The ‘gender tax’ on everyday items

Survey discovers the shocking truth about how much more one sex is paying.

The ‘gender tax’ on everyday items

If you were paying more for similar everyday items than members of the opposite sex, would you be upset?

Well, according to research conducted by AMP, such products as shampoo, multivitamins, body wash and razors cost women more – for no good reason.

AMP has analysed the prices of a range of common products sold by supermarkets and other major retailers.

It was shocked.

The average price for women’s shampoo per 100ml was $2.70 and for men $2.42 – a difference of 11 per cent; for razors an average price of $12.66 compared with $9.50 for men – a 29 per cent difference; for multivitamins, $20 compared with $18.33 – a nine per cent difference; for body wash, $6.69 and $5.69 – a 16 per cent difference, and for underwear $12.57 and $11.09 – a 12 per cent difference.

AMP financial adviser Di Charman said the price differences would add up to a sizeable sum over a lifetime.

“Some people might disregard the price difference between [men’s and women’s] products because it’s only a couple of dollars, but when you look at the differences in percentages, some are quite alarming,” she said.

“When you use these items every day over a lifetime, it adds up, so don’t let your hard-earned dollars out of your hands easily.”

Ms Charman encouraged all women to take note of such price differences and query the reason with the retailer and the manufacturer. Such a campaign, she believed would have more impact than shopping around, buying in bulk or opting for similar men’s products.

To do a price comparison, make sure you check the unit pricing – the figures in smaller type that give the cost per millilitres or grams.

The practice of charging more for women’s products has been dubbed the ‘pink tax’.

Lobby group GetUp! says the pink tax is a systemic problem for women.

“A few cents or dollars here or there might not sound like much, but it adds up,” it says in a statement on its website. “Women in Australia already earn 18.8 per cent less than men, and when you factor in the gender price gap, we see that women are being paid less at work, and then paying more at the shops.

“Even though it’s systems like these that keep gender-based economic inequality going, this practice isn’t illegal; companies are free to use gender-based pricing to up their profits.

“It’s time we called out this practice for what it is: making women literally pay for gender stereotypes.”

GetUp! campaign director Emily Mulligan told News Ltd that women should not be punished for going about their work or their lives, and deserved equal opportunities and a level playing field.

“As consumers, we can have some say and we can let our dollars speak for themselves. We can use our spending power to influence products.”

Have you noticed the difference in prices between women’s and men’s products? Would you buy men’s products to save money? Would you complain to the manufacturers and retailers?



    To make a comment, please register or login
    9th May 2019
    many of those costs can be avoided using common sense
    9th May 2019
    Agreed johnp. Women pay more because they want to pay for something they consider is "special". Shampoo is gender neutral so too are shavers etc etc.

    Women do pay more for clothing it is true. However let's now go into the male domain, Car, planes, boats, bikes, gadgets, pub nights etc etc and I can assure this author that women are far less likely to spend as much of the budget as their male counterpart.
    9th May 2019
    I have never witnessed the better educated female, better job located female, coming from a Culture generated bias in education say, 'my shout', or I'll buy the dinner.
    9th May 2019
    gillham, what a ridiculous comment lol. People are not doing what they did many years ago. Usually, people pay their own way. Gender no longer indicates who pays!
    9th May 2019
    Well Paddo, men have always paid their way.

    Your last sentence Paddo. That is EXACTLY what the article says - based on gender.
    9th May 2019
    The next article from a feminist crying foul.
    The author may wish to ask WHY women cannot buy a non marketed product. Shampoo? Buy TreSemme on special and you'll save a fortune. Apparently it has to be one with the word 'woman' on the label though. Your choice!
    If the author wants to address unfairness perhaps begin with the monopoly of health dollars poured into women's diseases. Men have the same but get nix. Never a word about that though.
    And then lets examine the floor area devoted to women's apparel. At least double that for men. That's different? It isn't and the list goes on.
    Yes there are areas where certain people/groups are targeted. AS was said above BUY SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT TARGETED. No discrimination there.
    On the Ball
    9th May 2019
    And dont forget, in most partnerships, the "breadwinner" (AKA the man) pays the bills anyway! So as the shopper tosses the product in the trolley, they dont give a hoot that the womens' product costs more.
    Ditto the bit (in Mick's post) about womens health. Again, its usually the breadwinner that pays anyway.
    9th May 2019
    Men may have been the breadwinner OtB, but its women now who bring home the bacon! Then they cook it.

