The hidden price of being a woman

A pink razor often costs more than a blue razor. A women’s haircut is usually costlier than men’s. Most of the personal care products made for women costs more than the similar products made for men. For example, razors, shampoos, deodorants, creams, all these may have the same ingredients and quality, but the ones designed for women are often priced higher. These differences may appear trivial, but overtime they add up to a significant financial burden. This phenomenon, known as the “pink tax”, reveals how everyday purchases subtly reinforces gender inequality.

As the world celebrates International Women’s Day, debates on equality often concentrate on leadership, education, and workplace rights. Yet true equality must also address the subtle disadvantages women face every day — including the higher prices they pay simply as products are marketed differently.

Economic inequality is usually discussed in terms of wages, employment, and education. However, inequality operates in everyday market transactions. Across the world, women often pay higher for essential goods such as grooming items, clothing, and hygiene products. What appears as a minor price variation at the point of purchase expands over time, increasing the overall cost of living and weakening women’s financial security.

Price discrimination

According to a 2015 study by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, women’s products cost on average 7% more than comparable men’s products across categories. For a single purchase, the difference may seem small, but overtime these extra costs accumulates significantly. This burden becomes more serious when combined with income disparities. According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), 2022-23, India’s female labour force participation rate is around 37%, compared with over 78% for men. Additionally, gender wage gap estimates suggest that women in India earn nearly 20% less than men on average. Paying more while earning less creates a double disadvantage, reducing the purchasing power and limiting financial independence.

Higher everyday spending also affects long-term security. When a larger share of income is spent on essential consumption, then the ability to save, invest or build assets decreases. Overtime, this widens wealth gaps. Women already face many structural challenges such as unpaid care work, informal employment and career interruptions; now paying more than men for the same product increases the disadvantages.

From an economic perspective, the pink tax represents pricing strategies built on gender expectations. Companies often assume that women spend more on appearance and self-care, and this allows for higher prices to continue. Market research indicates that women influence nearly 70-80% of household purchasing decisions globally, making them a primary target for differentiated pricing strategies. For many essential goods, consumers cannot easily skip purchasing, this makes demand relatively inelastic. Since these price variations are presented as branding or product variation, they rarely receive regulatory attention. This shows how the principle of fairness is weakened in the markets.

Behavioural economics also explain why “pink tax” persists. The “anchoring effect” suggests that once consumers pay higher prices, that price becomes their mental baseline. Overtime, they stop questioning the price difference as they feel it as normal. What begins as a marketing strategy becomes socially accepted.

Regulatory gaps

The issue becomes more serious in the case of menstrual hygiene products. Though the Government of India removed goods and service tax (GST) on sanitary napkins in 2018, admitting that they are a necessity rather than a luxury, menstrual products remain expensive. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), only about 64% of young women in India use hygienic methods for menstrual protection, with significantly lower usage in rural areas. Affordability remains as a barrier for many girls and women. Period poverty is linked to health risks, school absenteeism, and reduced participation in work and public life.

Also, the burden of pink tax is not equally distributed. As rural women earn less, have fewer choices and reduced access to competitive markets than urban women, even small price variations can pressure family budget in rural areas; what seems affordable in cities can become costly in rural areas, worsening both gender and regional inequality.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeks to prevent unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements, but it doesn’t clearly address gender-based price discrimination. As long as companies do not make false claims, charging different prices remains legally unclear. This loophole allows the pink tax to continue without openness or responsibility. Clear rules against unfair price differences and better consumer awareness are needed to ensure fairness in everyday purchases.

On the 115th International Women’s Day, it’s important for us to understand that gender equality cannot only be achieved through laws and reforms while everyday market practices continue to impose a hidden cost on women. Empowerment must include fairness not only in opportunities but also in consumption. When routine purchases systematically cost women more, inequality is reinforced in subtle but powerful ways.

The pink tax is difficult to notice because every single price disparity may seem low. However, its accumulative impact increases the cost of life, undermines financial stability and structural inequality. Therefore, to make sure that day-to-day transactions are not silently discriminatory, it is necessary to have transparent prices, informed consumers, and gender-sensitive policies. Until fairness exists not only in policy but also at the billing counter, the promise of true gender equality will remain incomplete.

The authors are undergraduate students from Christ University. Views expressed are personal

Published – March 06, 2026 12:18 am IST