Pink tax: why products for women often cost more

“Pink tax” is not an official tax, but a term for the situation when goods or services aimed at women cost more than similar counterparts for men. Often, the difference lies not in function or quality, but in the color of the packaging, scent, name, or marketing positioning. The simplest example is a razor. A men's razor may be blue or black, while a women's one is pink or purple, with promises of “gentleness” and “smoothness.” The function is the same, but the women's version is often more expensive. This can also apply to deodorants, shampoos, shower gels, creams, perfumes, clothing, toys, accessories, dry cleaning, or hairdressing services. The issue is not just a few extra hryvnias for one product, but the cumulative effect. If a woman regularly pays more for basic goods and services throughout her life, it exacerbates broader economic inequality: lower incomes, care expenses, unpaid labor, and societal pressure to meet certain appearance standards.

The pink tax arises where the manufacturer or seller divides the market by gender. Products for women are often marketed as more delicate, aesthetic, or “premium,” even if their composition and function are nearly identical to their male counterparts. In marketing, this is called gender positioning. A razor becomes not just a razor, but a “women's razor for silky skin.” Deodorant is sold not just as protection against odor, but as part of an image of gentleness or attractiveness. For this symbolic value, female consumers often pay more. Sometimes the higher price does have an explanation: different composition, more expensive fragrance, more complex packaging, smaller batch size, or higher advertising costs. But if two products serve the same function, have similar compositions, and differ mainly in color and label text, the markup appears to be payment for a gender category.

The most noticeable category is personal care products: razors, blades, shaving foams, deodorants, shower gels, shampoos, creams, and hair styling products. Women’s lines emphasize fragrance, design, and promises of softness, while men’s focus on function, freshness, and simplicity. The second category is clothing and footwear. Women’s items sometimes cost more even when made from less fabric. This is partly explained by more complex cuts, a greater variety of models, and faster collection changes, but basic t-shirts, shirts, jeans, or jackets in the women's section are often not cheaper than men's counterparts. The third area is services. In many countries, women’s haircuts cost more than men’s, even when it comes to short hair and similar amounts of work. Dry cleaning a women's shirt can also be more expensive than dry cleaning a men's shirt, even though the fabric and care complexity do not always differ. A separate group is children’s products. Toys, bicycles, helmets, backpacks, stationery, or clothing for girls can sometimes be more expensive than similar products for boys simply due to “girly” design.

The pink tax is often confused with tampon tax — the tax on menstrual products. These are related but distinct phenomena. The pink tax is primarily a market price difference between goods or services for women and men. It arises from marketing, demand, packaging, stereotypes, or companies' pricing policies. Tampon tax is already a government tax policy. This refers to the situation where pads, tampons, menstrual cups, and other menstrual hygiene products are taxed as ordinary or “non-essential” goods, even though they are actually a basic necessity. Much of the activism around tampon tax globally has focused on reducing or eliminating VAT on menstrual products, making them free in schools, universities, hospitals, and shelters, and recognizing menstrual poverty as a social issue.

One of the most well-known studies was conducted by the New York Department of Consumer Affairs in 2015. It compared hundreds of products across various categories: toys, children’s and adult clothing, personal care products, and items for the elderly. The overall conclusion: women’s products cost on average about 7% more than similar products for men. In the category of personal care products, the difference reached about 13%. At the same time, a 2018 GAO government report in the USA showed a more complex picture. In 5 out of 10 categories of personal care products, women’s items were statistically more expensive, in 2 categories men’s items were more expensive, and in others the difference was mixed or insignificant. The GAO's conclusion is cautious: the price difference does not automatically prove discrimination, as it can be influenced by composition, packaging, advertising, sales volume, and demand. However, the gender of the target audience can indeed be one of the factors in pricing. Therefore, the pink tax is not always easy to measure. For a fair comparison, one must consider volume, composition, quality, brand, point of sale, and seasonality. However, even after such clarifications, many instances remain where the difference appears more marketing-driven than objective.

