From razors and jeans to shampoos, shower gels, children's bikes and even school essentials, women and girls have been paying more for everyday products marketed towards them. But why? Are we really paying extra for the colour pink, or have we become so accustomed to paying more that we've simply stopped questioning it?
Have you ever stood in a supermarket, looked at two almost identical products and wondered why the one marketed towards women costs more? One comes in a black or blue bottle, promising strength, power and extreme performance, while the other is pink, decorated with flowers and promising something beautifully silky, delicately feminine or wonderfully luxurious. They might smell different, but essentially they're doing the same job, so why does one come with a higher price tag? And why does this happen across so many everyday products, from razors and shampoos to jeans and even children's toys?
There's actually a name for this rather frustrating phenomenon, and it's called the Pink Tax. It's something we've known about for years, with investigations, newspaper headlines and even discussions in Parliament, yet here we are in 2026, still talking about women and girls paying more. Surely, after all this time, we should have sorted it out?
Isn't the Pink Tax About Tampons and Sanitary Towels?
When I first heard the term Pink Tax, I naturally assumed it referred to the tax women used to pay on sanitary products. Tampons, sanitary towels and other essentials that, let's face it, aren't exactly optional purchases. For years, these products were subject to VAT in the UK, despite being necessities for millions of women and girls. Thankfully, that particular tax was abolished in January 2021, although it does make you wonder why we were ever paying it in the first place. Surely having a period was never something we had much choice about?
But here's where things get interesting, because the Pink Tax isn't actually a government tax at all. It's the name given to higher prices charged for products marketed towards women and girls compared with similar products aimed at men and boys. We're talking razors, shampoos, shower gels, moisturisers, clothing, toys and even stationery. And unlike VAT, which is imposed by the government, these price differences are created by manufacturers and retailers through the way they develop, market and price their products. So while we celebrated the removal of VAT on period products, another rather expensive problem remained sitting on our supermarket shelves, quietly helping itself to our money. And this time, it wasn't the government setting the prices, but the very companies selling us the products.
We've Known About This for Years!
Back in 2016, an investigation by The Times found that, among comparable products with different prices, those marketed towards women and girls were an average of 37% more expensive. That same year, the Fawcett Society found women were paying 31% more for a comparable basket of supermarket toiletries and 12% more for clothing. The findings reached Parliament, retailers were challenged, and you'd think that would have been enough to make everyone sit up and take notice.
Yet in 2024, research published by The Co-operative Bank found women were still paying nearly 40% more on average across a selection of lower-cost toiletry essentials. Different products, different retailers, but the same familiar problem. How are we still having this conversation a decade later?
Razors, Shampoo and the Price of Being Female
Let's start with razors. In 2016, Tesco was found selling packs of ten pink disposable razors for twice the price of comparable blue ones. Twice the price! Were the pink blades somehow sharper, more intelligent or capable of shaving our legs while simultaneously making us a cup of tea? Then there's Gillette, with its men's razors and women's Venus range. A 2024 comparison found women's razors averaged £3.27 compared with £2.66 for men's.
Personally, I don't think my legs are particularly concerned about whether my razor is pink, blue or decorated with tiny dancing flamingos. But I know the colour matters to my daughter, and probably plenty of other women and girls too. And why shouldn't it? If somebody prefers pink, why should they pay more for the privilege?
L'Oréal's Elvive shampoos have also appeared in price comparisons, with women's products costing around £4–£5 for 400ml against approximately £2.74 for a men's Men Expert alternative. Now, I appreciate formulations can differ, but both are designed to clean hair, so how much of that difference comes down to ingredients and how much comes down to marketing?
Apparently, Even Washing Our Armpits Costs More
Shower gel is another interesting one. One comparison showed Sanex body wash at £3.73 for a women's 450ml product, while a men's 400ml version was £2.25. Radox has also appeared in comparisons, with a women's 450ml shower gel costing £2 against £1.64 for a men's equivalent. Even allowing for different formulations, these differences deserve questioning.
Have you noticed how differently these products are advertised? Men's shower gels promise Extreme Energy and Maximum Performance, while women's offer botanical bliss, silky softness and luxurious indulgence. And before anyone suggests women simply prefer more luxurious products, who decided that? Surely we should be able to choose the fragrances and products we enjoy without paying extra because they're marketed towards women.
Even Little Girls Are Paying More
This is where things become particularly ridiculous, because we're not just talking about adult women. In 2016, Argos was found selling identical children's scooters for £5 more in pink than in blue. Five pounds for the same scooter! Was the pink one faster? Did it come with a chauffeur? Perhaps it had some extraordinary engineering feature that allowed little girls to glide effortlessly over potholes? No, the reported difference was the colour.
And what about children's bikes, school bags, pencil cases and lunchboxes? Online retailers such as Amazon list different colours and designs at different prices, making it worth comparing before buying. Even Bic's infamous For Her pens were discussed in Parliament. Apparently, ordinary pens weren't feminine enough, so women needed their own special version. Because obviously we've been struggling to write with regular pens for centuries! But joking aside, why should young girls grow up believing that choosing pink means paying more, and worse still, that it's perfectly normal, acceptable and not something they should ever think to question?
