisions of the same. Stakeholders who claim that disparities stem from market forces and not intentional gender discrimination have opposed this act although its motive is to ensure fairness. Many companies argue that cost of imposition and compliance might be restricting, whereas adversaries of the act disagree that the present consumer protection law already deals with unethical prices. This act, if authorized would have momentous effects for buyers and companies, with women being the greatest beneficiaries in the form of affordable everyday items and services. The Pink Tax Repeal Act is a significant move towards economic gender equality through eradication of discriminatory pricing.
Public consciousness and advocacy are pivotal in maintaining fair pricing and promoting justice for all consumers economically.
2. California’s Gender Tax Repeal Act Of 1995
Numerous state-level attempts have tried to deal with the problem of gender-based price inequality. This act prohibits companies from charging different prices for services based on gender. Different prices for items like razors, shampoo, and clothes are still legal as this legislation is only applicable on services and not consumer products. In 2020, California further expanded its activities by enacting Assembly Bill 1287. This explicitly restrains different prices for comparable products. Even though the enforcement is problematic as businesses can justify difference in prices based on materials, Branding as well as consumer preference. This is one of the most comprehensive state laws in the U.S. in relevance to Pink Tax.
3. French National Assembly, 2015.
On a global scale, there are marked differences in how countries respond to the pink tax. In France, after the French consumer association UFC-Que Choisir published a study revealing
the existence of discriminatory pricing for products marketed toward a particular gender (UFC- Que Choisir, 2014). A major parliamentary investigation was provoked due to this and later, action from government. In 2015, French authorities started clamping down on gendered businesses by prosecuting those suspected of gender-based pricing. The disclosure of pricing policies to boost transparency was mandated by the government in the French National Assembly, 2015. To contest unreasonable pricing France has used the available strong consumer protection legislation, still there is no outright prohibition of the pink tax. Companies have been ushered to voluntary modify their prices to gender neutral ones due to the campaigns aimed at increasing public awareness and media attention to the issue.
EXPLORING HOW THE PINK TAX REINFORCES GENDER STEREOTYPES AND
ITS ECONOMIC IMPACT ON WOMEN
The pink tax keeps persisting in putting a big financial burden on women globally, primarily because they still receive less money than men. In India, this fiscal strain can be seen as women tend to incur more costs while receiving fewer wages compared to men because of the pay gap based on gender. Here are some points that shows how the pink tax reinforces gender stereotypes: - • Discrimination discussed based on Gender expectations. The pink tax points out the difference between men’s and women’s products, even where the products themselves are functionally equivalent. Products for women, like razors, deodorants, or shampoo, will frequently cost more just because they are labeled for women. This establishes price difference based on gender, futhering the notion that women should pay more in order to have an ideal grooming standard.
The advertising strategy supports the assumption that women's needs or desires are intrinsic than that of the men. • Enforcing Traditional beauty standards. The high costs of women's products also reinforce cultural beauty standards that emphasize women's physical appearance. Women in most societies are to invest in personal care products that allow them to present a given image, such as smooth skin, well-groomed hair, or a specific body shape. By charging more for things like cosmetics or beauty services, the pink tax is stating that not only should such a contribution be expected from women but needs to come at
a higher cost, substantiating the theory that women are held to stricter appearance standards. • Pressure to comply with Gender roles. By overcharging women for goods, the pink tax promotes the notion that women need to stick to the conventional gender roles, where they are supposed to be more dainty, sophisticated, or concerned with their personal grooming. The additional expense of products such as shaving razors or deodorants also compels women towards the perception that they must spend money on these products in order to meet these cultural expectations. This continues the stereotype that women are naturally different from men and need to act or look in ways that cost more money. • Exploitation of Gendered Marketing. The pink tax also illustrates how companies use gendered marketing strategies for profit.
Companies understand that women are usually willing to pay more for products aligned with societal pressures or perceived femininity. By these high-end products, markets take advantage by creating the system of cultural pressure. This again reinforces the notion of women being easily swayed by gendered marketing and trends, again creating a gap between men's and women's experiences, both economically and socially. Now, here are a few points where Pink Tax have an economic impact on women: - • Greater Financial strain on Women. The pink tax imposes a direct economic cost for charging women extra for the same or equivalent products. For instance, a research has shown that women’s razor is priced 11% more than that of men’s razors.
In apparel, female version of the same product, eg: shirts, jackets, etc can cost up to 50% more than the male version, even though they are almost identical in the terms of material and design. In its 2015 study, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs estimated that women pay ,351 per annum than men pay for the same product and services as a result of pink tax. • Widening of Gender pay gap. The United States gender pay gap is that, on average, women earn 82 cents on the dollar as
compared to how much a man earns (U. S. Census Bureau, 2021). Combined with the extra cost associated with products made for women, this pay discrimination means that women are under the compounded economic burden. • Impact on Financial Stability. The pink tax hinders women from saving money for significant milestones such as retirement, purchasing a house, or paying for their children's education. In addition, with women now living 5 years more than men (as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), this financial burden impacts their retirement strategies, making them more likely to experience financial hardship in old age. In a 2019 report of the National Women’s law center said that women tend to spend more and save less than that of men due to their high cost of living. • Obstacles in Accessing Affordable Products.
