Even though it may sound like a government-imposed fee, the “Pink Tax” is not an actual tax. Instead, it describes the overpricing of products and services marketed solely towards women. This “tax” encompasses a wide range of items from drugstore to professional. Women are often faced paying more than men for the same items with the only difference being the color of packaging or the gender label. It is disparities like these that quietly add up over time to contribute to the expensive cost of being a woman.
Image by Freepik
In Everyday Life
A 2015 study by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs studied an estimate of 800 products. The conclusion found that women’s products cost an average of 7% more than similar items that are marketed to men. The study also showed that there was a 13% upcharge on personal care products and even a 7% price difference for children’s items. Neutrally categorized items such as razors and lotions are usually priced higher for women. They are often packaged in pink and labeled “for her”. [1]
Not only do products reflect this gendered pricing, but services do as well. For example, the dry cleaners may charge more to clean a woman’s blouse than a man’s shirt, even when the materials are nearly identical. Haircuts for women tend to be more expensive than men’s, regardless of hair length. These patterns in pricing are integrated so deeply into everyday life that most people don’t even question them. However, these common occurrences do accumulate quickly and over the course of a year, can cost women over $1,300 more than men. [2]
Compounding the Wage Gap
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women earn about 83 cents for every dollar a man earns. For women of color, the gap is even wider. Overall, women are often spending more while earning less. [3]
Critics of the term “Pink Tax” sometimes argue that women can just buy men’s products to avoid the markup of their own. While this is true, this dismisses the real issue at hand. Many women feel pressure to use products marketed specifically for them to meet societal standards of appearance or femininity. Some essential items like menstrual products have no male equivalent at all. In many U.S. states, feminine hygiene products have been taxed as luxury items.
Legal Action & What Comes Next
There are some states that have taken steps towards addressing the issue. In 2022, California passed the Gender Tax Repeal Act, which prohibits businesses from charging different prices for “substantially similar” goods based on gender. [4] While there are a couple states with legislation like this in place, efforts to pass a federal Pink Tax Repeal Act have been stalled, leaving many American consumers unprotected from gender-based pricing.
Ending the Pink Tax isn’t just about lowering prices of personal products or services. It’s about economic fairness and gender equity. While women pay more when they earn less, society silently penalizes them for their gender. Advocates and lawmakers must continue pushing for change to ensure pricing becomes fair and truly equal.
References
[1] From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer. (n.d.). https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/partners/Study-of-Gender-Pricing-in-NYC.pdf
[2]: Taylor, K. R. (2023, March 8). Pink tax: What does price discrimination cost women?. Kiplinger. https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/pink-tax-womens-products-price-discrimination
[3] Ascott, E. (2025, March 21). Women still earn 83 cents to every dollar made by men, despite pay transparency. Allwork.Space. https://allwork.space/2025/03/women-still-earn-83-cents-to-every-dollar-made-by-men-despite-pay-transparency/#:~:text=Women%20 Still%20 Earn%2083%20 Cents,By%20 Men%2C%20 Despite%20 Pay%20 Transparency
[4] California implements “Pink tax” law prohibiting gender-based pricing for substantially similar products | practical law. (n.d.-a). https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-037-9037?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true
Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, and Marie Curie are the names that often come to mind when we think of great scientists, yet only one of them is a woman. Throughout history, countless women have made groundbreaking scientific discoveries, only to have their contributions overlooked or credited to men. One such scientist is Eunice Newton Foote, a pioneering researcher whose work on the greenhouse effect predated some of the most well-known climate science, yet for years her name remained in the shadows of history.
Image by Freepik
Eunice Newton Foote was born on July 17, 1819 in Goshen, Connecticut. She pursued her education at the Troy Female Seminary (now Emma Willard School), an institution famous for its progressive approach to women’s education during the era. There, she developed an interest in scientific subjects, laying the groundwork for her future experiments.
In 1856, Foote conducted experiments to understand the warming effect of various different atmospheric gases. Using household items, glass cylinders, thermometers, and an air pump, she measured how gases carbon dioxide (then known as “carbonic acid gas”) and water vapor absorbed heat when exposed to sunlight. Her findings were groundbreaking:
Carbon Dioxide’s Heat Absorption: Foote observed that carbon dioxide absorbed more heat and retained it longer than other gases, leading her to conclude that an atmosphere rich in this gas would elevate Earth’s temperature.
Implications for Climate: She hypothesized that variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could have contributed to historical climate changes, suggesting that higher concentrations would result in a warmer planet.
Foote’s work predated the more widely recognized experiments of John Tyndall by three years, yet her contributions remained largely unrecognized during her lifetime. Had her research received the attention it deserved, discussions about climate change might have begun much earlier, potentially influencing policies and scientific advancements that could have helped mitigate global warming before it became a crisis.
Despite the significance of her research, Foote faced societal barriers typical of the 19th century. As a woman, she was not permitted to present her findings at the 1856 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Instead, Professor Joseph Henry of the Smithsonian Institution presented her paper, acknowledging the limitations placed on women in science at the time.
