Archive: Aug 2008

Ben O. forwarded this ad for Fairy Soap (found here). It plays into the idea that African Americans are dirty and either lazy or stupid (since they don’t bother to wash their children), but that enlightened, kindly, clean whites can help them. It would make a good accompaniment to the chapter “Soft-Soaping Empire: Commodity Racism and Imperial Advertising” in Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest, by Anne McClintock.

UPDATE: In a comment, Brendon proposed a reading I didn’t think of:

The second ad is troubling, but my interpretation of it wasn’t that the ad was implying that African Americans are dirty – it’s implying that the young white girl believes the black girl is covered in dirt, which is the only reason why the black girl doesn’t have the white skin she does. It’s about the ‘folly’ of youth – this girl isn’t versed in the discourse of racial difference yet!

Of course, Eric points out that the “cutesy” element is undermined by the fact that the ad was made by adults who, unless we’re both totally wrong, didn’t hold such an “innocent” view of the differences between African Americans and Whites.

Also, as a commenter pointed out, given changes in hairstyles and dress for children over time, it may be those are boys, not girls.

NEW (July ’10)! Monica Y. sent along another example, this one an ad for Vinolia Soap:

Robin D. sent in this image of Vladimir Putin on the cover of The Week (found here):

I tried to find a larger version but haven’t been able to. Anyway, it’s an interesting example of the conflation of male sexual prowess with military aggression and power. Given the image, the title “Russia, rising” could have, um, other meanings besides the idea of rising political or military power.

Thanks, Robin!

Here’s another great one from Elizabeth over at Blog of Stench (image originally found at Ad*Access):

The text:

Send for a FREE BOOK telling about this grave womanly offense. Learn how no other type liquid antiseptic-germicide tested for the douche is so powerful yet harmless! Isn’t it a shame when a woman doesn’t realize how important it is to always put ZONITE in her fountain syringe? Failure to practice hygiene (internal cleanliness) often results in such needless tragedies–homes broken up, few social invitations, the feeling of being shunned without without knowing why. A modern woman realizes how important hygiene is to health, married happiness, after her periods, and to combat an offensive odor even greater than bad breath or body odor–an odor she herself may not detect but is so apparent to people around her. And isn’t it reassuring to know that NO OTHER TYPE LIQUID ANTISEPTIC-GERMICIDE TESTED FOR THE DOUCHE IS SO POWERFUL YET SAFE TO TISSUES AS ZONITE! Developed by a famous surgeon and scientist–the ZONITE principle was the first in the world to be so powerfully effective yet so harmless. ZONITE is positively non-poisonous, non-irritating, non-burning. Remember that ZONITE is SAFE! SAFE! SAFE! to the most delicate tissues. You can use ZONITE as directed as often as needed without the slightest risk of injury. ZONITE deoderizes by not ‘masking’–it actually destroys, dissolves and removes odor-causing waste substances. And ZONITE has such a soothing effect. It promptly relieves any itching or irritation if present. ZONITE gives BOTH internal and external protection, leaving one with such a refreshed, dainty feeling–so c-l-e-a-n! Complete douching directions come with every bottle. Buy ZONITE today! Get it at any drugstore.

So women who don’t douche face, as Elizabeth says, “sexless marriages, social ostracism and general disaster.” I like how horrified the woman in the ad looks now that she’s figured out the cause of all her problems. On a side note, I think this is the only instance I’ve ever seen of a man being referred to as “frigid.”

Here’s another Zonite ad that I found at the Museum of Menstruation (who knew such a thing existed?):

I’m too lazy to transcribe the full text, but it’s basically the same story–if only she’d known about Zonite, she wouldn’t have suffered such social humiliations (and notice the scowl on the woman’s face).

These will be great for illustrating the ways women were (and still are) told they need to douche regularly or they would smell bad, as well as to have a healthy vagina–although the douches themselves often destroyed normal, healthy vaginal bacteria, causing the problems they claimed to solve. I’m going to use these in my women’s studies course in conjunction with our discussion of Joan Jacobs Brumberg’s book The Body Project, which discusses the rise of the feminine hygiene industry and the increases pressure on women to keep more and more parts of their bodies under control, whether through sanitary pads, bras, or anti-acne products.

