Have you ever wondered how women pay Rs800+ for a normal haircut while men get the same satisfactory haircut at 200 bucks? While you or women around you are happy to pay this price for an haircut, is it really because they are accustomed to do so for the lack of options?
Well, what you see at salon services is just a small example of Pink Tax - and no, it is not a made-up term!
In an era where gender equality is a prominent topic of discussion, various subtle and not-so-subtle forms of discrimination continue to persist. One such example is the "Pink Tax," a term that refers to the extra costs that women often pay for products and services compared to their male counterparts.
Let us delve deeper into what this easily ignorable Pink Tax is!
The Pink Tax is not a literal tax imposed by governments, but rather a colloquial term used to describe the phenomenon of products and services marketed towards women being priced higher than similar products intended for men. This can be seen across a wide range of products, including personal care items, clothing, toys, and even services such as dry cleaning and haircuts. Studies have shown that women often pay more for everyday items like razors, shampoo, and clothing, even when the products themselves are virtually identical to those marketed towards men.
If it is difficult for you to believe this, just go to your nearest hyperstore and compare prices of Gillette razors - men and women. While a pack of five for men costs Rs88, the same pack of five razors, wrapped in pink and labelled Gillette Venus razors costs Rs240!!
But wait! Contrary to what you might think, Pink tax isn’t a new concept.
The Pink Tax has its roots in societal norms, historical context, and marketing strategies. For instance, the gendered stereotypes that associate femininity with certain qualities, such as the desire to look attractive and maintain a certain image, have been exploited by businesses to justify higher prices for women's products. Additionally, the extra costs can be attributed to packaging, branding, and the perception that women are more willing to pay for products that are marketed as being designed especially for them.
But that’s just fair marketing, you say? Not really!
The Pink Tax has far-reaching implications. On an individual level, it places an undue financial burden on women, who end up paying more over time for products that are equivalent to those marketed towards men. Moreover, it reinforces harmful stereotypes by suggesting that women are willing to pay more for products simply because they are tailored to them.
According to a study by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs in 2015, products explicitly marketed for women cost seven per cent more on average than products sold for men. The largest discrepancy came to personal care/hygiene products, where women's products cost 13 per cent more than men's. What a blow on those wallets (or sling bags!).
That’s just not it. Several countries have also investigated the pink tax, including Argentina, France, Germany, the UK, Australia, and Italy. For example, in the UK, it was found that women and girls were being charged, on average, 37 per cent more for toys, cosmetics, and clothes than their male counterparts. In the UK, girls' school uniforms were also 12 per cent more expensive than boys' uniforms. In Singapore, a check by the Sunday Times on 10 companies found that women pay more for some products and services, such as dry cleaning and razors, offered by around half of these companies.
Now the question arises – Why isn’t anyone noticing it? Well, it is being noticed. In fact, Pink tax is banned in many countries - India, clearly, isn’t one of them yet.
Efforts to address the Pink Tax have gained momentum in recent years. Some governments and advocacy groups have called for greater transparency in pricing, urging businesses to disclose the reasons behind price disparities between seemingly identical products. Moreover, consumers are becoming more informed and vocal about these discrepancies, pressuring companies to reevaluate their pricing strategies.
We, as individuals, can also make a difference by supporting businesses that have fair pricing practices and choosing to boycott those that perpetuate the Pink Tax. Raising awareness about the issue through social media, discussions, and petitions can contribute to broader change.
Conclusively, The Pink Tax is a reminder that gender inequality persists in subtle yet impactful ways, even in consumer transactions. By understanding its origins and consequences, we can collectively work towards dismantling this unfair practice. Ultimately, the goal is not just to eliminate the Pink Tax, but to foster a society where equality is the norm in all aspects of life.
By: Isha Garg