The gendered economy: The cost of being a woman – Part 1

This article is part of my series, The Gendered Economy, where I explore how capitalism has shaped women’s lives, their labour , and their financial independence. Each piece in this series uncovers the hidden economic structures that keep women at a financial disadvantage- from unpaid labour  to wage gaps to the way financial systems are rigged against women.

Today, we talk about the literal price of being a woman.

From the pink tax to the gender wage gap to the motherhood penalty, capitalism doesn’t just exploit women’s labour – it charges them more for existing. Whether it’s through higher costs for everyday products, lower wages for the same work, or financial penalties for becoming mothers, the economic system has created a rigged playing field that ensures women remain at a financial disadvantage.

Even in female-dominated fields like teaching and nursing, where women make up the majority, their labour  is still undervalued and underpaid. And when women step into entrepreneurship? Venture capital largely ignores them. In the healthcare sector? Women’s health research remains chronically underfunded. For single mothers? The financial system punishes them for raising children alone.

In short, capitalism doesn’t just exploit women’s labour – it actively structures the economy to keep women at a financial disadvantage. Let’s break down how this system works and why it needs to change.

The Pink Tax: Why Women Pay More for the Same Products

Ever walked into a store and noticed that women’s razors cost more than men’s, despite being nearly identical? Or that women’s deodorants, shampoos, and even clothes come with a higher price tag? This isn’t a coincidence; it’s a deliberate pricing strategy known as the pink tax.

Studies show that women’s personal care products cost, on average, 7% more than men’s. In some cases, women’s items cost up to 42% more, despite having the same ingredients or functionality. The Pink Tax is not just about razors costing more when packaged in pink, it’s an economic structure designed to ensure that women pay more just to exist. 

Many argue that women can simply buy men’s products to avoid this unfair pricing. But this assumes that gendering consumer goods is rational in the first place. How does a razor become male or female? Does women’s shampoo contain estrogen while men’s contains testosterone?

The reality is that gendered marketing is a manufactured division, designed to extract more from women while ensuring that nonconformity carries a social price. A woman who refuses to shave or wear makeup doesn’t just save money, she risks being judged, penalized at work, or socially excluded.

The Pink Tax is more than just higher prices on consumer goods, it reinforces women’s financial disadvantage. Women earn less, yet are expected to spend more to meet the standards imposed on them. Consider the workplace:

• Men can show up in simple suits or hoodies (think Mark Zuckerberg), but female CEOs are expected to invest in professional attire, makeup, and hairstyling to be taken seriously.
• Refusing to adhere to these gendered expectations often results in real-world penalties, missed promotions, fewer leadership opportunities, and reputational costs.

At its core, the Pink Tax is not just a pricing issue, it is a systemic barrier to financial independence. By ensuring that women must spend more while earning less, capitalism profits from gender inequality under the guise of market forces.

Countries like France and Canada have taken steps to ban gender-based pricing. But in most parts of the world, the pink tax continues unchecked, adding yet another cost to being a woman.

The Gender Wage Gap – Women Work More, Earn Less

The gender wage gap isn’t a myth, it’s an economic reality. Globally, women earn 20% less than men for the same work. In India, the gender pay gap stands at 28% in the formal workforce, even among educated, working professionals.

But here’s the more alarming part: women don’t just earn less; they also work more. In addition to paid jobs, women perform three times as much unpaid labour as men, whether it’s caregiving, housework, or emotional labour. This creates a double workload, one that drains time, energy, and career prospects.

And even in female-dominated industries, like teaching, nursing, and social work, where women make up the majority, men still earn more and rise faster into leadership positions. This isn’t because men are more qualified; it’s because of deeply ingrained biases in pay structures and career progression.

Some Say?

“Women choose lower-paying careers” → This argument ignores the fact that care work is undervalued precisely because it is associated with women. Teaching and nursing, for example, are seen as “natural extensions” of women’s caregiving roles, leading to lower wages despite their social importance.

“Women negotiate less” → Research shows that when women do negotiate, they often face backlash. While men are rewarded for being “assertive,” women are labelled as “difficult” or “demanding” for asking for the same raises and promotions.

“Women take career breaks” → But why is it only women’s responsibility to take time off for caregiving? The burden of raising children, caring for elderly parents, and managing household responsibilities overwhelmingly falls on women—leading to longer career interruptions and slower salary growth.

“Women are not competent enough” → This is the unspoken bias that lingers in workplaces, promotions, and hiring decisions. Studies show that women’s resumes are rated lower than men’s for the same job applications. Women have to prove their competence repeatedly, while men are often assumed to be capable by default. Leadership roles remain male-dominated not because women lack skill, but because decision-makers still associate authority with masculinity.

The wage gap isn’t just about today’s paycheck, it compounds over time, affecting everything from retirement savings to financial independence. Women end up with lower pensions, reduced wealth accumulation, and a greater risk of poverty in old age.

And while some countries have implemented pay transparency laws and equal pay policies, progress remains slow. The reality is that as long as the economy undervalues women’s labour, both paid and unpaid, the gender wage gap will persist.

If women are working more but earning less, who is really benefiting? The answer is clear: capitalism profits from paying women less while extracting more of their labour—for free.

Coming Up Next in Part 2:

We dig deeper into the cost of motherhood, the investment gap that sidelines women entrepreneurs, and the structural biases that prevent women from accessing economic power.

Follow this series to understand how the system is designed to disadvantage women, and what we can do to change it.