At this point, most of us have heard reports about the wage gap between men and women. The term “77 cents on the dollar” has become frequent in comedy skits and political campaigns, and research shows the disparity is even worse for women of color. Further murmurs of more far-reaching gendered economics have grown in the past decade, a financial discrimination that has been coined as “tax on women.” But what grounding does this “tax on women” really have? Does it exist, and can we see the evidence of it in our real life, in the or on our campus?
In itself, the wage gap has been considered debatable. An online dispute rages on about whether it is a myth or not. Women, overall, make about 23 cents less than men per dollar earned in the United States; however, this measurement does not take into account the different lifestyles and career paths that each gender pursues, so maybe it is not a realistic comparison.
Jobs that women are more inclined to occupy have historically been allocated less money. Teachers, nurses and administrators are paid less than the male-dominated fields of law, science and politics. To combat this observation, a 2014 report from the Institute of Women’s Policy Research showed that women were often paid less than men for working in the same field at the same job. Comparing men and women working as elementary school teachers (a profession more commonly held by women), there is an almost $150 weekly difference in pay; that is over a $7,000 difference annually, favoring men. While it has gotten minimally smaller over the past three decades, it is impossible to say that this gap between salaries does not exist, regardless of the reason.
Perhaps the reasons that there even is a dichotomy in more “common” life choices for women should be examined – what social forces have women feeling more comfortable or inclined to pursue lives as teachers or office clerks? What are the perceptions of opportunities that are “more” suited for women, either consciously or subconsciously present? Does each gender feel barriers to pursuing certain professions because of its historically gendered nature?
Those of us who are not pursuing salaried positions just quite yet may not feel the full effect of this wage gap. It may not even seem as though gendered economics affect us in daily life, especially on our campus.
Evidence of “tax on women” is found in the products sold for female consumers and beauty products. Products that have a men’s counterpart are most often more pricey for women. An article written by Forbes in 2012 states, “gendered pricing costs women almost $1,400 a year.” One of the biggest culprits leading to this difference was found in the taxes on imported goods. On average, men’s products were taxed at about 8.5% with women’s products taxed at 10%. Additionally, even a quick trip to Walmart and we can see how the “per unit” price of items such as women’s razors, deodorant, socks, etc. is slightly more expensive than men’s.
Feminine hygiene products, unlike beauty products are not considered optional for most women and people who menstruate. Many pay astounding prices for something that is a biological need. An article published by Jezebel references the high cost of “owning a vagina,” and the cost of feminine hygiene products rings to the tune of about $60 per year. That doesn’t seem like a completely unattainable amount, but for something that is not optional, should there be any price at all?
This is just as pertinent on our campus as anywhere else. Nowhere on campus (save for maybe some generous Housefellows) can people who menstruate have easy access to free feminine hygiene products.
This may change in the future with various advocates involved in SGA and proposals being crafted, but no definitive steps have been made. The director of Health Services, Cate Moffett, clarified that if a student absolutely needs supplies, the health center would be able to give a few away, but they don’t hand them out like they do other items, including condoms.
Although comparing feminine products and condoms is unfair – as one is for hygiene and the other is for safety and disease prevention – the dichotomy here is striking. However, quite frankly, at an initial observance it would appear as though there is an imbalance in catering to the needs of penises greater than those of vaginas. Moffett also explained that the condoms given out by the Health Center are supplied to the school from the State of Connecticut. Actually, there is no federal or state-wide program in the United States that provides free feminine hygiene products to women or transgender citizens. This seems somewhat astounding when you imagine how many people are in need of these products every day; they are certainly needed more often than the annual flu shots that are given at many pharmacies.
The lack of adequate support systems for providing women with the necessary hygiene care and evidence of barriers to financial equality are simply indications of the broader intersectionality of discrimination. If not discrimination, this is at the very least a product of the male-dominated policy makers that leave the needs of those who are not cisgender men as an afterthought. It would come as a great to relief to half the population of this country (and over 60% of this campus) if equality in wages and prices of goods were expected, and feminine hygiene products could be found as often as needed. Keep an eye out for future SGA resolutions and make sure your political choices are ones that will best speak to this economic disparity. With a heavy flow of support and conscientiousness, this system could be shed and a new one reborn.
