Tampons were so empowering in the ’80s.
Note also the brief, fine print warning about Toxic Shock Syndrome. It’s apparently important that you read the other warning.
Blog of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research
Libra is the Australian and New Zealand arm of an international brand of women’s ‘feminine hygiene’ products. So basically, they sell tampons, pads, and other femcare products. I’ve never tended to pay much attention to their advertisements, to be honest. To me, tampon ads to seem to (usually) all look the same. Some of them I find mildly offensive due to the stereotyping of women in the advertisements, but most of the time they don’t even make my radar.
Libra’s latest ad definitely made my radar. The ad (courtesy of YouTube) is below if you want to take a look. The ad is currently featured on Libra’s website and is playing on free-to-air television.
The advertisement is incredibly offensive to trans women (and any woman, I would think). It features a pretty young ciswoman in a bathroom next to what appears to be a trans woman or possibly what is meant to be not a trans woman but a ‘drag queen’ (I am unsure what Libra were intending). They both begin applying makeup competitively, mascara then lip gloss ect. The ciswoman then pulls out a box of tampons and offers one to the trans woman. The transwoman walks off in a huff.
The ad ends with a box of tampons and the slogan ‘Libra gets girls’.
This ad has so many problems it appalls me.
Firstly, the stereotyping and mocking of trans women. Portraying trans women with over the top makeup, huge fake nails and fake boobs is extremely stereotypical. Trans women are very rarely portrayed in the mainstream media, and when people only see images like these of transwomen, it is extremely harmful. It reinforces specific perceptions on what a trans woman is.
Secondly, the implication that trans women are not ‘real’ women. The entire ad is based on the premise that ‘real’ women get periods, and that if you don’t, you are excluded from ‘womanhood’. This idea not only excludes transwomen from the club of ‘womanhood’ but also so many other women who do not get periods. For example, women who have had hysterectomies, women who do not get periods due to certain illnesses.
The slogan really frustrates me too. Clearly if Libra ‘got girls’ they would not have made such a damaging advertisement. They would understand that definition of gender is not restricted to if a person has one bodily function.
Implying that women are only women if they menstruate is reinforcing a culture that says that women are only made valid by their ability and desire to have children.
In short, it is a disgraceful ad that should be pulled. Libra should be apologising for even thinking that this was a good idea. It uses trans women as a punchline, something to be laughed at and degraded.
If the ad has made you angry too, here’s how you can help:
If you’re interested, take a look at this website: http://tranifesto.com/transgender-faqs-and-info/ by Matt Kailey, who has a great (but not definitive) FAQ on how to not be offensive to trans people, and general education about trans people.
Update: As of late afternoon, January 3, 2012, Transadvocate reports that Libra has apologized and suspended the campaign.
Lauren Ingram is a Journalism and Political Communication student at the University of Canberra. This post was originally published at her blog, That Politics Girl, on January 1, 2012.
For nearly a century, ads and other promotional materials for menstrual products have been based on claims that the pad, tampon or, more recently, cup or pill, would make it possible for women to participate in activities that their periods would otherwise have interfered with. Furthermore, one would be able to do so without anyone knowing that a period was underway. References to freedom and secrecy, expressed in a myriad of overt or euphemistic terms and images, have been ubiquitous. Yet, there has been one constraint marketers have hesitated to defy. Until now.
Surely the taboos against intercourse during menstruation are among the oldest and most wide-spread of all cultural prohibitions. And while previously ads have suggested that one’s romantic engagements – dancing, dating, going to parties, etc. – could be continued or even enhanced by using the right pad or tampon, no company ever stated that women could have an active, joyful sex life regardless of, or even despite, a regular menstrual flow. The new series of ads for Instead Softcup boldly challenges that taboo.
But not only does it reject the taboo, in doing so it depicts women in a sexually assertive way that makes menstrual sex look like fun. The ad on this page is one in a series that playfully mocks one of the claims usually made for feminine hygiene products: “12-hour leak protection so you can sleep. Or not.”
