Through the Pain

was doing before. So I’ve heard I’m going to get arthritis,” Lynch said.

STORY BY: CATHERINE SPICER

PHOTO BY: MARIA BARRAZA

“I think it happened when I was trying to make a tackle. My leg caved in on itself,” Russ said. “so it overloaded one side of my knee.” Russ will need to have surgery in the future, but decided to finish the football season first and continued to play.

“[My doctor says] if I have my surgery, I won’t be able to have my senior season. So I was like ‘no, throw that out the window’ because I want to have my senior season. I want to play with my friends,” Russ said.

Football isn’t the only sport that can leave atheletes injured. Sophomore Austyn Lynch tore her right ACL at the beginning of this school year during cheer practice.

“Practicing our halftime routine, I was turning in the back tuck and then as I landed, my knees snapped inwards and back out,” Lynch said. Lynch will also require physical therapy and surgery. However, her injuries might have more of a long term effect on her.

“I have to go to physical therpay [several times a week] before I can really get back into what I

Even taking care of yourself, Motes says sports injuries should be expected.

“It’s part of the game,” Motes said. ‘You’re just not too surprised that they happen, it’s kind of just part of the sport I guess.”

Russ, however, believes injuries among athletes are common due to the conditions players have to endure.

“It’s usually due to the equipment and how the field was laid. Like it’s statistically proven that concrete fields like turf fields are more prone to cause ACL tears, injuries in the legs,” Russ said. “It’s really more so just like the program. I want to say [the school district does] take care of the students and stuff, but they really only get the cheap fields.”

Russ also believes that there are a lot of things athletes do to prevent injuries.

“But I think the stuff that athletes does goes overlooked. Like they grow, like the work they put in to prevent injuries or to get faster, better stronger, better at what they do.” n average, women pay about $2,381 more per year on the same goods that men use, according to Forbes. com. Deodorant, shampoo and razors are all gender neutral products, however, women often have to pay more for these items from their marketed area. This is known as the “pink tax.” The pink tax is the action of charging more for a product based on the feminine appeal and the color pink. Women have enough struggles in their routine life, so why should they have to spend more for basic items?

Morton, however, believes that the training athletes to take care of themselves can increase the risk of getting injuries and harming the team.

“They overtrain because they want to be better athletes. It is a issue because if they get hurt they can’t play if it is serious, and our teams won’t be as good,” Morton said.

Lynch agrees with Morton and believes that sports-related injuries depend on how athletes take care of themselves.

“It all comes down to whether the athlete takes great care of themselves or not. Sometimes they push themselves too hard, possibly without knowing, and don’t allow their bodies to get the amount of rest it needs, they are unintentionally using the wrong techniques, or they don’t give the body the proper nutrition it needs,” Lynch said.

The main issue surrounding the tax is that it is a discriminatory burden that targets women. The “pink tax” stems from companies that make their own prices. They will make a product’s price higher if they think consumers are willing to pay more based on their appeal. This objective is unjust because most of these more costly products are marketed towards females even though they are very similar to the male-branded products. In a study by nyc.gov, personal care products on average cost 13% more for women than men.

These elevated prices aren’t only related to personal care. These discriminatory price tags have also made their way into products marketed towards children. In the same study by nyc.gov, girls’ general toys cost $86.72 while boys’ cost $81.90. This range may not seem like a huge deal, but in this example, the girls’ toys cost 11% more than the boys. With these higher prices, the numbers can start to add up fast.

The reasons for these discriminatory prices are as minor as the color of the product. On the nyc.gov study, a photo of two scooters were displayed. The scooters were the same size, shape, and made by the same company. The only difference between them was that one was pink and one was red. The red one cost $24.99, compared to the pink one that cost $49.99.

These higher prices promote inequality within stores. Women have to tolerate these costly charges every time they go into a store to buy basic items, while men can easily save their money. According to an article from weforum.org, federal legislation called the Pink Tax Repeal Act, led by Congresswoman Jackie Speier of California, has been passed in the House of Representatives back in June of 2021. The bill will prohibit higher prices based solely on gender.

A parent shouldn’t have to stress about their child’s enjoyment just because companies want more profit. Going to buy a pink toy for your child shouldn’t burn a hole in your wallet. Since these higher prices are included in children’s toys, there is an unfair advantage for boys. Some parents have to make the sacrifices each time they walk into the kid’s section. Even if the parent buys a toy marketed towards boys for their daughter, the child might face judgment from their peers. The factors that play into the pricing of products shouldn’t be based on what gender the company is targeting. The most important thing about the product should be the quality, regardless of the people it’s marketed towards. Going into a store to buy something that is universally used but costly for you shouldn’t be a main concern for a parent, and spending money shouldn’t be based on your identity.

STORY BY: ERIN TAYLOR GRAPHICS BY: ERIN TAYLOR

Student opinion on store’s gender based branding and prices