Pink Tax: The Price of Being a Woman

Walk into any supermarket and you’ll find it, silent, unannounced, but everywhere. A razor in pink packaging costs more than the same razor in blue. A deodorant “for her” is priced higher than its “for him” counterpart. Even children’s toys, the pink plastic kitchen set costs more than the blue plastic car. It’s so subtle that most people don’t even notice. But women pay it, day after day. This invisible surcharge on being female has a name: the Pink Tax.

The Pink Tax is not an actual tax written into law. It is a pattern of pricing discrimination, where products marketed to women cost more than similar products for men. And while it may start with toiletries or clothes, the implications run far deeper. It reveals how society often makes womanhood more expensive, not just financially, but emotionally and socially.

Consider this: in India, women already earn 19 percent less than men on average for the same work, according to the International Labour Organization. Now add to that the extra money they spend on necessities simply because those products are branded as “feminine.” It is a cruel double bind, paid less but charged more. A pink razor is not just a pink razor; it is a symbol of an economy that quietly profits from gender.

Globally, studies show that women pay around 7 percent more for personal care products, 8 percent more for clothing, and nearly 13 percent more for things like dry cleaning. In the U.S., this was laid bare in a 2015 New York City study that analyzed nearly 800 products. But you don’t need a report. You can see it when you compare a “ladies’ shampoo” to a men’s 3-in-1. And in India, it is often more insidious. Menstrual products, sanitary pads and tampons, are treated as luxury items, taxed and priced in ways that push them out of reach for millions of low-income women. For a daily wage worker, buying pads can mean sacrificing food. That choice between dignity and survival should never have to exist.

The Pink Tax is not just about price tags. It is about how society perceives women: as consumers to be exploited, as bodies to be beautified, as markets to be segmented. A woman’s deodorant is made smaller, scented differently, marketed as delicate, and priced higher. Clothes marketed to women often lack functional pockets, forcing them into handbags and accessories, creating entire industries profiting off “needs” that were socially manufactured. Even the idea that women must spend more on appearance, makeup, skincare, and fashion is reinforced by centuries of conditioning that equate femininity with presentation. The Pink Tax thrives in this environment of expectation.

The cruelty runs deeper when you connect economics with lived reality. For a middle-class woman, maybe the Pink Tax feels like an annoyance, an unfair extra hundred rupees here and there. For women in poverty, it becomes a barrier to access. When basic hygiene products are out of reach, young girls drop out of school during menstruation. When clothing marketed as “professional” for women costs more, it affects who gets to walk into job interviews. The Pink Tax does not just drain wallets, it drains opportunities, dignity, and mobility.

This is why the issue cannot be brushed off as “just the cost of branding.” It is not a quirk of capitalism, it is a reflection of patriarchy embedded in markets. Capitalism finds profit in inequality, and gender discrimination becomes just another business model. The Pink Tax tells women: not only must you work harder to earn less, you must also pay more to exist in a world that profits from your difference.

Can regulation help? In some countries, yes. The European Union has begun scrutinizing gendered pricing. In the U.S., several states have passed laws banning the Pink Tax, requiring that equivalent products for men and women be priced the same. India took a small step when it exempted sanitary pads from GST after public outrage in 2018, though accessibility remains a challenge. But regulation alone will not dismantle the deeper issue, the way industries create and sustain artificial gender divides to maximize profit.

Real change requires both systemic shifts and cultural ones. Companies must be challenged to justify gendered pricing. Consumers must demand transparency and reject marketing that insults their intelligence by slapping pink packaging on a product and doubling the price. And we, as a society, must confront the uncomfortable truth that inequality is not just written in laws or traditions, it is hidden in the aisles of supermarkets, in the receipts we don’t examine, in the small ways women are made to pay more for the same life men live.

The Pink Tax is not about a few rupees on razors or shampoos. It is about what those rupees represent. It is the everyday reminder that gender equality is unfinished work, that discrimination does not always roar in our faces but sometimes whispers at the checkout counter. Until we name it, fight it, and refuse to pay it, the cost of being a woman will remain unfairly high.

---