Who's the Douche, Really?

Everyone cool on the interwebs has in the past couple days commented on the ridiculous Summer's Eve ad that lists cleaning one's genitals with their products as the first step in feeling confident enough to ask for a raise.

What no one has mentioned, however, is that this ad ran in the October issue of Woman's Day as the left-hand page in a two-page ad. The right-hand page features the memorable tagline "No one has ever told you to 'Grow a Pair.'"

(No, Summer's Eve, you're right. No one has told me that. And even though I’m down one ovary, I still feel I have “a pair.”) The implication that women don't need cajones (because we already have something better?) is a new-old riff on the idea of the moral superiority of women.

More "woman power" key words are used throughout the rest of the text: “Courage. You were born with it.” But then the text devolves into helping women stay courageous “with a little extra care down there.” Ugh. Given that most doctors now recommend AGAINST douching and using scented feminine products because they can irritate the tissue and throw off the natural balance, using these crap products is the opposite of “caring” for your goodies.

What is fascinating about this pair of ads is not so much that douchey companies are still preying on women's fear of "down there" to sell more crotch deodorant. That has been happening for ages. I still distinctly remember the embarrassed agony of being subjected to commercials featuring mother-and-daughter heart-to-heart chats about feeling "not so fresh" while watching soap operas with my mom and grandma.

The interesting thing to me about these ads is less the insidious appeal to fear but the laughable attempt to deceive readers visually. These facing pages are intended to look like a career-related article (the now-infamous list) on the left and the opposite page, a layout that clearly telegraphs that it is an advertisement featuring a supposedly empowered woman. The "empowered woman" ad has become a staple of women's magazines in recent years. Appropriating the language of feminism to help prey on women's fears has become an effective marketing ploy.

What makes this, on the right-hand page, at least, an "empowered woman ad"?

• Language filled with bravado, a "strong enough for a man" tone. Check.
• A well-dressed (usually in evening garb or a party dress) young and conventionally attractive woman who stares, smilingly and not at all coy, straight at the camera. Check.
• An appeal that on one hand appears to reaffirm readers as intelligent and independent, capable women, while on the other hand appealing to the same fears and insecurities that the culture uses to cripple women's self-esteem. Checkity, check check on that.
  

Because if women weren't afraid that their vaginas smell bad, they might want to use them more freely. They might talk about them. They might stop being ashamed of their sexuality. They might explore them. They might let other people explore them. Women with vaginas that are okay as is, that are pleasant even, might become unmanageable. (And why does Blogger's spell-check keep flagging vaginas as misspelled? Vagina can't be plural?)

Do advertisers really believe that this visual article/ad gimmick works? Are readers fooled into seeing the list as an article and the "empowered woman" ad as unrelated? And does pseudo-feminist rhetoric help sell douches, sprays, and wipes?

Let's stick it to Summer's Eve. Stop worrying about how you smell "down there." If "down there" remains a bit of a mystery to you, spend a little time getting to know yourself: your anatomy, your texture, and yes, even your smell. As long as you are clean and in good health, your natural smell is fine. Knowing what's normal for you can help you determine when you might have a problem, as yeast infections, BV, and some STIs can cause distinctive changes in smell. If you're always masking your smell, how can you tell if it changes?

And maybe start calling "down there" something less ominously euphemistic. Tackling terminology is beyond the purview of this post, but seriously, even my daughter uses more sensible terminology, "privates," and she's only five.

When will advertisers stop treating us like we're smelly and stupid?

Remembering the Struggle for Suffrage

Right now, lots of media outlets are helping to commemorate this, the 90th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment, which granted women the right to vote. You can find good accounts of the process of gaining suffrage elsewhere.

What I want to remind readers is that it was, indeed, a fight for women to earn the right to vote. Women, often at great peril fought. Sometimes, the fight was physical, as many women were jailed for their protests and force-fed while imprisoned. And the suffragists made mistakes, too, like jettisoning the needs of people of color to sway Southern politicians.

In American history, we are taught about as children and commemorate as adults battles waged for independence from England, against slavery (among other reasons), and in favor of civil rights. We often fail to remember how recent, difficult, and yes, violent the struggle for women’s suffrage was.

I’ve only touched on parts of the story because unfortunately, I don’t know nearly enough about this battle. The little I know, I learned very recently. The documentary One Woman, One Vote provides an overview of this struggle. Watching this film, I was profoundly moved at points. It was the first time I had seen American history that was truly my history, a history of women in America, rather than how various women (like Martha Washington, Betsy Ross, and Harriet Tubman) had played supporting roles in the grander history of men. I am not a tearful person generally, but I was moved to tears. Although I’ve not seen it, I have also heard recommended Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony.

However you learn about the fight for full citizenship for women in the United States, do learn about it. It’s a fascinating chapter in our not-so-distant history.

Mad Men's Bad Ads

Although Mad Men has many merits, the blatant sexism of the show makes me wince. Because the show is not simply a wistful ode to the "good old days," I continue to watch despite that discomfort.

For example... Do I enjoy watching everyone refer to his secretary as his "girl"? Does it thrill me when Joan is raped by her soon-to-be husband? Do I long to return to a time of the most blatant sexual double-standards that force Peggy to agonize over whether to sleep with her boyfriend? No. No. No.

However, as Greta Christina points out in her piece on Carnal Nation*, Don Draper tends to connect with women who are very different from his now-ex Betty, who adheres tenaciously to her gender role. Around the office, Peggy gets promoted from secretary to copywriter. Joan is, well, Joan: smart, cool, and always in control. The characters are faceted and the writing nuanced. In addition to evincing good writing, the complexity prevents the show from being merely parody, elegy, or a sanitized-for-our-protection version of the 60s.

To cash in on Mad Men chic, some companies have created commercials specifically to dovetail with the show.

In this unfortunate Suave ad, a Don Draper wannabe discusses his visit to the ladies' beauty salon. The banter between wannabe and the copywriter quickly devolves into an innuendo-laden discussion of the attractive hairdressers he encountered at the salon:

"Sisters?"

"Twins."

And then, "I believe in throwing myself into my research. My research is quite extensive." Wink wink, nudge nudge.

In 40-seconds, they manage to work in a couple of gag-worthy appeals to stereotypical male fantasies:





Yes, I realize the commercial is intended to be tongue-in-cheek, referring to Mad Men while also parodying it. However, the characteristics making the show palatable--sexism balanced by strong female characters, and controlled, nuanced writing--are tough to establish in a 60-second ad. They are absent from this one.

This Suave commercial becomes what the show self-consciously is not: parody that blatantly objectifies women while devoid of strong (or any) female characters. I wonder if the ad men (yep, I'm going to assume) who came up with this concept have ever watched the show. Do they think so little of their audience that they surmise fast-paced banter between Brylcreemed execs will fool us into associating their product with the subtle maturity of Mad Men?

Don Draper would never have let that Suave commercial hit the air.

* Greta Christina makes a thoughtful argument about why even feminists swoon over good old Don Draper. For the record, I am not one of those women. If I had to pick one of the guys, it would probably be Harry Crane. But more likely, I'd be attracted to the construction crew working outside the building or the janitors or someone else not clad in a gray flannel suit.