Pink Tax Explained: Why women pay more for everyday products in South Africa

There is a particular kind of frustration that comes with standing in a store aisle, holding two products that look almost identical, only to realise that the one marketed to women costs more. The packaging might be pink, the name might have “for women” slapped across it, or the product might simply be positioned as the female version, but somehow, the price has gone up.

Welcome to the pink tax.

Despite its name, the pink tax isn't an actual tax imposed by government. It refers to the additional costs women can face when products or services marketed towards them are priced higher than comparable versions aimed at men. In South Africa, the issue has been documented across everything from razors and skincare to underwear, clothing and personal-care services.

beauty

Must-watch: Huda Beauty and Cardi B swap lives in new 'Snatched Baddies' campaign

And before we blame every pink bottle on capitalism, there is an important caveat: not every price difference is automatically the pink tax. Products can differ in size, ingredients, features, quality or manufacturing costs. But when comparable products offer essentially the same function and the only obvious difference is who they are marketed towards, that price gap becomes harder to ignore.

So, what does the pink tax actually look like?

@addison.jarman The Pink Tax: the markup on goods and services marketed to women 🎀🎀 #pinktax #moneytok #budgeting #onlineshopping ♬ original sound - Addison Jarman

Take razors. A 2023 South African price comparison found Gillette disposable razors marketed to women at R84.99, compared with R42.95 for the men's equivalent. The same comparison found a 100ml Nivea Deep Cleanser at R159.95 for the women's product versus R99.95 for the men's version.

And it doesn't stop at toiletries.

The same comparison found Jockey underwear selling in a five-pack for R379 for women, compared with R149 for men. Straight-leg jeans from Cotton On were listed at R400 for women versus R350 for men, while a standard button shirt at Woolworths was R199 for women compared with R169 for men.

There are even more recent examples. A 2026 Marie Stopes South Africa article highlighted differences in disposable razors and shaving gels, while noting that the price gap can become particularly noticeable when it comes to services. One example cited a basic haircut costing R600 for a woman compared with R300 for a man.

But why does this happen?

Part of the answer lies in marketing. Companies know that consumers don't always shop purely on price. Branding, packaging, colour, fragrance and the promise that something has been specifically designed for you can all influence what you're willing to pay.

A product labelled “for women” can be perceived as more specialised, even when its basic function is the same as the men's version. And because consumers may assume that a product has been formulated or designed differently, they may be less likely to compare it with the cheaper alternative sitting a few shelves away.

A 2025 Nedbank campaign around gender pricing described this as a problem that can go largely unnoticed because consumers often assume a price difference reflects differences in quality or functionality.

@faaresq Secret stores pink tax policy! 🤑 #walmart #shopping #girls #women #personalfinance ♬ original sound - faares

There is also the reality that women are expected to spend money on more products and services in the first place.

Think about the beauty standards placed on women: hair appointments, skincare, makeup, manicures, waxing, feminine hygiene products and clothing that often requires more variety. These aren't necessarily all examples of the pink tax individually, but together they contribute to the broader financial pressure women experience.

Then there are products women can't simply opt out of buying. Menstruation is the obvious example. Period products are an essential expense for many women, and while this is technically a separate issue from the pink tax, it forms part of the wider conversation about the financial cost of being a woman.

And the numbers suggest that South African women are noticing.

A 2024 Sanlam survey of 446 people found that 53% of women said they encountered pink tax sometimes, while 19% said they saw it often. The survey also found that 37% of women believed they had noticed paying more because of gender-based pricing.

Interestingly, women are already fighting back with their wallets. The same survey found that 21% had switched to men's or unisex products because of pink tax, while others said they compared prices or avoided gender-specific products altogether.

And honestly, this is where the pink tax gets interesting. Do we actually need the women's razor?

If the men's razor does the same job, fits your needs and costs less, there is no rule saying you have to buy the pink one. The same applies to moisturiser, deodorant, T-shirts and other everyday products. The packaging doesn't determine who can use the product.

Of course, the responsibility shouldn't sit entirely with women to become expert price-comparers just to avoid being overcharged. Companies also have a responsibility to be transparent about why products cost what they do.

The pink tax isn't necessarily about every woman paying more for everything, either. Research in South Africa has found plenty of examples where there was no price difference, and others where the women's product was actually cheaper. That's why comparing genuinely similar products matters before declaring a price difference discriminatory.

Still, the bigger conversation is worth having.

Because when women already face a gender pay gap and carry a disproportionate share of unpaid care and domestic responsibilities, even small, repeated price differences can add up. As Nedbank notes, women can face the double burden of lower earnings and higher everyday costs.

So the next time you're reaching for the pink razor, pink T-shirt or “women's” version of something, check the price beside it.

The smartest purchase might not be the one in the prettiest packaging.