One thing that college has taught me is how to be way more cognizant of what I’m paying for. I never expected, as a 22-year-old, to be standing in the CVS aisle calculating which box of tissues is the cheapest, but I guess that’s what true adulting is. Being aware of where your money is going is a vital responsibility. However, for the female population, we often don’t realize how much it costs simply to be a woman.

We are already aware that the gender wage gap is a longtime issue in our country, but one thing I’ve recently researched is the “pink tax.” That’s the added cost women have to pay for simple, everyday products.

According to a New York Study conducted by Mayor Bill de Blasio and Commissioner Julie Menin, in a sample of 800 products made in male in female versions, 42% of the women’s products were priced higher. However, the reasoning for this added cost is often arbitrary.

The first part of this problem is that many of these products are gender-specific for no reason. This extends far beyond making a pink or “feminine-styled” version of a product to appeal to the female population. Companies are making products targeted at women and their “needs,” when in reality, many of these products serve the exact same purpose for both males and females.

In an article from the Huffington Post comparing such products, they found that Walgreen’s women’s ear plugs cost an additional $1.20 compared to the regular ear plugs.

“What exactly makes these earplugs specifically for women?” Casey Bond from The Huffington Post inquired. “Is it the color alone, or do they feature a smaller design that better fits our delicate ear-holes? And if that’s the case, shouldn’t they cost less?”

Don’t worry though, the women’s earplugs are marketed as ultra-soft and comfortable, so you’re not paying for the abrasive, bothersome fit of the measly genderless earplugs.

Bond’s article was certainly entertaining to read, but after laughing at how sheerly comical it was, I became extremely frustrated about these useless gender-specific products. While the price difference is often minor, it adds up to a detrimental blow to female consumers’ wallets. According to Forbes, women pay, on average, an extra $1,351 yearly.

Beyond paying a premium on standard products that serve the same purpose for men and women, feminine care products are still subject to a luxury tax in all but 10 states.

Luxury taxes are imposed on products that are deemed as “unessential items,” because, you know, getting your period every month is such a luxury.

After learning about these disproportionate prices and unjust taxes on essential products, I couldn’t help but wonder why so many brands are failing to combat this problem. However, until prices are lowered, it’s important that female consumers are aware of this issue so they can change their consumer habits accordingly.

The Ax the Pink Tax campaign is a great resource for learning about this issue and just how deeply it impacts the female population nationwide. Additionally, a quick google search will point you in the direction of companies that are doing their part to eliminate this problem.

Billie, a personal care subscription startup, was created with the intention of addressing the unnecessary prices women pay for razors that are of lower quality than men’s. According to their website, their women’s razors are priced in line with men’s razor subscriptions to combat the unjust pink tax.

Boxed, an online bulk-buying marketplace, has helped make purchasing tampons and feminine care products cheaper and has worked to encourage other retailers to follow in their footsteps. According to Campaign Live, they have saved their customers more than $1 million to date, as of May.

While it’s comforting to know that there are brands working to address this issue, it’s also alarming that female consumers might not make these alternative choices simply because they are unaware of the problem.

Even worse, it’s frustrating that we have to alter our consuming habits because the vast majority of retailers are not working to eliminate the pink tax itself.