A key aspect of economic justice, one of NOW’s core values, is removing gender-based discrimination in everyday financial tasks. The pink tax, a theory that companies market products to women that are more expensive than nearly identical products targeted toward men is a crucial example of gender and income inequality.[i]
One way that women face economic inequality is through shopping preferences and options available to them as everyday consumers. Gender-based marketing is a form of discrimination against women, who already face lower wages, where they are marketed everyday products at a higher price purely for being more feminine and supposedly more attractive for female buyers. A 1994 analysis of a proposed and later passed law in California found that “women were paying $1,351 more per year for similar products and services compared to men.”[ii] Clearly, the cost of gender-based marketing and price discrimination is significant to women.
Many companies claim that the reason for pricing disparities is due to the different production costs of adding colors and new designs for female-marketed products.[iii] However, there is significant evidence that the considerable price differences associated with nearly identical products cannot be fully attributed to aesthetic difference costs.[iv] These price discrepancies are most prominent in women’s beauty and health products such as razors. A nearly identically labeled and manufactured product displayed a 150 percent price increase for the women’s marketed razor product compared to the men’s razor.[v]
A more recent analysis completed by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs in 2015 found that women’s products cost 7 percent more on average than similar products for men 43 percent of the time.[vi] The personal care product category represents the most significant difference of 13 percent more for female-marketed products.[vii]
Personal care is a highly contentiously labeled category due to its implications in tax regulation. Many “personal care” items include everyday necessities such as pads, tampons, and other menstrual products. Due to not being considered essential goods, they do not receive the same tax exemption that items such as grocery produce, canned foods, and prescription medicines.[viii] This distinction is known as the tampon tax, “which taxes menstrual products as non-essential items, places an additional burden on people who menstruate, and discriminates against them by making items crucial for everyday life unaffordable for some.”[ix]
Some states have begun regulating this gender-based price discrimination by eliminating taxes on menstrual products, yet there is no federal standard for labeling these goods as essential items.[x] A way to eliminate this additional cost that women face purely by performing necessary bodily functions is by advocating for a federal designation on menstrual products to be tax-free. Some federal-level efforts have been made such as by Rep. Jackie Spier (D-CA) by introducing the Pink Tax Repeal Act in 2021 to Congress which would “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.”[xi] Renewing efforts to pass this bill and advocate for greater gender equality as women continue the struggle to close the gender wage gap is crucial in the search for economic justice.
[i] Amy Fontinelle, Ebony Howard, and Vikki Velasquez, “What Is the Pink Tax? Impact on Women, Regulation, and Laws,” Investopedia, June 21, 2024, https://www.investopedia.com/pink-tax-5095458.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Anna Bessendorf, “The-Pink-Tax—How-Gender-Based-Pricing-Hurts-Women- …,” ed. Shira Gans, New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, December 2015, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8a42df04-8b6d-4949-b20b-6f40a326db9e/the-pink-tax—how-gender-based-pricing-hurts-women-s-buying-power.pdf.
[iv] “The Pink Tax How Gender-Based Pricing Hurts Women’s Buying Power,” United States Joint Economic Committee, December 2016, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8a42df04-8b6d-4949-b20b-6f40a326db9e/the-pink-tax—how-gender-based-pricing-hurts-women-s-buying-power.pdf.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Anna Bessendorf, “The-Pink-Tax—How-Gender-Based-Pricing-Hurts-Women- …,” ed. Shira Gans, New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, December 2015, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8a42df04-8b6d-4949-b20b-6f40a326db9e/the-pink-tax—how-gender-based-pricing-hurts-women-s-buying-power.pdf.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Aria Bendix and Joe Murphy, “Where Tampons, Pads and Other Period Products Are Taxed: Map,” NBCNews.com, January 9, 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/where-tampons-pads-period-products-are-taxed-map-rcna132874#.
[ix] Leah Rodriguez, “The Tampon Tax: Everything You Need to Know,” Global Citizen, June 28, 2021, https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/tampon-tax-explained-definition-facts-statistics/.
[x] Jessica Wakeman, “The Real Cost of Pink Tax,” Healthline, August 6, 2020, https://www.healthline.com/health/the-real-cost-of-pink-tax.
[xi] “Pink Tax Repeal Act,” bill (2021).
By Julia Meyer, Chapters Intern