Foote’s work was subsequently overshadowed, and her name faded into obscurity. It wasn’t until recent decades that historians and scientists revisited her experiments, recognizing her as a pioneer in climate science. In 2019, on the 200th anniversary of her birth, NOAA celebrated her contributions, shedding light on her role in early climate studies.
Eunice Newton Foote’s story is a testament to the challenges women in science have historically faced and the importance of acknowledging their contributions. Her experiments laid the foundation for our understanding of the greenhouse effect and climate change. Today, as we grapple with global warming, Foote’s early insights serve as a reminder of the critical need for diverse voices in scientific discourse.
By bringing Eunice Foote’s legacy to the forefront, we not only honor her achievements but also inspire future generations of women scientists to pursue their passions, undeterred by the biases of their time.
References
[1] First Paper to link CO2 and global warming, by Eunice Foote (1856). The Public Domain Review. (n.d.). https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/first-paper-to-link-co2-and-global-warming-by-eunice-foote-1856/
[2] Huddleston, A. (2019, July 17). Happy 200th birthday to Eunice Foote, Hidden Climate Science Pioneer. NOAA Climate.gov. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/happy-200th-birthday-eunice-foote-hidden-climate-science-pioneer
[3] Kurland, Z., Hafner, K., & Feder, E. (2024, February 20). The woman who demonstrated the greenhouse effect. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-woman-who-demonstrated-the-greenhouse-effect
Closing the Wealth Gap: How Women Are Reshaping the Investment World
Shriya Parvatikar March 2025
For decades, investing has been seen as something men do — whether it is leading a big financial firm, managing investment portfolios, or even trading stocks. Women have been constantly underrepresented in the stock market and wealth-building opportunities. However, in recent years, there has been a massive shift as more women take charge of their financial futures and challenge the traditional hurdle in the investment world. These developments not only serve as significant steps in mitigating the gender gap but also prove that financial independence is not only a goal — it’s a necessity.
Image by Freepik
The Persistent Gender Investing Gap
The gender investing gap still hugely persists. According to a 2018 study held in the UK, the total value of the investments that women (aged 21-53) saved was half the amount that their male counterparts had saved [1]. This is a huge gap in investments considering the fact that on average, women live longer than men, yet they usually retire with less wealth which puts them at a higher risk of financial insecurity in the later parts of their age. A 2021 Women and Investing report from Fidelity Investments states that even though women’s investment portfolios often outperform men’s, only 33% of women see themselves as investors [2]. Why is that? Some of the possible rationale are: lower financial confidence, the gender pay gap, and a lack of representation in financial education.
Moreover, women have significantly less shares than their male counterparts. According to a 2022 report, male executives own 99 times more shares in S&P 500 companies than their female counterparts [3]. This is alarming since women make up a quarter of C-Suite leadership in the firms. In addition to that, women tend to have investment account balances that are 44% lower than men’s, as reported by The Motley Fool [4]. This is not just a mere matter of investing, it is about long-term wealth, financial security, and making sure women have the same opportunities to build a sustainable and independent financial life.
Flipping the Script of the Investment World
Good News! This gap is slowly and gradually closing as more financial tools and platforms are developing to help women all over the world to be able to invest confidently.
These platforms include the following:
– Companies such as Ellevest are specifically designed to help women build on their wealth by offering financial planning services and wealth management.
– More firms such as BBG Ventures and BRAVA are supporting female entrepreneurs and allocating money to businesses that support women’s empowerment.
– The increase in financial literacy programs such as Female Invest is helping educate women about money, making investing more widespread and accessible.
In addition to these developments, the number of women investing in the stock market has significantly improved. The Motley Fool further states that 71% of women are now investing in the stock market, a notable rise driven by the younger generations [4]. Additionally, as more women have started investing, studies have started to prove that women investors often achieve better returns than men. For instance, a 2024 analysis report by The Fintech Times emphasized that Australian women outperformed men by 4%. Women are also more likely to focus on being sustainable and socially responsible while investing, and promoting ethical business practices [5].
This notable progress can be further accelerated through these initiatives:
Promoting financial education in rural places in which women are obliged to stick to the social/traditional norms. This can amplify the number of women investing and guarantee a better future for themselves.
Closing the prevalent wage cap can address income disparity and eliminate blockages that are stopping women from investing. This way, they can gain more capital to support their investment.
Encouraging more women into leadership roles in finance can inspire others to participate and support.
As more women take charge of their financial lives, they not only secure a stable future for themselves but also challenge the traditional stereotypes that decide what women can and cannot do. The rise of investors is more than just a trend, it is a huge step that is reshaping the financial world for the better.
Sources
[1] The gender investing gap: Investments. NatWest. (n.d.).