But Surely It's About Demand?
I was chatting to a friend about the Pink Tax the other evening, and they raised an interesting point. Perhaps pink products cost more because there's less demand for them? If manufacturers produce thousands of black razors but far fewer pink ones, surely the larger production runs make the black razors cheaper? And do you know what? That's a perfectly reasonable argument. Mass production brings costs down, and I completely understand that.
But are pink products really manufactured in such tiny quantities? Is pink dye considerably more expensive than blue? Are we seriously expected to believe that adding a little pink to a scooter, razor or pencil case suddenly makes it a premium product? And if demand explains everything, shouldn't women's products become cheaper wherever women buy more of them? Surely women aren't some tiny, obscure market that manufacturers have only just discovered?
I'd genuinely love manufacturers to explain how much of these price differences comes down to production costs and how much comes down to what they believe customers will pay. Because there's a rather important difference between something costing more to make and a company deciding it can charge more for it.
What If It Were the Blue Tax?
Here's something else I found fascinating. Did you know pink wasn't always considered a girl's colour? During the Victorian era and into the early twentieth century, colour conventions weren't nearly as fixed as today. Pink was sometimes recommended for boys, while blue was associated with girls, and somewhere along the way those associations changed.
So imagine we'd never swapped them. Imagine men's products were predominantly pink and women's were blue. Would we now be discussing the Blue Tax? And if men were routinely charged more for blue razors, shampoos, scooters and jeans, would everyone be quite so accepting? Would we tell men to stop complaining and buy the pink version, or would there be a rather bigger stink about the whole thing? I can't help wondering whether we'd be having a very different conversation.
And Our Clothes Aren't Safe Either
The Pink Tax doesn't stop at the bathroom, school, or household doors. I recently came across Sainsbury's clothing comparisons showing men's jeans at £15 and women's at £22.50, a difference of 50%. A plain black women's T-shirt was £10, while a pack of two men's T-shirts cost £9. Two for less than the price of one! Yes, fabrics and tailoring can differ, but surely we're entitled to question these prices?
And while we're discussing clothing, can we please talk about pockets? Men get enormous, practical pockets capable of carrying phones, wallets, keys and possibly a small family picnic, while women get decorative little slits that couldn't accommodate a postage stamp. So not only are we paying more for our clothes, but we're then expected to buy a handbag just to carry all the things men can comfortably shove in their pockets! Sometimes we're paying more, getting less and then paying extra to make up for what's missing!
Why Should We Have to Shop in the Men's Aisle?
One suggestion is that women should simply buy the men's version if it's cheaper. And yes, that's practical advice, thank you. Compare ingredients, check quantities and look at the price per 100ml. But why should we have to? Why should a woman who prefers a floral fragrance buy something labelled Extreme Masculine Power to save a few pounds? Why should a young girl choose a blue scooter when she wants pink?
It's something I feel strongly about with Olive & Joyce too. My skincare prices are based on ingredients, formulation, packaging and the work involved in making each product, not whether the customer is male or female. Different skin types may need different ingredients, but skin doesn't suddenly become more expensive to look after because it belongs to a woman.
Isn't It Time We Stopped Accepting It?
The Pink Tax isn't about disliking pink or pretending every product costs exactly the same to manufacture. It's about questioning why women and girls have repeatedly been charged more for comparable everyday essentials, and why we've allowed those differences to become so normal. We abolished the tampon tax in 2021, we've been discussing gendered pricing for at least a decade, and we've seen the investigations and promises to do better. Yet here we are 2026, still asking what on earth we're paying extra for.
Perhaps it's time we started comparing prices more closely, asking retailers some awkward questions and refusing to accept that something should cost more simply because it's marketed towards women. Because the question isn't whether women and girls have been paying more. We know they have. The question is why we're still expected to accept it.
And we don't have to stop shopping at our favourite retailers to make a difference. We can write to manufacturers and supermarkets asking them to explain their pricing, contact our local MPs and encourage them to challenge gender-based pricing, or simply point out the differences when we spot them. We can share our findings with friends, teach our daughters to question prices rather than accept them, and support smaller independent businesses that believe in fair, transparent pricing rather than charging more because of who their customers are. And perhaps, most importantly, we can start asking why? Because companies might be perfectly comfortable with these price differences when nobody questions them, but I wonder how comfortable they'll be when thousands of customers start asking for an explanation?
I'd love to know whether you've noticed the Pink Tax when shopping. Have you found a particularly ridiculous price difference between men's and women's products, or boys' and girls' toys? Have you ever challenged a retailer about it, and if so, what did they say? Do tell me in the comments, because I have a feeling we could uncover some absolute crackers, and perhaps together we can start making a little noise about something that's been quietly costing women and girls money for far too long!