Additional readings:
- ‘Pink tariffs’ cost women more than $2 billion a year (CNN, April 2025)
- ‘Financial microaggressions’: why ‘pink tariffs’ hurt women more than men (Guardian, March 2025)
- PPI study on pink tariff (December 2023)
- Gender and income inequality in United States tariff burden (US International Trade Commission, 2018)
Discussion questions:
- What do you think about the pink tariff? How does the pink tariff affect different stakeholders, including consumers and fashion companies?
- How can fashion companies respond to or navigate pink tariffs in their global sourcing, particularly considering the tariff escalation in 2025?
- What role can governments and international trade organizations play in addressing pink tariffs, and what policy changes could help eliminate the disparities? What are the challenges?
FASH455 Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing 
Being a woman myself who purchases items every week and learning about the pink tariff, I feel a little shocked and discriminated against. The pink tariff affects consumers and fashion companies in many ways. As consumers start to buy products they are spending a lot more money than a man would, which is discriminatory. Because of this feeling that consumers are having, they will start to lose trust and stop shopping at places where women’s deodorant is much more expensive than men’s. Not only is this unfair for purchases but it is unfair over all because women will have a higher cost of living. With gender pay gaps and higher costs, the struggle will increase for women and even for the LGBTQ+ community. The pink tariff is causing more diversity and exclusivity.
It also affects the fashion industry because with prices being higher for female items, there could be lots of backlash and loss of customers. What fashion companies can do is create a uni-sex brand so products are not more or less expensive depending on gender. What will help some fashion companies is to keep their prices fair for all genders because this will create brand loyalty but, this will hurt the company’s money situation in the long run. It is all about being able to make money by increasing women’s products or being ethical and fair to each other and selling all items the same. It is harder than it looks when it comes to other countries creating our clothes and all the tariffs that are being put into place, but the main point of the pink tariff is wrongful.
This article opened my eyes to how tariffs can contribute to gender-based pricing differences in ways that aren’t obvious at first glance. I was already familiar with the pink tax on personal care items, but I hadn’t realized that similar gender bias exists in the form of pink tariffs on imported clothing and household goods. It’s frustrating to learn that something as basic as a women’s overcoat can be taxed significantly more than a men’s version of the same item.
What stood out to me the most is how these outdated policies were shaped by trade negotiations that ignored women’s perspectives entirely. It makes sense that these structural inequalities have gone unnoticed for so long—tariffs are hidden costs we don’t directly see when we shop. I agree with the idea that if consumers were more aware of how much of the price difference is tied to tariffs, there would be more public pressure for change. It’s encouraging to see lawmakers starting to address this issue, but clearly there’s a long way to go before the system is fair for everyone.
The whole idea of a “pink tariff” honestly just feels unfair. It’s crazy to think that women end up paying more for products like clothes, shoes, and beauty items just because of the way they’re marketed. It impacts consumers directly by making everyday stuff more expensive, and it also puts fashion companies in a tough spot. They either have to raise their prices even more or take the hit themselves, which isn’t sustainable, especially with all the new tariff increases happening in 2025. I feel like fashion brands need to be smarter about where they source from and maybe even be more upfront with customers about why prices are what they are. As for governments and trade organizations, they definitely should step in, but it’s going to be hard. Changing trade policies to fix gender-based pricing issues sounds simple, but actually getting everyone to agree on it is a whole different story. Still, if nothing changes, it’s just going to keep putting more pressure on women and companies trying to do the right thing.
Rachel, I completely agree with you! It is unfair for women to be continuously paying more than men for essential items, including apparel. I think you made a great appoint about brands increasing their transparency. When it comes to these gender based price differences, I think that it would be beneficial for consumers that are unaware of exactly how brands come to the price conclusions that they do. Government and trade organizations could step in change policies or help to increase that transparency, but I have low confidence in the current administration for that to happen. It is disheartening to know that the textile and apparel industry has so many ethical concerns. Priorities are not currently in the correct systems, and should be further evaluated because you’re right- it is completely unfair.
