**TL; DR The is no rational explanation for the so-called ‘Pink-Tax’.** The ‘pink-tax’ is the name given to the gender-based price discrimination seen predominantly within hygiene products such as razors, shampoos and conditioners, and earned its name due to affected products commonly being pink. New York’s Department of Consumer Affairs conducted a study labelled ‘From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being A Female Consumer’, whereby they highlighted the price disparity of 30 items, which on average saw women’s products as being more expensive. For example, in a sample of 16 different shampoo and conditioner products, the price for products targeted for women were 48% more expensive. Within their study they focus on hygiene products including the aforementioned shampoo and conditioner as well as razors, razor cartridges, skin lotion, deodorant, body wash – all more expensive albeit no different than male targeted products of the same nature. There is no reason that the same products should be marketed differently and by doing so it merely works to promote gender bias and institutionalised sexism, for this reason the ‘pink-tax’ should be eradicated. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/partners/Study-of-Gender-Pricing-in-NYC.pdf

**In short - there is a reason. The reason is that women are willing to pay more for the products marketed to them. No, it's not really justifiable - but from a Capitalist stance, it makes sense to keep profiting off of outdated gender divisions.** - It's known as the ['pink tax'] (https://www.riftrefunds.co.uk/blogs/pink-tax-today-how-much-extra-do-women-and-girls-pay-for-everyday-essentials/) - an upcharge on products intended for women which really bear very minor differences to the less-expensive male alternatives. Profiting off of the expense of female hygiene products has always been an issue of contention - [up until January 2021] (https://mashable.com/article/tampon-tax-uk-finally-scrapped), the UK classed menstrual products as 'luxury items', as opposed to 'basic essentials' such as Jaffa cakes and roasted nuts. - It does seem ridiculous when looked at objectively - [this 2019 article] (https://www.voanews.com/usa/all-about-america/does-pink-tax-force-women-pay-more-men) found that on average, women pay a yearly 'gender tax' of about $1,351 - for buying largely the same basic products as men do, but marketed to them as specifically 'feminine', i.e. pink and fancy looking. - The problem is that women do buy the products geared towards them. If all women just started buying men's razors, for example, then the biased marketing & marked-up pricing of women's razors would become null. It is discriminatory - not least in that this 'gender tax' exacerbates [the gender earning gap] (https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/genderpaygapintheuk/2020#:~:text=The%20gender%20pay%20gap%20among,10%25%20for%20older%20age%20groups.&text=The%20gender%20pay%20gap%20was,Wales%2C%20Scotland%20and%20Northern%20Ireland.). But it comes down to buyer's demand. It's very hard to overturn something which does have a significant market & which does generate a lot of revenue.

There is no reason for gendering to change the price of a product, I agree with that. Men’s deodorant and women’s deodorant should be the same price. However, this statement takes no other factors into consideration. If the preferred fragrances for women’s deodorant are more expensive than those for men, the product will be more expensive by nature. *If you want to be cheap, you can buy whatever chemical cocktail Cool Sports Rush is.*