    You do know its 2019 not 1919 right?
    9th May 2019
    And keep the garden, fix whatever breaks and get to do errands for mum? Lets be balanced on this.
    The issue is women's groups always seem to be bitching about their hard lot whilst men are taken for granted and appear to have little value in the eyes of a growing number of women.
    I try to stay out of gender arguments but as with all things in life I hate one sided dishonesty used to gain advantage.
    9th May 2019
    MICK you never stay out of any argument much less those on gender lines!
    9th May 2019
    I think some comments belong to a bygone era. Our children of both genders and even the grandchildren do not operate as the male is the breadwinner. Not this century lol!
    Sometimes the female is actually better paid but that does not even matter it is the household’s income and no one is in charge as they work together.
    Some even alternate working to fit in with child rearing or health issues and that has been going on into last century. Families work together not individually making one person more important than the other. Differentiating prices is sometimes needed but often some greed. It should be based on quality and ingredients not packaging or just ripping off people.
    Back to the problem for some men that have been hurt by women and not being able to address a topic because of coloured experiences.
    9th May 2019
    KSS - sorry to offend your feminist ideology. Are you attacking my comments or the fact that what I wrote is correct?
    I'll never back away from a fight when I see BS and unfair behaviour intended to entrench it further. Stick to issues remove bias from both sides of the gender divide rather than plug your own wants.
    9th May 2019
    Men are the breadwinners On the ball? - Not this century.
    The government formula for households is based on both people working.

    9th May 2019
    Hello, another 'victim' claim article.

    To go even further it is another example of the 'hatred of males' endemic, that is entrenched in our present female identity. Most of the claims within the article in "inverted comers" are wrong and inaccurate.

    The biggest gender aligned problem within our culture is a biased education system that sees boys make up 40%, and girls 60%, via University entrance qualifications. Then we top that off with quotas and STEM ideologies.

    The even worse point is that the ' hatred of men' is an endorsed character within our culture, thrived on by relentless media presentation with that embargo.

    The easiest nondescript is that no one can ever point out the 18.8% wage difference. May be something similar based on hours worked. ie a difference shown in Taxation Revenue shown on Group Cerificates.

    Even worse is if you wish to make habitual 'victim claims' to attend to your own personal deficiencies based on gender, and as part of an addiction hindering our Society, well then consider whether you expect to receive respect when you deliver disrespect.

    There endeth the lesson.
    9th May 2019
    Pretty much says it - for several years now I've done regular figures that show clearly the 'wage gap' is due to women working lower hours. A looming and very real issue will be the 'superannuation gap' designed for men, since they have been progressively shuffled out of the higher preferencing super schemes in pubic service etc, and now out of the higher paying professions - all soft seat jobs, of course.

    I sincerely doubt there will be any outcry when women retire with more super than men. I'm single, carer for the ex, and all I ever run up against are women with some state super and often the house they sold etc due to becoming widows.... who reckon men with not that much must be unworthy.

    Eleanor Rigby.... it's a long and lonely road for those still holding on to their princess syndrome. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too, as women desperately need to find out.

    As for this nation - it needs to shuffle off all this silly social engineering and get back to a genuinely level playing field.
    9th May 2019
    P.S. that's one clear reason I will not vote Labor....
    9th May 2019
    Trebor you are correct that all of the Public Service sector appointment, superannuation, soft seat, flexible hours are dominated by women.

    I emphasise that these jobs are dominated by women with their flexible hours, payment for non attendance and contribution of less hours and input is like superannuation before you qualify for Super.

    As for Labor and I to a degree Liberals, the mention of 'women' is addictive to both Leaders. I have not heard one mention of focus on men.

    Men are on the bottom rung of our Society. Men suffer from an uneven playing field.

    It started way back when men were discriminated against by being designated as the income earner or worker for the single income family ideology. Discriminated against by hours worked, attendant health issues relating to a lower age life expectancy. But above all that discrimination against men prevented men from fatherly interaction with their children. This privilege to women has all been inverted as the foundation bonus for claiming women were the sufferers under discrimination.

    Women have always been the preference based species, entitled to special treatment over and above men.

    Is conscription familiar to anyone. You know how it advantaged young men, and provide war time conflict experience that they did not have a choice with. And the privileged species decided in WW11 that marrying or being unfaithful with a Yank was an easy option.

