---

The financial burden of menstruation for college women is a pressing matter that deserves greater attention. Essential products, like feminine hygiene items, are often overlooked as necessities, contributing to a significant financial strain on women.

---

This essay was composed in December 2024 and uses MLA documentation.

---

As a child, it’s easy to take for granted the luxuries and necessities provided to you. I was fortunate to grow up in a household where the essential things in life were readily available. But what does “essential” truly mean? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “absolutely necessary, indispensably requisite” (Essential). For many, anything that is consistently required falls under this category, and that includes feminine hygiene products. Every month, women rely on these products during their menstrual cycle, yet society often fails to recognize them as essential. A compelling example of this issue is highlighted by Dr. Alhelí Calderón-Villerreal, a medical doctor with a master’s degree, a PhD, and co-director of Women in Global Health. She states, “The average woman of reproductive age in the US experienced a menstrual product tax rate of 2.0%. In many states with existing taxes, menstrual products are classified as non-necessities or non-medical items” (Calderón-Villerreal). This classification overlooks the reality that menstrual products are essential, not luxury items. It’s time they are recognized and treated as necessities rather than discretionary purchases.

Last year, I faced significant financial struggles, barely managing to stay afloat. Just as things became especially tight, my period came. Unfortunately, I couldn’t afford to buy tampons or pads because paying my tuition had to take priority. I found myself in a difficult position, down to my last tampon with no way to replenish my supply. Desperate, I went to a campus bathroom and to my relief, I discovered free feminine hygiene products available there. That moment was a lifesaver. If I hadn’t stumbled upon those supplies, I truly don’t know what I would have done. Sadly, I’m fully aware that most bathrooms aren’t equipped with such resources.

In this essay, my goal is to shed light on the financial burden of menstruation, focusing specifically on women in college and the costs they face. I seek to address Congress and other women of reproductive age because this is a widespread issue that affects most women. I believe it’s crucial for men to be informed about this issue as well, and I would greatly appreciate their willingness to listen and engage in the conversation. My central question is: What factors contribute to the financial strain of purchasing menstrual products for women in college? To answer this, I will explore the implications of the pink tax, the impact of the tampon tax, the financial disparities between genders, and the critical need for the Pink Tax Repeal Act.

The same girl who had to rely on school bathrooms for menstrual relief now turns to men’s products, specifically Old Spice deodorant, for her daily needs. Why? Because men’s deodorant is more effective for her daily use, lasting longer than women’s options. In fact, several of her friends must resort to this same situation that she must. It’s almost laughable to think that manufacturers and marketers assume women don’t sweat much. Let me assure you, women do sweat, and that’s perfectly normal. This pricing disparity only highlights the unfair assumptions and practices ingrained in product marketing.

What is the pink tax, and why does it matter? Like many others, I wasn’t aware of what the pink tax was until recently, and learning about it was both eye-opening and disheartening. The pink tax, as explained by Kim Gandy the former president of the National Organization for Women and CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, refers to “a theory that companies market products to women that are more expensive than nearly identical products targeted toward men” (Gandy). Understanding the pink tax and its unfair impact on women is crucial for addressing the broader issues of gender inequality and financial disparity.

The pink tax plays a significant role in why women often pay higher prices for hygiene products compared to men. There are several factors that contribute to this glaring price disparity. Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, an executive director of the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center at NYU School of Law, stated that “if the government were to require that only men or only women had to pay a tax of several hundred dollars a year solely because of their sex, that would be an unconstitutional denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet that is exactly the effect of the so-called tampon tax” (Weiss-Wolf). Her words underline the fundamental question of what is constitutional regarding this issue. When explored deeper, it’s clear that there is more to this story than meets the eye. Why do companies tax essential products for women? The answer is simple: money. Despite being necessary, even essential, for health and hygiene, feminine hygiene products are often treated as luxury items, subject to sales tax. This taxation reflects a broader societal tendency to prioritize profit over the well-being of individuals, particularly women.

