The Pink Tax is not an actual tax. Instead, the World Economic Forum explains that Pink Tax describes the phenomenon where: 

Men and women [] buy similar day-to-day products. But research shows that consumer products targeted and advertised to women are sometimes more expensive than comparable products marketed to men. This disparity is referred to as a so-called pink tax.

The Balance Money explains that “[i]f a company believes a consumer will still buy a product even though it’s more expensive than others just like it, it may choose to do so.” Companies, however, do not simply have an option to do so—they do.

The reason: men’s razors are sharper. Too sharp for women’s legs but just right for men’s faces. . . . “Venus is owned by Gillette, which makes the men’s razors that so many of us are using.”

The mascot of the Pink Tax is the pink razor. Michelle Chang, a student at the Drexel University College of Medicine, studied the cost of disposable razors from Amazon, Walmart, and Target, and found that women’s four-bladed razors were priced sixty-six percent higher than four-bladed razors marketed to men and women’s five-bladed razors were priced forty-seven percent higher.

The price difference may make perfect sense—maybe razors made for women are really better than those made for men. But in the 2010s, women started doubting this presumption and encouraged others to buy men’s razors. This was so pervasive that Venus reported that about a third of women were using men’s razors. Why? The company reported that women found that men’s razors were “sleek, shiny, and silver”—not about price. In response, Cosmopolitan, using Venus’s data, cautioned women against using men’s razors. The reason: men’s razors are sharper. Too sharp for women’s legs but just right for men’s faces. One might wonder if Venus is simply looking out for their bottom line. Not so—Cosmopolitan dispels any concerns about bias, saying to the skeptics, “know that Venus is owned by Gillette, which makes the men’s razors that so many of us are using.”

The Pink Tax bleeds beyond the beauty industry and throughout the market. In 2015, Target listed these two scooters, exactly the same in all respects besides their color and design. “My 1st Scooter,” presumably marketed towards boys, was half the price of the “Girls My 1st Scooter Sparkle.” Even the helmets to protect girls as they ride on their more expensive scooters cost nearly twice the amount as helmets marketed towards boys.

Scooters listed on Target

In 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs produced a report comparing the prices for various personal-care products and found a clear premium on products marketed to women: 48 percent more for shampoo and conditioners, 11 percent more for razors, and 15 percent more for shirts. The California Senate Committee on Judiciary and Senate Select Committee on Women, Work & Families found that women in California pay an average of $2,381 more than men per year for the same goods and services.

State governments are axing the pink tax by assessing penalties against businesses that charge a differentiated price for essentially the same product. For example, California’s businesses face a $10,000 penalty for charging more for the “women’s” version of essentially the same product, and $1,000 for each subsequent violation. Specifically, when the products do not have substantial differences in materials used in production, are intended for similar use, have similar functional design and features, and have the same brand or parent company, businesses are not allowed to charge different prices. However, there is still room for pricing products differently based on the following factors: 

• • The amount of time it took to manufacture the goods.
  • The difficulty in manufacturing those goods.
  • The cost incurred in manufacturing those goods.
  • The labor used in manufacturing those goods.
  • The materials used in manufacturing those goods.
  • Any other gender-neutral reason for charging a different price for those goods.

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, the sponsor of California’s Pink Tax Bill

This is nearly identical to New York’s rule but has higher penalties. Even with a $10,000 initial penalty, many experts are skeptical of the effectiveness of these bans. Sociologist Liz Grauerholz says: 

It is almost impossible to make a side-by-side comparison. And I honestly believe that manufacturers have gotten pretty wise to the pink tax, so they make them [men’s and women’s items] look like completely different products to make those side-by-side comparisons really difficult.

A legislative aide who worked on California’s bill explains that: 

[G]endering of products is really subjective…. And you can get out of the enforcement of this bill if you just prove that you manufactured something differently. The color of something doesn’t count as manufacturing differently, but a lot of other things can. So really the only thing you’ll see this in is like the most egregious violations where it’s literally the same product, but it’s pink.

