Economic discrimination against women remains a significant challenge to social development and achievement of gender parity. Oppressive policies such as the pink tax issue are saddening as it adds more burden to women who are already struggling with low wages and other gender-based discrimination. According to Elliot, Pink Tax is a cumulative term for increasing women’s products’ cost compared to men despite having the same use. This phenomenon constitutes the broader gender-based price discrimination, which is eliciting heated debate in modern times. In her research, Elliot notes that a recent study by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs established that women products are categorically more expensive than men’s by an average of 7% without justifiable reason. Economists and sociologists have attributed this discrepancy to numerous factors that include the tampon tax, product differentiation, and the biased belief that women are less price elastic than their male counterparts. Therefore, referring to Elliot’s article, the pricing of female products and services without considering the prevailing socio-economic dynamics is sexism.
Sexism in the apparel industry is aggravated by marketers’ selective marketing approach to target women consumers. Candice Elliot offers detailed insight on the Pink Tax through an article titled The Pink Tax: What’s the cost of being a female consumer this year? Elliot notes that the major product categories with significant cost disparity include clothes, dry cleaning services, self-care products, vehicle repairs, and toys. The first factor causing the Pink Tax in the U.S. is product differentiation. The iconic pink color is an example of a product differentiation element responsible for the price disparity. Marketers assert that pink color is more expensive than other colors; hence, it is why pink products are relatively costly. Elliot’s price comparison for Old Navy cloths established that women’s products cost higher than men’s in all product ranges (dress pants at 6%, dress shirts at 13%, sweaters at 6%, jeans at 10%, and shirts at 15% and, socks at 3%) except underwear. Old Navy owners’ statement attributed the significant price difference to expert designers responsible for the curve-enhancing and curve-flattering elements that include stretch materials and waistbands that are not included in male products. Based on these facts, it is evident that a female consumer’s likelihood of paying more in the apparel industry is significantly high.
Beauty and fashion products and services marketers have mastered the art of leveraging women’s enthusiasm towards pink color to promote sexism. Elliot notes that the U.S. is mainly a consumer economy, and marketers have found it lucrative to target female consumers selectively. This is informed by a culture that has created an environment where women continuously seek validation; in the process, overspending on beauty and fashion. In reality, this situation is hypothetical since most women struggle with the already skewed gender system. Correlating this with sexism, the first justification is exemplified by the color coding scheme for most women products in the market. Interestingly, marketers and manufacturers have associated the pink color with women even though history shows that the pink color was for men. This social construct has dictated how products are designed and priced, with manufacturers and marketers psychologically using the pink color to promote sexism.
The pricing of female products and services based on women’s perceived social position in the community promotes sexism. Female products such as tampons and sanitary products are unnecessarily expensive. Feminists and gender-sensitive individuals have questioned the tax system for imposing sales tax on essential commodities that serve nature’s natural processes. The enormous economic disparity between women and men should be acknowledged that women are already suffering from low wages and limited opportunities. Given this, the government should exempt sanitary products from sales tax to reduce their market prices. Likewise, the assumption that women are price-insensitive compared to their male counterparts is demeaning and discriminatory. Ideally, this constitutes sexism because it ignores the actual economic gap between genders. The difficult economic times marred with limited jobs and low wages are already a challenge to most women. An example of biased service pricing is in the mechanical industry, which is predominantly male-dominated. Elliot refers to a Northwestern study, which established that women were charged $406 for a radiator replacement that should cost $365, whereas men were charged $383. Elliot further notes that the same disparity is witnessed during a car purchase. These instances exemplify how society nurtures and promotes sexism, exerting a lot of pressure on women’s budgeting.
An attempt by social activists and lawmakers to end the Pink Tax policy has been futile. Opponents of the Pink Tax argue that it denies women of agency and choice by implying that women are susceptible to a marketing strategy that prevents them from selecting cheaper products. However, the Pink Tax problem counters this argument by stating that women pay more for products because of the attached aesthetic value. The same marketers believe that men, on the contrary, are more concerned with the durability aspect of products. This reasoning has been used to justify the discriminatively high cost of female products. Similarly, attempts by lawmakers to legislate the Pink Tax in the U.S. have not been successful. Elliot notes that, while the Affordable Care Act ensures that insurance companies can no longer exploit women financially for healthcare services, the anti-Pink Tax policy that would address the price disparity has never been legislated. For example, the Pink Tax Repeal Act of 2018 introduced by Rep. Jackie Speier failed to pass even though it would address the country’s pricing disparity. The Act would have regulated the pricing of products and services that are dictated by gender-based perceptions. Consequently, lawmakers from 22 states attempted to repeal the tampon tax in 2019 through a series of bills, but none went through. This shows that there is no federal legislation that would address the Pink Tax challenge in America.
Overall, after acknowledging that it will take a while to end the Pink Tax, Elliot offers women advice to show their discernment by avoiding certain products. She notes that while women cannot avoid tampons and pads, there are loads of options out there. She hints that some companies have started recognizing this conversation and implementing positive strategies. Harry’s, for instance, has joined the course against unfair pricing and seeking to offer high-quality ultra-low-cost prices for female products. The business sells shaving products and other skincare products at a lower price without compromising quality. Other companies such as Billie and Boxed have joined the course to address the Pink Tax issues. Elliot also urges women to embrace what French women do: using social media to shame companies that support Pink Tax by sharing the pictures of their products on social media. Nonetheless, more research is needed to establish the economic and social factors responsible for nurturing and promoting the Pink Tax.
Work Cited
Elliot, Candice. “The Pink Tax: What’s the Cost of being a Female Consumer In 2021?”Listen Money Matters, 2021.