In typical Daniella fashion, I have decided to drift from my original posted idea for this blog and go with an entire new one, gender inequality. It is a topic that I focused on pretty heavily last semester, and while I told myself that I would stray away from it this spring and attempt to broaden my horizons, I have found that I hold a great passion towards it and would like to continue exploring and analyzing the gender inequality found in many instances. For the first of this blog entry trio, I will be addressing the pink tax and tampon tax.

As a phenomenon analyzed by researchers since at least the 1990’s, the pink tax is a markup up on goods and services that are marketed as being for women, when men pay less for similar services and products. While it’s not a tax in a literal sense, it is still an extra cost that applies to almost every aspect of a females life, from apparel, to menstrual and hygiene products, to services, to even children’s toys and pens catered towards girls. The most recent data shows that the pink tax is costing women an average of $1,351 a year. While this is already a substantial number on its own, it also adds up significantly, and by the time a woman has reaches the age of 50, she has paid approximately $67,550 more than a man, simply due to her gender. The tax does not only affect adult women, but also female children as well. During an investigation, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs study found that even young girls cannot escape the pitfalls of the pink tax, because “girl toys” cost on average 2 percent to 13 percent more than “boy toys” that are exactly the same other than their color. Many examples of this can be found in the “18 Kids’ toys that prove girls start paying the ‘pink tax’ early?” blog post on the sheknows.com. This post showcases the way that a toy such as a glow-worm doll can jump from a reasonable $15 to $27, simply for being pink instead of blue. Or the “princess castle” pop-up tent that costs almost $10 more than the boys “knight castle” pop-up tent, even though they are the same exact thing, just with the princess version being pink and knight version being blue. These are just a couple examples of the way that a simple color stereotypically catered towards girls can make such a difference, and help to highlight the lifelong discrimination faced by women while shopping.

In addition to the marking up of products catered towards women, there is also a clear added cost that comes along with many services simply for being female as well. In 2016, CBS News conducted an experiment where two members of their staff — a man and a woman — went to multiple dry cleaners in New York City with the same white cotton button-up shirt. Through this experiment, they found that “more than half of the dry cleaners charged the female staff member at least twice as much to clean the shirt. Some even charged her three times as much.”. This is not the only proven instance of clear gender discrimination causing a price markup through everyday services in our society. During another study conducted in 2013 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a male and female participant called mechanics to get quotes for car repairs. The callers who appeared to be well-informed about pricing were treated the same regardless of gender. However, female callers who were uninformed on pricing were taken advantage of, and quoted almost $23 more on average than male callers. This side of the pink tax is one not talked about nearly as much, as it’s not a clearly advertised difference in pricing based on gender, however when investigated there is a clear gap, only made worse by companies aiming to take advantage of uninformed female customers. However, despite these gender-based price disparities in services, the most visible up-charge can be found in female personal care products.

In 2015, a government study on gender pricing in New York called “From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer”, analyzed 800 gender-specific products from nearly 100 brands. The report found that, on average, personal care products targeted to women were 13% more expensive than the similar men’s products. Every day products such as hair care, razors, lotions, and body washes have all been proven to be more expensive when advertised towards women, even when it’s the exact same brand and virtually exact same product as well. This price gap doesn’t just end at typical personal care products either, but includes senior/home health care products such as supports and braces, and even bladder control pads, or “guards” as they’re advertised for men. While there are some cases that an explanation for the gaps can be supported, such as the different materials used to manufacture certain mens versus women’s clothing items and the costs that go along with said materials, items that are for all intensive purposes exactly the same have little to no excuse regarding the difference in price point. Although not significant at first glance, as many don’t bat an eye at an extra dollar or two for their favorite products, these costs add up, and have lead to a collective protest from many, urging a change.

The start of October in2020 brought forth a promising systemic change in the continued fight for gender-based price discrimination for New York State, as according to the governor at the time, Andrew Cuomo, the practice of “pink taxing” was officially prohibited by law. More specifically than just an overall ban of the price gaps in general, he referred to the tax as a “form of discrimination…for services that are the same or “substantially similar” to comparable services for men.”,  and the law passed a way to ensure that women and girls are “no longer be subject to harmful and unfair price discrimination”.  While the classification of businesses that will be reviewed under the new ban was vague, this ban on something affecting so many women has been lauded as “tremendous progress in advancing gender equity” by the chair of the New York State Council on Women and Girls, Melissa DeRosa, and a “landmark law” for gender equality by Secretary of State Rossana Rosado. It’s far from a solution, but one very large step in the right direction as our society continues to discriminate based on gender.

Sources:

https://www.investopedia.com/tampon-tax-4774993

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/pink-tax-how-women-pay-more/

https://www.sheknows.com/parenting/slideshow/4257/pink-tax-toys/15/

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/partners/Study-of-Gender-Pricing-in-NYC.pdf

https://www.creditcards.com/to-her-credit/new-york-bans-pink-tax/