What Is the Status of the Pink Tax in 2025?

It all started with a white T-shirt.

You see, my boyfriend and I were in the early stages of dating when I casually suggested (read “demanded”) we take a trip to the mall. Like many men in their mid-to-late 20s, he was in university the last time he bought new clothes, so we had to start with the basics: leather sneakers, straight-not-skinny chinos, oversized tees... You get the idea. And since I was the brains behind this “girlfriend glow-up” operation, I, naturally, deserved a treat, too, so I began to browse the women’s T-shirts. What did I find? The exact same white tee my boyfriend was currently trying on, only it was $10 more. “Really?” I accidentally said out loud. “We’re still dealing with this sh*t?” Apparently so.

If “sustainability” is the buzzword of the 2020s, then the mots du jour of the 2010s were “pink tax.” A headline staple seen everywhere from Glamour to The Globe and Mail, the term was a call to arms for third-wave feminists, much like “girl boss,” “pussy hats” and “Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits.” But somewhere between Trump winning, then losing, and winning another election, the pink tax was pushed to the back of our minds.

Society has evolved in so many ways over the past 10 years when it comes to gender acceptance and awareness that even the concept of a pink tax in 2025, aside from being unfair, seems so dated. But is it still as prevalent today as it was in the 2010s? Honestly, we didn’t know. So FASHION decided to find out.

This Could’ve Been Solved 30 Years Ago

For anyone who isn’t familiar with it, the “pink tax” refers to a form of discrimination in which females pay higher prices for similar products marketed to their male counterparts. It’s not a tax per se but a revenue strategy that brands use to maximize their profits at the expense of women’s wallets.

What’s wild is that the term was actually a by-product of California’s 1995 Gender Tax Repeal Act, which prevents gender-based price discrimination on services. Data presented at the bill’s reading revealed that women in California were paying US$1,351 a year in pink taxes. Adjusted for inflation and converted into Canadian dollars, this amounts to more than $257,000 over a lifetime! While similar legislation could have changed women’s lives (and bank balances), it only caught on in California.

Despite multiple attempts, no acts addressing the issue at large have passed in the United States Congress. This success at the state level did, however, thrust the issue into the mainstream, prompting the media to coin the phrase “pink tax,” which references Western culture’s use of pink to represent the female gender.

Women Pay More for Less Material and Worse Fabric

Do you want the good news or the bad news first?

Bad: FASHION examined 20 different mass-market fashion brands and directly compared the cost of their women’s short sleeved crewneck T-shirts with that of their men’s, and the results were (unfortunately) not surprising. We discovered that a whopping 50 per cent of women’s tees were more expensive than men’s and had up to a $45 price difference. Polo Ralph Lauren was the worst offender by far: Its women’s T-shirt cost $115, while its men’s was priced at $69.50. Skims was also problematic, but it was particularly gutting as the female-focused label only launched menswear in October 2023. The Kim K brand declined to comment.

And, like the new season of The Kardashians, it only got worse. Even when retailers charged the same price for T-shirts, the fabrics used by the brands we looked at tended to be different between the genders; where men consistently got 100 per cent cotton, women were more likely to get a cotton-synthetic blend, which is cheaper and lower quality (if you subscribe to the belief that cotton is superior to polyester because it is a natural fabric and considered a more premium option).

Men were also wearing the pants when it came to, er, pants. FASHION researched 10 popular jean retailers and found that 20 per cent of them charged more for their women’s denim than their men’s, with a nearly $40 price difference in one case. One of the biggest culprits of this was Gap, which never returned our emails when we reached out to ask why. More than 55 per cent of all of its women’s jeans were priced over $100, whereas less than 5 per cent of its men’s jeans crossed into triple digits.

The good news is that sneakers are an item for which prices align — what’s that saying about walking in another person’s shoes? All of the 10 popular sneaker brands we looked at priced their men’s and women’s styles the same.

It’s worth noting that these figures only scratch the surface of how all-consuming the pink tax really is. While we chose to concentrate our efforts on certain articles of clothing that we considered basics, gendered price discrimination extends from dry cleaning to body wash to razors. Add in a trip to Sephora and these figures begin to paint a grim picture.

Why No One Is Surprised

When we shared our findings with various experts, they unanimously replied “Well, duh!” (I may be paraphrasing slightly.)

Janine Rogan, author of the book The Pink Tax, responded, “It’s very real — often in ways we don’t see.” And Yoko Katagiri, an assistant professor of fashion economics at the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) in New York, attributes the enduring existence of the pink tax to the higher-than-typical inflation rate in the post-COVID-19 years.

“Because shoppers are already facing constant price fluctuations, companies can use it as an excuse to increase the price gap in gender-based products,” she explains.

But we can’t forget the other “p” word: patriarchy. As fashion psychologist Shakaila Forbes-Bell writes over email: “We live in a patriarchal society in which women have been conditioned, since childhood, to consider their appearance with the utmost importance. [Read “In order to be valued in society, women have to adhere to traditional beauty norms.”] As a result, women are more willing to spend more on discretionary purchases, and brands exploit that.”

