Down the fluorescent-lit aisle of a neighborhood drugstore, two nearly identical razors sit side by side; one packaged in navy blue, the other in pastel pink. Same brand, same blade count, same handle, yet the pink one costs 66 percent more.

This subtle price difference reflects a broader, well-documented pattern known as the “pink tax,” in which products marketed toward women cost more than comparable items for men. From razors to deodorant to dry cleaning, studies have found women routinely pay more for everyday goods and services, sparking consumer complaints and legislative efforts to close the price difference. 

The price of pink

Across the United States, the “pink tax” has been documented frequently. A landmark study by New York City’s Department of Consumer Affairs found that products marketed to women cost an average of seven percent more than nearly identical products marketed to men. By category, personal care products averaged about 13 percent more, adult clothing about eight percent more, and children’s clothing about four percent more. In 2020, California passed a law banning gender-based pricing for certain goods, and similar bills have been introduced in other states. Despite these efforts, many everyday items still cost more for women, creating an invisible strain on their wallets. In 2020, the California Senate Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Select Committee on Women, Work & Families reported that, on average, women spend $2,381 more than men each year on comparable goods and services. 

A tax teens can’t ignore

While lawmakers debate solutions, some students notice the price gap every time they shop. In a September Bark survey, 71 percent of students believed that gender-based price differences impact consumers. One of these students, junior Frankie Fagersten, a user of female-marketed products, noticed that multiple products were more expensive when marketed to women.

“I have seen razors, deodorant and shampoo [being priced differently for women],” Fagersten said. “Just because a product is marketed for women or meant to be used by a woman shouldn’t allow it to cost extra, especially because men’s [products] don’t cost extra,” Fagersten said.

Senior Lucy Howard said she had never thought about gendered pricing until it was explained to her. 

“I honestly hadn’t noticed it before, but now that I know, it makes me sad. When you think about how much stuff like toothbrushes, razors and shampoo cost, it’s frustrating to realize women are paying more just because of color or marketing,” Howard said.

Howard added that she often gravitates toward the more “feminine” versions even when they cost more. 

“If I’m being honest, I’d still probably pick the cuter or pink version even if it was more expensive, because it feels like it’s ‘for me,’ but at the same time it’s upsetting to think about how companies are using that against us,” Howard said. “Now that I know about it, I might actually look at the men’s products or unisex options before buying, or at least compare prices more carefully.”

The alarming cost of the pink tax

Economics teacher Ann Tepovich has seen the real-world implications of the “pink tax” both through her personal experience and through the lens of an economist, and she has noticed the price gap isn’t accidental.

“Economically, this is a classic example of price discrimination — companies segment their customers and set prices based on who’s willing to pay more,” Tepovich said.

Women can be set back financially not only by the added tax but also by the gender pay gap.

“Women already earn less on average than men do, and then they’re expected to pay more for everyday products so it’s like a double disadvantage, and earning less while spending more over time makes it harder for women to save money and build wealth or even cover basic needs [whereas] men don’t have to deal with [this issue],” Fagersten said. 

There are two ways for consumers to understand the marketing reasoning behind the “pink tax,” one that satisfies the consumers’ needs and one that shows the profit for businesses.

“Firms know women often have more inelastic demand for wellness and personal-care products, meaning they’ll pay a higher price even if it goes up, and they use that data to maximize profits,” Tepovich said. “On the other hand, you could say businesses are just being strategic — if women don’t want to pay the higher price, they don’t have to. It depends on whether you’re looking at it from a consumer or a business lens.” 

Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, a lawyer and vice president for the Brennan School of Justice at NYU School of Law, says, “I think the motivations around the pink tax come more explicitly from a classic capitalist stance: If you can make money off it, you should.”

From razors to dry cleaning, Tepovich believes the added costs aren’t justified. 

“It’s hard to argue women’s items cost more because of actual differences. In many cases, it’s the same product with a different color, which isn’t fair,” Tepovich said.

Back in the drugstore aisle, the price tags are still there, small and silent, but noticeable. The pink razor still costs more than the navy one despite similar features. For shoppers rushing between errands, it’s a tiny decision at the checkout counter that can ultimately have larger consequences.

“Stores should be more upfront about these differences so consumers can make informed choices,” Howard said. “Right now it’s hidden, and most people don’t realize they’re paying more.”