In the face of these state bans, a study published in March warns politicians like Representative Jackie Speier, who has introduced the Pink Tax Repeal Act in Congress four times, against aggressively pursuing the issue: “our findings call into question the role of government intervention to reduce the pink tax.” The authors did not cite the limited scope of these bans, but instead echoed Venus and Cosmopolitan’s claims that pink tax does not exist: “In an apples-to-apples comparison of women’s and men’s products with similar ingredients,… we do not find evidence of a systematic price premium for women’s goods.” The authors explain that, although the pink tax is a seductive issue: 

[I]f there is a social norm that pressures consumers to purchase and/or use products that align with their gender presentation, a firm could segment consumers simply by adding gender labels or color cues to their products. Alternatively, if consumers are uninformed or misinformed about product ingredients, they could mistake the differences between men’s and women’s products. 

But this could not be possible. Dispelling the myth of the pink tax, the authors point out that “information about ingredients is readily available on product packaging” and pricing for personal care products are posted “where a woman can typically observe shelf prices of products aimed at men.” What stops a woman from switching her Secret Real Lavender for Axe when the prices and ingredients are right in front of them? After all, “there is no rule barring her from buying a men’s product.”

Instead, the authors explain that we are confusing “second degree price discrimination” for actual discrimination, where “the consumer type with a higher taste for quality buys a more expensive, higher-quality product and enjoys higher consumer surplus.” Although these differences may seem “unfair if they are sustained through frivolous or spurious attributes,” the authors clarify that “firms may set markups in personal care to reflect differences in product performance that bring real value to customers.”

What stops a woman from switching her Secret Real Lavender for Axe when the prices and ingredients are right in front of them? After all, “there is no rule barring her from buying a men’s product.”

In the article’s feature by the Cato Institute, the authors once again caution against overeagerness on the part of legislators and policymakers where “[u]nfortunately, there is a dearth of evidence on the pink tax to guide legislative action.” 

The authors are correct in that there has been a marked increase in the number of women who check ingredient labels before purchasing beauty products. Driven by concerns from the growing number of reports of toxins in beauty and personal care products, 59 percent of women now check their product labels. But they “often do not recognize ingredients on the labels.” 81 percent of women surveyed by Label Insight did not recognize ingredients on labels of personal care products. In contrast, only 2 percent of women reported that they always understand the ingredients on product labels. 

For one of the authors, educating overeager policymakers seems to be part of her repertoire. Anna Tuchman is an associate professor of marketing at the Northwestern Kellogg School of Management, where her work has also warned of the ineffectiveness of the soda taxes and bans on e-cigarette advertising. In fact, she cautions that such bans on e-cigarette advertising actually increase the use of e-cigarettes. Numerous studies have found the exact opposite impact and the American Medical Association supports a ban on e-cigarette advertising. 

“If my finances suddenly changed, I’d stop buying new clothes before I’d stop buying skincare.” Dee, a woman who spends $6,000 a year on skincare, shares that “[f]eeling good, regardless of how I look, means more to me than keeping out of my overdraft.”

Women are not only hypothetically willing to sacrifice financial security for the sake of beauty—they do.

“If my finances suddenly changed, I’d stop buying new clothes before I’d stop buying skincare.” Dee, a woman who spends $6,000 a year on skincare, shares that “[f]eeling good, regardless of how I look, means more to me than keeping out of my overdraft.”

For Ayesha, this is her reality: “At the moment, I’m on maternity leave, which means that I don’t have much income. Since having a baby I feel like my confidence has taken a hit and I want to look fresh and awake… I just can’t seem to get enough. I always want more and more. I do feel down when I use credit to buy these things, but I get influenced a lot by Tik Tok beauty trends and I feel like I need everything I see.” 

Dee and Ayesha are not alone. Groupon, the company with the tagline “Save Up to $100 a Week on What You Do Every Day,” reported that women routinely spend an average of $3,756 a year on their appearance. Without accounting for inflation, this amounts to $232,872 over a lifetime. In contrast, men report that they spend an average of $2,928 per year, about one-fourth less than women. As the online beauty and style publication Byrdie puts it, “[t]he Average Cost of Beauty Maintenance Could Put You Through Harvard.”