    The poor disadvantaged female. So used to preference, that they cannot distinguish between advantage and disadvantaged.
    9th May 2019
    I've long argued the progression of men's subjugation, starting with affirmative action in the public service etc in 1983, then changes to the education system in 1986 here in NSW to 'not disadvantage' girls based on a single unsupported 'study of 23 girls with real issues, the all the special scholarships and such to 'equalise' them, then the help to 'get them back in the workforce, then the incredibly disastrous and discriminatory and frankly illegal 'domestic violence' campaigns that never end, then the 'family' court's bizarre and unbalanced finding that somehow, even when they went to work full-time, women were the 'primary caregivers' and thus got the lot when they broke up 86% of 'marital relationships' - meaning dad did none etc and did not provide a slightly more outer circle of caregiving.

    The list goes on and on - and there is not one substantial real outcome to date that has benefited this nation overall, apart from massive inflation and escalating costs of living to cater to a dual income family, and massive and endless attacks on men in countless ways.

    You want equality7? Go and earn it....
    9th May 2019
    Yes well, get ready for more male attacks and preferential gender treatment if Labor win. Far more gender and gender identity politics are on the way if that's the case.
    9th May 2019
    If the shoe fits wear it KSS. It seems you do not want to hear the facts but rather dwell on your demands. More money into breast cancer research anyone?
    By the way KSS....prostate cancer: a friend of mine has stage 4 (DOA) as does one neighbour. Another has been operated on and I'm willing to bet he has the same prognosis. I have concerns along the same line but nothing certain until I go through the diagnostics process.
    And you wonder why I spend a bit of time on this one. As George Orwell wrote in his novel Animal Farm "all pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others". You may need to read the novel to gain an appreciation of the context for this quote. Gender issue fit really well.
    10th May 2019
    A problem with KSS quoting facts Mick? It appears to me that he/she is commenting on the comments, not supporting a feminist cause.

    9th May 2019
    Always been that way, and countless women only products cost more etc than you would think.

    Blame the marketers, not some entrenched 'misogyny' or whatever.

    I, of course, just buy the cheap razors... they work... the ex wants the fancy one... I got a packet of 20 on special for $2.50.. only used 3-4 so far...
    9th May 2019
    I think I last used a blade razor in the seventies, changed to electric. Stopped shaving altogether in 94. Shampoo is shampoo. Don't take vitamins, no need to.
    On the Ball
    9th May 2019
    Yeah, I buy the Big W ones. Cheap as. I also "buy" my partners but she wont use the "cheap" ones (like its ok for me to use the cheap ones on my face, but wont use them on her legs?)
    I pay for them all anyway. I am a breadwinner (I am retired, but because of 47 years superannuation I am still the breadwinner.) Partner? Spent it all on cars, 2 overseas holidays a year...
    9th May 2019
    Women are ripped off in so many items especially clothing and footwear where gender neutral doesn’t cut it. Even in cheap shops like Rivers, the Men’s clothing is not only cheaper but better quality. Bought a bra lately? And don’t get me started on haircuts. Let’s be honest it costs more to be a woman if you want to look nice, and I’m not talking young women who spend a fortune on beauty treatments and designer clothing.
    9th May 2019
    Haircuts, what an ideal example. My haircut takes 10 minutes with no added chemicals or materials. Women's haircut - up to 1 and 1/2 hours or more. Yes wonderful example that characterises women's thinking.
    9th May 2019
    I reckon I deserve discounted haircut due to the family bald patch - but the hairdresser replaced it with a finder's/search fee...
    10th May 2019
    TREBOR - just use the fast stool: "12 hairs or less". No search fee on that one as they are plainly visible.
    9th May 2019
    Also consider a hair cut.

    And millions of women go along with this everyday ddiscrimination, and outright highway robbery.
    On the Ball
    9th May 2019
    Why do you think "womens" products cost more? Because men wouldn't pay that amount for "men's" products.
    One not mentioned is shoes... (Say no more).
    Oh, and why do you call it a Gender TAX (right below a picture of Bill Shorten of course) like as if it is, or will be a Government TAX? Only Governments impose TAXES.
    LNP bias (again) LC?

    9th May 2019
    Women DO need a wake up call.

    They are blessed with no barriers, and they wish to install barriers for men. All while they have protection against unbalanced claims without accountability. All while any claim by men is censored or identified under 'ist or 'ism'.

    I have always thought that anyone who needs to operate under those circumstances is weak.
    9th May 2019
    gillham, again, makes zero sense.
    What women? The ones who hurt you?
    People are different and individual and unique, not one homogeneous group!
    9th May 2019
    All women. And there is not one female reply to this article. So who is offended by continual entrenched bias for women and against men. - Not one woman is against the bias.

