On April 16, CNN published a report examining the impact of US government tariffs on men's and women's clothing prices. The article cited a study indicating that American women spend approximately $2.5 billion more annually on clothing than men. The report argued that uniform import tariffs on both men's and women's apparel exacerbate this disparity, as the vast majority of clothing in US markets is imported, and tariffs significantly influence pricing. This phenomenon is termed the "pink tariff," a subset of the broader "pink tax," which refers to the higher costs associated with products and services marketed to women, despite similar production and transportation expenses compared to that of men. In essence, women's clothing, personal care items, and cosmetics often carry higher taxes, tariffs, and prices than their male counterparts.
Women, targets of a comprehensive campaign
Statistics show that American women spend an average of $300 more per year than men on clothing and their appearance. Capitalist companies have exploited this. Western designers and manufacturers release numerous new women's clothing styles each season, outsourcing production to overseas sweatshops and using thinner, less durable fabrics to keep prices low. However, this high variety, low price, and poor quality have led women to spend more on clothing to maintain a polished appearance. Furthermore, these garments often lack practical features found in men's clothing, such as functional pockets or warm, thick fabrics, compelling women to purchase additional items like handbags, sleeves, and leg warmers separately. These seemingly inexpensive, low-quality clothes are, in reality, costly, as they become unusable after a short period, prompting women to return to clothing stores frequently. This cycle of repeated purchases is compounded by higher taxes and tariffs on women's clothing. But that's not the whole story.
Pay more, get less
In Western fashion, less fabric is generally used in women's clothing compared to men's. At first glance, this might be attributed to women's smaller body dimensions. However, even in similar sizes, this pattern persists. Shirts, T-shirts, formal cotton trousers, and jackets produced in the same sizes for men and women exhibit price differences due to design choices. Women's clothing often features lower, and more revealing necklines and collars, shorter sleeves, and tighter, shorter pants that accentuate feminine body features. A general observation of office workers, university students, and other professionals supports this claim. While men typically wear shirts and trousers or three-piece suits, the phenomenon of "Gen Z boss in a mini" is widely accepted in educational and professional settings. A cursory look at schools, universities, and streets in most Western countries, especially the US, reveals that women's clothing and fashion are less covered than men's, sometimes bordering on the line between being covered and nudity. This raises the question why have Western women and girls accepted paying more, wearing less, and exerting more effort in shopping?
Silent humiliation
In 2016, The Washington Post published an article titled, “The real reason that so many women have to spend so much time getting ready,” addressing why women spend significantly more time than men on their appearance. The author began by sharing personal experiences and those of her female colleagues at the newspaper, who used at least five beauty products on their faces every morning and carried at least three pairs of shoes. In contrast, their male colleagues used, on average, fewer than one product. The author's experience reflects a broader social structure in the United States. Extensive academic research in the US has shown that women's physical attractiveness and investment in their appearance directly correlate with their income levels, employment opportunities, and chances of promotion in non-managerial roles. In the US, the less physically attractive a woman is, the lower her chances of employment, salary increases, or job promotion. This represents perhaps the most severe form of misogyny and humiliation, marketed in the West under the guise of freedom of dress, freedom of expression, and women's rights. From another perspective, the United States has imposed a form of "mandatory immodesty" on its women, with the penalty for non-compliance being a decline in personal and social status. This compulsion has trapped women in a vicious cycle often censored in Western media: To earn money, they must continually purchase new, low-quality, revealing clothing and spend their hard-earned money on these very items and beauty products.
The solution is hiding in plain sight
In the article "Decolonize your mind: Let hijab be your flag in battle against oppression," it was noted that the Gaza war and American students' support for the Palestinian people broke many Americans' mental barriers against adopting cultural and religious symbols of Muslims. One of the most significant of these symbols and religious mandates is the hijab. According to Imam Khamenei, the hijab is not a directive to exclude women from society but a guideline to preserve moral boundaries and women's dignity in public spaces. Recall the issues of pink tariffs and "mandatory immodesty" in the US. The Islamic hijab fundamentally prevents such exploitation by capitalists and social system designers, allowing women to engage in work and progress based solely on their intellectual, academic, and professional qualifications, free from the influence of physical attractiveness. This may be one reason why powerful Western media powerhouses attack the legal requirement of hijab in Iran. The term "mandatory hijab" has become a tool for Western media to criticize the Islamic Republic of Iran. This "mandatory hijab" in Iran and other Muslim countries effectively removes the element of physical attractiveness from social interactions. Women in these countries largely advance based on their intellectual and academic merits, without spending excessive time and money on maintaining an attractive appearance for job and educational opportunities. As Imam Khamenei stated on November 25, 1992: "Islam intends to establish a high dignity and pride for women where she doesn’t care whether a man looks at her or not.” He views the existence of such a need in the West as indicative of a policy aimed at insulting women's status in Western societies: They’ve defined a woman as being a creature who should benefit men, and they’ve promoted this definition. Therefore, if a woman is determined to stand out in western societies, she has no choice but to make use of her sexual appeal … If anyone says something that’s against this norm, they create an uproar against him/her. For example, if women are prohibited from wearing make-up in public places in a society, they create an uproar. However, there’s no uproar in the world if the opposite is done. That is, if immodesty is promoted among the women of a society, [there’s no uproar]. When a society promotes modesty and discourages women from using make-up [outside the home], the dominant propaganda machines of the world create an uproar about it. This shows that there is a culture, a policy, a strategy that has been followed for many years in order to establish this wrong, insulting position for women. Unfortunately, this has already taken place. As a result, you see that in the west they are gradually openly voicing their opposition to hijab [the Islamic dress]. They say that hijab is a symbol of a religious movement, and that they don’t want religious symbols to be promoted in their secular societies. These are reasons they present for their opposition to hijab. I believe their claims are a lie. It isn’t a matter of religion. The problem is that a fundamental policy of the west is to promote moral corruption among women and to exploit them, and hijab works against this policy. Even if hijab isn’t motivated by religious faith, they still oppose it. This [desire to exploit women] is the main problem.
Comment