The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

Print Edition
Letter to the editor submissions
Have a strong opinion about something happening on campus or in Fort Collins? Want to respond to an article written on The Collegian? Write a Letter to the Editor by following the guidelines here.
Follow Us on Twitter
The Impact of Technological Innovations on Sports Betting in Colorado: A Primer
The Impact of Technological Innovations on Sports Betting in Colorado: A Primer
April 18, 2024

In the sports betting domain, Colorado stands as a unique arena where technological advancements have significantly reshaped the landscape. As...

McWilliams: Companies need to be held accountable for ‘pink taxes’

Editor’s Note: All opinion section content reflects the views of the individual author only and does not represent a stance taken by the Collegian or its editorial board.

Companies charge more money for women’s products just because they’re for women. Being a woman, I am completely against this because it is a microaggression; it is unfair to ask women to spend more money than men on the same product.

Ad

Products like razors and deodorant that are obviously effected by the pink tax. Target charges $8.99 for their Up & Up brand of women’s razors, with five razors in each pack. For a pack of men’s Up & Up razors, the cost is $6.69 with 10 razors in each pack. There are no differences between the razors except for the fact they are intended for opposite genders.

A twin pack of women’s Dove antiperspirant deodorant, 2.6 oz per stick, is $8.99. A twin pack of men’s Dove antiperspirant deodorant, 2.7 oz per stick, is $7.39. There is technically more deodorant in each stick of men’s, yet it’s still cheaper.

The only reason these products are more expensive is because they’re geared toward women. This is completely unjustified. It is unfair to women to pay more money for the exact same product just because it has ‘women’s’ on the product instead of ‘men’s.’

Haircuts are another big issue. Women are charged more than men for a simple hair cut. One would think this is because of length, since women typically have longer hair than men. So if a man with long hair went to a hair salon to get his hair cut, wouldn’t it be the same price as a woman getting her hair cut? Cole McCullough, a student at Colorado State University, brought to my attention that this was not the case.

McCullough has hair close to my length, going to about his chest. We went to many hair salons and barbershops in Fort Collins, including James Campus Salon in the Lory Student Center. When we went in to ask for identical haircuts, the majority of places still said my haircut would be at least $10 more than his, even though our hair is similar in length, including the on campus salon.

“Prices should be determined on length and complexity of the haircut,” McCullough said. “Gender shouldn’t have to play a role in the cost of a hair style.”

There were some salons and barbershops that charged us the same price, such as Namaste Salon and Brooke’s Two Bit Barbershop. Still, the majority in Old Town wanted to charge me more money, even when seeing us in person.

Unjustifiable pink taxes are everywhere, such as in pricings for dry cleaning services  and shampoo. Women are paid 80 cents to a men’s dollar, yet women have to pay more for everyday essentials. It is unfair, and companies need to be held accountable for this blatant act of sexism.

“Everyone is trying to do the same thing,” said McCullough. “It’s absurd that women have to pay more for pretty much the exact same thing.”

Ad

Leta McWilliams can be reached at letters@collegian.com and online at @LetaMcWilliams

View Comments (3)
More to Discover

Comments (3)

When commenting on The Collegian’s website, please be respectful of others and their viewpoints. The Collegian reviews all comments and reserves the right to reject comments from the website. Comments including any of the following will not be accepted. 1. No language attacking a protected group, including slurs or other profane language directed at a person’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, physical or mental disability, ethnicity or nationality. 2. No factually inaccurate information, including misleading statements or incorrect data. 3. No abusive language or harassment of Collegian writers, editors or other commenters. 4. No threatening language that includes but is not limited to language inciting violence against an individual or group of people. 5. No links.
All The Rocky Mountain Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • J

    JoshApr 18, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    “ag·gres·sion
    /əˈɡreSHən/
    noun
    hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.”
    I truthfully want to know why this word was used to describe an opinion regarding the economics behind razors. Please, educate me. Do not be hostile, I will not be entertained by such.

    Reply
    • R

      Robert FagnollApr 18, 2017 at 9:36 pm

      I believe she wrote “microaggression,” not just “aggression.”
      mi·cro·ag·gres·sion
      /mīkrōəˈɡreSHən/
      noun
      a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group.
      You should probably read the article before you start trying to argue.

      Reply
    • J

      Julie DavisApr 19, 2017 at 2:24 am

      Umm, she stated microaggression. Not the same as you were thinking.

      Reply