Hi Rachel, I totally agree with you — it really is unfair that women end up paying more just because of how products are categorized or marketed. You made a great point about how this affects both consumers and brands, especially with rising tariffs in 2025. I also liked how you mentioned the need for transparency; if fashion companies were more open about the cost breakdown, maybe it would push for more change. And you’re right — fixing this on a policy level sounds easy in theory, but actually making it happen across countries is a huge challenge.
The idea of the “Pink Tariff” and the fact it is a hidden cost women pay seems very unfair to me. It acts as a gender – based pricing and it results in women paying more for things that they need. In addition, they are products that are essentially the same as men’s razors, deodorant and even clothing. As shown in the CNN article, this pricing costs women more than $2 billion annually in the US. That is a huge number and brings concerns about gender roles. When it comes to basic goods and care products costing more for women, it’s not only about pricing issues but also values issues. In terms of stakeholders, the “Pink Tariff” on consumers who are women are affected the most. They are paying more for the same goods, building onto a gender gap. In addition, retailers play a big role by working with their pricing strategies and demanding transparency from suppliers. Because the retail environment is so competitive, being aware of what is going on and doing what is right for your consumers will give you an advantage. Overall, I believe that abolishing the pink tariff would help recognize the economic disadvantages women are currently facing and doing something to change that.
The video on the pink tax exposes a compelling critique of how gender-based pricing affects women economically. It makes two arguments, primarily. One, it shows that women’s products like razors, deodorant, and toiletries are usually priced higher than essentially the same products for men, with no discernible difference in application. Two, it shows that those differences extend to services like haircuts and dry cleaning, contributing to the cost burden of women for the simple fact of being a gendered marketplace. Third, the clip illustrates how these tiny price inequalities add up over a period of time to result in larger systemic inequalities, such as the gender pay gap. Finally, it shows the absence of government control over gendered prices, necessitating legislative intervention and consumer awareness in an effort to avert this kind of economic discrimination. As a women, the topic of Pink Tariffs is especially important and frustrating. Dr. Lu says that the intentions of trade policy originated from strictly men; meaning, women were not as thoughtfully considered as they should be. With congress holding power to set tariff prices, we are in need of change.
This video explains what a “Pink Tariff” is and how it effects women. Essentially, products are priced higher for woman when the same product for men is priced lower. This isn’t fair to women at all because it’s sexist. Main difference are between razors, deordant, and hygiene products. This is also is unfair because many times women are underpaid compared to men. This plays a huge economic part in woman’s life’s because these extra expense’s add up. Thankfully consuerms are pushing back and calling out this issue. Brands need to be careful and show grace towards there consumers supporting their products.
As a woman, I have been aware of the pink tax for as long as I can remember. It is something to me that feels unfair since women products are often more expensive than the same product for men. The pink tax affects different stakeholders such as consumers and fashion companies because it raises prices for consumers and increases revenue for companies. However, if more people become aware of the pink tax, it may decrease their willingness to purchase these products, thus losing revenue for companies. I think that fashion companies should work on diversifying their sourcing locations in order to lower those prices. With the anticipation of the tariffs, it is more important than ever for companies to look for other regions to source from.
The video on pink tariffs is really eye-opening. I never thought about the unequal tariff burden on men and women before taking this class. According to the report, the products targeting women, such as cosmetics and fashion apparel, are charged with higher duties than men’s products. We all know that women already earn less than men. This higher tax burden intensified the economic inequality between genders. To navigate the 2025 tariff escalation and reduce the unequal impact of tariffs on men and women, brands can develop more gender-neutral products or accept lower margins on women’s wear. Brands really need to think about whether they need to absorb this duty difference or pass it on to consumers to further perpetuate gender inequality. I think this will have a significant impact on a fashion company’s brand image.