In the USA, the pink tax is often discussed as a consumer market issue. At the federal level, there is no general law prohibiting the sale of similar women’s and men’s products at different prices. At the same time, individual states have responded to the issue in services: for example, California banned gender-based price discrimination in hair salons, dry cleaners, and repairs back in the 1990s. Regarding menstrual products, the situation in the USA varies by state: some states have eliminated sales tax on pads and tampons, while others have not. The United Kingdom eliminated VAT on menstrual hygiene products as of January 1, 2021: the rate became zero. Previously, due to EU rules, the country could not lower the rate below 5% for a long time. The removal of the tax was accompanied by a broader accessibility policy: free menstrual products began to be provided in schools, colleges, and hospitals. Australia removed the 10% GST on menstrual products starting in 2019. Canada eliminated the federal GST/HST on such products in 2015. In the European Union, approaches vary: some countries apply reduced VAT rates, but there is no single rule for all. A separate example is Scotland. It became the first country to implement free access to menstrual products for all who need them. This is no longer just a tax concession, but a recognition of menstrual hygiene as a public health and dignity issue.

In Ukraine, the topic of the pink tax has been studied less than in the USA, the UK, or Canada. There is no extensive state monitoring that regularly compares prices for women’s and men’s products across different categories. There is also no separate law that directly prohibits gender-based pricing for similar goods or services. In practice, Ukrainian consumers see the same manifestations as in other countries: women’s razors, deodorants, shampoos, creams, shaving products, accessories, or salon services are often positioned as a separate category. Sometimes they do differ in composition or quality, but sometimes the difference boils down to color, scent, or packaging design.

Regarding menstrual products, Ukraine does not have the same preferential policy as countries that have eliminated the tampon tax. The basic VAT rate in Ukraine is 20%, and menstrual hygiene products are usually sold under regular taxation. For comparison: in the UK, the VAT rate on such products has been 0% since 2021; in Australia, GST was removed in 2019; in Canada, federal GST/HST was removed in 2015; in some US states, sales tax has also been eliminated. The Ukrainian context is complicated by war, declining incomes, internal displacement of people, and rising prices. For women and girls in vulnerable groups, even basic hygiene products can be a significant regular expense. Therefore, the issue of the pink tax in Ukraine is not just about the marketing of pink razors, but also about the accessibility of basic care.

The price difference may seem trivial: a few hryvnias on deodorant, a few dozen hryvnias on a haircut. But these expenses recur every month, every season, and every year. They are compounded by menstrual products, cosmetics, hair and skin care, clothing, and social pressure to appear “well-groomed.” The pink tax also reinforces the stereotype: femininity must cost more. Women’s products are often sold as “gentle,” “beautiful,” “special,” while men’s are marketed as functional and simple. As a result, women are offered to pay not only for the product but also for the expectation to conform to a certain image. This does not mean that every more expensive women’s product is automatically unfair. Sometimes the price is indeed justified by quality, composition, or technology. But when the difference consistently arises where the distinctions are minimal, it becomes a question of transparency and fairness in the market.

The simplest way is to compare not just the name but also the composition, volume, and price per unit. For example, calculate the cost of shampoo per 100 ml or see how many blades and replacement cartridges are in a razor package. Often the “men’s” version is cheaper and serves the same function. The second way is not to be afraid to buy products outside the gendered aisle. If a men’s deodorant, razor, shower gel, or basic t-shirt meets the quality, there is no reason to overpay for “women’s” packaging. The third way is to support brands that do not abuse gender positioning. Transparent composition, the same price for similar products, neutral design, and the absence of artificial division into “for her” and “for him” are signs of a more responsible approach. At the societal level, data is important. Regular price comparisons in supermarkets, pharmacies, online stores, and service sectors could show how noticeable the pink tax is in Ukraine. Without data, the problem can easily be downplayed.

The first direction is tax policy regarding menstrual products. If pads, tampons, menstrual cups, and other means are recognized as basic necessities, a logical step could be to reduce or eliminate VAT. Examples from the UK, Canada, and Australia show that this is a realistic policy. The second direction is to protect consumers from unjustified gender price discrimination in services. For example, a haircut could be priced not by the gender of the client but by hair length, complexity of work, and the stylist's time. Dry cleaning should not depend on whether it is a women’s or men’s item, but on the fabric, construction, and complexity of cleaning. The third direction is data collection and publication. If government or independent institutions regularly compare prices for similar products, the market will become more transparent, and consumers will have more arguments for their choices.