RUNNING HEAD: THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry

An Evaluation of the Ethics of the Pink Tax and

An Exploration On Its Termination

Niha Chaudhry

Virginia Commonwealth University

 THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry
2

Abstract

The pink tax is the notion that women pay more money for goods and services than men

do, even though the goods and services are the same or extremely similar. Many people don’t

know it exists, including Barack Obama, though a member of Congress is currently trying to

pass a bill to rectify the situation. Studies have been conducted and stores and internet retailers

have been examined by professionals and they come up with the same conclusion: the pink tax

exists. The pink tax’s existence and implementation in a consumer driven society is unethical. It

is unfair in that there is no equity involved. Women are told to just buy the male counterparts to

their products, but that takes their autonomy away.

People should seek to eliminate the pink tax by speaking out and expecting it of

companies. Boxed.com is one major retailer to acknowledge the problem, and hopefully others

follow suit. Women are already paid less than men; they should not be expecting to pay more for

the same goods as men, too.

 THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry
3

The average female consumer walks into a pharmacy once a month, looking for one

thing: their hygiene product of choice. While some women question why the prices are so high, it

is difficult to formulate an argument with no comparison. Consumers in grocery stores, for

example, can easily compare different desserts by type and price; there’s something to compare

to. Without doing the proper research, it is difficult to explain why women are spending so much

on tampons each year when there is no male equivalent to such products. But what excuses do

manufacturers have for pricing other goods differently based on gender, an extra cost for women

referred to as the pink tax? How many women even know about the pink tax? Manufacturers are

counting on the ignorance of millions of women in order to make as much money as they do. It is

important to keep educated, to point out such unethical practices, and to end them all together.

Women’s hygiene products set women back thousands of dollars over their lifetimes. As

previously mentioned, there is no male equivalent to compare to, but regardless, these products

are priced unfairly. There is a luxury tax placed on these goods in forty U.S. states, as if implying

getting your period every month is anything close to a luxury. In an interview conducted by

Ingrid Nilsen (2016), Barack Obama notes that this tax is not federal, and he has “no idea why

states would tax [pads, tampons, etc.] as luxury items.” He later reveals he was not even aware

the tax existed until Nilsen brought it to his attention. If the President of the United States is

ignorant of the taxes against women, how can it be expected average citizens are aware?

Narration:

This luxury tax has sparked a movement to ban all sales taxes on feminine products. It is

discriminatory against women, who have no say in whether they menstruate or not. They need

feminine products and it is unfair to tax them. In her article on Vox, Emily Crockett (2016) notes

that there is a push to make menstrual products free for women.

 THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry
4

The pink tax is defined as “the idea that the "female" versions of the same products and

services cost more than the male versions” on CNN (Sebastian, 2016). The same article finds

that women pay 42% more for the same items as men. This statistic is also cited by U.S. News,

supporting its credibility. A trade lawyer, Michael Cone, is sure there is price-gouging occurring

(Sebastian, 2016). While there is no federal law against it, there are city and state laws against

gender-based pricing. Still, there are many example of the pink tax in everyday life.

The pink tax affects both goods and services; in terms of goods, a popular marketing

strategy is to “pink it and shrink it” (Ayres, 2016). This process includes painting all products

marketed toward women a Pepto-Bismol pink and shrinking the size. Ian Ayres found in his

research a scooter costing $24.99; Target tacked the word “girl” onto the product description,

along with twenty extra dollars, making the bright pink scooter $44.99. In another case of price

gouging, Levi’s charged 29% more for women’s jeans than men’s. According to The Editorial

Board of the New York Times (2014), at Walgreens, “Excedrin Complete Menstrual cost 50

cents more than Excedrin Extra Strength, even though both contained the same ingredients in the

same quantities.” These products hold the same purpose for both sexes, yet women are given the

short end of the stick time and time again.

A study examined four personal care products for men and women from four different

national retail chains: Target, Walmart, CVS, and Walgreens (Duesterhaus, et al., 2011, p. 180).

Items that were identical in every way other than color or fragrance were compared. They sorted

through 199 deodorants, 89 shave gels/cream, 204 razors, and 46 body sprays. The only category

in which men were found to be paying more was in shave gels/creams, where they were paying 2

extra cents-per-ounce. Women pay, on average, $0.29 more per ounce for deodorant, $0.33 more

per razor, and $0.26 more per ounce of body spray.

 THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry
5

Many stores sell similar articles of clothing at different prices for men and women. A

chief economist for the American Apparel Association is cited saying that unisex garments, a

knit shirt, for example, will sell for less in the men’s department than the same shirt in the

women’s department (Duesterhaus, Grauerholz, Weichsel, & Guittar, 2011, p. 177). Employees

at The Gap are told by their supervisors that men’s clothes are better quality than women’s

clothing because the women are more likely to return to the same store to buy a new article than

men. It is assumed that men think that the quality of material/clothes from the store is low and

therefore, they should shop somewhere else (N. Chaudhry, personal communication, November

16, 2016). A woman should not have to pay a larger sum of money for clothing as a man when

the quality is worse.