Thanks, Elizabeth!

In the comments, Abby says,

This also ties into lessons about contraceptive history.  Andrea Tone has written about how Lysol (yes, that Lysol) and Zonite were ostensibly marketed as douches for “freshness” but were understood to be useful for preventing pregnancy.  If I recall correctly the main era for this was the 1930s, when most contraceptives were illegal.  There is a double meaning when these ads say that women can “banish their fears” – not just odor, but also unwanted pregnancy. (Never mind that douching with these chemicals is NOT healthy!)

As an example, Holly Mac. sent in this ad for a Lysol douche:

Text:

A man maries a woman because he loves her. So instead of blaming him if married love begins to cool, she should question herself. Is she truly trying to keep her husband and herself eager, happy married lovers? On most effective way to safeguard her dainty feminine allure is by practicing complete feminine hygiene as provided by vaginal douches with a scientifically correct preparation like ‘Lysol.’ So easy a way to banish the misgivings that often keep married lovers apart.

 

Germs destroyed swiftly

 

‘Lysol’ has amazing, proved power to kill germ-life on contact . . . truly cleanses the vaginal canal even in the presence of mucous matter. Thus ‘Lysol’ acts in a way that makeshifts like soap, salt or soda never can.

 

Appealing daintines is assured, because the very source of objectional odors is eliminated.

Use whenever needed!

 

Yet gentle, non-caustic ‘Lysol’ will not harm delicate tissue. Simple directions give correct douching solution. Many doctors advise their patients to douche regularly with ‘Lysol’ brand disinfectant, just to insure feminine daintiness alone, and to use it as often as necessary. No greasy aftereffect.

 

For feminine hygiene, three times more women use ‘Lysol’ than any other liquid preparation. No other is more reliable. You, too, can rely on ‘Lysol’ to help protect your married happiness . . . keep you desirable!

Notice the way in which “feminine allure” is described as “fragile.” I guess just a few years ago that relentless male sex drive was believed to be easily interrupted!

Also note the threat of divorce (and likely economic ruin) and the use of “science” to sell this product.

Ben O. sent in a link to several ads for douches and feminine deodorants (all at Found in Mom’s Basement). This douche ad makes it clear that douching is about pleasing your male partner:

Notice this feminine deodorant is called Pristeen; it promises to help make “girls” attractive:

From the text:

The real problem, as you very well know, is how to keep the most girl part of you–the vaginal area–fresh and free of any worry-making odors…Whatever starts those those troublesome vaginal odors, Pristeen stops them–effectively. And nicely…Why take chances? Starting today, why not make Pristeen as much a part of your daily life as your bath or shower. It’s just as essential to your cleanliness. And to your peace of mind about being a girl. An attractive, nice-to-be-with girl.

Bidette Towelettes promise to give women “all-day daintiness”:

Thanks, Ben!

Kim D. sent us in another example, found at the Museum of Menstruation:

NEW! Taylor D. sent in a link to eleven more vintage Lysol douche ads, including this one:

Sine A. sent in this awesome photo that she and Kayt S. took at a construction site in Fairbanks, Alaska:

As Sine points out, given the history of frequent resistance to women in male-dominated jobs and in unions, it’s “refreshing and quite startling to see this sign on a job site.”

Thanks for an awesome pic, Sine!

Amanda B.-P. sent in this Coke ad that illustrates the idea of consumption as activism (that is, you can be an activist simply by buying things). The ad tells you that every time you buy a Coke you’re supporting both the Olympics and Special Olympics.

The Coca-Cola company issued a press release titled “New Advertising Shows that Nothing Brings People Together Like the Olympic Games and Coca-Cola.Olympic-Themed Ads Invite People to ‘Connect with the World Over a Coke’.”