Did you know that 95% of fiction books published in the U.S. between 1950 and 2018 were written by white authors?[7] Considering the fact that 10.5% of the U.S. population were minorities in 1950 and that percentage has only increased in the years since, this shows a historical underrepresentation of authors of color in literature.[3][4]
Contemporary BIPOC Authors are Persistently Underrepresented
Needless to say, efforts to understand and address the racial disparity of authored works have been sluggish. Only two of the infamous Big Five publishing houses–which control over 80% of the publishing market–have just begun to show transparency in surveying the diversity of its authors.[7] Penguin Random House–arguably the biggest literary publishing conglomerate–published a survey review which found that 23.5% of its authors who published between 2019 and 2021 were people of color.[7] By comparison, in 2022 Hachette publishing disclosed its third annual report on diversity that 34% of book acquisitions were written by minority authors in 2021, an increase from 29% in 2020, and 22% in 2019.[7] Considering the fact that racial minorities make up about 40% of the U.S. population, this shows a persistent underrepresentation of authors of color in literature despite recent efforts by these two literary publishing agencies to amplify and publish BIPOC writers.[4]
A review of the literary agencies demonstrates that this diversity issue isn’t limited to authors. According to Lee and Low, approximately 72.5% of publishing, review journal, and literary agency staff are white.[5] While this report noted a moderate improvement from the 79% of publishing, review journal, and literary agency staff who identified as white in 2015, this data is misleading as minorities make up a 63.8% majority of literary interns but hold less than 30% of executive, editorial, sales, marketing, book reviewing, literary specialist, and literary agent positions.[5] It is dubious to claim that diversity in publishing has truly improved if minorities are holding the majority of entry-level literary positions but are lacking in associate positions or higher.
Not only are writers of color historically and persistently marginalized in the literary industry, but this disenfranchisement is pervasive in the staffing of those involved in the publishing industry. To underscore this issue, the vast majority of literary employees are straight (68.7%), nondisabled (83.5%), and/or cis women (71.3%), highlighting the need for LGBT+, disabled, and gender nonbinary personnel in the literary industry.[5]
Representation in Literary Content
Among youth-centered literature, recently published books themselves have diversity on par with the population. In 2023, the Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC) found 40% of total books for children and teens have at least one BIPOC primary character (fiction) or human subject (nonfiction).[8] This is also considering the fact that many published books may not include human characters or subjects since they are imaginative and intended for kids.[8] In terms of content, the CCBC noted that 49% of the children and YA books had significant BIPOC content, an increase from 46% in 2022.[8]
The caveat to diversity in children’s and teen’s books is that it comes in the wake of scrutiny and pushback in the form of book bans.[6] While it is important to be critical of media consumption, especially for the safety of children, the drastic extent of book censorship can create an overly sanitized and homogenized selection of literature for readers to choose from.
These book bans can hinder critical thought from young readers by preventing children’s exposure to an identity they would not otherwise understand outside of verbal opinion. In other words, banning books on the basis of them being “too diverse” or controversial leaves children susceptible to others’ bias and unable to form opinions of their own. Denying access to books that address social issues such as racism, sexism, or discrimination leaves children and readers in general liable to internalize and perpetuate stereotypes they hear or witness elsewhere. This can be mitigated by reading books related with various social transgressions. Books that are related to real-life issues can give children examples of ways people interact with each other that are not positive, or healthy. Such books can be used as lessons for children to learn how to productively and prosocially interact with others. This is supported by the fact that reading fiction books fosters empathy.[2] Giving children access to them the faculties and compassion to live inclusively with others.
Additionally, readers from all backgrounds, but especially marginalized backgrounds, can benefit from being immersed in literature that focuses on characters both like and unlike themselves. Having more diverse authors allows room for more diverse experiences and creative stories. This way, young readers are exposed to literature written by authors who know from experience that they are not a monolith, but complex individuals with unique backgrounds, invaluable cultural backgrounds, worthy of being seen as they are and in places beyond their imagination.[1] It is important to inspire future leaders and adults of tomorrow.
Conclusion
To summarize, the vast majority of books published in the US have historically been written by white authors.[3][7] Not only have publishing agencies been reluctant to publish author demographics, but these disparities persist despite efforts by publishers to close such gaps.[4][7] The majority of staff in the literary publishing industry are white, cisgender, women, straight, and non-disabled, with racial minorities being concentrated in entry-level positions.[5] While we see a significant uptick in children’s books written by POC writers, these have equally been challenged by book bans in school districts across the country.[6][8] These book bans prevent children from learning about social isues, dismantling social issues in their own day-to-day lives, and simply seeing themselves or their peers represented in the literature they consume.[1][2] It is imperative to address obstacles to diversity in publishing because it is important for consumers and publishers of literature to see themselves in literary contexts and for people to practice the golden rule–-treating others how they would like to be treated.[1][2]
[2] Bal, P. M., & Veltkamp, M. (2013). How does fiction reading influence empathy? An experimental investigation on the role of emotional transportation. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e55341. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055341