Women often find they are paying more money for services, such as haircuts and dry

cleaning. In an investigation conducted in New York City, of 199 hair salons and 67 dry

cleaners, 48% of the salons charged women more for simple haircuts, and women paid nearly

three times as much for their dress shirts to be dry cleaned (Duesterhaus, et al., 2011, p. 177).

When asked for the same haircut for both a man and a woman in a unisex, the woman was

charged a higher rate than the man. Note that the technology for cutting men’s and women’s hair

is virtually the same. The same amount of education and training is necessary for cutting both

men’s and women’s hair. The wages paid for each is also the same. What justifies the price

difference for the same haircut on a man and on a woman?

Dry cleaners offer up a myriad of excuses for why they charge more to clean women’s

shirts: it’s difficult to press a woman’s shirt with a machine designed for men’s shirts; men’s are

machine pressed when women’s are hand pressed; women’s shirts are doused in perfume and

require different cleaning methods; and lastly, if a customer doesn’t like the price difference,
 THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry
6

they can go somewhere else (Duesterhaus, et al., 2011, p. 177). A business is, more often than

not, going to have customers of more than one gender, so why do dry cleaners only have

equipment to iron men’s shirts? Why do they automatically machine press men’s shirts but hand

press women’s shirts? Couldn’t they just price the options instead of the genders? Do men not

wear cologne or aftershave? Why is it better to instill a pink tax than to cater to all of their

customers instead of just men?

The ethicality of the pink tax is difficult to determine without first identifying what

makes something ethical. Ethics are defined as being “well-founded standards of right and wrong

that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to

society, fairness, or specific virtues” (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 2015). Some may say

something is ethical if it provides equity for all. Some place loyalty at a higher level of

importance than fairness. Some believe it is more ethical to allow for people to have autonomy in

making decisions. Some say it depends on the situation.

The fairness of the situation depends on the definition of “fairness.” It could mean the

sameness. If equity is something you’re after, then the pink tax is clearly unethical. In the case of

the personal care goods, women are found paying more money for many of the same products as

men. In certain cases, the products directed towards men are of a higher quality, like those at

clothing stores.

Fairness could mean deservedness. Women already get paid less than men. While that’s a

different argument altogether, it is part of why the pink tax hits women so hard. To be spending

more money on the same products as men whilst making less money than men is ludicrous, and

definitely not deserved. This form of fairness is more of a rational calculation than equity is. It

could also make it difficult to decide the fairness of the pink tax. Some people may seek to
 THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry
7

eliminate it, while others might decide men deserve a blue tax. This doesn’t solve any problems,

but instead creates a new one.

A third type considers fairness to be need-based. This is the idea that those who are able

to contribute more should, and those who cannot should not have to. With this idea, women, who

make less money, should be the ones paying less for goods and services. Men, who typically

make more money than women should have to pay a blue tax. As with the last definition of

fairness, this still creates a new problem, simply turning a patriarchal issue into a matriarchal

one.

Brand loyalty could also play a role in the pink tax, but in an unethical way. Loyalty in

ethics usually pertains to one’s loyalty to their families or themselves. Some people are loyal to

brands. These companies know that their customers will buy their products no matter the price.

The unethical issue is that companies should not be raising prices for their loyal, female

customers just because they can.

Taking the autonomy of the consumers away is an unethical practice. Often, women

don’t have much choice in purchasing certain products and services. When all of their products,

dry cleaning and hair cutting services cost more than men’s they can’t always resort to men’s.

Sometimes they just don’t want to and that should be okay too. If a woman prefers a certain

scent or color, she should not be penalized for it. She should not have to pay more money. If she

has no choice but to buy the cheaper item, then she really doesn’t have the autonomy men do in

stores. It is unethical to take the choice away, and it is discriminatory to only take it away from

women.

In the sea of angry people fighting the pink tax, there are some who believe it is simply a

“blue discount,” and some who don’t think there’s a problem at all. Steven Horwitz (2015)
 THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry
8

argues for the existence of a “blue discount” as opposed to a “pink tax.” He believes that

companies aren’t trying to punish women by charging more money for their products, but rather,

women are just more willing to pay more money to get exactly the product they want. This

opinion is a crude generalization of an entire gender.

Hadley Heath (2016) finds that feminists are simply finding reasons to be angry. She

feels that if women don’t like paying extra for their products, then they are free to buy men’s

products. The issue of men’s products being significantly cheaper than women’s still exists, even

if you use Heath’s method of combatting it. She also claims that a lot of research and

development goes into women’s products- as if men’s products don’t require any research or

development. Her advice to avoid the pink tax is to not play the game and buy men’s products

instead, which defeats the whole purpose of arguing against the pink tax. Changing the color or a

product shouldn’t entitle companies to charge more money for it.

John Dotson of Mises Institute (2016) argues that no one forces women to buy the more

expensive products. If a woman goes into the store and only sees products more expensive than

the male counterparts, what is she to do? She could go ahead and buy the men’s products, but

chances are they smell differently, perhaps in a way she does not like. Maybe she just wants the

pink razors. Why is a woman not allowed to purchase the things she likes at a reasonable cost?