For many women, particularly those of lower incomes, the pink tax may be an impediment to getting the things they need. For example, Consumer Reports recently conducted a study in which they found that products marketed to women, like deodorants or period products, were being sold at a 20-40% markup from the men's version. Women might be forced to choose cheaper items or even skip some products; this can have a negative impact on health and wellbeing. For example, the average cost of menstrual products can be upwards of $7 per month in the United States, which equates to $84 annually. These costs are disproportionately affecting low-income women, leading to situations where women will delay or forgo purchasing basic hygiene products. • Restrictions on Access of Economic opportunities.
The revenue burden of the pink tax restrains women right, which leads to limiting their economic accessibility. It is also said that women are less likely to request for a raise or negotiate for a pay due to societal pressure. If women are already paying more for everyday items due to the pink tax, it can leave them with less room for maneuver in terms of accessing other opportunities, like further education or entrepreneurship. Moreover, these economic constraints might encourage women to focus on everyday needs over long-term financial commitments, like home ownership, saving, or entrepreneurial activity. With these points we get to know that the pink tax not only leads to extreme discrimination but
also financial strains and limitations in the economic security and inequality.
CONCLUSION
The pink tax said to be a phenomenon that leads to the modern times root problem of gender discrimination in consumer market. When it comes to economic gender discrimination through pink tax, the absence of strong laws completely prohibiting gender pricing is the first step. We have seen how severely it effects the society and with that the need for counter effects rather solutions are to be a necessity. Few crucial solutions that are highlighted by everyone are as follows; Spreading awareness by forming campaigns that will help to bring attention to the examples of products and services that companies use to charge Pink Tax. Policy changes and Legislative measure which can bring justification for any price differences in gendered products. With the help of social media platforms, one could publicize the facts of the tax.
Emergence of new brands coming up can bring fair pricing for all consumers and all challenge the businesses that still charge the hidden tax. Opting for unisex or neutral products, leads to focusing on quality and effectiveness of products rather than giving them the tag of men’s and women’s will also eliminate price discrimination. By fostering their solutions, we can bring upon a change and dismantle the discrimination by pink tax. Some countries like India, USA, Canada have abolished the tax on female hygiene products. By breaking down the Pink Tax, society can approach a more level playing field marketplace in which the price of a product is set based on its intrinsic value and use, not the gender of the consumer to whom it is targeted.
Instituting these measures would help promote gender equality in the economy, enhancing the economic well-being of women and decreasing the long-term effects of gender-based price discrimination.
REFERENCES
Assemblée nationale. (n. d. ). National Assembly ~ The deputies, the vote on the law, the French Parliament. Assemblée Nationale. https://www. assemblee-nationale. fr/ California Legislative information. (n. d. ). https://leginfo. legislature. ca. gov/ Deloitte. (n. d. ). Hiding in plain sight: The health care gender toll. In Deloitte. https://www2. deloitte. com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/life-sciences-health-care/uslshc-health-gender-gap. pdf H. R. 7828 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Pink Tax Repeal Act. (n. d. ). Congress. gov | Library of Congress. https://www. congress. gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7828 H. R. 7828 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Pink Tax Repeal Act. (n. d. ). Congress. gov | Library of Congress. https://www. congress. gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7828 Kim, & Kim. (2024, September 24).
The Pink Tax: The Cost of Being a Woman - National Organization for Women. National Organization for Women -. https://now. org/blog/the-pinktax-the-cost-of-being-a-woman/ Pant, S. (n. d. ). UnPinking Discrimination: Exploring the Pink Tax and its Implications. In International Journal of Policy Sciences and Law (IJPSL) (Vol. 1, Issue 3, pp. 1354–1356). https://ijpsl. in/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/UnPinking-Discrimination-Exploring-the-Pink- Tax-and-its-Implications_Svasti-Pant. pdf Singh, A. , Johnson, V. , Shabnam, M. , & Sagar. (2024). A study to assess the attitude of female population towards pink tax across India. ResearchGate. https://www. researchgate. net/publication/380295075_A_study_to_assess_the_attitude_of_fe male_population_towards_pink_tax_across_India Soken-Huberty, E. (2023, January 12). What is Gender Discrimination? Human Rights Careers. https://www. humanrightscareers.
com/issues/what-is-gender-discrimination/ What is the ‘pink tax’ and how does it hinder women? (2024, September 10). World Economic Forum. https://www. weforum. org/stories/2022/07/what-is-the-pink-tax-and-how-does-ithinder-women/