Clean ≠ Fair

It is either my good fortune or bad that I am not exposed to Indian advertisements on a regular basis any longer. Recently, a friend posted a link to this article about a new feminine hygiene/ beauty product that appears to have hit the Indian markets- Clean and Dry.

While I agree with many of the points made by Pal (the author)- namely the objectification of women and the locating of their self-worth entirely in how their physical self is perceived by others- I’d like to offer my own thoughts on the product and the ad which I believe are quite distinct from one another (a distinction not clearly apparent in the above mentioned article). I believe that the advertisement is not only a failure as far as feminism is concerned but also as far as good advertising is concerned.

The ad

The advertisement is awful and misogynistic on several accounts. Firstly, let’s take the song. The ad opens with a wistful female voice singing ‘Kho Gaye Hum Kahan…’ Only problem is, the 'hum' (i.e. the duo) do not appear lost in the slightest. The woman is in grief. The man clearly is not.

This line could potentially also apply to any domestic difficulty from infidelity to divorce to bankruptcy. I'm sure a coffee company could recycle the same song and make an ad opening with the same sequence as this one ending in the couple being all happy and content because they changed their brand of coffee. So for me, apart from the fact that the ad depicts the woman (and only the woman) fretting over/ mourning a loss that later turns out to be related to her partner's sexual interest in her, the song in the ad is abrupt, unclear and well, pointless.

The final line of the song is 'Jaana na, hai taazgi yahan' (roughly translated as 'Don't go, here be freshness!) which plays soon after the woman throws the man's keys down her shorts. Is she inviting him to have sex or begging him to stay because she has now 'fixed the problem'?

The man is depicted as being either totally oblivious of his partner’s anguish or totally unconcerned by her distress. Both are fairly undesirable stances. He’s shown to be reading the paper –a somewhat intellectual activity (depending on which paper one reads of course) and carrying on with his life while she ponders over what is lost in their relationship. This suggests that her self-worth begins and ends with how often she and her partner have sex while his sense of self is undisturbed by this aspect of their relationship.

Anatomical ambiguity

My main critique of Pal's article is the failure to distinguish between various components of female genitalia and the use of the word ‘vagina’ by the author when this ad seems to refer to an larger area. I'd like to stress that I am not defending the ad or its ambiguity but only pointing out an anatomical-linguistic inaccuracy that reduces the clarity of what is being communicated. The vagina is not the most visible part of the genitals so it’s more likely that the focus of beautification is on external genitalia. Cosmetic surgery to make the genitals 'look nicer' is increasingly becoming popular in the west and almost always or majorly involves a reconstruction, realignment etc. of the vulva or labia.

Beauty vs. Hygiene

It is very interesting that the ad for the intimate wash is drastically different in its content from an ad for a cream version of the same brand/ product.

Here’s the ad for the wash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tx9vVVMWw0

And here’s the ad for the cream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWRg8XvmzHA

I’m going to bullet-point the major points of departure between the two commercials

- The former has beautification as it’s core benefit while the latter emphasises hygiene (with the almost too professional looking doctor as the main protagonist).

- In the former, the woman’s unhappiness is relational. I.e. it is not limited to how she feels about herself but rather how her partner responds to/ feels about her. In the latter there is no mention of a relationship/ partner/ sexual desirability as the doctor speaks to an animated version of a female patient about discomfort, problems and infections in the genital region. This suggests a more internal sense of comfort/ happiness with one’s body and how one feels about oneself rather than approval from one’s partner in the form of a willingness to engage in coitus.

- The latter makes direct references to possible infections and problems women may experience which is totally absent in the former, giving viewers misguided impressions about the cause of the woman’s dissatisfaction with her genitals and contributing to a negative perception of female genitalia in general.

- There is no silly song or wistful longing in the latter as there is in the former

All of the above make the former misogynistic and offensive and the latter more acceptable.

(On a side note, it is also interesting that the woman in the former appears more ‘modern’/’western’ – clad in shorts- as compared to both the doctor and the animated woman in the latter – wearing saris and salwar-kameez respectively. I may be hypothesising here, but it may reflect the assumption that ‘traditionally’ attired women are more concerned with practical/health issues than sex. The eternal mother/whore dichotomy in traditional Indian psyche. Not entirely implausible, given the appalling views recently expressed regarding the attire and habits of female rape victims).

The existence of an inoffensive ad for a similar product makes it easier for me to isolate the product from the ad and criticise only the advertisement.

