THE “pink tax” is not referred to as an actual real-life tax. However, compared to opposing gender-branded products, it is often used to describe the high cost of women/female items and products. It is often suggested that items with pink labels or packaging made for women are higher in prices compared to items with blue labels or packaging made for men.

This by itself is a discrimination.
We are taught the “distinction” between men and women from an early age. In marketing, it’s no different. The packaging of men-targeted products are often dark in colour, like black, navy blue or emerald green and it has “manly” accents such as spikes or blades. “Feminine” products are the complete opposite. They’re light in colours, mostly pastels, like purple or pink and have cotton clouds and butterflies—all supposed accents of “feminine” traits. The colour, shapes, and even scents of both types of products are different, yes. However, their price tags are also different and that is the key focus of this column piece this week.

The “Pink tax” is formally known as gender-based pricing. It describes an increase in cost or price of products based on gender-targeting of sales. Women are already classed as the world’s poor, and I am afraid this is one of many ways that contribute to that claim. Studies have shown that women pay as much as 50 percent more than men when purchasing similar products. There seems to be no fixed regulation on this “tax” either, so as the years go by, it increases. Unfortunately, many of these items are necessities for women, and they are often forced to purchase them based on what is available in stores.

I dare ask the question, why? Why do women pay more because of their needs or whom they are? In some instances, these products are the same, but the only distinction is the colour of the label and the target audience. Don’t believe me? Go into your local supermarket and take your own assessment. Look at the ingredients in shampoos for men and women. Pick out the similarities and then note what the prices are. The same can be done for dozens of other products and items such as razor blades, soaps, body wash, deodorant, etc. Do you notice an absurd difference in the cost? If yes, that is your evidence of the “pink tax.”

It is not confined only to hygiene products, although that is where the most noticeable difference is seen. Items such as children’s toys or clothing also have price differences based on gender. I am writing this so that you, women and girls, can be aware of this phenomenon. It may not always be noticeable or obvious, but it is a reality. It’s unfair that we should be paying more, simply for being a woman, but that is a real-life example of how women are exploited, and I do hope that moving forward, women become more aware of this.

The next time you’re out purchasing products—I hope you pay attention to what you purchase and how much you’re paying. You can start by purchasing gender-neutral products or products not tailored towards a specific gender. Or, you can even purchase the “male packaged” products because they’re often the same as the women’s option—just a different packaging. Your consumption has value in eradicating this capitalist mess, and as such, I urge you to be more conscious of it. The more you spend on these products, the more you encourage it to continue.