The ‘pink tax’ is a gendered price discrimination that drastically affects women’s personal finances, in ways that are sometimes almost invisible. But should we be rioting in the streets over it? Sarah Lang does a deep dive, and stops into the supermarket
Anyone heard of the ‘pink tax’? Here’s what I thought it was until a few weeks ago. As women, we have to spend more money than men because there’s the social expectation that we should look a certain way, which involves getting our hair cut and coloured, shaving or waxing our body hair, wearing makeup, etc.
That’s the pink tax, right? Well, that’s half of it.
I spoke to gender equity consultant Ange Meyer, who is also one of the women behind social change agency Project Gender, non-profit network the Gender Justice Collective, and Hi Money!, a therapist-designed program focussed on exploring and transforming how women think and feel about money. She has also just done a deep dive researching and writing about the pink tax.
No, Inland Revenue isn’t charging women extra. “The pink tax is systemic cost tied to gender expectations,” Ange explains. “One part is the social pressure to invest money in your appearance to meet professional and societal standards of how women should look. The other part is that women pay more for the same products because they’re differently marketed to women.” In other words, the pink tax is the practice of selling products or services targeted at women at a higher price than similar products or services targeted at men. Think razors, deodorants, shampoo, drycleaning.
The term ‘pink tax’ emerged around the time California passed the 1995 Gender Tax Repeal Act. “It’s not actually a tax,” Ange says, “but they legislated that you can’t charge more for similar products or services marketed toward women.” There’s no strong evidence that it worked, but at least it showed a willingness to publicly address the issue. The Pink Tax Repeal Act is proposed U.S. federal legislation aimed at prohibiting gender-based pricing differences for ‘substantially similar’ products and services. It’s been introduced in multiple sessions of Congress, starting in 2016, but hasn’t become law.
Can we get some legislation here, please?
Click and collect
Has anyone heard of the ‘Bic For Her’ ‘lady-pens’? It’s an egregious example of how companies want women to pay more for the same product. Ange tells me about it. “It was absolutely atrocious. In 2011 Bic made these pink pens for women that were slightly smaller.”
They came in pink, purple, and pastel colours (FFS, women like blue too), and were supposedly designed to fit a woman’s hand. Their price tag was also a whopping 70% more than regular Bic pens.
Although they was pilloried through sarcastic reviews on Amazon and other ridicule, it was also an example of the ‘pink it and shrink it’ problem, as Ange explains. “Companies ‘pink it’, for instance a pink razor, and ‘shrink it’, like a Bic pen. Then they give it a higher price tag and say ‘this is a product for the ladies’. But actually, it’s not. Like, it’s just a razor, just a pen.”
Crunch time
Then there were the lady chips. In 2018, Indra Nooyi, then the CEO of Pepsico – whose brands include Doritos – said on the Freakonomics podcast that women eat their Doritos differently to men.
“They [women] don’t like to crunch too loudly in public. And they don’t lick their fingers generously and they don’t like to pour the little broken pieces and the flavour into their mouth” (We don’t?)
But hoorah, she had a solution! They were planning Doritos designed for women, and packaged to fit their purses! Basically, women would be paying the same for less product. However, they weren’t scoffed, but scoffed at. Here was one social-media post: “In response to Doritos’ lady-friendly crisps, I shall be eating the biggest crisps I can find, crunching really loudly burping and carrying a packet of crisps as a handbag”.
BURN. Lady Doritos never appeared.
Despite pushback against the Bic For Her and ‘Lady Doritos’ because they were so blatantly taking the piss, there has been very little heat on other products more under the radar. “‘Period ibuprofen’ is more expensive, but it’s still just the same ibuprofen,” Ange says. “Also women’s deodorants are more expensive than men’s. Men’s undies are so cheap and women’s undies are so expensive.” (Men don’t need to buy bras either.)
Less is more?
I combed an aisle at my local supermarket and it infuriated me. Rexona Women Clinical Protection Antiperspirant Summer Strength (45ml) was $15.49 ($22.20 per 100ml), while Dove Men + Care Advanced Antiperspirant Aerosol Invisible Dry (250ml) was $10.99 ($4.40 per 100ml). I’ll let you do the math. Meanwhile, Gillette Venus Deluxe Smooth Razor With 4 Blades (marketed to women) was $26.99; while Gillette Razor Blue Iii Disposable 10 pack (marketed to men) was $17.99. Finally, Head & Shoulders Ultra Men 2 In 1 Shampoo & Conditioner Deep Clean was $14.99 for 750ml; while Pantene Miracles Shampoo Collagen Repair & Protect (marketed to women) was $20.99 for 600ml (plus we haven’t bought conditioner yet).
Talk about pink and shrink – women are paying more than men for less product. And a major drycleaner? $15 for a women’s blouse; $6 for a men’s shirt. FFS. For years I’ve been paying for products and services like this without realising the mark-up for women. Ange says my scouting report was ‘rage-inducing’.