The photograph is striking for many reasons. There’s a voyeuristic quality as we gaze from a high angle at an intimate sexual encounter narrowly framed by dark walls and an open door. Though we only see the couple’s naked legs, the image is made particularly titillating by the fact that the woman has kept on her somewhat spiky heeled shoes, suggesting urgency and spontaneity as well as a hint of kinkiness. What’s more, the woman is on top, an image of assertiveness and power reflected in the text, “So now your period can’t stop you from indulging in all your favorite activities, whatever they may be.” Furthermore the “woman superior” position (as it used to be called in sex manuals) also implies that the cup is so effective that there’s no danger of having your blood stream out onto your partner, even when you’re straddling him.
Another ad in the series uses a similar framing technique showing a young couple who are kissing. They are glimpsed against a window through dark, heavy drapes in a dimly lit living room decorated in an old-fashioned style with flowered wall paper and a formal mantle upon which rests a delicate tea pot. Here the image suggests the rejection of old (parental) ways that held that women could not enjoy sex while menstruating.
And then there’s the clever name of the product: Instead Softcup. The first word is a little dig at the competition; the second aims to reassure the customer that the product is comfortable and easy to use. The company’s web site also takes a little shot at the chief competitor with the slogan, “No Strings,” but otherwise it’s a fairly straight-forward, even sober, site with video interviews with reassuring doctors and the usual endorsements and images of happy, young women of widely varied ethnic origins.
The marketing campaign is multi-faceted including teams of women staffing tables outside colleges giving away free samples.
Time will tell if Softcup succeeds in dislodging pads and tampons from their market dominance. Readers are invited to comment on the likely outcomes of the campaign.
I’ve spent so many years as a professor of Women’s Studies telling students that feminism is about equality, and that being pro-woman doesn’t mean being anti-men. I thought perhaps we’d moved past that 1990s meme of seeing everything that is for women as male-bashing, but here we go again.
The latest marketing strategy of Essure, a permanent birth control method for women that destroys the Fallopian tubes, is to appeal to men’s fear of vasectomy: “because you can only wait so long for him to man up”.
Le sigh.
Mooncup, the British reusable menstrual cup makers, just launched their Love Your Beach? Love Your Vagina campaign—a compelling attempt to connect the care for your body/care for your planet messages at the root of the push for alternative menstrual care.
My first reaction: that deliciously sensual vulva has HAIR! ‘Atta girls!’ This body-positive, earth-loving feminist is on board.
Then I read British journalist/commentator (and self described “broad-minded broad”) Julie Burchill’s piece in The Independent about the Mooncup ad and was brought back to reality, that is, the reality that is colored by menstrual taboos and woman-body-hating. Oh geez, really, Julie? Et tu?
In short, Burchill rails against not only the soft cup, but also the sponge and reusable pads, and by extension “breastfeeding, small shopping, slow eating”—other movements, she concludes that “conspire to straight up KEEP WOMEN AT HOME FOR AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE” (yes, her words, her emphasis). Words like gory, inappropriate, and vile pepper her indictment against options she rejects before she tried them. Her basis? Her “best ex-hippie friend, happily brought back to the land of the living.”
If you strip away her regrettable squeamishness at trying something new (single use pads and tampons FTW!), we find a rather clumsy critique of eco-feminism. Though I can’t be sure since I keep tripping over Burchill’s ignorance and the REAL public enemy.
I, too, shudder, when a product is sold to women (or anyone) because THEY MUST or THEY SHOULD. When this US national breastfeeding awareness campaign heavy-handedly warned women that NOT breastfeeding effectively meant selfish mothering, lots of feminists protested.
Give me info, support, and compassion, not a big finger wagging in my face.
So I hear Burchill’s frustration with ‘Go green, you bitch’ messages, but here, it doesn’t stick. She is mad at a cup maker for promoting a product she thinks sets women back. But for me, the scoundrel is not MORE options, but rather our old nemesis the menstrual taboo which grows out of a long standing discomfort with women’s bodies ON THEIR OWN TERMS. We are cursed with an egregious inconsistency bred out of sexism: Women’s bodies on display? Cool. Women’s bodies as commodities? Score! Women’s bodies lactating, menstruating, doing what bodies do. Eeewww!
Exposed breasts and reusable cups and a expanding field of options—these aren’t the problems limiting women’s potential. No, deep-seated discomfort with women’s bodies in their natural state–that’s one that really keeps us back.
Slip on stilettos and zip up those skinny jeans. Because there’s nothing so comfortable to a menstruating woman as skin-tight pants, right? At least they’re not white pants.
