The Price of Pink: The Hidden Costs of Female-Centered Products
- WULR Team
- 11 minutes ago
- 4 min read
An analysis on the "pink tax" and its effects on consumers
Published August 25th, 2026
Written by Kathryn McKinney
The United States has made great strides over the past century to maintain a level of equality for all persons regardless of their gender, including the 19th amendment allowing for women’s suffrage, Title IX on gender-based discrimination in federally funded programs, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to ensure equal payment between the two sexes and many others. While the political and economic aspects of everyday life are strictly mandated by legislation, the social component remains sorely neglected. Marketing and branding schemes continue with an antiquated view of who a man and woman should be and profit from these stereotypes. Male-centered products, specifically in the realm of self care, are branded as “manly” with green, black, and brown colors and scents such as sandalwood or sea salt. Female products are marketed as brightly colored, mainly pink, with fruity scents and fun designs. While these two types of products are virtually the same in every aspect, female products continually have higher prices — this is what’s called “Pink Tax” which continues to plague women with higher prices on everyday products without legislation to protect them.
In March 2024, United States’ Representative Norma J. Torres reintroduced the Pink Tax Repeal Act with its intended impact to stop “any person from selling (or offering to sell) substantially similar consumer products or services at different prices based on the gender of the intended purchaser”. After a referral to the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data and Commerce, there has been no further progress with the bill. This bill is vital for the progression of American civil society because consumers wishing to purchase female-oriented products are discriminately faced with additional fees due to their color or scent. In 2015, the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs found that 43% of the time, women’s products were priced at 7% higher than their male counterparts. While this price differential may seem slim to some, low-income households face a substantial burden when those prices continue to add up. Furthermore, another analysis done by the Joint Economic Committee in December 2016 concluded that despite the 20% “gender pay gap” as members of the workforce, the discrimination is doubled-down on the consumer side as well. This report shows a graphic of two sets of virtually identical disposable razors where the pink packaging is priced at $7.51 and the green packaging is priced at $4.99.
But “pink taxes” aren’t just seen in razors and soaps. One of the biggest financial burdens women, specifically low income women, face is the price of menstrual products. Sanitary pads, tampons, and other necessary products are costs women typically face every month, yet since they’re not considered essential products. The US has not provided any tax relief despite global precedence from countries such as Canada, Australia, India and Rwanda. Big corporations are profiting off things women cannot control and thus are receiving unfair treatment because of it. Another area of interest with these taxes are in the children’s toy section of major stores. Parents, and subsequently young children, are being punished with higher prices for their child simply preferring one color over the other. An example of this was in a report conducted in New York City where in one instance, the red children's scooter was $24.99 and the pink sparkle scooter was $49.99. In the same report, there were 29/53 times women had to pay more for toys and accessories — the fact of the matter is these disparities start from birth and if nothing is done to mitigate the effects of pink taxes, then there will continue to be an income disparity between men and women.
Moving into the future, two states, New York and California, have already enacted legislation prohibiting the use of gender-based pricing for similar goods and services marketed toward women. The New York State Assembly passed their act in 2020 with Secretary of State Robert Rodriguez quoting “pricing inequities continue to impact women’s progress”. The Governor’s office of New York also brings up the gender-pay gap previously mentioned where the economic burden on women is already high and these taxes tack on additional fees and reduce a women’s overall economic potential. The law stipulates that businesses can charge different prices for goods and services if there’s a gender-neutral reason, such as the amount of time, difficulty or cost of production. Similarly, in 2022, California signed AB 1287 into law which prohibits disproportionate price increases for similar products on the basis of gender. This law expanded on pre-existing California piece of legislation including the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 and the Gender Neutral Retail Departments law — both of which were previously enacted to lessen the economic burden on differing genders, but failed to see the full scope of the issue which is what the new pink tax law aimed to do.
Gender-based discrimination is an ever pressing issue in the United States especially with economic burdens such as pink taxes increasing the prices of everyday goods for women across the country. For the economic and social gap between men and women to lessen, there must be a federal change in the pricing system for how similar goods and services are sold. Equality is hard fought and hard won; with pioneer states such as New York and California leading the way, there is a chance of change for everyone to buy the products they need and desire without any additional monetary burden.
Comments