Blog Post 1
Lucy Thompson
PS101 – Dr. Jenkins
2/9/22
Blog Post 1
A specific social issue that plagues women is the pink tax. The pink tax is when products, goods, or services marketed specifically towards women cost more than those same products that are marketed towards men. So, the pink tax is not actually an additional tax but a discriminatory pricing system. Not only does this include products like women's clothes, shoes, hygiene products, but even toys marketed towards little girls. One issue with the pink tax is that it is not always easy to identify. There are of course some more obvious scenarios like when there is a pink shaving razor next to a navy one at the store, and the pink one costs more. And that women have to pay for sanitary products because they menstruate. But there are some higher-priced items that are harder to spot like a women’s version of a t-shirt versus the men’s version of the exact same t-shirt.
There are several perspectives regarding the pink tax, and I think they stem from which socioeconomic class women are members of. The perspective of the companies making these marked-up female-intended products is that for decades women have been expected to pay more so why stop now. I think from a business perspective if they can make more profit by marking items up, then go ahead. But the business perspective focused on profit gain does not account for the discrimination it produces. Another perspective is of women or young girls that are members of the upper-middle and upper class are less likely to be affected by the pink tax or pay attention to it. Children especially are unaware because they have a primary caregiver that provides for them. Women of all ages that are members of the lower-middle and lower socioeconomic classes are more cognizant of the pink tax and it has a more profound impact on them. Instead of buying women’s shoes for their daughter, they might buy men’s shoes in an effort to save where they can. There is also this societal pressure in mainstream America for children and even adults to have certain material items and some can be gender-based. Like for a teenage girl to have the newest mini shirt, the prettiest new dress, etc. Because of this pressure, I think some people become blinded to how much of a difference there is between male and female pricing.
Women spend roughly $1,300 more than men due to the pink tax. The products that are marketed specifically towards women are often subject to a price markup, whereas men’s items are not subject to additional price markups. This leads me to wonder what the extra money women are spending on the pink tax could be used for instead. $1,300 may seem like an insignificant amount to some Americans, but to some families that is the difference between being able to eat or going hungry. Some families or women that are self-reliant struggle to afford the essential sanitary products they need because they cannot afford them. This leads to hygiene issues stemming from the inability to properly take care of themselves. This can be anything from not having clean underwear to not having access to proper disposal methods for soiled clothes, sanitary products, or makeshift sanitary products.
Some evidence-based solutions I would propose are local government intervention. I would say federal government intervention, but I feel as if that would take longer due to all of the steps that would have to be taken. I think community outreach programs through churches, schools, colleges, clubs, and Greek life could have a profound impact on many women’s lives if they focused their efforts on the pink tax. They could help provide clothes, toiletries, and sanitary products that are subject to price markups. This would help those women affected by poverty that are greatly affected by the pink tax by providing those items to them at little or no cost so that with the money they do have they can focus on putting that into providing food, water, shelter, etc. for themselves and their families. I think the evidence is profound that women spend more money than men per year through the discovery of the actual monetary amount of about $1,300 to even looking at the difference between the cost of a pink razor and a navy razor at the supermarket. Not to mention, women and those shopping for women buy sanitary products: something the male biology simply does not require. This to me proves that the proof surrounds us all in our daily lives, it is just a matter of really choosing to look for it or not. The Pink Tax Repeal Act has been introduced to congress; however, it has not been passed yet. The goal of the bill is, “To prohibit the pricing of consumer products and services that are substantially similar if such products or services are priced differently based on the gender of the individuals for whose use the products are intended or marketed or for whom the services are performed or offered” (Congress.gov). This is a glimmer of hope that our leaders in Washington are aware of the discrimination women face and I hope they choose to stand up to discriminatory pricing. I hope that one day there will be sanitary products readily available to women at little to no cost and we will not be plagued by the pink tax on items we buy. Just because we are women does not mean we should be subjected to this discrimination.
Sources:
https://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/pink-tax-how-women-pay-more/