However, it’s important to acknowledge the difficulty in comparing products for men and women, especially when it comes to pricing. Alexander Brand, from the Human-Computer Interaction Group at the University of Bamberg, addresses this issue in his conference paper, “Paying the Pink Tax on a Blue Dress: Exploring Gender-Based Price-Premiums in Fashion Recommendations.” He argues, “One aspect which is put forward here in defense is that products for women are not directly comparable to products for men, as there might be differences in quality or products might not be comparable due to other characteristics. In this case, the algorithm used already constitutes a space of products that can be considered as comparable” (Brand). While this explanation doesn’t justify the price discrepancies, it does highlight the complexity of the issue, as certain products may differ in ways that make them harder to directly compare. Despite that, this doesn’t excuse the broader trend of gender-based pricing, which remains a problem that needs addressing.

A unique aspect of women’s health is that each woman experiences different menstrual patterns. Some may bleed more heavily, while others have lighter flows; some may have periods twice a month, while others may only have them a few times a year. This variety means that every woman’s needs are different. Some may require tampons, others pads, and some may need both. A personal example is my roommate and myself. She has a shorter cycle, but her flow is much heavier than mine, which means she needs different types of products that assist with this heavy, but short-term flow, as opposed to my own flow which tends to be lighter, but last much longer. This diversity in needs deepens the unfairness of taxing menstrual products. Whether you need more products, different types, or both, the cost adds up. Personally, I’m fortunate if I can make it through two cycles with one box. Since menstrual cycles vary and can change due to life circumstances, taxing products that are essential to every woman’s health is unfair. It’s not just about the number of products; it’s about ensuring access to what each individual needs.

In addition to the price disparities caused by the pink tax, another significant financial burden comes from the “tampon tax.” The Alliance for Period Supplies, an organization committed to providing free access to feminine hygiene products, defines the tampon tax as “the sales tax rate that a state, county, and/or city government collects on the retail purchase of menstrual products” (Tampon Tax). As this definition points out, there are additional costs women face simply for purchasing necessary menstrual hygiene products.

In a graphic provided by CPA Practice Advisor, a trusted resource for accounting and tax professionals, it reinforces the financial burden women face due to menstruation. This case study focused on females in California, finding that these women typically experience their periods over the span of forty years and that throughout this time, the estimated average amount a woman will spend on feminine hygiene products in her lifetime is $3,360 (“The Tampon Tax, By the Numbers”). Additionally, because the data comes from 2016 and doesn’t account for inflation, the actual costs today and in the future could be increasingly higher. This case study and these staggering statistics have profound implications not only for women in California, but also for women across the rest of the United States who also have to constantly purchase these necessary and expensive feminine hygiene products.

Price plays a significant role in shaping purchasing decisions, and for college women like me, even the smallest expense can have a major impact. The monthly cost of feminine hygiene products adds up quickly and can become overwhelming. Jennifer Weiss-Wolf highlights this inequity, stating, “States collectively profit upward of $150 million a year from taxing menstrual products. In California alone, women pay $20 million annually” (Weiss-Wolf). It’s outrageous that such a necessity is treated as a luxury, allowing governments and corporations to profit from a fundamental biological need. Women simply cannot continue shouldering this expense alongside all the other financial pressures they face.

In “Beyond the Pink Tax: Gender-Based Pricing and Differentiation of Personal Care Products,” Stephanie Guitterez Guittar, an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at Rollins College, explains that “the pink tax is distinct from the tampon tax, whereby sales tax is applied to feminine hygiene items, in that the pink tax applies to similar or identical items and services that are utilized by men and women but priced differently” (Guittar). This distinction is crucial for readers to understand because the pink tax and tampon tax address different issues. It’s important to recognize that the pink tax is specifically about how various products which are targeted towards women, despite being nearly identical to similar products geared towards men, are priced higher simply because they are aimed for women. On the other hand, the tampon tax specifically refers to the sales tax imposed on feminine hygiene products, and the ongoing fight to reduce or eliminate this tax entirely which has been a long and challenging battle. Recognizing these differences helps highlight the broader financial inequities women face every day in our current society.

One of the most overlooked aspects of having a period is that the cost extends far beyond just feminine hygiene products. Women also need to purchase items like Midol, ibuprofen, heating pads, stain removers for inevitable leaks, comfortable clothing that won’t irritate sensitive skin, and even comfort foods for those particularly rough days, all while staying hydrated to support their bodies through the process. With all of these other hidden costs associated with a woman’s monthly menstrual cycle, adding an extra tax on menstrual products only compounds an already significant financial burden. It’s an unnecessary expense for something that is not a choice, but a biological reality.

