Ever Wondered Why Women's Deodorants Cost More? The 'Pink Tax', Explained

It’s not just a shade of pink. It’s an invisible surcharge for being a woman. Across the globe, countless women pay more for products and services that are identical to men’s, except for their colour, packaging, or marketing. This phenomenon, known as the pink tax, isn’t an official tax. It’s a market pattern where “women’s” versions of goods cost more than their “men’s” counterparts. And it’s not simply a marketing quirk, it’s a symptom of a much deeper societal problem: the persistence of patriarchal thinking in our economic systems.

A Price on Gender

Walk into any store and compare the prices. Razors marketed to women are often priced higher than men’s razors, despite having the same blade count and functionality—sometimes with the only difference being a pastel handle. Shampoos, deodorants, and even pens (“for her” versions with softer grips) can cost more.

A 2015 study by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs found that, on average, products for women cost 7% more than similar products for men. Over a lifetime, this disparity can accumulate to thousands of extra dollars, quietly depleting women’s financial resources.

This is not just a matter of corporate greed; it’s a reflection of how society values and perceives women’s consumption. Under patriarchal norms, women have historically been judged on appearance and presentation, fueling industries that profit from selling them an idealised self-image. When marketing teams label something “for women,” they are tapping into a cultural script that women must invest more in grooming, beauty, and care to be considered socially acceptable. 

Patriarchy in the Marketplace

The pink tax exists because the market assumes women will pay more. This assumption is rooted in centuries-old gender roles where men controlled wealth and women’s purchases were viewed as discretionary “extras” rather than necessities. Even as women have entered the workforce and gained economic independence, the remnants of this mindset remain.

In patriarchal logic, women’s products are a niche luxury—never mind that a sanitary pad is as essential as a bar of soap. This same logic justifies why women’s clothing alterations, dry cleaning, and even haircuts often cost more. The higher prices are not about better quality or more labour; they’re about a perception that femininity comes with a premium.

The Compounding Effect

The pink tax does not exist in isolation—it intersects with other gender-based economic inequalities. Women already earn less due to the gender pay gap, and the pink tax effectively takes more money out of their smaller paychecks. For example, if a woman earns 80 cents for every dollar a man earns, but also spends thousands more over her lifetime on pink-taxed goods, she is hit with a double economic penalty.

This compounds further when we consider that women are disproportionately represented in lower-paying jobs, bear a larger share of unpaid caregiving work, and face career interruptions due to motherhood. Every extra rupee spent on overpriced products is a rupee not saved, invested, or spent on education, health, or personal growth.

Cultural Conditioning and Consumer Guilt

Why do so many women continue to buy the “for her” versions? It’s not because they don’t see the price difference—it’s because marketing has been weaponised to make certain choices feel compulsory. Girls grow up being told that beauty, softness, and delicacy are inherently feminine virtues, and that products reflecting these traits are “made for them.” This conditioning starts young: toys for girls are often pink, sparkly, and pricier; boys’ toys are blue, rugged, and cheaper. By adulthood, these patterns feel natural, even when they’re financially harmful.

Patriarchal culture doesn’t just sell products; it sells insecurities. The message is subtle but relentless: if you choose the cheaper men’s razor, shampoo, or bicycle, you’re somehow compromising on your femininity.

Breaking the Cycle

Dismantling the pink tax requires both policy change and cultural change. On the policy side, governments can enforce pricing transparency, regulate discriminatory pricing practices, and classify certain pink-taxed goods (like menstrual hygiene products) as essential, making them tax-free. On the cultural side, awareness campaigns can empower consumers to question marketing narratives and opt for gender-neutral or men’s products when possible.

Some companies have begun moving toward unisex branding, offering the same product to everyone at the same price. However, true change will only come when the underlying patriarchal belief—that women’s worth is tied to how much they spend to meet societal beauty standards—is dismantled.

A Call to Conscious Consumption

Every purchase is a tiny act of economic participation, and with collective awareness, it can also be an act of resistance. Choosing the cheaper, gender-neutral option is not just about saving money—it’s about rejecting the idea that femininity should be a financial burden. Talking about the pink tax openly, teaching young girls to recognise it, and demanding fair pricing from brands can chip away at the centuries-old link between gender and inflated costs

The pink tax is not just about a few extra rupees here and there—it’s about an economy that quietly tells women, every single day, you cost more to exist. Until we strip the price tags off gender, equality will remain something women are forced to keep saving up for.

Views expressed by the author are their own.