The pink tax: the extra amount of money women pay for specific products or services, can also be called price discrinmation or gender-pricing.
If one were to walk in the store today they would find the phenomenon of the pink tax to be true. A classic example is razors, and not the kind with the moisturizing strip or other add ons, but take simple single blade razors and the pack of pink ones are more expensive than the blue ones.
There is no difference between these products, and they aren’t manufactured in a way which would cause significant price disparity. Regarding the pricing argument, some people claim pink dye costs more than other commonly used colors, but there is no truth to this statement.
Senior Maleigha McCulley has never noticed the pink tax before. “I am not that observant when I am at the store but once I learned about the pink tax I was shocked,” she stated. “There is no reason pink products should be priced higher than blue ones.”
Half of the population is unknowingly being taxed on everyday, basic products. These products are considered necessities and most would say that they cannot go without them, so why are women tricked into paying more?
While no one is forcing women to buy things that are pink or inherently marketed towards women, they should not have to go out of their way to check price tags due to companies profiting off of their gender.
Some people argue the pink tax is a non-issue. Why can’t women just buy the products marketed towards men? The answer to this inquiry is clear: They can, but they should not have to alter their preferences to fit the mold of a marketing ploy. This seemingly common perspective is nothing but a short term solution; one which does not resolve the societal problem rooted within this tax.
Senior Courtney Mohr is one of many females who are frustrated with this issue. “On top of period products being taxed as luxury items, companies have the audacity to charge more for products towards women,” she divulged. “It’s exhausting because we don’t even know the extent of this problem.”
When looking into this issue, it becomes clear that companies perceive women as easily susceptible to manipulation and higher prices. Although this is the perfect example of the misogyny woven into societal standards, it is sadly only one of many which inevitably support this absurd viewpoint.
When these companies upmark the prices on products they are sending a message to women which portrays their value of men’s products and opinions over those of women. This pattern of microcosms ultimately feeds into the patriarchy and gives men increased power to decide what things are worth.
The pink tax is an unfair and invisible cost women face every time they go to the store. The little differences of price add up in the long run, and this is just another way society is unfairly capitalizing off of discrimination against women.
For many people such as Mohr, this tax is enraging. Not only does it add to the struggles women face on a day to day basis, but it diminishes the importance of a woman’s autonomy. “The burden falls upon companies and ultimately society to undue the circumstances of the patriarchy and fight for equality not just in grocery stores but in every aspect of life.”
