It's really quite rediculous - as a vasectomy is literally a 30 second event and it's potentially reversable.

You nailed it with the video. It's so over the top. It even plays into the whole balls=masculine=brave stereotype that is frequently discussed on this blog.

I think you're trying a bit too hard with the photo, however. It looks to me like a whole family is enjoying a day in the park. Also, the text does not suggest who in the couple is or is not worrying about unwanted pregancy--unless you bring in a personal bias that leads you to make assumptions.

One thought: if commercials indulge the weakness of one group and expect agency from another, the group with agency will be their target market.

So commercials aimed at women feature men being clueless, or cowardly, or lazy, because they are specifically targeting women who are faced with such a dilemma. "Your husband won't get a vasectomy (because he's a wuss), so just take care of the problem yourself."

Whereas commercials aimed at men present women as being impractical or irrational. "She's going to be ridiculous, so go deal with the problem yourself."

By buying our product.

I agree with Greg, trying a little too hard with this one.  A tubal ligation isn't the end of the frickin' world, especially if you've already made up your mind, as a couple or individual, to not have children.  Sterilization isn't, or shouldn't be, a my body vs. yours argument.  And tubals aren't the big surgery people make them out to be, I had one several years back and they're really easy, and not terrible pain-wise.

So I get that vasectomies aren't necessarily permanent, but this is. So women are supposed to insert foreign objects into their bodies, then dye the inside of their uteruses to become sterile for life so that the hubby doesn't have to get his vasectomy? There are no words for this.

This is a great analysis. I looked into Essure several years ago (I am now 24), made a file with all of the medical literature I could get from the school article databases, and have yet to bring it up to my OB/GYN. Essure would be a good option for people like me who are relatively young and are 100% certain they don't want children if there weren't such a huge stigma about young people getting permanent birth control. I hear it's near impossible (especially in TN, where I reside as well).

Seeing the actors' reaction to the footage of "an ACTUAL vasectomy" (hahaha...they mean one without cornstarch/food-coloring blood and spaghetti and chocolate pudding?) was really disgusting. I went purely off the literature -- not the commercials -- so it was shocking to see that people would advertise a product like this. "An ACTUAL vasectomy!"

I've had a couple long-term partners now, neither of whom have shown any interest in vasectomies, even though they took my interest in permanent birth control seriously and were adamantly opposed to procreating. The things shown in these advertisements are a very frustrating and personal issue for me... that they're being shown to help female-bodied people make that leap into the world of permanent sterilization is really off-putting.

It does work in a way, though, if you're the type who initially does things out of spite (like get sterilized, then dump the unsterilized video guy's sorry ass, then go on a sex spree to embrace taking charge of your reproductive health, and be joyous).

Thank you for writing this!!

Wow, that video was really kind of impressive, the way it perfectly articulated "men don't want to do X because [ManReason] and therefore women have to take up the slack". No shit some people don't like watching surgery, but where on Earth are you required to watch your own vasectomy? How would viewers respond if a competitor decided to fire a female-version right back at them while selling vasectomies?

I like the discussion of the advertising materials, but I want to point out that essure is not a surgical procedure like a tubal ligation - it can be done in a doctor's office without anaesthesia. It might hurt while scarring happens, and there's potential for nickel allergy, but according to my research, it's not a very risky procedure. As a woman, I would rather scar my tubes like this than have my male partner undergo vasectomy and potentially experience post vasectomy pain syndrome (which can be mild or nasty, and is not rare).

IF "she" doesn't want to do it then DONT....why such an issue?

The only thing I would like to know is: does vasectomy advertising feature the reverse? Get a vasectomy so that the female doesn't have to worry about pregnancy, birth control or doing anything to their body? I doubt it. So the male perspective is the one considered in both these situations.

When I see the video ad, I see a strong example of the whole 'men are immature' theme that goes on in much women-targeted advertisement and in many films (especially comedies). A theme which also tend to be reproduced  in many conversations between (het) women.  I don't get the message as being 'his discomfort is more important than your own thoughts and feelings about the state of your own body' but maybe 'you will never get him to do it, so just let him have his balls and do it yourself'.

I think it plays into to common portrayals of heterosexual relationship dynamics, where the women is supposed to be much better at making decisions and sacrifices on behalf of the family unit. It's not really that the woman's body isn't as important, but more that a woman is expected to be more ready for making tthis kind of change to her life. 

