The Pink Tax: Why Being Born Female Costs More in the Philippines

Enter any drug store and compare two nearly identical razors. One is blue, marketed to men, and the other one is pink, labeled “for women.” The blades are the same, but the price is not.

This seemingly small difference is part of a much bigger phenomenon economists call the pink tax: the tendency for products marketed to women, especially in beauty, fashion, and personal care, to cost more than comparable items marketed to men. It’s not an official government-imposed tax, but a pricing and marketing strategy. 

This price difference has been observed across various categories and spans generations.  A study by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs found that women pay seven percent more for toys and accessories and eight percent more for personal care products. While no comprehensive Philippine study exists yet, spot checks in the same categories suggest a similar pattern. An online shopping platform sells a blue scooter for Php 232.00, while its exact pink counterpart is Php 284.20—a markup of over 20 percent. A pink razor costs Php 10.00 more than a blue one, and a salon in Metro Manila prices a haircut for women at Php 2,500.00, while a haircut for men is at Php 1,500.00, regardless of length.

This disparity cuts deeper when stacked against the gender pay gap. According to the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Filipinas earn 8.6 percent less than men in agriculture and up to 18 percent less in the digital industry. Add a lifetime of pink tax and the weight on women’s wallets becomes impossible to ignore.

Why brands charge more

The pink tax persists for many reasons. Some brands argue that women’s products cost more to produce because of additional features and more complex formulations, such as curved handles and the addition of moisturizing strips and fragrance. 

But consumer insights point towards purchasing behavior too: “Women usually take on the role of buying products for the household, so brands capitalize on that,” muses Celine Sugay-Costales, a psychologist and mom. “Women consider other factors like packaging, design, and scent. For instance, I’m more likely to try a new shampoo because it smells good, while my husband is more likely to stick to the same brand.”

Beauty standards also play a role. The pressure to look–and even smell–a certain way enables companies to assign these products and services more worth. The color pink itself also signals femininity. In a study among Filipina youth consumers, one respondent noted that she succumbs to the pink tax because she might get bullied if she’s seen using products not labeled for women.

Not everyone is giving into it. “I try to look for a neutral version for any product that is packaged for women and compare. The description ‘for women’ makes me cringe. What about this is tailored to the female anatomy or woman’s experiences?” asks Pichi Vibal, an IT consultant. “I’m also turned off by the default messaging that women’s products are meant to enhance or improve your looks.”

Period poverty and the VAT question

For menstruating women, the pink tax intersects with another financial burden: value-added tax (VAT) on menstrual products. Senate Bill No. 341 and House Bill No. 6106, currently pending in the 20th Congress, seek to make these products tax-free, recognizing them as essential goods.

Atty. Myk Albao, a tax and corporate lawyer, and Atty. Chelsea Dauz-Albao, a civil and criminal lawyer, both argue that the case is clear. “In the Philippines, certain goods which are considered non-essential or luxury, or harmful to the general public’s health are imposed with excise taxes to curb or limit consumption,” notes Atty. Albao. Examples are alcohol and tobacco.

“That logic does not apply to menstrual products so as to justify the imposition of excise taxes. Women don’t choose to menstruate, so there’s no behavior to deter and no discretionary consumption to tax,” explains Atty. Dauz-Albao.

Beyond affordability: the education gap

Even if legislation passes tomorrow, it won’t solve the pink tax issue overnight. While removing taxes makes products more affordable, it doesn’t automatically make them usable. This is where the conversation moves from the Congress to the communities.

For Sinaya Cup, a menstrual cup brand in the Philippines, addressing period poverty and waste generated from period products meant recognizing that access to products isn’t enough. They created the CUPacity Caravan, a structured menstrual health workshop teaching anatomy, product options, and benefits of using reusable products to reduce the plastic waste ending up in the environment.

“For us, the pink tax conversation and education are closely linked,” Sinaya Cup founder Audrey Tangonan says. “The financial burden of periods is very real. A typical user might spend thousands of pesos over the years on disposable pads. A menstrual cup replaces that recurring cost. But the financial savings is only evident if someone actually adopts the product. When knowledge and affordability are present, that’s when the shift really happens.”

Power over pink tax

On an individual level, consumers can compare prices across products marketed to different genders to make more informed purchases. Sometimes the “men’s” version is identical and cheaper. But systemic change requires a collective movement.

“While we cannot change our biology, we have the power to change our laws,” Atty. Albao says. “Women should not carry a heavier financial burden simply because they were born as women. In a country where poverty already hits women harder, our legal system should be working to close that gap, not widening it,” Atty. Dauz-Albao adds.

Citizens can write their district representatives and senators to support Senate Bill No. 341 and House Bill No. 6106, and participate in conversations that erase stigma. Supporting programs like the CUPacity Caravan also creates immediate impact while a bigger movement is gathering momentum.

The pink tax may be invisible on receipts, but its weight is felt in every woman’s wallet. The question isn’t whether we can afford to address it. It’s whether we can afford not to.