    Paddo, if you cannot read my article and make sense of it, well that's not my problem.

    I will explain for you Paddo that in the past women and men worked for and with each other. In the current culture men and women work against each other. All based on gender and generated by women.

    Name me one article that identifies that men deserve the backing. Every, I repeat EVERY, gender article is female focussed. Can't we operate and develop without preferences, and just on the basis of individual character rather than applying gender victim status 364 days a year.

    Lol and lol again if that is your identity problem or lack thereof.
    10th May 2019
    All women, no such thing. It is like saying all men.
    All men, gilly, ah wait, no, it does not work because men are also a range of people.
    No two people are the same.
    Your experiences obviously colour your views.
    Women may work against you and vice versa but that does not apply to everyone.
    The identity problem is yours gill ham as some of us don’t have an issue with this or similar articles. You see yourself as a victim ...
    10th May 2019
    Paddo I do not have any identity problem. Also I am no victim because i never allow myself to be a victim. I will stand my ground on any course of action despite any odds. Of course people like you do not like that. I will not stand the 'bullying' by and on behalf of women because all the cultural standards favour women. Those favours are for ALL women. I will add that the only standards I have to abide by are those set by myself and accountable by myself.

    The rest Paddo is hearsay.
    9th May 2019
    Its been this way for decades. Absolute marketing truth:

    Shrink it; Pink it; Charge more.

    9th May 2019
    What the problem is that there are very clever people working in the marketing sections of big companies. Just look at the ads. Toothpaste ads show the user loading up the toothbrush from one end to the other and the first thing that happens is most of it falls off to be washed down the sink. A smaller loading of toothpaste will do exactly the same. Shampoo bottles recommend that the hair be washed a second time, do we wash our dishes or our vehicles twice? A blue razor will cut hair off the face just as quickly and efficiently as a pink one. There is no problem, there are clever marketers.
    9th May 2019
    Shampoo no good for my hair (and other hairy bits) - get a severe rash... I use my kind of soap only and it works a charm...
    9th May 2019
    What a load of trivia

    9th May 2019
    Every time a 'gender' issue (is there REALLY such a thing) is tossed into the fire, it is amazing the truths that come out about the simple realities of the way men and women are treated differently and some of the often dreadful ways men have been and are treated along the road to feminist hegemony in society.

    I do trust the posters of this strand take heed of what they are being told.... and have the decency to pass it on to the likes of the pussy-whipped Bill Shorten...

    At some stage, reality has to overtake all the rhetoric thrown about like chaff in a high wind by the 'feminist' lobby.... and men and young men must be given a genuinely equal chance.

    The biggest question is why any government would even set out on this totally destructive path... and then perpetuate and promote it at every turn...
    9th May 2019
    I'd like to remind Ms Ward that this is May, the month of April has come and gone. But just in case she's intended this as a serious article, apart from the underwear, all of the purchases amount to being discretionary. To follow on, shampoo is shampoo, it works the same in men's or women's hair. If a person insists on purchasing a gendered shampoo, more fool them. The same with body wash, soap is soap. Your choice.
    The same with multi-vitamins. An appropriate balanced diet does not require vitamin supplements.
    The razors can be a different thing. As male and female body hairs have different hysteresis, the spacing of the blades in multi-blade razors can be different. So strictly speaking, they are not the same items. The market for male razors is also far greater and the research and development of the respective razors means that that for the male razor can be covered by more sales.
    Underwear can also be discretionary. No-one cares if you are, or are not wearing any.
    I'll guess that GetUp is merely mischief making here. I'm not sure if they have any socially redeeming functions. I'd hope that GetUp didn't actually pay anyone for this tripe.
    9th May 2019
    It is just a case of economics. The supplier knows that most men are not as fussy as women and know if the price seems too high the men will look for a cheaper brand. So they lower their price for the men's product and possibly the quality too.
    11th May 2019
    I personally believe that women are much more vane than men and in the realm of marketing and big business companies are going to get their share of the dollars that go along with the vanity. One only has to look at the reality shows coming out of the US etc etc jammed pack full of the celebrity looks and how to get them. This disgruntled journo obviously has an axe to grind and she may well be correct that stuff costs more. However, my wife wants the shampoo that keeps her hair colour longer and the conditioner that nourishes and keeps the colour etc etc. Me, I use 2 in 1. Go figure. Oh and please spare me about Getup complaining. They are flat out telling the truth about any situation.

    Tags: shopping, money, gender,

    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles

    You May Like