During my in-depth research, I discovered something that resonated deeply with me, an experience I once thought I faced alone but soon realized many women endure. It’s the desperate act of wrapping toilet paper in your underwear when your period unexpectedly starts, simply to avoid bleeding through your clothes. We all know how difficult it is to remove blood stains, adding to the stress and embarrassment. In those moments, all you can do is rush home as quickly as possible, silently praying that no stains appear. This experience is humiliating and far too common. If feminine hygiene products were freely available in public bathrooms and easily accessible, women wouldn’t have to resort to such uncomfortable and degrading measures. It’s a small but meaningful step toward dignity and equality.

As much as I wish we could convince companies to stop charging women more for products, doing so within a free-market system is challenging. In their article addressing gender issues Guittar et al. note, “While there was some evidence of gender pricing among the nine products we analyzed, it was not consistently the case that women paid more than men, or that price differences persisted after controlling for factors that could affect prices” (Guittar). Some may say that the lack of the pink tax consistently throughout every product on the market, would suggest that this issue isn’t as urgent. In a free market, companies have the right to set their own prices based on various factors, and regulating these prices is difficult. Several elements influence how products are marketed and priced, including ingredients, packaging, color choices, and the way they are advertised to women. These factors contribute to the pricing strategies that companies adopt, making it hard to draw direct comparisons across gender-targeted products. However, in the end, there’s no justifiable reason for women’s products to be taxed or priced higher. Much of this disparity comes down to corporate greed, with companies citing different ingredients or formulations in women’s products as a justification for higher prices. If companies focused on creating comparable products with similar ingredients, they could market and price them equally. Asking for fair pricing and marketing practices between men’s and women’s products isn’t unreasonable; it’s a step toward equity and economic fairness. Women shouldn’t have to pay more simply because of targeted marketing or product design differences that often have little practical basis.

This issue clearly extends beyond its financial impact; it’s a matter of fairness, equality, and addressing what is essential in women’s daily lives. Women should not be penalized simply because of their gender for something that is a natural and necessary part of life. As Andrew Cuomo, an American politician, lawyer, and former government official who served as the 56th governor of New York from 2011 to 2021, rightly points out, “It’s not just a financial injustice, but a violation of our fundamental values of equality” (Campbell). The continued existence of the pink tax and tampon tax is a reflection of broader societal inequities, and it is time for us to demand change. No one should be forced to pay more for products that are essential to their health and well-being. The need for action is urgent, and as more people, including politicians, speak out against these discriminatory practices, the momentum for reform grows stronger.

This is a complex social issue, with no obvious and complete fix yet, but there are a range of potential solutions to help combat this social issue. One such solution is proposed by Jorene Ooi, a Northwestern University School of Law graduate and employee at UL Solutions. She suggests implementing “a women’s menstrual health credit, provided to all women of menstruating age, on the basis that a tax credit would better bridge the financial disparity gap between women who must pay for menstrual hygiene products and men who do not” (Ooi). This argument is particularly compelling and deserving of serious consideration as it offers important discussions about menstrual equity. While no single solution will fully resolve the issue, all thoughtful proposals should be explored as steps toward greater fairness and equality.

If someone had told my younger middle-school self that buying feminine hygiene products would become a difficult and burdensome process, I wouldn’t have believed them. Back then, I didn’t fully understand the financial burden and challenges that the future would hold. But now, as I’ve grown older and found my voice, I’ve come to see just how flawed and unjust the system really is. I want to stand up for those who still feel voiceless. Fortunately, steps are being taken today to address these hardships and create a fairer future.

While there is still much progress to be made, change is happening, and hope continues to grow. One of the promising developments is the Pink Tax Repeal Act. According to Congress.gov, the official website for US federal legislative information, “This bill prohibits any person from selling (or offering to sell) substantially similar consumer products or services at different prices based on the gender of the intended purchaser. If, for example, the only difference between two products is the color, they are substantially similar” (Torres). Introduced recently in 2024, this bill has gained traction, and is a powerful step forward.

One of the most impactful ways to address gender-based issues like the taxation of feminine hygiene products is by ensuring that women’s perspectives are represented more frequently in government. Dr. Alhelí Calderón-Villarreal highlights this by stating, “In the US, only 28% of congressional and 15% of parliamentary seats were held by women, respectively. Women’s participation in decision making is key in the process to propose, adopt, and foster gender justice policies, particularly in legislative positions” (Calderón-Villarreal). Increasing women’s representation in government is essential for amplifying women’s voices and driving meaningful change. Sometimes progress requires stepping up, taking charge, and being the change you want to see. Ensuring more women are in positions of power to share their voice and perspective is the next crucial step toward addressing inequalities and making these issues impossible to ignore.