The Pink Tax bill has been introduced in the California legislature every year for over two decades. What has killed this bill in one of the most progressive states in the U.S.? The private right of action. Every legislative cycle, the California Retailers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce effectively guaranteed the failure of any pink tax bill that contained a private right of action.

“It’s not the small businesses saying it. It’s Cal Chamber saying: our small businesses will die.” 

Private right of action or not, a ban on the Pink Tax would likely have no impact on small businesses. To recover penalties or damages sufficient to justify civil enforcement or litigation, there would need to be a high number of infringements that only the largest retailers can provide.

In a 2017 press release, the California Chamber of Commerce explains that “CalChamber has identified AB 1576 as a job killer because the legislation will create the same type of litigation environment that has plagued the business community with respect to disability access.” To be clear, the right to sue a retailer for charging women more is seen as a “job killer.”

Rachel Lee and her sister have been advocates for the elimination of the tampon tax since she was an undergraduate student at UCLA. Spending nights and weekends in front of grocery stores and libraries, they fought for five years before the California State Legislature eliminated the tax on feminine hygiene products on a temporary basis.

“Governor Brown… initially said, while he ideologically supports the bill, it was difficult.” To fiscally break even, legislators were considering imposing “sin taxes” on candy, but “that was not very popular with a lot of corporate interests. And so it caused the bill to be at a standstill.”

Rachel recounted how, in 2015, “male legislators just didn’t understand.” Through this process, they learned that legislators were not as receptive to the argument that the tampon tax was disproportionately burdening women. Instead, their ultimate success hinged on convincing legislators that access to these products was “a necessity to life.”

In a state where being a champion for gender equity is a prerequisite to becoming a politician, an unequal burden based on simply being a woman is not enough.

What does this mean for other disparities that have a disproportionate impact on women?

“But it ultimately, kind of, is our fault to the extent that it’s our preferences that dictate [the differences in price]. Ultimately, you don’t have to pay that price.”

Jennifer Doleac, an Economist at Texas A&M University, sees the elegance and utility of price discrimination: 

Because price discrimination allows the firm to charge different prices to different people, and more of those people who want to buy the goods are able to buy it. So basically, there is more variety, more kinds of razors in the world…. And that is an efficient market.

What is the solution to the “irritating” problem of women getting charged more for products? According to Professor Doleac, the solution is for women to stop buying pink razors and be really diligent about researching gender price differences. Women have the choice to give their business to places that don’t have gender-differentiated pricing.

Alice works as a patient services representative at her local California hospital. “I am the face… so that means being able to bring my best, making sure that my hair is slicked back in a nice pink bun, no loose hair, making sure that my body is clean… and that I look professional and ready to work.” This is integral to serving her community members and ensuring that patients are able to get the care they need.

But her ninety-minute morning routine goes deeper than her work. “If I wasn’t working and I still had to go out for the day, I would still wake up and make myself presentable but that’s because of the way I was raised.” Alice says that she feels extreme pressure “to look like how [she] did when [she] was twenty-one…. When I was almost 100 pounds and I had perfect skin and hair was so easy to do…. Isn’t that what the media kind of, like, advertises anyways, like young and energetic.” 

For Alice, Dee, and Ayesha, beauty is a choice, but not one presented from a menu with viable alternatives.

A study performed last year found that two in three parents report that their child is insecure about their looks. UC Davis psychologist Richard Robins explains that “[w]hen women evaluate their physical attractiveness, they compare themselves with an idealized standard of beauty, such as a fashion model. In contrast, when both men and women evaluate their intelligence, they do not compare themselves to Einstein, but rather to a more mundane standard.” 

Alice says that she feels extreme pressure “to look like how [she] did when [she] was twenty-one…. When I was almost 100 pounds and I had perfect skin and hair was so easy to do…. Isn’t that what the media kind of, like, advertises anyways, like young and energetic.” 