The distinction between beauty and hygiene/medical reasons is quite an important one – whether it’s in the field of everyday products or surgery.

I think in general, if there is a new over the counter cream for genital infections/ discomfort, and it is advertised as such, it is a good rather than a bad thing if it allows women to get access to effective medication for non-serious conditions.

The biggest problem with the first ad therefore is its emphasis on ‘fairness’ and a complete lack of any hygiene related advantages to using the product. The unfortunate truth is that the existence of a product that promises to make the nether regions ‘fairer’ doesn’t surprise me. Why would it? It seems like a natural progression after Fair & Lovely (for the face) and Fairglow soap (for the body). Though it is utterly deplorable, I’m not going offer a detailed critique of the fairness bias in Indian – particularly North Indian- society or the fact that in almost all advertising campaigns pertaining to ‘fairness’ products a woman’s physical appearance determines her competence, employability, confidence et cetera, et cetera. I’m in general agreement with feminist writers about the points they make regarding the objectification of women in Indian advertising.

‘Beautification’ of female genitalia and violence against women: related but distinct

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) (Those who don’t know what this is can read about it here) is beautification of female genitalia at its worst, performed on girls as young as a year old in several countries, majority of which are in Africa. It is torture and abuse practiced on the pretext of ‘religious custom/ duty’ and/or making the woman’s genitalia more pleasing- visually and sexually- for males.

I attended a seminar on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in which an FGM nurse specialist was talking about how, in her perception, FGM was also on a continuum of prejudiced, gender discriminatory and archaic patriarchal attitudes, and adult women who opted for cosmetic surgery on their genitals or even piercings etc. in the genitals were willing participants and perpetuators of these attitudes. I haven’t formulated my thoughts coherently on where I stand with regards to such a comparison, but I can try to see the point she’s trying to make.

One of the readers of Pal’s article commented that in a free market people should be permitted to advertise whatever they want while another commented that women who get drawn into the pull of these skin-lightening products based on advertising and marketing don’t deserve much sympathy. On the other hand one could argue that societal attitudes and prejudices are so deeply ingrained and social pressures so high that women who rebel and don’t conform risk ridicule/ disparagement/ isolation and in many cases, let’s be honest, torture/ abuse and even death.

Women who opt for cosmetic surgery to make their genitals more ‘aesthetically pleasing’ may or may not be doing so under pressure to conform. Aggressive advertising by the beauty and cosmetic surgery market probably does have a negative impact on how female (and male consumers) evaluate their own self-esteem and self-worth but the fact of the matter is that women are free to pierce their clitoris and consent to a doctor taking a knife to their genitals should they be so inclined.

The increasing popularity of cosmetic surgery is not something to celebrate because it indicates that we are tumbling down a path of insecurity and unhappiness with our physical selves and moving from an internal to an external locus of evaluation that, especially for women, begins and ends with how they look.

For many, FGM may lie on the same continuum as cosmetic surgery but while the former is criminally abusive the latter is merely tragic. To put things simply, preventing women from opting for genital reconstruction for aesthetic reasons is not the way to tackle FGM. Similarly, it is tragically true that the objectification of women occurs at varying levels and degrees. While all of its forms, levels and degrees are unacceptable, all of them are not the same as rape and violent sexual assault. There is a distinction between social attitudes that contribute to violence against women and girls and acts of violence. Tackling both is essential if we are to create a world in which women and girls can live free from fear of violence but the distinction between the two must not be lost.

“Just tell the judge it was my fault, and I’ll get sued!”*

I’m sure this worrying trend has been around for longer than a few years but either it rears its ugly head more frequently nowadays or I have started paying more attention to it. The trend I am referring to is of a large section of society moving towards an entirely external locus of control over their choices, actions and consequences. A trend that completely disregards autonomy and free will and locates the cause of many social, criminal and health related issues in videogames, advertising, marketing or rap music. Somewhere along the line, in the perception of said section of society, we have all become unthinking, undiscerning zombies who are passive recipients of messages from the outside world and totally vulnerable to their allegedly damaging effects. All sense of free will and agency is lost when these watchdogs blame or attempt to control what we watch, hear or consume rather than allowing us to be responsible for the choices we make- positive or negative.

