The Pink Tax Is Not A Myth

The Pink Tax Is Not A Myth.

The “Pink Tax” is often dismissed as a cultural joke or a marketing quirk, but for women, it is a measurable, persistent economic burden that shapes daily life, health access, and long-term financial stability. 

The Pink Tax is not a formal tax, imposed by the government. The term “Pink Tax” describes the systemic practice of charging women more money for comparable goods and services, particularly in personal care, health products, and essential services. Think pink razors, versus blue ones. Over time, this gendered pricing quietly takes billions of dollars from women, simply for being women. 

Multiple studies have confirmed that products marketed to women routinely cost more than nearly identical products marketed to men. An analysis by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs found that women’s products cost an average of 7% more than comparable men's products, with disparities appearing as early as childhood (NYC DCA, 2015). 

The price gaps were especially pronounced in personal care items; razors, deodorant, shampoo, body wash. Even when ingredients, manufacturing costs, and function are identical, packaging and gendered marketing alone act as justifications for higher costs. 

Few examples illustrate the Pink Tax more clearly than menstrual products. Pads, tampons, menstrual cups, and period underwear are not optional, they are necessities for millions of people. Yet, for decades, menstrual products were classified as “luxury items,” and subject to sales tax in many U.S. states (Tax Foundation, 2023). 

People who menstruate can spend over $6,000 on period products over a lifetime, a cost that falls disproportionately on low-income households and communities of color (Caruso et al., 2022). Lack of access to menstrual products, known as period poverty, has been linked to missed school, missed work, and adverse health outcomes. 

The Pink Tax has a financial impact for women that compounds over time. Studies estimate that women can pay thousands of dollars more than men over their lifetimes for comparable goods and services, including personal care items, and healthcare-adjacent products (AAUW, 2020). 

The added cost of the Pink Tax exists alongside the gender wage gap, caregiving responsibilities, and higher out-of-pocket healthcare expenses. 

As of 2024, menstrual products are still taxed in several U.S. states, and no comprehensive federal protections exist to prevent gender-based price discrimination in consumer goods (Tax Foundation, 2023).

The Pink Tax is often framed as a consumer issue, but its consequences are deeply tied to health equity. When essential hygiene and health products are priced out of reach, it compromises health, dignity, and opportunity.

At SHE+, we believe women’s health cannot be separated from equity. It means recognizing that access, affordability, and dignity are foundational to wellbeing. 

References: 

American Association of University Women. (2020). The cost of being a woman.

Caruso, B. A., Clasen, T., Hadley, C., Yount, K. M., Haardörfer, R., Rout, M., & Cooper, H. L. F. (2022). Understanding and defining menstruation-related challenges. BMJ Global Health, 7(2).

New York City Department of Consumer Affairs. (2015). From cradle to cane: The cost of being a female consumer.

Tax Foundation. (2023). State taxation of menstrual hygiene products.