Of course, that means that in a sort of indirect way, a woman's body really isn't worth as much, but mostly because we are told and taught that we can easier devalue it than men can with their own. And oh, I think the ad is very anti-women and socially harmful.

I just watched the video and agree that this video is messed up. I understand that there are good reasons why the woman in a heterosexual couple might be the one who chooses sterilization instead the man. (I chose this myself--details in my other comment). But the way this whole thing is framed, that a woman must do it because a man will not, is just annoying.

And can I mention how much I *hate* the phrase "man up"? It makes it seem that only men can be brave--what do women do, "woman up"?! And if a man is afraid, then what--he's no longer a man? There's probably more to unpack in that phrase but that's all I can think of right now.

This comment might be slightly ranty, but here it is.
I'm not sure if I'm quite on board with the assessment of the photograph. It doesn't strike me as being about male perspective. I see a couple and kids. Would you think any differently of the same picture if it showed the woman resting on the man's lap with him looking down at her? What if they were seated next to each other?
 If there’s anything that bothers me about female sterilization advertizing, it’s that it seems to always be about “being done,” accompanied with a picture of a heteronormative, nuclear family complete with husband and children. It’s not that I expect advertizing to frequently target the childfree, as we are a minority, but why is it always about family size for the sake of family size? Why not a nice photograph of a smiling woman, free of a fertility that had become burdensome to her, and excitedly free to peruse her career or education or other goals? Why is it never about peace of mind, or freedom to do what one wants to do without ever having to worry about pregnancy ever throwing a wrench in things. It’s always about closing doors, and not about opening them. The ads make sterilization seem like some kind of form or resignation to never again expand the family, or some kind of retirement from being a fertile woman. I wish to see ads in which sterilization is about the continuation of one’s personal life, insured against unwanted pregnancy, and the freedom to pursue one’s goals free from at least one major worry. If such an ad as I describe exists, I have yet to see it. Why is it about the family (strictly defined as consisting of a wife, husband, and kids) and not the woman herself? Are we so obsessed with seeing women as mothers that their personal desire to not have a pregnancy is not acceptable (because she MUST be a mother) unless her decision to prevent further pregnancies is for the sake of her existing children? As for the video, I agree that appeal to the imagined perspective of one partner shouldn't be used to pressure the other to action, yet I see it done all the time in the exact opposite manner as seen in the video. When I was trying to get my tubal ligation (I finally managed to get it at 22 after only 2 years of fighting for it, I’m happily childfree and unmarried and  leaning towards marriagefree) hypothetical men were used in attempts to prevent me from being sterilized. In one case, I had people telling me that I shouldn't be sterilized because a man might want to have kids some day (even an imaginary man's desires ruled over my body, apparently.)
The other thing though, in contrast to this video, involved people including doctors and even a reporter bringing up having my male partner have a vasectomy instead. True, vasectomies are, as I understand, safer (not that tubals are dangerous,) quicker, cheaper, less invasive, and less painful than tubal ligations. But why should my personal convenience have any bearing at all on the medical treatment of my partner for something that I want (at least one partner to be sterile?) Anything that might have put me off wanting a tubal ligation for my elf would NOT have constituted a valid argument for my boyfriend to get a vasectomy.
Because text can be ambiguous, I'll clarify here that I am NOT advocating tit-for-tat. Using the perspective of one partner in an attempt to manipulate another is shameful and unacceptable. I told my boyfriend that if I didn't want to be sterilized, then I simply wouldn't do it and would NEVER ask him to sterilize himself for my own convenience. I told him that I would support him if he chose to have a vasectomy, but I would never pressure him into it, especially not for my own sake.
Nor did I consider his opinion in the slightest, in either direction, when I had my tubal. My decision had nothing to do with him. Despite the accusations of one nosy individual, he didn’t pressure me into having a tubal. I was happy to have his support, but even if he had disapproved, I would have had the tubal anyway because it was my decision and my right. I did it for myself. Were my BF to ever decide to have a vasectomy, I would want him to make that decision for his own sake, not for mine.
 I only control my body and he only controls his. The desires of one do NOT outweigh the will of the other. Further, each individual is responsible for their own reproductive capacity. No one partner is any more responsible for contraception than the other