The statistic that women pay about 3 billion per year than men is alarming and upsetting. I have never “understood why women’s products are simply more expensive than men’s. Something that I learned was that the “pink tax” is not the same as the “pink tariff”. The tax is a more private sector practice, and the tariff is more of a policy. Fiber types factor into the tariff prices, like polyester vs cotton, which does make sense since a lot of women’s products tend to be made with polyester. I hope that in the future, this issue becomes resolved and brands become more aware of this issue.
Being a woman, the pink tariff is interesting to learn about because it is something that directly affects me as a consumer. The reasons discussed in the video about why the pink tariff exists make sense–such as women’s apparel using more man-made fibers and being more complex in design–, however, it is still something that needs to be addressed from a policy standpoint in order to level out the cost difference between women and men. One way that fashion companies can navigate pink tariffs could be by trying to utilize more natural fibers in their women’s apparel so that they pay a lower rate on imports, however, often this isn’t possible for specific clothing designs or for material cost reasons. As for what the government and international trade organizations can do, maybe creating FTAs with countries that produce more womenswear, such as Asian countries, could be helpful in reducing the pink tariffs, but I’m not sure how feasible this really is.
This video highlighted the disparity of the cost of retail goods between men and women due to ‘pink tariffs’. While I have heard about the pink tariffs in relation to female hygiene products, I was unaware this additional expense extended to clothing as well. At face value, the idea seems completely absurd, having women pay more than $2.77 billion more per year than men. Given the vital role women play in sustaining the fashion industry, it’s essential for policymakers to prioritize their representation and rights within the sector. As discussed in class, making these international policies is a little more complex than just choosing ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Dr. Lu offered some more context to why these tariffs are like this. Some of the tariffs are based on product categories while others are based on material. When women’s clothing incorporates more nylon or polyester, it drives the prices up. Furthermore, men’s clothing can be produced in countries through which we have free trade agreements such as Mexico and Central America, however these countries do not have the same infrastructure to equally produce the more complex and detailed garments for women’s fashion. After hearing this, I personally felt perplexed by how this issue can be fixed because increasing women’s retail costs was not the original intention. I was relieved to hear that Dr. Lu thinks that change is possible. Despite goods having higher costs due to product category and material, the trade negotiations still have room for change as the disparity itself is recognized as a worthwhile reason for change.
As a woman, hearing about the ” pink tariffs” is shocking, as i’m sure to all of my female classmates as well. It is eye opening to realize that many women’s products including clothing and even basic necessities are taxed at higher rates than mens. Although I can see the reasoning for the price increase, it does not make it okay for women to be paying 2 billion dollars more a year than men just because of the fabric and notions being used to make our garments are more complex to source. It it something that needs to be addressed. This unfair pricing structure reinforces gender inequality on a systemic level and often times consumers don’t even realize it. It made me reflect deeply on how trade policies can seem technical but can have a very real impact on everyday lives, especially in this case for women.
The “pink tariff” directly affects me as a consumer and I feel it is an unfair policy. Women are paying almost $2 billion more than men each year because of higher taxes on imported “women’s goods.” It’s frustrating that a women’s suit jacket is essentially the same as a men’s suit jacket, yet it is still taxed higher just because of the way it’s marketed. Even though women’s clothing tends to be made from fibers like polyester, which is taxed more than cotton, other women’s goods and household products are still impacted by this tariff. This seems very unfair to women. To address the “pink tariff,” I think it would be beneficial for consumers to express their concerns. However, consumers aren’t made aware of the actual markup of an item due to the tariffs, only the price tag and sales tax is shown. I think going forward, fashion brands should disclose more about why their products are priced as they are. Being more transparent may also strengthen customer loyalty and boost sales for the company. On the other hand, fashion brands can also try to produce women’s clothing using natural fibers to work around the tariff’s extra costs.
