There has been much talk about the so-called ‘pink tax’. This is the claim that products marketed toward women are more expensive than those marketed toward men – that the pink bottle labelled ‘sensual’ tends to have a bigger price tag than the blue bottle labelled ‘revitalising’.
But does the ‘pink tax’ really exist?
After all, there are strong economic reasons to think it wouldn’t. If two otherwise-identical products were priced differently, consumers could just opt for the cheaper one. And the lion’s share of shopping is done by women, so you might expect them to be more price-sensitive.
In a paper published online last July, Sarah Moshary and colleagues put the ‘pink tax’ to the test. (Their paper hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed).
The researchers collated data on the prices of a large number products in categories like soap, body wash, deodorant, shampoo and shaving cream. They then identified whether each product was aimed at men or women – based on purchasing data, text analysis of product descriptions and manual coding by research assistants.
Interestingly, unisex products comprised less than 20% of the total; these were excluded from the analysis.
Moshary and colleagues also identified the main active ingredients in each product – to make sure they were comparing apples with apples (or in this case, shower gels with shower gels).
What did they find?
When the researchers compared products in the same category without considering active ingredients, they found that those aimed at women were slightly more expensive. However, when they controlled for active ingredients, they found that women’s products were very slightly cheaper.
Here’s a map of the average ‘pink tax’ in each state. (The study was based on U.S. data.)
![](https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Pink-Tax-1024x655.png)
As you can see, it was zero or negative in every single state, meaning there isn’t a single one where men pay less than women for the same products. I don’t see much of a geographical pattern in the size of this ‘blue tax’.
Contrary to claims made by feminists, Moshary and colleagues find no evidence that women face a ‘pink tax’ when shopping for bathroom products. As a matter of fact, it’s men who pay slightly higher prices. And don’t accuse the authors of ‘sexism’ – all three of them are women.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Since when have left-wing activist talking points been rooted in facts? But hey, the lie travels around the world faster than the truth can get it’s boots on.
Risking the wrath of the feminists on here by stating facts Noah. An attempt to remove one of the fabricated points on their victim card won’t be liked at all. You only have to open your eyes and ears to understand where the real sexism is. Feminists have been practicing their aggressive family/society destroying faith for far, far too long without being questioned. It’s well past time they were held accountable for the damage they’ve done. Their swivel-eyed, myopic, brand of hatred and victimhood must be brought to an end.
Here comes the usual swivel-eyed hatred and victimhood…
Not from me, FL. I agree wholeheartedly that the feminisation of everything based on some misplaced sense of equality has much to answer for. If anyone thinks this is really a mans world, then they have fundamentally misunderstood how it works. Worth the sting of a few downvotes to say it.
“And don’t accuse the authors of ‘sexism’ – all three of them are women.”
Yeah but they are clearly not proper women, or not the right kind of women.
I’m not sure what’s brought out the feminist-bashing here but I think it’s aimed at the wrong people.
All feminists like me ever wanted was equal pay for equal work and fair access to education, training and help with childcare. Anything that was perceived to favour women such as maternity leave was very soon noticed and demanded for men too (and rightly so, although when my husband took time off when our son was born, he used the time to engage in a load of noisy DIY – grrr) We never demanded the ‘feminisation’ of everything. If this happened, it was probably due to other factors related to Blair-ism, e.g all-women shortlists, etc.
I’ve never heard of a ‘pink’ tax; but I did resent the high price of feminine hygiene products back in the day when my female-ness manifested in an extreme form requiring doubling-up on the stuff in order to avoid severe embarrassment and discomfort; something the autogyaenophiliacs don’t have to worry about.
I’m struggling to understand the story in this article; if I want to buy a posh product I don’t mind paying extra. That seems to be the issue, not whether the stuff is aimed at women or men. Who kicked up the fuss in the first place?
The term ‘feminism’ seems to me to have such a wide range of meanings, it’s impossible for me to say whether I’m in favour or against. A bit like ‘Christianity’.
Good post Jane.
Personally I don’t care which gender a product is aimed at. Is it something I want or need and which is cheapest. And those rules apply whatever I wish to purchase.
‘… help with childcare.’ That’s your job – nobody else’s.
And I did it, Smartarse; I didn’t go to work until my youngest was 13 because I couldn’t have afforded the fees.
I do know that many would be up the creek if their finances took a downturn e.g redundancy of the main breadwinner (which also happened chez G)
Talk about a zero sum game.
Quite agree Jane, for what it’s worth. Who knew the “F” word and a photo of a load of sanitary products could be so triggering!
Some people clearly have deep-seated issues and need professional help.![🙄](https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/15.0.3/svg/1f644.svg)
If there is no such thing as a pink tax, it should be introduced ASAP. The colour is extremely taxing, hence, people willfully seeking it out ought to be taxed for that, just as with all the other sin taxes!
99.99% of all these hygiene cosmetics can presumably be replaced with a simple bar of unperfumed soap.
I don’t think there’s an active ingredient in tampons and there certainly isn’t one in razors (unless one wants to call the blade active ingredient, that is).
Judging from the text, most of the products reviewed here are anti-this cremes, pro that balms, after and before suchandsuchathing moisturers etc and the only active ingredient they really contain (ie, the one which matters) are different kinds of perfume. This is essentially all rip-off-ware one can wonderfully do without, regardless of the colour of the plastic bottle. Hence, the whole topic is more than a bit bizarre: Men said to be ripped of less aggressively than woman when buying useless lifestyle products? What about not buying any of them?
So having VAT on feminine hygiene products until as recently as January 2021 (with the cost savings since abolition still not being passed on in full to consumers) was fair, was it?
Whoever said anything was going to be fair in life?
They must have been kidding.
On one hand, I have long thought that the best riposte to the more militant feminists is “Mrs. Merton’s” brilliant question “What was it about millionaire Paul Daniels that first attracted you, Debbie McGhee?”
But, on the other hand and more seriously, women in general (and not just feminists) are currently under attack by a bunch of perverts. I know which side I stand on in that particular dispute.