The pink tax

The price war on American women

many of these book bans are the result of specific groups attempting to censor such reading materials in a manner that is discriminatory, with over 70% of these groups having developed in the past two school years. If the First Amendment to the Constitution is not upheld, if a common and honest commitment to understanding our roots and how they shape our trajectory is not defended, the fruits of our nation’s efforts will spoil before ever fully ripening. The Florida Education Association has made its opposition to DeSantis known in multiple publishings. President of the FEA and elected official Andrew Spar, said, “Our schools don’t need to go back to 1950; we need to move forward toward 2050,” according to the FEA.

Another bill that DeSantis signed into law last year was HB 7, more commonly referred to as the “Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act,” or “Stop W.O.K.E. Act.” The law does not explicitly prohibit discussions of race or gender in Florida classrooms, according to the text of the bill. There exists a threat to truth and free speech in the vagueness of the articles held in HB 7. On this basis, U.S. Northern District of Florida judge Mark E. Walker granted a preliminary injunction of the law, citing that HB 7 “unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment and is impermissibly vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

This sort of Orwellian, Big Brother architecture of law subjects a people to the whims of governing parties or members of public service. Here is yet another irony to the Republican rhetoric of protecting freedom while censoring discourse.

Suppression of the First Amendment is not limited to this one course offered by the College Board. Numerous school districts in Florida, according to the New Yorker, have removed entire libraries from student accessibility.

Nationally, there are 1,648 distinct book titles on banned lists. Stories whose principal character(s) fit LGBTQ or racially diverse profiles, together, comprise over 80% of these titles, based on tracking by PEN America. The organization of writers and publishers has determined that

African American Studies has been around since the 1960s. The design of the AP program wholly fits with the purpose and integrity of contemporary educational designs. At UIndy, the school’s mission is “to prepare its graduates for effective, responsible and articulate membership in the complex societies in which they live and serve.” Because efforts of this sort matter, we—as students, faculty and administrators—must resolve ourselves to uphold any and all pursuits given to understanding. It is for this reason that the College Board has already returned an amended curriculum to the state of Florida’s rejection—a day ahead of the start of Black History Month. Judgments as to whether the reductions to the course were excessive, sufficient or too few are likely to prompt an organizational chess match of ideology, according to Inside Higher Ed.

The updated AP African American Studies course is without former topics like Black Lives Matter, racially disparate incarceration rates and reference to materials originating from creators of content whose works are largely based on the aforementioned. This revised curriculum has sacrificed more than it should. We do not, though, live in a world of all-or-nothings.

For the sake of promoting education of and for our peers, some conditions must be placed on hold if we are to sooner overcome the failures of now. The only means of abolishing prejudice is through education. With each election cycle and each heated debate, we must arm ourselves with a willingness to find a common ground from which we all might ascend. After all, those we leave behind produce the heirs of prejudice.

By Hannah Hadley NEWS EDITOR

Simply being born a woman means that there are a variety of obstacles that often affect one’s daily life: discrimination, objectification, sexual assault, domestic violence and more. However, this constant injustice runs deeper than interpersonal and civil issues—it affects women’s financial stability and security as well.

Increased prices on goods marketed primarily towards women is called the “pink tax,” according to a 2016 report from the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee. The extent of the tax is determined by comparing the prices from goods geared towards men to those geared towards women. These items are often thought of as personal care items like razors, soap, shampoo, body wash, deodorant and more, according to Business Insider. However, according more for products than men? Because companies know they will. This is much more than a simple issue of sexism—it is an issue regarding societal morals, corporate values and social responsibility. Women around the globe are more likely to be in poverty than men for a myriad of reasons, according to the nonprofit organization The Borgen Project. These reasons include lack of education, wage gaps, period poverty, exploitation, domestic obligations and more. Charging women more for products marketed towards them will only make the women who are struggling to make ends meet have an even harder time—even if the pink tax on an item is 50 cents more. Women already have it tough enough.

The pink tax is just one more hardship to add to women’s lives as a result of misogyny and sexism. Data from a 2019 United States Census Bureau survey revealed that there is a difference of $10,150 more in the average yearly wage of men compared to women. It is even higher in the State of Indiana at affected by the pink tax, too.

The pink tax is absolutely ridiculous and archaic. Why should I have to pay 7% more on average (according to Forbes) than a man for essentially the same product? Well, a journal article from the International Journal of Policy Sciences and Law defines the pink tax as “profit-maximizing strategies (whether intentional or unintentional) implemented by producers based on psychology, shopping behaviour, preferences and market trends compel the sale of products marketed to female consumers” and that “goods or services employed specifically by women bear an additional value-added tax (VAT) or sales tax to the price, reducing their accessibility reducing their accessibility to less economically-advantaged individuals.”

So, why do women have to pay

$12,460. The United Nations reported in 2020 that, “Around one-third of women worldwide have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner…In the most extreme cases, violence against women is lethal: globally, an estimated 137 women are killed by their intimate partner or a family member every day.”

The U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics also reported that women are more likely than men to spend their time caring for children as “their main activity.”

There is no morally sound reason to charge women and girls more for basic necessities and products than men. And, if one thinks about it, women who are financially tied to men in marriages or families still have to pay the pink tax! This means that the extra cost can—and does—affect men as well.Big corporations need to consider basic human rights more than they do their profit margin; they will survive the extra cost, but women may not.