Gaslighting Isn’t Just for Toxic Exes

Essentially, brands are gaslighting us. Some retailers will argue that either the pink tax doesn’t exist or the products in question are not as similar as they appear. For example, a clothing store that sells nearly identical T-shirts at different prices can claim a variance in materials, pattern, cut or style, which contributes to an “additional cost” during the manufacturing process.

We ran into this first-hand when we asked Mango to explain the prices of its white T-shirts. It replied with a vague description about the “slightly-higher-quality” material featured in the women’s styles but couldn’t provide any follow-up details.

Companies are also betting on your ignorance. Katagiri says that because shoppers are more likely to compare prices between retailers and not across departments (unless, of course, you’re Queer Eye-ing your partner), brands can hide the higher costs in plain sight.

But even if you did start comparing price tags across departments, clothing companies can create the illusion of differences in other ways, says Carmina Ravanera, a senior research associate at the Institute for Gender and the Economy at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. One example: the different language used to describe similar products. Most of the menswear options had names that included words like “essential,” “basic” and “regular,” whereas womenswear used more abstract wording like “vintage,” “easy” and, the true head-scratcher, “love.” This made it harder to directly compare the two styles.

Similarly, a top made of 100 per cent cotton was a much bigger selling point in womenswear compared with menswear. Of the women’s tees that were made with the natural material, about 50 per cent of them featured it in the product’s name. In comparison, 17 of the 20 men’s T-shirts we looked at were made of 100 per cent cotton and only three of them bothered to mention it. Why? Because it’s the norm — it’s so un-unusual, so commonplace, so trite that it doesn’t even warrant a mention.

Is There Any Hope?

Before you vow to chop up your credit cards and never shop again, to paraphrase Mr. Rogers, in times of crisis, you should “look for the helpers.” And when it comes to the pink tax in Canada and the United States, there have been a few.

In 2005, Ontario Liberal MPP Lorenzo Berardinetti introduced a bill to prevent gender-based price discrimination, although it didn’t pass. In 2016, a New York City pharmacy protested the pink tax by starting a “man tax” where all male shoppers paid 7 per cent more than women. And in 2020, New York enacted laws that stop gender-based price discrepancies, while in 2023, California expanded its existing laws to include both products and services. FIT’s Katagiri is optimistic that more states may follow suit as social movements of gender fluidity and neutrality continue to gain momentum.

Shop Smarter, Not Harder

So this invites the easy question “What can we, as shoppers, do to dismantle the pink tax?” The obvious answer is surely to stop supporting the brands with the biggest price differences. “Choosing how and where you purchase items is critical,” shares Rogan.

But walking to the other side of the store works, too. “Opt for gender-neutral products or buy the cheaper version for men,” advises Ravanera. You’ll likely find very little difference in the fit (we do recommend going down a size for a more fitted look) but a big difference in the feel. (Remember that 100 per cent cotton?)

Furthermore, brands like Everlane and Roots offer “gender-free” T-shirts and actively promote price transparency between departments. “We’ve known for years that families and friends would borrow and pass down sweats to one another,” shares Karuna Scheinfeld, chief product officer at Roots. “It inspired us to consider making a series of products that would be anyone and everyone’s favourite item, regardless of body type or gender.”

And, finally, put your doom scrolling to good use. Rogan recommends calling out brands for their BS and engaging with content that helps spread the feminist message. “TikTok is great for this,” she adds. “There are so many creators holding companies that have discriminatory pricing accountable that it’s starting to get attention.” Even offline.

Power to the People

When I showed my boyfriend the differently priced T-shirts in the store, he initially didn’t understand. Surely there had been some sort of mistake? An incorrect label? An internal computer error? I sat him down like a mom telling her son there’s no Santa Claus and explained the very inconvenient truth of it all. And, bless his heart, he dropped his (very full) shopping basket then and there and we walked away, intent on continuing our girlfriend glow-up elsewhere.

Sure, the pink tax will most likely get me in other ways. As proven above, it’s nearly impossible to escape it. But, in a surprisingly optimistic turn, this whole experience has reminded me of the power (and persuasion!) of female consumers — we don’t just low-key run the economy; it’s now being dubbed the “she-conomy.” Women influence 70 to 80 per cent of all consumer purchasing — that’s $43.8 trillion in worldwide spending. Where we choose to spend our money matters. So make every dollar (or $10!) count.

Research assistance by Sarah Mariotti

FASHION supports and encourages all gender identities to shop in any section, but for the purpose of this feature, we’re using retailers’ categorization of men’s and women’s clothing.

During the Spring of 2024, FASHION’s team examined the brand strategies of over 30 mass-market clothing labels to compare how marketing and pricing differ between similar products in the men’s and women’s departments. To do this, we selected three categories (white t-shirts, jeans and white sneakers) and compared items within those categories that were available on the respective brand’s e-commerce platform during the research period. We considered discrepancies in product marketing, fabric composition and prices (excluding any taxes or promotions) between men’s and women’s offerings.

This article first appeared in FASHION’s Summer 2024 issue. Find out more here.