While researching and reflecting on what it truly means to be a woman in today’s challenging times, I had the opportunity to speak with people from various backgrounds, genders, and income levels about the issues discussed in this essay. What I discovered was both surprising and disheartening. Many were completely unaware of the severity of the problem. They lived in what I would call “blissful ignorance,” a state that far too many people experience daily. However, it’s time to wake up from that complacency and take a stand for what is right against policies and practices that infringe on fairness and basic rights. While I recognize that not everyone will share my perspective, I am tired of being conditioned to expect less simply because I am a woman. Equality should not be an aspiration; it should be a standard.

In conclusion, the financial burden of menstruation for college women is a pressing matter that deserves greater attention. Essential products, like feminine hygiene items, are often overlooked as necessities, contributing to a significant financial strain on women. By examining the factors such as the pink tax, the tampon tax, and the financial disparities between genders, it becomes evident that there needs to be a change. Advocating for measures like the repeal of the pink tax can alleviate this burden and create a more balanced environment for women in college low-income situations, and beyond. Addressing this issue is not just about economics, it’s about recognizing the inherent value of gender equity and ensuring that essential needs are accessible to all.

Works Cited

Brand, A., Gross, T. (2020). “Paying the Pink Tax on a Blue Dress – Exploring Gender-Based Price-Premiums in Fashion Recommendations.” In: Bernhaupt, R., Ardito, C., Sauer, S. (eds) Human-Centered Software Engineering. HCSE 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12481. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64266-2_12.

Calderón-Villarreal, Alhelí. “Taxing women’s bodies: the state of menstrual product taxes in the Americas.” Lancet regional health. Americas vol. 29 100637. 24 Nov. 2023, doi:10.1016/j.lana.2023.100637.

Campbell, Jon. “Cuomo: End ‘Pink Tax’ on Goods for Women: Gender-Based Pricing Discrimination Targeted.” Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Dec 24, 2019. Global Newsstream; ProQuest Central, https://login.dist.lib.usu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/cuomo-end pink-tax-on-goods-women/docview/2330027752/se-2.

“Essential.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, June 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/8044520519.

Gandy, Kim. “The Pink Tax: The Cost of Being a Woman – National Organization for Women.” National Organization for Women, 24 Sept. 2024, now.org/blog/the-pink-tax-the-cost-of being-a-woman/.

Guittar, S.G., et al. “Beyond the Pink Tax: Gender-Based Pricing and Differentiation of Personal Care Products.” Gender Issues, vol. 39, pp. 1–23, 2022. https://doi org.dist.lib.usu.edu/10.1007/s12147-021-09280-9.

Moshary, Sarah, et al. “Gender-Based Pricing in Consumer Packaged Goods: A Pink Tax?” Edited by Jeffrey Miron, Cato Institute, 2022. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep51953. Accessed 14 Oct. 2024.

Ooi, Jorene. “Bleeding Women Dry: Tampon Tax and Menstrual Inequity.” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 113, no. 1, 2018, pp. 109-153. ProQuest Central; ProQuest One Academic, https://login.dist.lib.usu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly journals/bleeding-women-dry-tampon-taxes-menstrual/docview/2124407479/se-2.

“Tampon Tax – Alliance for Period Supplies.” Alliance for Period Supplies – It’s That Time, 14 May 2024, allianceforperiodsupplies.org/tampon-tax/.

“Tampon Tax Court Case Seeks Refunds.” CPA Practice Advisor, 14 March 2016, https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2016/03/14/tampon-tax-court-case-seeks-refunds/21417/. Accessed 1 March 2025

Torres, Norma J. “H.R.7828 – Pink Tax Repeal Act.” United States Congress, 26 Mar. 2024, www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7828.

Weiss-Wolf, Jeniffer and Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Taxing Tampons Isn’t Just Unfair, It’s Unconstitutional.” Democracy & Justice: Collected Writings 2019, edited by Alan J. Beard, Brennan Center for Justice, 2020, pp. 117–18. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28415.42. Accessed 31 Oct. 2024.