Thinking (too hard) About Pink Episode II: A Tax on the Colognes

Last week, I looked at some products sold in our own Penn State Bookstore which, for reasons that are still not entirely clear, came in bright pink in addition to Penn State's blue/white/grey/black/neon green (I still don't quite know what's up with that neon green stuff). While it still seems very strange to me that things like shirts, lanyards, and water bottles need to be colored pink to appeal to women, I can say this in defense of the Bookstore: at least they still had the same price tags. In other stores, one might not be so lucky.

(compliments of KGW)

Yep, that's right. These are two packages of razors from the same store. One set of razors is pink, and the other is blue. They are practically identical in every aspect except their color. And yet, the pink ones are a full ninety cents more expensive than the same blue ones. This is one example of what's being called the "pink tax", where products targeted for women are priced significantly higher than their male-targeted counterparts, and it's certainly not the only one. Just as all sorts of items are divided along gender lines whether it really makes sense or not, so too are prices, on everything from clothes to shaving supplies to perfume, and it's usually (though not always) women who get the short end of the unnecessarily gendered stick.

(compliments of KGW)

How can stores get away with such obvious price discrimination? After all, it's well-known that women make 78 cents on average for every dollar a man makes (a factoid which, despite being oversimplified and misleading, is cited ad nauseam every time any discussion on gender equality comes up, so I'm going to avoid ever using it again here), which should theoretically give women less money to use when shopping. And among people who have actually tried both products of the same type marketed towards men or women, when there is a difference, many say that it's actually the ones marketed to men that are superior. So why raise the price when it comes to pink?

Some products, primarily certain articles of clothing, do actually have some differences between what's sold to men and to women. These are often minor additions or changes in formula that don't have too much of an effect on the product's actual effectiveness, but due to the changes companies claim that they can justify raising the price on one version or the other.

However, when it's just a matter of coloration, there's less to excuse this division. The reason why products marketed toward women often have the higher price seems to be rooted in stereotypes. The theory goes that women are more likely to buy into products that claim to be specially made for them or loaded with buzzwords, even if the price is higher than the alternative, while men are more likely to just go for whatever kind is cheapest. Obviously, it's a very sexist marketing strategy, but apparently it works, as products marketed towards women still stay on the market and sell well despite the higher price. It certainly doesn't help that stores dividing "men's" sections from "women's" sections discourages actually comparing the prices and the qualities of the products, to the point that many people aren't even aware that the "pink tax" exists at all.

Well, now that we are aware, what can we do about it? Unfortunately, I do not think that manufacturers are going to spontaneously realize the error of their ways and lower the prices on overcharged products. (If anything, wouldn't they raise the prices on the male counterparts, since obviously people are willing to pay for them at the higher price?) It instead falls to consumers to make wise choices when they go shopping, and we, all being responsible adults with our own steady incomes and ability to do our own shopping (ha ha), can take part. Next time you have to shop for supplies, carefully check prices and see what your alternatives are, so that you can save money or get the highest-quality product. Or, if one company in particular seems to have a history of unfair pricing, avoid buying from them entirely. After all, there really is no rule that says you have to buy the products which are targeted for your particular gender. If you like it, you can buy it, and nobody can do anything to stop you. And if you can defy the societal norms of gender and save a few cents all at the same time, well!

Thinking (too hard) About Pink

It is everywhere, and it follows everyone. Nobody really knows quite what it is, or how it came among us, but it is a constant presence in all of our lives, even those who give it little consideration. It divides cities, countries, families, and individuals, and it has been known to take lives. It is gender, and honestly, it's probably not the sinister force of malevolence I've made it out to be in these last few sentences. (Probably.) However, it is a powerful force nonetheless, and people know it and use it. Over the course of this blog, I'll be writing about some of the ways that marketers and others use the concept of gender to push their own ends, which for the purposes of this blog will usually involve getting money, as well as examples of when gendered items are just weird and unnecessary (which is pretty much all the time).

You really don't have to look very far to find oddly gendered products for sale, so I first took a look at the nearest and most convenient store I could find: the Penn State Bookstore in the HUB.

There it is, in the middle of the rows upon rows of blue, gray, black, and white shirts carefully arranged at the entrance of the Penn State Bookstore: a single rack of magenta T-shirts. How did it get here, and why? If you answered "breast cancer awareness", you're not entirely right. While the store does support the cause, these particular shirts make no mention of breast cancer research, and even though there are some issues with the marketing strategy (to be covered in a future post?), it is generally agreed that merchandise sold to support breast cancer awareness usually does a good job of conveying some actual awareness of breast cancer. These products are totally unmarked as such. Alternatively, if you answered "pink is the new official color of Penn State", you are, unfortunately, wrong. And, if your answer was "because pink is just a nice color!", why, you're absolutely right! Pink is an excellent color to wear! Why, just look at all these wonderful pink clothes:

...wait, what? See, this section of the store is where many of the more masculine clothing items are, and, as we all know, men can never be seen in such a feminine color, lest they lose all manhood and respect in the eyes of their peers. Conversely, products that women might use must be available in pink, so that their femininity is immediately obvious to their users and any onlookers:

Examples like these can be found in all sorts of stores on all sorts of products, even if there's no real reason why they should need to be differentiated at all. Now, obviously, there's a number of options available to women who aren't particularly fond of pink. And if someone who's not a woman decides they want to buy an entire pink outfit and wear it everywhere they go, there's really not much that can stop them. Still, in a world where even water bottles are colored according to the gender of the intended user, you have to wonder, what's up with the constant assignment of pink products to girls? And, for that matter, why is blue the main color that's given to boys? 

In fact, for much of history, it was pink that went to boys, and blue for girls. Also, many products, such as clothing for children, were considered "neutral" and thus not especially made for any gender in particular. Precisely why the switch happened is unclear, although plenty of theories exist, throwing blame on subjects from Eleanor Roosevelt to Adolf Hitler. Regardless, by the 1940s and 1950s, the color patterns of today were set, and now many people accept "pink for girls, blue for boys" without question. This is most defined in children, whose parents or guardians are usually the ones buying clothes for them; how often do you see a little boy in pink, or wearing a tiny dress? No matter what the child's preference in clothes is, parents will dress them in the way that they think is ideal, and this ideal is often rooted in the parents' perception of the child's gender.

Now, why are so many products split according to pink and blue? That is also unclear, but signs are pointing to "because money". The line of thinking goes that by differentiating their products, manufacturers can reach a greater consumer base and sell more products, and dividing according to gender lines is a simple method, since nearly everyone is considered either male or female and the split is roughly 50-50. Color, too, is just one of the easiest ways to make products appear different without having to put much effort into it, since it is easier to use alternate-colored materials than to redesign the entire product.

Ultimately, though, there is not much reason that the color of the clothes should matter to consumers. You can certainly choose to wear and use products of whatever color you want (even those neon green shirts that are also in the bookstore for some reason). Yet companies continue to market their products in pink for women, and people continue to pick their purchases depending on which color best fits their gender, not which color they really like, and parents continue to refuse to buy their sons pink clothes because "it'll make you look like a girl". Why does one color need to be such a big deal?