Written By Smita Pandey, Law Graduate 2024, University of Allahabad and Sankalp Mirani, Penultimate Year Student, MNLU Mumbai.
Introduction
The Pink Tax refers to the phenomenon in which goods and services marketed to women are often more expensive than identical ones aimed at men. This price disparity has sparked widespread concern and motivated regulatory attempts from both the state and federal levels in the United States. According to a Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, 2016 study, things directed at women are about twice as likely to be priced more than those aimed at men, to the point that products aimed at the opposite gender are only priced equally around 40% of the times. Product diversification is a common approach used by merchants to target certain groups. Changing the packaging or the colour of a product to make it stand out can increase manufacturing costs. As a result, choosing to vary packaging among equivalent items in order to appeal to gender stereotypes will raise costs. creating a little amount of a pink product costs more than creating a large quantity of another hue, such as black or blue. However, packaging is not the only issue that has to be addressed in order to lower the pink tax; other factors also play a role. The issue occurs even after the package is removed, including services and unpacked clothing.
Everyone in the corporate sector understands the injustice that consumers face. Brands such as Steve Madden are fighting the pink tax to determine why men and women pay different sums for the same quality of goods. In addition, a few US states are doing this. To prevent pink tax discrimination in consumer services like as haircuts and dry cleaning, several states are proposing to change federal rules that do not currently prohibit gender-based pricing. These states include California, Massachusetts, and New York. Gender pricing is, however, entirely legal in Canada. In 1995, the state of California approved laws making gender-based discrimination in service pricing illegal.
Strategies the USA took in order to implement and regulate the Pink tax:
New Jersey has enacted legislation prohibiting discriminatory pricing practices for consumer products and services that are substantially identical. At first inspection, the proposed definition of "substantially similar" seems to be quite similar to that utilized in New York law. New Jersey law forbids gender discrimination in price, and the proposed legislation would force particular service providers (such as dry cleaners, barbershops, and tailors) to publicly display written pricing information for each common service they provide. This legislation is now under consideration by the Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs. Legislation Against Gender-Based Pricing: Several states have passed legislation to address discriminatory pricing practices. For example, California's Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, was one of the first legislation to ensure that men and women be paid equally for services requiring equivalent time and expertise, such as haircuts and dry cleaning. This regulation was eventually extended to include certain items.
Specific Local Laws: In 1998, New York City implemented legislation limiting gender-based pricing of services. Massachusetts has comparable regulations under its Public Accommodations Act, which particularly target cosmetology services.
Pink Tax Repeal Act: This measure, introduced by Congress woman Jackie Speier, seeks to ban gender-based pricing discrimination at the federal level. Since its first introduction in 2016, the measure has been proposed many times, with the goal of making it unlawful to charge different rates for essentially equivalent items depending on gender. While it has received some attention, it has yet to get through Congress. The introduction of such measures is part of a larger effort to raise awareness about gender-based price discrepancies. Advocacy organizations and policymakers are seeking to emphasize the economic hardship these practices place on women, particularly given existing salary disparities.
Consumer Affairs Investigations: Studies done by local offices, such as the New York local Department of Consumer Affairs, have recorded cases of gendered pricing across a variety of items. These studies serve as the foundation for regulatory action and public awareness efforts targeted at reducing price inequalities. Although no federal legislation presently forbids gender-based pricing, talks about prospective laws are ongoing. The idea is to match pricing methods with fairness principles, particularly because women often earn less than males.
Challenges and Opposition Enforcement Difficulties: Opponents of the Pink Tax Repeal Act claim that implementing such legislation would be difficult owing to the subjective nature of establishing what defines “substantially similar” goods. Retailers are concerned about the prospect for greater litigation and the effect on domestic manufacturing employment if prices are forced to equalize.
Economic Implications: According to some research, the attention to the Pink Tax may obscure other critical economic difficulties for women. Critics say that the Pink Tax myth is exaggerated, citing evidence that shows women's items may often be cheaper than men's.
The U.S. approach for combating the Pink Tax combines state-level legislation, federal campaigning, and public awareness campaigns. While some states have made substantial progress, the absence of comprehensive federal regulation remains a concern. Ongoing conversations and legislative attempts seek to establish a more equal pricing environment for customers, regardless of gender.
Sectors Study: U.S. Brands and the Pink Tax
Razor Industry
The razor business is one of the most visible instances of the Pink Tax. Women's razors are often more expensive than men's, even when the only difference is the color of the product. Brands like as Gillette have faced criticism for promoting practically similar goods at differing costs solely because one is branded "for women" and the other "for men."
