The umbrella term “pink tax” describes various financial inequalities based on gender. In different contexts it may refer to: 1. The gender wage gap, 2. Gender-based differentiation in pricing of goods or services, 3. Expenses that women are more likely to bear because of traditional gender stereotypes or expectations, 4. Time burdens disproportionately placed on individuals responsible for household and/or caregiving duties, 5. state sales taxes on products related to menstruation (Crawford, 2023).
Framing & Perspectives
The latter is specifically known as “the tampon tax”, referring not only to tampons but all menstrual hygiene products. These products are subject not only to purchase costs, but also to additional VAT and, in some cases, a luxury tax. Unlike other necessities, menstrual products are not granted tax exemptions, which is discriminatory and highlights how legal structures, such as the tax system, that are often considered neutral, disproportionately impact people who menstruate (Crawford & Spivack, 2017; Habbal et al., 2020). Several countries have eliminated or reduced taxes on menstrual products in recognition of their necessity. Kenya led the way in 2004, followed by Canada (2015), India (2018), Colombia (2018), Australia (2019), and Germany (2020) after years of activism, legal rulings, and public pressure (Habbal et al., 2020).
The pink tax refers to the additional costs women pay for products and services marketed to them, often under the guise of promoting femininity and appeal (Lafferty, 2019). Many are unaware of the reasons behind this persistent inequality, which is why it is considered both a “hidden” tax and a form of hidden discrimination. These products are often of equal or lesser quality than comparable items targeted at men, yet women are still charged more (Lafferty, 2019). Economic gender discrimination continues due to the deep-rooted acceptance of cultural gender expectations, which are reinforced by the media and specifically targeted at women. This issue affects individuals differently and spans various industries, including personal care products, clothing, toys, accessories, insurance, hairdressing, and dry cleaning, where products marketed to women are often priced higher than those aimed at men (Habbal et al., 2020; Pramesti, 2024). A 2015 study by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer, found that products marketed to women and girls cost, on average, 7% more than similar products marketed to men and boys (Habbal et al., 2020).
Relevance
The pink tax, in all its forms, results in higher financial costs for women, an unjust reality made worse by the gender wage gap, with men generally earning more on average (Thirumalai, 2022). Both income disparities and the additional costs women face give men greater control over their spending, while women experience reduced purchasing power and decision-making authority due to the various manifestations of the pink tax (Pramesti, 2024).
Keywords: Power Dynamics, Economic Gender Discrimination, Patriarchal Oppression
Connected terms: Sexism, Benevolent Sexism, Reproductive Rights, Racialized Beauty Standards, Housewifization, Overconsumption
References
Crawford, B. J. (2023). Pink tax and other tropes. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 34, 88.
Crawford, B. J., & Spivack, C. (2017). Tampon taxes, discrimination, and human rights. Wisconisn Law Review, 491.
Habbal, H. L., Lemke, R., & Felkey, A. J. (2020). An Economic Analysis of The Pink Tax (Doctoral dissertation, Lake Forest College).
Lafferty, M. (2019). The pink tax: the persistence of gender price disparity. Midwest Journal of Undergraduate Research, 11(2019), 56-72.
Pramesti, A. N. (2024). The Pink Tax in Consumer Behavior for Personal Care Products. Journal of Consumer Studies and Applied Marketing, 2(2), 178-190.
Thirumalai, A. (2022). The Impact of Pink Tax on Women. International Journal of Education and Research, 10(9): 17-24.