Last week in the UK, a number of people went totally berserk and started hoarding petrol after one British MP remarked that there was going to be a fuel shortage and that people should start stocking up. Fire services were among the many who were up in arms about what they regarded as an irresponsible remark and warned people of the dangers of storing highly flammable liquids around the house. One woman suffered severe burn injuries after catching on fire while attempting to transfer petrol from a petrol container to a glass jug. She did this in her kitchen, where there was also a gas burner which may have been on at the time. Couple of days later, news channels reported that 81% people blamed the government’s advice for inciting panic in the public. It probably was a bit careless for an MP to advise people to stock up on petrol in frenzy, but can we really blame him if people subsequently chose to fill cans, buckets and water bottles with the damn thing? I’m acquainted with and know of several people who had the sense not to buy into the panic. That is evidence enough of there being some element of choice governing one’s responses to a piece of advice. In the face of such evidence I cannot logically blame one MP for what was irresponsible behaviour by members of the public.

Some time last year, there was uproar about supermarkets lowering the prices of chocolates and other sugary, fatty foods. Forgetting the fact that supermarkets were involved in an aggressive price war for all types of products and goods, groups and charities working to tackle the problem of obesity left no stone unturned in deeming this action by supermarkets utterly irresponsible. Two questions sprang to mind. 1. Since when did supermarkets assume responsibility for regulating the diet of the general population? 2. Why should the healthy, chocolate-loving section of society have to pay higher prices? I also had serious concerns about how these groups view obesity and what support they provide to people struggling with the problem. It seemed to me that they either believe that all people just walk around buying whatever is available cheaply without giving any thought to whether they need it, want it or should buy it, or that only the obese are susceptible to this kind of thoughtless shopping. The latter smacks of prejudice and if it’s the former, as a member of the group ‘all people’, I strongly object to this complete denial of my personal agency and am quite insulted by the unstated but obvious assumption being made here- that I cannot be trusted to make decisions about my behaviour. More recently, similar phenomena occurred with regards to the price of alcohol.

Similarly, I don’t think it’s fair that cigarette companies- as motivated as any other private enterprise by the desire to maximise their profits- are subjected to aggressive advertising/marketing controls. Cigarette packs have had to carry the ‘Smoking is injurious to health’ warning for several decades. Is it just me or is it true that in recent times the warning letters have become blacker, bigger and often larger than even the brand name? Australia recently passed legislation ordering cigarette companies to package cigarettes in identical, plain packaging without any branding and to carry graphic images of the consequences of smoking. In India, TV channels that carry images of people smoking often blur out the cigarette. So all we see is the hero doing something with his mouth to something blurry. I may be wrong, but I don't think this is necessarily better than just showing the damn cigarette.

I bet if you conducted a survey of smokers few, if any, would harbour the delusion that cigarette smoking improves one’s physical health. That being the case, I think cigarette companies should carry a written warning in a reasonable font size but be allowed to use attractive colours and attractive models in their marketing and advertising. As an adult, if I buy something purely because it comes in a pretty box or because I believe doing so will allow me to save children or date a supermodel, I and only I am responsible for the consequences of my decision.

Finally, there’s the matter of the influence of violent videogames and rap music on society, especially children. I recall reading about an incident in India in which a kid watched Shaktimaan (a TV show about a superhero), harboured a wish to fly like the superhero and died after jumping from his balcony. Was it tragic? Undoubtedly. Was the show to blame? Not in the slightest. A rapper famously said that if a child is easily influenced by everything he says in his songs, the child’s parents ought to reflect on why that is the case. Okay, so I have forgotten the actual words and it probably sounded a lot cooler the way he said it, but you get the point. I've been listening to rap since I was a teenager and I frequently play videogames that involve not inconsiderable amounts of killing, shooting, decapitating etc. in spite of which I have never owned a firearm, snorted cocaine or committed homicide in real life. I think there’s something drastically wrong when TV shows and videogames have a greater influence on a child’s moral and social upbringing than his or her family environment to an extent that the child cannot distinguish between virtual and the real worlds. Besides, almost everything comes with guidance on age-appropriateness and warnings of graphic sexual or violent content. I once met a woman who was all in favour of stricter controls and disciplining in schools but seemed to have either ignored or not noticed the ‘17 years and older’ sticker on all the videogames her pre-teen son was playing.

We’d all be better off if we were left to read the labels, use our brains and arrive at our own conclusions about what we want to watch, play, follow, listen to or ingest.

Rockstar Games™ can only do so much and I think their responsibility ends once the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) sticker is applied to the game. Consumers and parents/carers (in case of children) need to take it from there.

Mommy and daddy relinquish the right to blame Rockstar Games™ if their 11-year-old starts using swear words that he/she picked up while playing Grand Theft Auto.

(*From the song 'Sing for the moment' by Eminem)