Personal Care Products
Gender-based pricing is common in the personal care market, including shampoos, lotions, and deodorants. Women's deodorants, for example, may be much more expensive than men's, despite the fact that they contain equivalent components and are manufactured by the same company. The reasoning is often seen in packaging and marketing methods that target female customers, who are thought to be prepared to spend extra for items that address their special requirements.
These studies demonstrate the impact of marketing on customer behavior and price strategy. They also emphasize the need of consumer education and regulatory control in preventing gender-based pricing discrimination. The US example demonstrates that, although public outrage may lead to improvements in business behaviour, long-term transformation often requires judicial involvement.
Comparative Analysis: USA vs. India
Key distinctions in the Pink Tax
The Pink Tax takes various forms in the United States and India due to differences in market structure, consumer behaviour, and regulatory conditions. In the United States, the issue is well documented and handled by legislation. In contrast, in India, the Pink Tax is often hidden in the informal sector and is less likely to be challenged by consumers or authorities. Despite their differences, both countries' methods to the Pink Tax affect consumers in similar ways. In both the United States and India, the Pink Tax is prevalent in sectors such as personal care, clothing, and healthcare. The economic impact on women is comparable, resulting in income disparities while reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes.
The Pink Tax hurts female consumers in both countries by increasing the cost of living for women and widening the gender pay gap. In India, where women's participation in the formal sector is already lower than in the United States, the Pink Tax further limits their financial independence and economic potential. The pink tax may have a wide range of unexpected repercussions for both persons and society. Women, for example, may have limited buying power and access to necessary necessities. Furthermore, it may contribute to economic inequality and the spread of unfavourable gender stereotypes. As a result, if we wish to promote gender equality and build a fairer society, we must confront the pink tax. Despite the fact that the pink tax has been more well known in recent years, it is still widely used in India. Gender-based price discrepancies persist in many product areas. This is an especially pressing problem in low-income homes, where women often must choose between satisfying their basic requirements and purchasing food.
Indian Context
The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 in India is a watershed moment that safeguards customers from deceptive businesses. However, the Act does not address gender-based price inequalities, leaving customers with little legal recourse. The pink tax issue extends beyond differential product prices to include ingrained gender stereotypes and systematic discrimination. Addressing the pink tax is critical to establishing social and economic equality as gender equality becomes more common in Indian culture.
Gender Prejudice and Consumer Demand
In this research on why gender inequality persists , we look at how cultural expectations value women's choices, beauty, and potential to succeed in a male-dominated culture. According to the findings of this study, gender-based financial disparities have a major influence on women's earnings throughout their lifetimes. Gender prejudice in consumer pricing is regarded to be unjustified. By increasing people's knowledge, we can pave the road for significant change to achieve gender equality. First and foremost, in the battle against economic gender discrimination, namely the pink tax, is a lack of strong laws openly prohibiting gender pricing. Gender stereotypes have been strongly entrenched in society as a consequence of the historical and current dominance of large-scale advertising and media sources that physically demand women, making female customers less price sensitive. Our cultural conventions encourage us to believe that these price increases are for more than just profit. In response to consumer demand, a growing number of firms are developing gender-neutral item such as clothing, fragrances, and toys. At the same time, several firms are interested in developing apparel, toys, and other things that do not discriminate based on gender. The market is reacting to rising worldwide awareness of gender-bending, which has raised concerns about the pink tax. When a need is identified and expressed, it will ultimately materialize in the market due to the inventiveness and entrepreneurial spirit of business people. If enough people desire new goods, we can make them. As a consequence, people's expectations of culture will shift throughout time.
Conclusion
Rummage around the men's category for daily necessities such as t-shirts, shorts, and more to wear about the home casually. Not only that, but they are more relaxed! A variety of regional and domestic labels encourage diversity and inclusion; nevertheless, in order to begin collectively demanding change, you must educate people around you to do the same. On this day, all we want is a more egalitarian marketplace (and society) in which we are not charged higher expenses merely because we were born a woman. The Pink Tax is not only offensive and discriminatory, but it also promotes a narrative that perpetuates pain. We can eliminate the PINK Tax by being more informed consumers, supporting companies that adhere to ethical standards, and combating gender discrimination in our own unique way.
When everything is said and done, fighting the PINK Tax is about more than just saving a few thousand rupees; it is also about speaking out against unfair methods and unjust treatment. On the next Women's Day, all we want for is a more egalitarian society in which we are not charged more fees merely because we are women. The Pink Tax portrays a destructive message that is discriminatory and disrespectful. We can all help stop the PINK Tax by becoming more aware buyers, supporting ethical businesses, and speaking out against gender inequality. Ending the PINK Tax is about more than just saving a few thousand rupees; it's about standing up to injustice and unjust treatment.
Comments