Inequality can be manifested in different dimensions, ranging from racial prejudices to judgment of personal life partner choices. Whereas any kind of unfair treatment is primarily wrong, there are some types the lack of logic behind which is truly baffling. The so-called pink tax, which involves higher prices for ‘female’ products, is one of such instances. Many consumer goods and services designed for women cost more than those designed for men, although there is no difference in material or quality. Therefore, the pink tax should be outlawed because it is gender-based price discrimination making women pay more than men.
The primary reason for banning the pink tax’s spread is that women do not ask for any special colors to mark their products. As Lafferty argues, many products are considered as “appealing and feminine” and, thus, charged more than men’s products (57). However, the problem is that no one requests such special offers, and too many customers are not aware of the prices being higher for female products.
One more problem with the pink tax is that discrimination in economics is the consequence of cultural discrimination that has persisted throughout history. Cultural expectations of marketing further develop the pink tax, which is a rather negative phenomenon (Lafferty 56). Hence, since females do not expect or request any special labels or colors, and the latter are imposed by businesses, the pink tax should be outlawed.
Another issue in favor of reconsidering the pink tax is that it is discriminatory not only on a cultural level but at the very basic gender level. As Jacobsen puts it, the pink tax cannot be explained by anything else than unfairness “based solely on gender” (242). In this day and age, it seems shocking that someone should pay more just because they want a specific fragrance or color of packaging. Moreover, due to the existence of a pay gender gap, it appears that women pay some kind of double pink tax. Since females both receive less and spend more than men do on the same items, the pink tax should be seriously reviewed by the governments.
Despite the seeming evidence of the pink tax’s existence in society, some argue that it works both ways and, thus, should not be focused only on women’s discrimination. For instance, research indicates that while women pay more for some items (such as lotions or deodorants), men pay more for others (such as gels or shaving creams) (Guittar et al. 1). However, unlike women, men are not forced by society to purchase certain products. Due to societal pressures and gender expectations projected on females of all ages, women feel obliged to purchase some items in order to avoid “being unworthy of success” (Lafferty 57). Since there are no such expectations from males, it is not valid to speak of two-sided discrimination, the pink tax being clearly directed toward women’s inequality.
Although the pink tax is not officially a documented legislation act, efforts must be made to outlaw it. This discriminatory policy, aimed at making one gender pay more for the same products, is both unjustified and humiliating. Especially since too many consumers are not aware of the elevated prices for ‘female’ products, one cannot view the pink tax as an admissible prospect. In the era of fighting for equality on all levels, it is egregious to support or tolerate such a notion as the pink tax.
Works Cited
Guittar, Stephanie Gonzalez, et al. “Beyond the Pink Tax: Gender-Based Pricing and Differentiation of Personal Care Products.” Gender Issues, vol. 39, 2022, pp. 1-23.
Jacobsen, Kenneth A. “Rolling Back the “Pink Tax”: Dim Prospects for Eliminating Gender-Based Price Discrimination in the Sale of Consumer Goods and Services.” California Western Law Review, vol. 54, no. 2, 2018, pp. 241-266.
Lafferty, Mackenzi. “The Pink Tax: The Persistence of Gender Price Disparity.” Midwest Journal of Undergraduate Research, no. 11, 2019, pp. 56-72.