For other examples of consumption as activism, see here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Thanks, Amanda!

On an unrelated note, Lisa’s off doing crazy stuff again, so you’re stuck with lots of posts from me for a week or so. Sorry.

The ever-awesome Elizabeth, of Blog of Stench, sent in this image of a reusable shopping bag (found here):

Elizabeth says this “conspicuous, confrontational environmentalism” annoys her,

…because its point is not just to “save a tree,” but also to “look fashionable while doing it” [quote from organize.com]. I have a problem with pro forma environmentalism where the appearance of environmentalism matters more than actual actions, as is the case with this bag. The text on the bag equates “saving the planet” with using this particular bag or, by extension, making a show of one’s environmentalism. Furthermore and much more problematically, the implied contrast between the owner who is “saving the planet” and the audience who is being interrogated suggests that the audience is not doing anything to save the planet. The audience may be doing environmentally conscious activities in other areas of life; or the audience may have mitigating factors that prevent them from spending extra money in order to flaunt their environmentalism like white urban bourgeois hipsters.

For another example of environmentalism as fashion statement, see this post.

Thanks, Elizabeth!

Zach W. sent in this Mini Cooper ad (found here) that talks about the car’s “carfun footprint,” which is “a measure of how fun your car is versus how much impact it has on the environment”:

Clearly it’s awesome if car manufacturers are realizing they actually have to address the environmental aspects of their cars, but what grabbed my attention is that in the main text it says the Mini gets 37 mpg, but when you read the fine print at the bottom, you find out that in town it’s 28 mpg, and that’s the hard-top manual transmission Mini. According to this article, the convertible gets 30-32 mpg on the highway, and Yahoo’s autos page shows them getting in the low-20s per gallon in-town. As a Honda Civic driver, that doesn’t strike me as much to brag about, really. I mean, ok, yes, better than the Mercury my grandma bought last year, but still. (Note: I think my grandma is the last person on earth to buy a Mercury.)

Thanks, Zach!

NEW: Claire T. sent in this ad for o.b. tampons (found at Science Daily):

I think when even tampons are being advertised as environmentally-friendly, we can safely say that the idea of being eco-conscious is becoming fairly mainstream (though that, of course, means little about how people actually act).

Thanks, Claire!

I found this vintage outfit in an antique store the other day and bought it, despite having no children. I thought it was a great example of how our “only girls wear pink and only boys wear blue” rule is arbitrary and wasn’t always as strictly enforced as it is today.

Of course, you could also use it in a discussion of how girls are allowed to appropriate “masculine” things (i.e., a girl can wear blue) in a way boys can’t usually do with things coded feminine (a boy wearing pink, for instance).

I suppose the pink bows on the ducks were supposed to make it appropriate for a girl?

UPDATE: Ok, according to several commenters, this is a boys’ outfit. The woman at the store was adamant that it was for a girl. I’m guessing it was the ruffles and the cute little duckies. That could be another topic for discussion–what clues were she and I looking at to decide what gender this outfit was manufactured for? Thanks for the correction, readers!

I am not convinced that most people are as carefree about the colors their kids are dressed in as some of the commenters are, though. Yes, both boys and girls might wear orange…but they’ll usually be different shades of orange, mixed with different other colors, with very different patterns. Go to a store selling kids clothes right now and stand in the middle between the girls’ and boys’ sections and look back and forth at the clothes (I did this recently). I don’t think there will be very many items that are not clearly gendered–where you think “I have no idea whether this was manufactured for a boy or a girl. The colors give me no clue.” And most parents would not take kindly to you giving their kids clothes for the “other” gender…Believe me, I’ve been dumb enough to think it wouldn’t matter, and it most certainly does, apparently. You might get away with giving a girl a t-shirt with a dinosaur or firetruck on it, but you give someone’s son a lavender t-shirt with a dragonfly on it? Well…go try it and let me know how it goes.

A familiar trope: draping the object of sale on a naked woman. This time it’s pasta from a home machine.

Picture via Serious Eats via Erin Doland