She’d like a public conversation about the pink tax. “I’ve called out various things over the years, like why are the pink secateurs and pink hammers more expensive?”
“It’s definitely something that brands and businesses have a choice about whether to do.”
But do they care?
Ange and Anna Dean used to run creative agency Double Denim. “We did a big piece of research on the economic and emotional lives of New Zealand and Australian women. We tried to understand more about what women needed and wanted from businesses. Women have control over or have influence on $28 trillion globally. We tried to understand how we could encourage brands and businesses to unlock this, but in a way that isn’t the ‘pink and shrink’. We were really keen to engage with businesses and help them create products and services for women that would be really good. But a lot of businesses just used our research as a way to just make money off women. And I found that really challenging, to be honest.”
Ready to get mad?
In 2020, a report from the California Senate Committee on Judiciary and Senate Select Committee on Women, Work & Families revealed that, on average, women pay approximately US$2381 more than men do for the same goods and services per year. Over a lifetime that equates to roughly US$188,000. Using the current exchange rate that’s more than NZ$300,000, though we don’t know New Zealand numbers. But it’s sure to add up to many tens of thousands of dollars for each of us.
An article in MONEYzine – a web magazine that covers topics including economic knowledge, saving, investing and trading – explains key pink tax statistics to be aware of in 2026.
• On average, women pay 7% more than men for similar products.
• 42% of the time, women’s products had a higher price tag.
• Personal care products for women cost 13% more on average.
• Women’s home healthcare products cost 8% more on average.
• The prices of products marketed to women are growing twice as fast [as those marketed to men].
Yes, really.
Riot, anyone?
Why didn’t I know about all this at a personal and systemic level, I ask Ange? “I think there’s a massive gap in knowledge about the systemic gender disadvantages in terms of pricing, and more widely in terms of the system of money. When you add in lower wages and career barriers, women face a huge structural economic disadvantage.” It means we save less, invest less, and retire with less.
“We need to address discrimination in terms of gender pricing. It just has such a big impact on us. I personally think we should be rioting in the streets about this.”
Maybe we can schedule a joint riot about both the pink tax and the motherhood penalty. Maybe call it the womanhood penalty riot?
Social expectations
For Ange personally, it was the pink tax on haircuts that most pissed her off. “I’ve got long hair so I just get a little trim. It costs me $100.” Men pay far less, as little as $30, for a cut – and don’t face the social expectation to colour their hair.
“I’ve been grey now for 10 years,” Ange says. “One reason was I thought it was fucking outrageous how much I was paying to get my hair coloured. It coincided with me understanding more about investing in my own personal relationship with money, and the idea that prioritising my finances is a radical feminist act. So I decided that $300 every two months to get my hair professionally dyed could actually go to my savings.” That adds up to $1800 a year. “Sometimes I have dreams that I’ve accidentally coloured my hair.”
“It’s not that I want to put hairdressers out of business, but I think it’s a really easy example for people to understand.”
Sure, people (men, probably) could say that wearing makeup, getting your hair and nails done, and buying makeup and good skincare products, is just a choice. But when you frame it that way, that’s doing women a disservice. “These things are expensive,” Ange says, “which feeds into that really persistent narrative around women being frivolous in their spending. When actually, we may not get the good jobs unless we’re professionally groomed.” Indeed, studies show that the more physically attractive we are, the more likely we are to be hired and to be paid more. So let’s not blame women for adhering to pervasive social expectations about how they should look.
“When you look at the marketing that women, particularly young women, face to look a particular way, that’s huge,” Ange says. “And the upkeep is massive. And that stuff can be packaged up as wellness and ‘self-care’. But it costs a lot to get your hair done, to get your nails done, to buy the Lululemon [activewear].”
Paying for periods
Who knew that women spend nearly $6000 on menstrual products over a lifetime of 450 cycles? Plus we tend to shell out for birth control, and doctor’s visits surrounding our reproductive system.
Ange points out that the U.K. and Australia have removed taxes on menstrual products. “I think we should be saying we don’t want to pay GST on menstrual products, and that it’s not unprecedented. When asked in 2023 about removing tax on period products, New Zealand’s Minister of Revenue, Simon Watts, said it would reduce the revenue the government collects to spend on public services. The average cost of period products across a woman’s life is around $18,000. So women are responsible for paying for roadworks?”
With those dang periods finally over, menopause should save women money, right? Well, not necessarily. Ange is really pleased there are more conversations around menopause. “But it’s also another opportunity for businesses to say they’re supporting women, when actually they’re using menopause as a massive marketing opportunity. There are products that are very dubious in terms of what they say they’re going to do to support menopausal women. Do you need a cooling cream? Will it work? I think it’s important that we realise what’s going on.”
“I think bringing more awareness to the pink tax and talking about all this is the best thing we can do. If you understand what’s going on, you have a choice about whether you choose to accept it or no. Like, ‘no, I’m never going to buy the pink razor. I won’t be taken for a ride here’.”
Riot, anyone?