It is interesting that for one line of products, Kotex is mocking the usual tropes of femcare ads, while deploying those very same clichés for their other line.
Remember back in February when I made fun of Tampax for explicitly comparing their Tampax Pearl to U by Kotex in their newest print ads? Such direct comparison to the competitor’s product is not a trendy marketing strategy; it hearkens back to the days when Darrin Stephens was a copywriter. (You young-uns can look up that reference.)
I wasn’t the only one who noticed: a recent article in Ad Age says the “30% better protection” strategy has not been used in femcare marketing since Rely tampons were withdrawn from the market in 1980. Not coincidentally, that was the last time Tampax picked up significant market share — a lot of those former Rely users switched to Tampax (Tampax was not owned by P&G at the time, but Rely was).
With the U by Kotex brand apparently winning new customers as well as winning others away from Tampax, how successful will “30% better protection” be as a persuasive strategy? Jack Neff (author of the Ad Age piece) points out that it’s pretty challenging “in a category where absorbency has been tightly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration in the wake of the Rely withdrawal.”

The print ad for the Summer's Eve campaign refers to the "V" but not the vagina.
If a product manufacturer or its advertising company, or both, cannot figure out which part of the female body their new line of feminine hygiene products can be used for, then both are in big trouble.
There has been much hoopla over the recently launched Summer’s Eve campaign. Links to stories about and response to the campaign can be found in my fellow blogger Elizabeth Kissling’s July 27th post. The most serious backlash to the campaign resulted in three videos perceived as “racially insensitive” being pulled from the campaign website late last week.
What rankles me about the campaign – beyond its patronizing, unsophisticated and euphemistically silly approach to the female genital area - is that it appears to target the vagina when it is clear that none of these products are actually intended for use in the vagina.
Regardless of what one might think about the value of or necessity for these femcare products, an advertising campaign for such products must convey accurate information. Like where to use them.
The product line includes: cleansing wash, cleansing cloths, deodorant spray, body powder, and bath and shower gel. Click on the OUR PRODUCTS box on the website home page and you’ll see this: Meet the products that love your vagina. Oh, really?
These products are not intended, I repeat, not intended for use in the vagina. One would think that the product manufacturer knows this. Why then did they choose a talking vagina, and across-the-board references to the vagina, to convey their product message on the website?
Interestingly, the print and TV ads hold no direct reference to the vagina. The website coyly advises viewers that they can call it “V” for short. It is this moniker and the tagline ” Hail to the V” that crosses over to print and television.
Maybe this was intended as a subtle reference to the other “V” word – vulva . It’s pretty clear this is the body part for which the Summer’s Eve products are intended.
I wanted to know why the creative team at The Richards Group, the ad company responsible for the campaign, chose to use the word vagina instead of vulva. My request for an interview to ask this question was turned down, so instead I asked two colleagues what they thought the reason might be.
Valerie Barr, veteran sexual health educator and training centre manager at Calgary Sexual Health Centre, suspects it’s because vagina is assumed to mean what is actually the vulva. She says, “I believe this assumption, or taken-for-granted use of the term, serves to avoid discussion of the clitoris and therefore, female sexual response.” Barr says she thinks it demonstrates that in our culture we continue to be unconsciously uncomfortable with women being sexual beings.
Rebecca Chalker, female anatomy expert and author of The Clitoral Truth, also believes that fear of the word clitoris has much to do with it. ”Clitoris is the most toxic word in the English language, and to this day is considered obscene and too offensive to be used in the media. Just try it on people,” she says.
“Eve Ensler (author of The Vagina Monologues) made the vagina safe for the general public – even she did not use the C–word. Vagina has now become the default reference for everything ‘down there.’ Those ad guys are no different. Perhaps they’re just using the default because that’s what they think people can relate to most readily,” Chalker says.
Although vulva is the accurate word to describe the female body part intended to benefit from the Summer’s Eve product line, Chalker says, “It would be a tragedy if vulva becomes the new default. In anatomical parlance vulva just means covering.”
Kotex still wants us to “break the cycle“. But every time I see these ads, I think of Chella Quint‘s message to Kotex: We’re only gonna stop feeling the shame when we take ownership of our periods. And we’re taking it back from you, dude. So you can’t reclaim our periods for us. You’re some of the people we’re reclaiming them from. Got it?