The cost of being female: unpacking the pink tax

Have you ever encountered this situation? While shopping, you notice that your favorite items in soft colors like pink are significantly more expensive than similar items in other colors. This phenomenon is known as the “pink tax.” It refers to the price premium added by retailers simply because a product has a feminine label or color.

Photo Caption：On Amazon.com, the price of the same children’s scooter varies depending on the colour. The pink one is much more expensive than the blue one.

Photo Caption：On the Chinese shopping site Taobao, prices for the same adult suitcase vary depending on the colour. The pink model is considerably more expensive than both blue and black.

The pink tax exists in all aspects of our daily lives, from clothing to everyday necessities, and even personal hygiene products. When purchasing essentials, women’s T-shirts are more expensive than men’s, pink suitcases cost more than black ones, and the same dumbbell in pink can be ten yuan more expensive. These price differences do not stem from differences in material, craftsmanship, or design, but merely because these products are labeled as “for women.” The California Senate Committee on Judiciary and Senate Select Committee on Women, Work & Families stated in 2020 that Californian women pay an average of about $2,381 more, for the same goods and services, than men per year. That can add up to about $188,000 in pink tax throughout a woman’s life.As female consumers, we are paying an additional cost for what seems like harmless marketing labels.

Photo Caption：In terms of the prices of necessities, there is a big difference between the prices of daily necessities for boys and those for girls.

The pink tax is more than economic disparity. It also reinforces stereotypes that women are beauty-conscious, less cost-aware, and easily influenced by marketing. These assumptions unfairly burden women financially and socially, conditioning them to accept paying extra for “cute” or well-packaged items.

Actually, we can resist the pink tax by comparing products, opting for unisex or men’s items, and raising awareness on social platforms. Every choice to prioritize cost-effectiveness challenges these stereotypes and sends a message: female consumers value fairness and equality, pushing for a more just market.

So, next time you find a pink dumbbell more expensive than a black one or a women’s item lacking in detail yet priced higher than the men’s version, do not hesitate to choose the more cost-effective option!

Text by Huan Lin.

Image Source—

Image 1: Screenshot from Amazon (https://www.amazon.com)

Image 2: Screenshot from Alibaba (https://www.alibaba.com)

Image 3: Screenshot from The Co-operative Bank, “Pink Tax: Women Paying More for Their Essentials” (https://www.co-operativebank.co.uk/content-hub/articles-and-advice/pink-tax-women-paying-more-for-their-essentials/)

References:

California State Senate Judiciary Committee. (2020, February 18). Gender pricing of consumer goods: How gender-based pricing hurts women and families. https://sjud.senate.ca.gov/sites/sjud.senate.ca.gov/files/2.18.2020_sjud_gender_pricing_info_hearing_background_paper.pdf