By Apoorva Lakshmi Kaipa

Abstract

The “Pink Tax” is a form of gender-based economic discrimination wherein products and services marketed toward women are often priced higher than comparable items for men. This article explores the historical development of gendered marketing, tracing its roots from early consumer culture to modern-day advertising strategies. It examines the emergence of the Pink Tax through documented studies and analyzes its intersection with feminist movements advocating for economic equality. Additionally, the discussion highlights legislative measures and consumer rights initiatives aimed at addressing gendered pricing. By delving into contemporary consumer behavior and corporate responses, the article underscores the significance of continued activism and policy reform in eradicating this disparity.

Introduction

Imagine walking into a store and picking up two razors, one blue and one pink. They’re identical in function, yet the pink one is priced higher. This is not a coincidence; this is the Pink Tax. The “Pink Tax” refers to the systemic overpricing of products and services marketed toward women, despite these items often being identical in function to those marketed toward men. This phenomenon extends across various consumer categories, including personal care products, clothing, and services such as dry cleaning and haircuts. To understand this issue, it is essential to examine its historical origins, connections to feminist movements, and implications for consumer rights.

The Historical Roots of Gendered Marketing

Marketing strategies have long relied on differentiation to create demand, and gender has been a significant factor in this approach. The historical evolution of gendered marketing can be traced back to the early 20th century when companies such as Procter & Gamble began producing and marketing gender specific products. While men’s grooming products were often designed with functionality in mind, women’s equivalents were frequently marketed with a focus on aesthetics and luxury, thereby justifying higher price points. 

During the Great Depression (1929-1939), advertising campaigns reinforced traditional gender roles, positioning women as primary consumers responsible for household purchases. Advertisements in publications such as Good Housekeeping emphasized that a woman’s ability to care for her family was closely linked to her consumer choices. The post-war economic expansion of the 1950s and 1960s further entrenched gendered consumerism. The rise of a consumer-driven society saw the emergence of an extensive market for beauty and household products targeted explicitly at women. These products, though often similar in composition to men’s alternatives, were priced higher due to branding and perceived value.

The Emergence of the Pink Tax

Although the term “Pink Tax” is relatively modern, the practice of gender-based pricing has been documented for decades. A 1994 study conducted by the California Assembly Office of Research revealed that women, on average, paid approximately $1,351 more per year than men for equivalent goods and services. A subsequent 2015 study by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs found that products targeted at women cost, on average, 7% more than comparable men’s products. This price discrepancy was observed in multiple categories, including personal care, apparel, and children’s toys. One particularly controversial example is the taxation of menstrual products. Often classified as luxury goods in several countries, these essential items are subjected to additional taxation. As shown in the figure, women must spend a big portion of their salary to buy hygiene products which is a luxury for some to be able to use this buying sanitary products is often a very difficult task for women of the global south. This practice has led to global advocacy efforts demanding policy reform. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66423981

Feminist Movements and Economic Equality

Second-wave feminism (1960s-1980s) emphasized issues of economic dependence for women, including workplace discrimination and wage disparities. Although the movement primarily focused on employment rights, concerns about consumer discrimination were beginning to surface.

Third-wave feminism (1990s-2000s) introduced an intersectional perspective, highlighting how race and socioeconomic status further exacerbated economic disparities. Scholars and activists increasingly discussed the disproportionate impact of the Pink Tax on marginalized communities.

Fourth-wave feminism (2010s-present) has leveraged social media to amplify discussions on economic justice. Digital activism has been instrumental in raising awareness about gender-based pricing and pressuring corporations and policymakers to take action. For example, in 2020, Scotland became the first country to provide menstrual products free of charge, a landmark victory for gender equity.

Consumer Rights and Legal Interventions

Efforts to address the Pink Tax through legislation have gained momentum in recent years. In 1996, California became the first U.S. state to prohibit gender-based pricing for services, such as haircuts and dry cleaning. In India, sanitary napkins were exempted from the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 2018 after significant public pressure and advocacy from activists and civil society groups. However, while the tax was removed, the raw materials used to manufacture these products remain taxed, leading to continued high retail prices and limited access in many regions. This reflects how legal reforms, while symbolic, often fall short of addressing structural barriers in practice. Internationally, countries such as Canada and members of the European Union have worked toward eliminating the taxation of menstrual products, though disparities still persist. In 2020, New York enacted legislation banning businesses from charging different prices for products that are “substantially similar” in nature.

Despite these reforms, access remains unequal, many low-income or rural communities still struggle with affordability and availability. Retail pricing disparities continue, with branded feminine hygiene products often marked up despite being essential. Moreover, free access programs are limited and inconsistently implemented. These gaps highlight that while tax reform is a step forward, menstrual equity remains far from achieved. Despite these advances, enforcement remains challenging. Companies often circumvent pricing regulations by employing subtle branding strategies, such as altering packaging or product descriptions, to justify cost variations.

The Role of Modern Consumer Behavior

The digital era has significantly enhanced consumer awareness and mobilization against gender-based pricing. Websites provide platforms for consumers to identify and challenge discriminatory pricing. Companies such as Billie (a razor brand) and The Ordinary (skincare brand) have adopted gender-neutral pricing models, setting new industry standards. Studies indicate that younger consumers, particularly Millennials and Gen Z, actively seek gender-neutral products, thereby pressuring major brands to reassess their pricing structures

The Path Forward, Towards Economic Parity

While awareness of the Pink Tax is increasing, eradicating gender-based pricing requires comprehensive and sustained efforts. Key strategies for progress include:

1. Stronger legislative oversight to ensure compliance with gender-pricing regulations.
2. Corporate accountability initiatives that encourage transparency in pricing models.
3. Consumer advocacy and education to empower individuals in making informed purchasing decisions.

Achieving equitable pricing structures demands a multifaceted approach involving policymakers, businesses, and consumers. As societal awareness continues to grow, economic structures must evolve to reflect principles of fairness and gender equity.

Conclusion 

The Pink Tax is more than an economic issue, it is a symbol of how deeply ingrained gender inequality remains in society. By tracing its roots through history, linking it to feminist movements, and examining modern consumer activism, we can see that progress is possible. But awareness alone is not enough. Action—through legislation, consumer choices, and activism—is the only way to make sure that the color of a product does not dictate its price. So, next time you reach for that pink razor, ask yourself: How much is gender costing you?

About the Author: Apoorva is an undergraduate student doing law at Jindal Global Law School. She is interested in exploring the intersection of feminism, law and social responsibility.

Image Source: The ‘Pink Tax’ Found to Be a Barrier for Women Investing in Long-term Savings | Financial IT