It’s a strange contradiction: how can a country claim to be so progressive when something as basic as menstrual products still be a financial burden? And period products are only a part of the problem. Across different industries, women are often charged more for products that are nearly identical to those marketed toward men. In this country, all it takes to justify the difference is a change in color.
This is often referred to as pink tax. Despite its name, the government does not technically impose this as an actual tax, but instead, it is the phenomenon that enforces women to pay higher prices for products and services marketed towards them. According to the National Organization of Women (NOW), despite what many believe, the price differences between nearly identical products cannot be fully explained by “aesthetic differences” only. Women pay more for everything from children’s clothing and toys to personal care products, including deodorant; at times, they are paying more for the same amount of product.
Part of the answer lies in how companies are marketing their products. By simply changing its color, scent, or even packaging, there is now a separate version designed entirely for women. The Senate Joint Economic Committee explains that businesses may charge more for these products as they believe women are less sensitive to price increases which, in turn, mean they are more willing to pay more. In other words, corporations are using their expectation that women will pay more into a business strategy.
Unfortunately, women already face financial inequality, namely income inequality. The Senate Joint Economic Committee notes that equal pay for comparable work could cut the poverty rate among working women in half. All of these factors contribute to less financial equality: women are earning less and yet are still paying more for everyday items.
Menstrual products, specifically, present a moral issue. While the pink tax tends to refer to pricing decisions over a variety of industries, the tampon tax refers to sales tax specifically applied to menstrual products. These products are necessities for most women, and yet the government tends to allow their taxation on the grounds of government revenue. To put it in numbers, in California, eliminating taxes on tampons and diapers is estimated to reduce government revenue by $55 million; in New York, the estimated annual loss was $14 million.
It would be unfair to say the country has not tried. In 2021, Representative Jackie Speier introduced the Pink Tax Repeal Act, which prohibited “product manufacturers or service providers from selling substantially similar products at different prices based on the gender of the intended purchase.” This bill specifically addresses cases in which products differed only in superficial manners, such as color.
There would be no argument if there were actually different ingredients or manufacturing processes that could justify the different costs. Instead, there is evidence to prove the differences tend to be trivial; consumers have reason to question whether they are paying for the product or for the way it’s been marketed to them.
On its own, the pink tax can seem insignificant. Many do not take their time to check why a certain deodorant costs more than the other while they are grocery shopping, but as these costs add up, it becomes a serious problem.
If two products offer essentially the same thing, the question should be what makes them different, not whether one was designed for a specific gender. A change in color is not a justification for a higher price, and gender should not determine what someone pays for everyday necessities. Pink is just a color.
Can’t get enough of HC UMass Amherst? Be sure to follow us on Instagram, listen to us on Spotify, like us on Facebook, and read our latest Tweets!