After learning that the pink tariff involves products that are marketed to women have higher tax rates on imported products, costing companies more to import goods, I found that to be very interesting. I’m a little shocked at the pink tariff, and I’m curious to know the meaning behind this tariff. I believe that the pink tariff brings up a societal inequality between men and women’s products. It is also interesting to bring up the fact that when the pink tariff was first implemented, the industry was very male dominated. Since this was a very long time ago, I believe that it is essential to revisit this tariff policy and adjust those specific tariffs to eliminate the pink tariff by creating products marketed towards both men and women to have equal amounts of tariffs. I believe that the pink tariff can impact stakeholders’ decisions regarding certain areas to begin to source from, specifically the financial aspect of those decisions. I believe that consumers who are specifically shopping for products marketed towards women will have less spending confidence due to the higher prices. I also believe that fashion companies will have smaller profit margins within the products marketed towards women.
Prior to this class I was not too familiar with the Pink tariff, however after watching this video I feel much more informed and simultaneously concerned. The video describes the pink tariff as a higher tax placed on imported products that are marketed to or classified as women’s goods. This was extremely off-putting to me as a woman myself. The video goes on to mention that women’s clothes and shoes cost them more than 2.7 billion more dollars a year than men. This was extremely disappointing as it is a clear example of gender bias within the fashion industry. This ultimately perpetuates the notion that women have to work harder to receive the same products and treatment as men.
I think that the pink tax, as a woman, is very relevant to me and affects me personally. I think that it is most effective to consumers who end up paying more because of it rather than the companies that produce the clothing. In the video they discuss various reasons as to why the pink tax is used, such as different fiber contents and design complexity is different compared to men’s apparel. This makes sense due to different textile manufacturing companies as well as the cost to pattern more difficult designs. However, I believe that it is important to note that for the companies, they are the ones choosing more man made fibers for their women’s clothing lines. However, if they picked the same natural fibers as the mens clothing, would it be less expensive for the same type of clothing? On the other hand, if the women’s clothing had almost the exact same pattern, would it cost the same? It is important to consider these questions as there have been many articles and videos discussing how even though they are almost exactly the same garments, the women’s line is always more expensive.
As a women, the pink tariff is severely unjust. Everday products including clothing and personal care items are essentials and should never be more expensive than necessary, esdpecially when marketed toward a specific gender. Fashion companies as a result also have to deal with higher import taxes on women’s apparel, which creates a domino affect of higher prices for consumers as well. This imbalance within the industry seems unjustified. To help fight against this tariff, I think companies should continue diversifying their sourcing and production in an attempt to avoid higher tariffs on gender-specific products, especially becuase the other alternative of focusing on more gender-neutral products may not be the correct option for a brand depending on the target market. Furthermore, if governemtns and trade organizations reviewed their trade policies to assure that tariffs do not target indivuduals and groups would be beneficial. Pushing transparency is important within the industry. However, I wonder if there are other alternative, etc. that define clothing as noe gender over the other which would allow brands to avoid this tax.
I believe that the pink tariff is an unnecessary price hike placed on women as we continuously have to pay higher prices for products compared to men. Even basic necessities that women use everyday are made more expensive and less accessible to some consumers while men pay lower prices for the same products. This causes a dilemma within fashion companies as they must weigh the decision to either increase prices or absorb the extra cost and gain less profit. Absorbing the cost could be a risk for companies, especially with new tariff increases over the past few months. However, companies raising prices can cause consumer upset and may force consumers to consider alternative brands and products.
The pink tariff is all about the higher import taxes placed on products which are normally marketed to women (like certain apparel and accessories), unfairly affecting both consumers and fashion companies. For consumers, it means women often end up paying more for similar products just because of how they’re categorized. For fashion companies, it adds sourcing challenges and can increase overall costs, especially when producing or importing women’s goods. This can lead to pricing issues, limited product options, or companies shifting focus to avoid these costs ultimately reducing consumer choice.