Pink Tax Debate: Community Discussion at FriendZone

If we can never achieve this they should at least lower the prices

Great. Firstly I would like to see evidence of this as I have granted evidence based on my topics. Simply stating its there because you say so is flawed and doesnt truly provide anything. However I will argue your point none the less, it has been proven also that the 7%-13% more price is because they add other stuff inside it. Products are rarely the same and have to account for womens hair lengths and what they are truly going for. Price gaps are typically driven by different formulas such as different moisturisers, scents or other chemicals that benefit female hair types. It has also been disproven on many accounts such as someone going ahead to find a mens aloe vera skin care and womens aloe vera skincare and were priced at the exact same. Your "pink tax" is simply from different and more expensive formulas which is how the market should and does work.

Now for the second point of products, whilst you are correct that men dont go through menstrual cycles and have to pay for such products when I state this I am not simply saying "women shouldnt have products and must pay." what I am saying is that it is unhealthy for the economy. Think of the Communist theory. Everything is free and such and yada yada but besides this the economy fell, you know why? Because with the lack of money they were unable to make products and ship them into the company until eventually nobody could provide anything and Communism simply fell down. I understand it isnt to the extent but you must think of it as such. If a company was to make it free then they would need to somehow get income somewhere else and if they didnt then they wouldnt be able to make the products nor ship them and then women would go through a worse problem of having no period products at all. Sometimes you need to focus on the inside work and not what you believe will work in theory.

Right your first point. I again would love to see evidence of this that you have not provided. The "tax" is based on different formulas. Secondly as a man with long hair I do pay more for my hair products or else my hair gets frizzy and dries out quickly so there you point is already flawed. Third with the toy theory your point is already debunked as I stated previously mens razors are more expensive than womens razors so I dont know what you are talking about. Fourth, the reason you buy mens products is because they have what you need, womens products do not have the same as mens products which is why even I sometimes alternate between womens conditioner and a mans shampoo, they provide different outcomes.

I do not see where you are going with this as you stated points I debunked three messages ago.

I didnt say it was communism but I said to view the economy as if it was. To make a product free you are again actively ignoring the company making the money. They need a profit and they need money. Now could it work and has it worked sometimes? Yes definitely as you stated in Scotland but that doesnt make it the right or correct thing to do as nobody gains money, they are all effectively losing money from this. Again it puts risk on the economy whether subtle or huge it is still a risk to be accounted for. Some companies biggest sellers are period products and to remove that would remove their whole income source.

The point wasnt my issues compared to someone elses, it was proving your argument was flawed. You said men dont pay more for their products with long hair whilst yes they do because shampoos and conditioners affect your hair differently based on length and ive experienced it first hand. Mens shampoo and womens shampoo are different qhich explains the game. Identical products almost consistently are the same price.

Yes it doesnt cancel out but I am giving product to product references whilst you are giving news articles. The products themselves prove a point.

pink tax is real!! ^_^
for example, at my local shop, womens' razors are a buck more expensive than men's razors (the only difference is the colour). idk if that's everywhere, but my point is that pink tax is real, even in the little thingss

I understand your experience and I am not arguing that different hair types or lengths do not need different products. They absolutely do. That is not the disagreement here. The difference is between choosing a formula that works better for your hair and being charged more for the exact same item simply because it is labeled for one gender. Those are two separate things.

Yeah that would be great cause it's unfair for women but you have to know that we are living in a capitalist world , unless the sick people get treatment free cause it ain't fair for them to spend money on something that only affects them , you can't hope for a larger part of the society to get free pads . Because pad can also be considered as healthcare

I get that we live in a capitalist system and nothing is truly free. But that does not mean we cannot make things fairer or more affordable. Healthcare is exactly the reason period products should be treated as essential not luxury. Everyone agrees basic healthcare should be accessible because it is a biological need. Periods are not a choice or a luxury they are a normal bodily function just like needing medicine or hygiene. And we already provide many basic public things for free or low cost like schools clean water and first aid. Those things cost money too but we accept they are important enough to support. It is not about making every medical thing free overnight. It is about not charging extra for something people cannot live without. Removing unfair taxes or making them affordable is not asking for the impossible. It is just asking for the same fairness we give other basic needs.

Yeah you are right but what I'm saying is that they are more cases that are more extreme than paying pads , don't what to belittle the cost of period products, but there are much worse situation that governments are not fixing. Even if it is hard, the majority of women can pay for their healthcare but if we take example of homeless people, extreme sick people, people that can't afford eating their situation make them in danger so fast and if state didn't care about them we can't really hope for half of the population.

They shouldn’t be free but they should be pretty cheap at least

☺️

And yet again you havent provided a product to product ratio. You have no evidence of this that I have given multiple times. A debate cannot be a back and forth of "I say this" and "No I say this". You need evidence and proof, without this you dont have anything. You cannot claim it and then give me a lack of evidence for it.

You want me to go to the store and genuinely take photos of it and make a conclusion myself when research is have already done it and put their work out so others won't have to do it themselves

That would be your local shops issue and not a main corporation issue. Thats like saying one man sells lemonade for $5 and anither sells it for 6$ then I have a tax on mine. No I dont I just pay more locally.

No you can go to websites, maybe look at what they are choosing to reference. You can go online and find those very products yourself just as I did.

You realise looking at shops is still statistic over personal right?

Then if that's what you're aiming for then what you are talking about is not pink tax but normal marketing. Pink tax is when BOTH male and female products have the same ingredients, content, size, weight yet the prices still differ due to gendered packaging, i think your mixing up pink tax with standard marketing

cotton swabs that have the same content and process to make are priced higher for woman's use rather then men's