WWW.THEGUARDIANONLINE.COM
JANUARY 20, 2016
News WSU police seeks body cameras Page 4
Review Review of the “Revenant” Page 5
ISSUE NO. 15 VOL. 52
Chartwells under fire: Students want change Travis Sollars Contributing Writer Sollars.5@wright.edu
T
he Wright State Student Government recently voted unanimously to move forward with resolution 1506, a proposal to reduce the cost of meal plans on campus and to significantly modify the dynamics of the existing swipe system. Currently, all residential students are required to purchase a meal plan in order to live on campus. Wright State’s food service provider, Chartwells, provides residential students with seven mean plan options, from the “Raider 10 Budget Plan” to the “Raider 19 Ultimate Plan.” Meal plan holders are allocated between ten and 19 swipes per week depending on the plan and are expected
to use their allotted swipes before the end of each week. Since Chartwells’ arrival in Fall 2013, residential students have been speaking out on social media against what some
deem to be unfair business tactics. Math savvy students have been quick to expose and complain about various hidden fees and charges veiled behind the guise of budget
and value deals. Students who need to save money often choose to purchase the Raider 10 Budget
Continued on page 3
Photo by Emily Nurrenbrock
The Pink Tax: No one’s favorite color Money Several tips to pay off your student loans Page 7
Sports
Demmings breaks schol record for all-time career points Page 11
I
Kasi Ferguson Features Writer Ferguson.137@wright.edu
t’s no secret that from birth, girls and boys are treated somewhat differently. They are swaddled in pink or blue depending on their gender and apparently one day, they will pay different prices for products based on the same colors - meaning, girls pay the Pink Tax. The Pink Tax refers to the extra amount of money that people must pay to buy feminine hygiene products as opposed to masculine or gender neutral ones, whether they be hair care products, body washes, toothbrushes or just widely used hygienic staples. “In 2011, researchers at the University of Central Florida found that women paid more for deodorants, razors and body spray sold at national retailers,” said a New York Times editorial. In a study named “From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer,” nearly 800 products in several dozen categories were studied, showing that not only does the Pink Tax affect adult women, but
females of all ages. Items such as shirts, toys, baby clothes and more are afflicted by the tax. Personal care products, however, topped the list, with women’s shampoos being 48 percent more costly than those marketed to men - in fact, women are paying more for those products about 56 percent of the time. California was the first state to ban gendered taxes and according to Forbes, researchers located there have calculated women annually spend about $1,300 extra on items marketed towards them. A common argument claims
that women should simply buy men’s products; although, the tax is sometimes inescapable, as The Penny Hoarder explained how women have been shown to be charged more for services and products ranging from auto repairs to female characters in apps and downloadable games. A problem with addressing the tax is that companies, unsurprisingly, are very evasive. When contributing writers from Forbes sought answers about the variation of prices between some name-brand “feminine” and “masculine” deodorants, they had less than
helpful results: “‘They are completely different formulations,’ said one spokesperson of two antiperspirants with the exact same percentages of the exact same ingredients.” However, changes are possible. The Pink Tax within the healthcare system - another field where women were known to pay more than men for equal or lesser services has been banned under the Affordable Care Act. With some action towards legislative relief, or simply by campaigning against certain companies, the ban on gendered taxing can become widespread.