If they make fewer of them the per-item cost to manufacture, stock, inventory, etc. could be higher because they don’t get the economy of scale. Even just a little disparity might be a vicious circle if some women initially go for the slightly cheaper men’s razors, exacerbating the economy of scale problem. But that raises the question of how many not-specifically-women’s razors were sold versus women’s razors: if the quantities were fairly equal then my whole post is moot.
^^ The point isn’t why it costs more to buy, it’s whether it costs more.
I’ve read that health care/cosmetic products are marketed to women in lower doses at higher prices, so I shop carefully for any product offered separately to men and women. For example, Rogaine.
Here Amazon has a 3-month supply of foam, 5% strength, for men, at $44.99.
And here from Amazon is a 6-month supply of foam, 5% strength, for women, at $67.60
Aha, you say - the women’s foam is actually less expensive! His Rogaine costs about $15/month but hers costs just $11.27/month.
But no, take a closer look: both products consist of three 60-gram containers of 5% strength foam. They suggest using it 2x day if you are a man, 1x/day if you are a woman. That’s why the same amount of foam is supposed to last a man 3 months but a woman 6 months.
So sure enough - in this case, at least, women pay more money for a lower-dose product.
As for me, I buy generic 5% minoxidil for men. It’s much cheaper.
Let’s have an actual woman step into this discussion by men 
Many good points proving that it’s a real thing. Another example is how if you look in women’s restrooms around the world (ok, you men shouldn’t, but if you did…) you’d find free toilet paper for your use. But no free menstrual products. IF there are menstrual products (and that’s a big IF, they’re rarely provided even in small company bathrooms for their staff), they’re in a (usually broken) machine on the wall where you have to insert a quarter to get one.
Let me state it this way: these are not luxury products and women can’t say “do I want to buy a tampon today?” If we need one, we need one. And usually when we need one, we need it RIGHT NOW! So it’s completely ridiculous and BS that we have to pay for them when TP is provided for free. (It also explains why the machines are usually broken. I’ve not seen it, but I can fully imagine some woman trying to break into it in a fit of rage and urgency.)
And then, if you can’t get one, the cleaners is going to charge you more to dry clean your slacks, adding insult to injury!
How is it analogous to a tax any more than all money is? It’s voluntary, it’s not imposed by the government or anyone else, it’s not specified or listed anywhere, and it is an effect seen all over the marketplace not just related to ‘pink’ or women’s products. There’s a whole thread on hobbyists paying extra for specialized products, no one mentioned ‘pink’ or women about that situation, or called it a tax. The only reason to call it a tax is to be misleading and pretend this is something imposed on people instead of it being the predictable result of their choices.
I pay higher sales tax on a higher-priced item.
Because “tax” is often used colloquially for extra costs that can’t be avoided. And if I want to buy clothes that fit my woman’s body, and weren’t designed to fit a man’s body, I will pay more to have them dry-cleaned. That’s not really “voluntary”.
(I do buy “men’s” deodorant, etc., because it’s cheaper.)
Surely you are familiar with the meaning of “tax” beyond the narrow definition of a fee levied by government?
For example, the poverty tax.
Or skin tax.
And, oh yeah, the pink tax.
For you to claim that your only understanding of the word “tax” is literally a government levy…well, taxes my imagination.
Also, there are brands of razors where there is virtually no difference between the man’s and women’s. At the lower end, you don’t see big differences.
I remember back when I was in grade school. A bunch of us went to some fast food places. After we ordered, on of the kids announced that instead of buying cheese fries for $3.00, he bought french fries for $2.00 and ‘extra cheese’ for 25¢, thus saving 75¢. Someone called it an idiot tax, that was the first time I heard it. I’m sure it’s been used like that for decades before then, but it’s certainly nothing new at this point.
The only time I’ve ever ‘corrected’ someone when they used the word, in what I felt, wasn’t the proper way was probably 15 years ago. A co-worker needed some weed. Another co-worker bought some from one of their friends and sold it to the person who wanted it. She later mentioned that she had to ‘tax’ the person on it. My issue was that this wasn’t a tax, it was profit.
Looking back, maybe that’s not that much different than a pink tax, especially not to the end user, but IMO, profit and tax (in the correct usage or the way it’s used in this thread) are entirely different things.
^^ “Lottery tickets are a tax on people who are bad at math.” 
So do I. If I want to drive a Ferrari it’s going to cost me more than driving a Ford but I don’t call that a car tax. If there is a blue men’s razor that is exactly the same as a pink women’s razor but costs less then buy the blue one. If you think it’s unfair that the pink razor costs more then you have show me when pricing started being based on fairness.
I do building maintenance and our custodians always keep the tampon machine stocked and I kept them working. I’ve only had to replace 1 for being broken in 14 years.
I agree feminine hygiene products definitely are an additional expense for women and thus might qualify as a “pink tax”. Although as a married man I think of it as just another just another household expense we share like soap or toilet paper.
Yeah, the part I’m skeptical about is whether the “pink tax” is a special and unfair burden on women, as opposed to yet another attempt by marketers to get customers who are willing to pay higher prices for essentially the same product to do so.
According to TriPolar, your statement is incorrect. No one can use any terms colloquially, apparently.
When my daughter went away to college, I bought her a laptop. Wanting it to be “special”, I found a pink laptop (her favorite color). I paid extra for the color and it was worth it, to me.
The point is whether it costs more, not why it costs more.
I guess you’re ignoring the dry cleaning, auto repair, and barbershop examples, then?
Here’s a quote from the article I cited above:
A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research had male and female participants call mechanics to get quotes for car repairs. Callers who appear to be well-informed about pricing were treated the same regardless of gender. However, female callers who were uninformed on pricing were quoted almost $23 more on average than male callers.
Here’s another one:
CBS News conducted an experiment where two members of their staff — a man and a woman — went to multiple dry cleaners in New York City with the same white cotton button-up shirt. The experiment found that “more than half of the dry cleaners charged the female staff member at least twice as much to clean the shirt. Some even charged her three times as much.”
Wait, you say. Why don’t women just shop around to find dry cleaners, barbers, and auto mechanics that don’t do that? Well, that additional burden on women is a tax in itself.
(Note to TriPolar – I’m not using the technical definition that means something imposed by the government. Rather, I’m using it colloquially to indicate an extra burden or cost incurred by a consumer, similar to the lottery being a tax on idiots or the extra costs incurred by poor people called, again colloquially, the poverty tax. I hope you’ll accept these provisions and allow me to use tax in this manner.)
No, it’s incorrect because people who are good at math and finances would not call an investment that pays off millions of dollars to one at incredibly minimal risk a ‘tax’. Maybe people who feel they are unfairly treated because they haven’t won the lottery would call it a ‘tax’ for some reason, even if they didn’t bother to buy a ticket.