Women across the world continue to navigate not only cultural stereotypes about their inability to manage finances but also structural forms of economic discrimination that systematically undermine their financial autonomy. One of the clearest examples of such structural discrimination is the Pink Tax, a term describing the persistent gender-based price difference on goods and services marketed to women. Although not an official tax, the Pink Tax refers to the higher prices women pay for products that are often identical to those marketed toward men, from razors and deodorants to clothing and personal care items.
From a feminist standpoint, the Pink Tax cannot be understood merely as a market anomaly or consumer issue. It is a manifestation of what bell hooks describes as “the interlocking systems of domination” that uphold patriarchal and capitalist structures. Companies commodify femininity, selling women the illusion of empowerment and self-care while exploiting gendered marketing to justify higher prices. This practice perpetuates what Simone de Beauvoir termed the condition of “the Other” (where womanhood is defined and priced compared to manhood).
The Pink Tax exemplifies how patriarchal capitalism monetises gender identity, placing women in a constant state of economic disadvantage. It enforces the notion that women must keep certain beauty or hygiene standards to be socially accepted, transforming self-presentation into a financial burden. As Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity suggests, femininity is not merely an identity, but a repeated performance shaped by social expectations the marketplace profits from claiming that performance through gendered consumption.
Economic and Social Implications
The Pink Tax has real and measurable consequences. It silently erodes women’s capacity to save, invest, or build financial stability. For working women, it reduces disposable income and limits opportunities for long-term economic independence. For non-earning women, particularly in low-income households, it worsens dependency and deepens economic vulnerability.
In the Indian context, awareness of the Pink Tax stays limited. However, the government’s decision to remove GST from sanitary napkins in 2018 was a significant acknowledgment of gendered economic inequality. This policy shift recognised menstrual products as essentials rather than luxuries—a stance consistent with feminist demands for economic justice and bodily autonomy. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has also suggested the adoption of gender-neutral pricing policies, aligning with feminist economic principles that call for fairness, accessibility, and equality.
Legal and Constitutional Dimensions
From a legal perspective, gender-based price discrimination stands in tension with the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all citizens. The Pink Tax indirectly violates this right by imposing differential treatment based on gender in the marketplace. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), to which India is a signatory, further binds States to end discrimination against women in all spheres, including economic and social life.
Thus, the eradication of the Pink Tax should not be viewed merely as a consumer reform but as an essential step toward gender justice. Implementing gender-neutral tax and pricing policies, ensuring transparent market regulations, and promoting awareness through education and media are vital to dismantling this entrenched economic bias.
Collective Resistance and Feminist Agency
As bell hooks emphasised, feminism is not simply about individual empowerment but about collective transformation and resistance to all systems of domination. Women can challenge the Pink Tax through informed consumer choices, i.e, by opting for gender-neutral or men’s alternatives when identical in function, and by demanding policy accountability. However, true change requires dismantling the deeper capitalist logics that profit from gender difference.
Conclusion
The Pink Tax may appear invisible in everyday transactions, yet its cumulative effect reinforces gender inequality, both economically and symbolically. Eliminating it is not merely about lowering prices; it is about affirming women’s economic rights, demanding fairness, and resisting patriarchal commodification. To echo bell hooks, feminism is for everybodyand the fight against the Pink Tax is a fight for equality, dignity, and justice for all genders.
Author Name- 1st Author Name: Asst. Prof. Divya Ann Samuel, Institute: School of Law and Public Policy, Avantika University
2nd Author Name: Tanvi Londhe, Institute: Student, B.B.A LL.B (H), School of Law and Public Policy, Avantika University
