Through methods such as gender colour-coding (blue is for boys, pink is for girls), companies have found a way to create a distinction between products for women and products for men, which has paved the way for the pink tax.

According to the World Economic Forum, the pink tax is when products targeted at women are more expensive than those targeted at men, when such items (for example, deodorant, shampoo, razors) are essentially the same. This is a global phenomenon that has existed since at least the 1990s.

The ‘tampon tax’, an actual government tax which classifies menstrual hygiene products as ‘luxury items’, is not the same as the pink tax but still is an anti-woman measure. However, it has been repealed in countries such as the UK, Kenya, Mexico and more.

A UK analysis from 2018 found that women’s facial moisturiser is on average over 34% more expensive than men’s. In the US, women pay thousands more for the same goods and services. In 2020, Californian women paid about $2,381 more than men for the same goods and services per year – adding up to about $188,000 in pink tax throughout a woman’s life, according to California Senate committees.

Although the United Nations has called on countries to abolish the pink tax, many legislators have been slow to act with the ‘Pink Tax Repeal Act’ failing to get through the US Congress in 2016. Some states in the US (California, New York, Florida) have passed legislation against the pink tax, with California prohibiting gender-discriminatory pricing, a law that is meant to save women $47bn annually in the state alone.

One reason they have been reluctant to act is its ultimate benefit to businesses worldwide. Though significantly disadvantaging women consumers, there is one sector that the pink tax does benefit: businesses.

According to financial media outlet Investopedia, the profits from the pink tax (since it is not an actual government-imposed tax) go directly into the pockets of the businesses that set the pricing. This solidifies the pink tax as a predatory, profit-maximising technique that preys on women, who continue to earn less than men, in both developed and developing nations.

Through manufacturing and twisting the narrative of women’s gender expression for its own gain, modern business has armed itself with a centuries-old tool of oppression – the patriarchy. Supported by commerce’s creation of the ever-changing, unattainable standard of female beauty and femininity, the patriarchy continues to push onto women the mantra that their only worth in society lies in their attractiveness.

Corporations exploit this by creating an intricate illusion of choice for women, telling them they can liberate themselves via rampant consumerism, encouraging women to buy products that make them feel good about their bodies.

Corporations can advertise lucrative products to solve problems that their own marketing created, while leaving women poorer, dissatisfied and exploited. Measures such as the pink tax burden women even further in an economic system that profits from their objectification and exploitation.

In order to keep current oppressive economic systems working efficiently to reap profits for conglomerates, significant resources are dedicated to keep women subordinated, both socially and economically.

How can we rise above this? To tackle the economic oppression of women, we can regulate corporations and pass legislation that outlaws predatory measures such as the pink tax and imposes strict penalties on perpetrators.

As with any deep-seated and societally entrenched inequalities, there is no simple solution. But by recognising and working to tackle measures such as the pink tax and exploitative marketing, little by little we can make the world a better place to be a woman.