Ever heard of the 'pink tax'? It's real and cutting into women's finances in a big way.

Many products cost more for women than men. We call bull.

A few years ago, a girlfriend took the pack of women’s razors from my cart and switched them out for the brand’s men’s razors.

Why? Because they were almost a dollar cheaper.


Photo via kropekk_pl/Pixabay.

It’s a little lifehack that lots of women use: If it’s pink, the men’s version is probably less expensive. But now, we have some hard data to prove just how prevalent the problem is.

This month, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs confirmed what most women already know to be true: Women pay more than men for a lot of the same products.

The study compared women’s and men’s versions of almost 400 products for sale in the city or online, and they found that 42% of the time, women’s products — products that were exactly the same as men’s — cost more.

It may not seem like a huge deal, an extra 50 cents here or there maybe, but it adds up. A similar study in California from 1994 found that this "gender pricing" led women to spend $1,351 more than men every single year for the same stuff. Not cool.

Now, factor in that women earn less than men … AND they sometimes get saddled with "luxury" taxes for tampons and pads … AND they are usually expected to purchase and wear cosmetics almost every day...

I’m gonna guess that your face looks like this right now:

GIF from "Orange Is the New Black."

According to the NYC Consumer Affairs report, women pay an average of 7% more than men for the same product.

Some of the worst offenders: shampoo, razors, and lotion.

It turns out that women pay 48% more for similar shampoo and conditioner just because they’re branded for women. Lotion for women had about an 11% markup. And razor cartridges like these on average cost 11% more for women than men, too.


All screenshots from the NYC Consumer Affairs report.

Toys and accessories for kids were also pretty heavily marked up.

The report found that one type of scooter sold by Target was $25 more, just because it was pink.


Something tells me that pink coat of paint did not cost 25 bucks.

The gender divide in toys is already pretty messed up as it is, even without gender pricing.

Clothing costs women more, too.

Similar articles of clothing are more pricey for women about 40% of the time.


It’s not just the obvious stuff, either. A back brace (!) for a woman costs about 17% more than a man’s back brace.


Women also pay about 12% more for canes than men.

This "pink tax" doesn’t make sense, and over time, it can seriously cut into women’s finances.

Luckily, consumers are already fighting back. After the report came out, people started tweeting about the cost of gender pricing and calling out unfairly priced products.

If you find products with a "gender tax" on the women’s version, you can call them out by tweeting the item with the hashtag #genderpricing.

Let’s make sure that retailers and manufacturers get the message.

More

The 2013 documentary "Blackfish" shined a light on the cruelty that orcas face in captivity has created a sea change in the public's perception of SeaWorld and other marine life parks.

This "Blackfish" backlash nearly deep-sixed SeaWorld and led Canada to pass a law that bans oceanariums from breeding whales and dolphins or holding them in captivity. Animals currently being held in Canada's marine parks are allowed to remain as well as those taken in for rehabilitation.

Podcaster and MMA announcer Joe Rogan saluted Canada's decision on a recent episode.

"First of all, what assholes are we that we have those goddman things in captivity? A big fucking shout out to Canada because [they] mostly through the noise that my friend Phil Demers has created in trying to get MarineLand shut down," Rogan told his guest, economist and mathematician Eric Weinstein.

Keep Reading Show less
Planet
Youtube

Should a man lose his home because the grass in his yard grew higher than 10 inches? The city of Dunedin, Florida seems to think so.

According to the Institute of Justice, which is representing Jim Ficken, he had a very good reason for not mowing his lawn – and tried to rectify the situation as best he could.

In 2014, Jim's mom became ill and he visited her often in South Carolina to help her out. When he was away, his grass grew too long and he was cited by a code office; he cut the grass and wasn't fined.

France has started forcing supermarkets to donate food instead of throwing it away.

But several years later, this one infraction would come back to haunt him after he left to take care of him's mom's affairs after she died. The arrangements he made to have his grass cut fell through (his friend who he asked to help him out passed away unexpectedly) and that set off a chain reaction that may result in him losing his home.

The 69-year-old retiree now faces a $29,833.50 fine plus interest. Watch the video to find out just what Jim is having to deal with.

Mow Your Lawn or Lose Your House! www.youtube.com

Cities

I'm staring at my screen watching the President of the United States speak before a stadium full of people in North Carolina. He launches into a lie-laced attack on Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and the crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!"

The President does nothing. Says nothing. He just stands there and waits for the crowd to finish their outburst.

WATCH: Trump rally crowd chants 'send her back' after he criticizes Rep. Ilhan Omar www.youtube.com

My mind flashes to another President of the United States speaking to a stadium full of people in North Carolina in 2016. A heckler in the crowd—an old man in uniform holding up a TRUMP sign—starts shouting, disrupting the speech. The crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

Keep Reading Show less
Recommended
via EarthFix / Flickr

What will future generations never believe that we tolerated in 2019?

Dolphin and orca captivity, for sure. They'll probably shake their heads at how people died because they couldn't afford healthcare. And, they'll be completely mystified at the amount of food some people waste while others go starving.

According to Biological Diversity, "An estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually."

There are so many things wrong with this.

First of all it's a waste of money for the households who throw out good food. Second, it's a waste of all of the resources that went into growing the food, including the animals who gave their lives for the meal. Third, there's something very wrong with throwing out food when one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.

Supermarkets are just as guilty of this unnecessary waste as consumers. About 10% of all food waste are supermarket products thrown out before they've reached their expiration date.

Three years ago, France took big steps to combat food waste by making a law that bans grocery stores from throwing away edible food.According to the new ordinance, stores can be fined for up to $4,500 for each infraction.

Previously, the French threw out 7.1 million tons of food. Sixty-seven percent of which was tossed by consumers, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by grocery stores.

This has created a network of over 5,000 charities that accept the food from supermarkets and donate them to charity. The law also struck down agreements between supermarkets and manufacturers that prohibited the stores from donating food to charities.

"There was one food manufacturer that was not authorized to donate the sandwiches it made for a particular supermarket brand. But now, we get 30,000 sandwiches a month from them — sandwiches that used to be thrown away," Jacques Bailet, head of the French network of food banks known as Banques Alimentaires, told NPR.

It's expected that similar laws may spread through Europe, but people are a lot less confident at it happening in the United States. The USDA believes that the biggest barrier to such a program would be cost to the charities and or supermarkets.

"The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," the organization said according to Gizmodo. "If you're having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that's not good for anybody."

Plus, the idea may seem a little too "socialist" for the average American's appetite.

"The French version is quite socialist, but I would say in a great way because you're providing a way where they [supermarkets] have to do the beneficial things not only for the environment, but from an ethical standpoint of getting healthy food to those who need it and minimizing some of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that come when food ends up in a landfill," Jonathan Bloom, the author of American Wasteland, told NPR.

However, just because something may be socialist doesn't mean it's wrong. The greater wrong is the insane waste of money, damage to the environment, and devastation caused by hunger that can easily be avoided.

Planet