Psychologists Barbara Fredrickson, Tomi-Ann Roberts, Stephanie Noll, Diane Quinn, and Jean Twenge compared the performance on a math test of University of Michigan students wearing a swimsuit or a sweater. For those who took the test in the sweater, there were no gender differences. However, while the performance for men did not significantly differ between the two conditions, women performed significantly worse when wearing a swimsuit. The authors explained that the difference in math performance was a manifestation of “the emotional and behavioral consequences of self-objectification.” In other words, culture “socializes women to adopt observers’ perspectives on their physical selves,” which, in turn, “consume[s] attentional resources, which is manifested in mental performance.”

But aren’t all college women worried about their appearance? It may be easy to dismiss these findings as a phase and unrepresentative. But there are real life consequences choosing not to focus on appearance.

Darlene Jespersen had been a bartender in Reno for over twenty years, all of which at the same restaurant. The company then instituted a “Beverage Department Image Transformation Program” that required bartenders to wear a standard uniform and “be well groomed, appealing to the eye, [and] be firm and body toned.” The policy went further requiring women to have their hair “teased, curled, or styled” every day. The women were also required to meet with image consultants and wear makeup—including foundation, mascara, blush, and lipstick—as they directed. 

Men had their own stringent requirements. Their hair had to be kept short and their fingernails trimmed.

Darlene complied with all the requirements of her employer’s appearance policy except the makeup requirement. A company consultant had previously recommended that she wear makeup, which she tried for a few weeks.  “I don’t see why I have to paint my face to do that job when I’ve been doing it for 20 years.” The makeup requirement “prohibited [her] from doing [her] job” because “[i]t affected [her] self-dignity” and “took away [her] credibility as an individual and as a person.”

These requirements not only pose a financial burden—they pose an economic burden. Where men have the ability to “gain extra job skills, work overtime, or take on additional responsibilities,” women are spending time applying makeup and teasing their hair.

The inescapable message is that women’s undoctored faces compare unfavorably to men’s, not because of a physical difference between men’s and women’s faces, but because of a cultural assumption—and gender-based stereotype—that women’s faces are incomplete, unattractive, or unprofessional without full makeup.

Darlene Jespersen lost her lawsuit against her employer. The Ninth Circuit found that absent evidence of disproportionate economic harms, there was no prima facie case of the disparate impact of the Image Transformation Policy. 

Only Judge Pregerson recognized the obvious inequality: 

The inescapable message is that women’s undoctored faces compare unfavorably to men’s, not because of a physical difference between men’s and women’s faces, but because of a cultural assumption—and gender-based stereotype—that women’s faces are incomplete, unattractive, or unprofessional without full makeup.

Women care about their appearance. Women care because there are consequences for not caring. Those who call skincare, makeup, and clothes a choice are mistaking a stick for a carrot.

In a survey of girls ages 8 to 18 by journalists Claire Shipman and Katty Kay and YPulse, they found that during puberty, girls’ confidence levels drop by 30 percent, more than half of the teen girls reported feeling pressured to be perfect, and nearly 80 percent of the girls want to feel more confident in themselves. 

One 14-year-old said: “I feel like everybody is so smart and pretty and I’m just this ugly girl without friends.”

The $49 billion beauty industry not only profits from women’s insecurities, but they also profit from creating insecurities. Researchers since the 1980s have demonstrated the relationship between cosmetics use and more positive body image and feelings of confidence and effectiveness. The use of makeup is also correlated with anxiety, self-consciousness, and conformity. 

And now social media influencers instill these beauty standards on behalf of the beauty industry. Amanda Perkovich explains that 

The period of adolescence is associated with increased vulnerability to low-self esteem as well as the onset of anxiety and depression…. During this developmental phase, adolescents’ self-esteem is likely to be affected by the feedback they receive online through social media sites…. [S]ocial media activity, including Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram, is linked to lower self-esteem in teenage females. Furthermore, the more hours an adolescent female logs on to social media results in lower self-esteem.

Relentless messaging shackles self worth to the approval of others and in comparison to others. Women can never embrace themselves because that is never enough. Beyonce’s iconic song “I woke up like this” is only used to refer to waking up perfect.

“Maybe she’s born with it. Maybe it’s Maybelline.”