What is the likelihood that the dyes used to make the products pink or the fragrances used in

women’s products differ so greatly in cost from men’s products that they have to hike the prices?

She has the autonomy to make a decision, as is ethical, but her choices are vastly limited though

many anti-pink taxers refute it.

Essentially, the pink tax affects the average woman all across the country. It is difficult to

pinpoint the exact value of the tax, as products vary in quantity and quality, but it is easy to see
 THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry
9

when looking for it. Women’s products of the same nature as a man’s, simply dyed a sickening

shade of pink, are sold on the same shelves at higher costs. People argue that the tax does not

exist at all, but rather it is merely a ploy to give feminists a reason to be angry. They seem to

truly have a reason to be angry, as many studies and sources have scoured stores and the internet

to find the cause for disparity in pricing. It may end up being concluded that there are simply

hidden costs in manufacturing that we don’t know about. Until someone reveals them, though,

we should remain inquisitive.

Many companies are supportive of people’s anger over the pink tax. Naturally, this could

just be a business move to fall into the people’s good graces, but if it lowers the costs of goods

and services for women, why complain? Boxed.com, planned to “reduce the sales tax amount

from the list price on items that are subject to a luxury tax, and will also reduce the cost of

certain women's products where the price is shown to be greater than the male equivalent”

(Women’s Health Weekly, 2016). It is also important to point out that boxed.com is making it

easy for the products affected by the new pricing to be located on the website by including a

#RethinkPink logo. It is also encouraging other retailers to follow suit as a sign of solidarity.

Member of the House of Representatives, Jackie Speier (2015-2016), has introduced a

bill to Congress called the Pink Tax Repeal Act. As the name suggests, Speier is seeking 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.” It is

noted in the act that the difference in color is not a substantial enough reason to charge extra for

a certain product. If a congresswoman is seeking to eliminate the pink tax, that at least offers

probable cause that it does, indeed, exist.

 THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry
10

In conclusion, the pink tax is the difference in the cost of similar men’s and women’s

products and services. The pink tax is referring to the unjustified difference in cost, though many

discredit the pink tax theory by claiming the products are different enough to warrant a

significant price difference. The pink tax is a highly unethical practice.There is no equity in the

pink tax. Similar products should not cost different amounts. This violates the basic definition of

fairness, immediately classifying it as unethical. Many say to avoid it altogether- buy men’s

products. But that takes the autonomy away from the female consumer. A woman should have

the freedom to buy the products targeted towards her; she can’t if she cannot afford them.

Companies have begun hopping on the bandwagon, like boxed.com, in trying to eliminate the

pink tax. With an act battling it out in Congress, hopefully more can soon join.
 THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry
11

Works Cited

Ayres, I. (2016, January 7). Which Retailers Charge the Largest 'Pink Tax'? Forbes. Retrieved

November 15, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/whynot/2016/01/07/which-

retailers-charge-the-largest-pink-tax/#280a7e9f5462

Boxed.com; boxed.com takes stand against pink tax. (2016). Women's Health Weekly, , 162.

Retrieved from

http://proxy.library.vcu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1828235348?a

ccountid=14780

Crockett, E. (2016, March 01). Women's products cost more. Here's how to avoid the "pink tax."

Retrieved November 15, 2016, from http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11139280/avoid-

pink-tax-women

Dotson, J. (2016, February 19). Why Women Pay Higher Prices for the "Same" Products.

Retrieved December 05, 2016, from https://mises.org/library/why-women-pay-higher-

prices-same-products

Duesterhaus, M., Grauerholz, L., Weichsel, R., & Guittar, N. A. (2011). The cost of doing

femininity: Gendered disparities in pricing of personal care products and services. Gender

Issues, 28(4), 175-191. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12147-011-9106-3

The Editorial Board. (2014, November 13). The Pink Tax. The New York Times. Retrieved

November 15, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/opinion/the-pink-

tax.html?_r=0

Heath, H. (2016). Ladies, Don't Fall for "Pink Tax" Myth. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from

http://iwf.org/blog/2799310/Ladies,-Don't-Fall-for-"Pink-Tax"-Myth
 THE ETHICS OF THE PINK TAX Chaudhry
12

Horwitz, S. (2015, May 13). Is There Really a Pink Tax? Retrieved December 05, 2016, from

https://fee.org/articles/is-there-really-a-pink-tax/

Nilsen, I. [Reflect] 2016, January 16. Ingrid Nilsen Interviews Obama. [Video file]. Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2OaaWjB6S8&t=314s

Sebastian, C. (2016, March 7). Why women pay more than men for the same stuff. Retrieved

November 15, 2016, from http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/pf/pink-tax/index.html

U.S. House, Energy and Commerce. (n.d.). [H.R. 5686 from 114th Cong.]. Retrieved November

15, 2016, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5686/text

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., S.J., & Meyer, M. J. (2015, August 18). What is Ethics?

Retrieved December 05, 2016, from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-

decision-making/what-is-ethics/