Hypocrisy in International Women’s Day posts and adverts

TW: Sexual assault and spiking

International Women’s Day took place a few weeks ago on 8 March and is always controversial. A day to celebrate independent, female-owned brands or the special women in your life who inspire and support you are both amazing things. While something to be doing all year long, women should be celebrated just like we would World Earth Day or World Book Day – those days don’t mean we don’t love books and the earth every other day.

However, an ever-growing problem is the use of these special days to promote unethical large companies. This year I have seen some of the most inappropriate and unhinged marketing products of International Women’s Day (IWD). In a world where we are more easily able to access educational resources, how are such ‘out of touch’ comments still being made by household brands?

Firstly, an advert for discounted period products. This is something we have been campaigning to be made free for years – with period poverty being a huge issue even within the UK. In Scotland, The Free Period Scotland campaign (started by Women for Independence) completed a National Survey which found that 35 per cent of survey respondents lived in a household with more than one person who menstruates, eight per cent have issues accessing sanitary products, and four per cent of women said they couldn’t access products at all.

In response to IWD, Bodyform graciously offered 20 per cent off of its products. While I understand it is not their brand that has control over government funding of free period products, it was a kick in the teeth to see this as something to be celebrated and a ‘win’ for International Women's Day – when in reality it is the bare minimum.

As with Pride Month’s ‘Rainbow Washing’ and the constant response to environmental concern being greenwashing, issues of sexism are treated no less. ‘Pinkwashing’ changes were made for that day only, subtle things which prove to benefit only their company by advertising themselves as allies to women.

For example, unnecessary name changes as demonstrated by Ryman who became

‘Rywoman’ for the day. A company verging on being completely unknown, clearly assumed today would be the day they went viral for a shocking offering to women and, unfortunately for them, did not succeed.

While that is a small and peculiar change with little substance to its being, ‘pinkwashing’ can be more harmful than it seems. Many of these companies profit off of female negligence the rest of the year.

For example, PrettyLittleThing was quick to offer the discount code GRLPWR – a shallow phrase popularised in the 90s that made little change to major issues. A company that pays garment makers in Leicester £3.50 an hour – less than half of the under 21 minimum wage in the UK – PLT makes billions a year, with their male CEO, Umar Kumani, profiting from female manipulation. This is not only by underpaying their skilled employees but also by knowingly promoting to vulnerable young girls who can’t afford ethical clothing and expecting them to constantly keep up with the trends of ever-changing fast fashion. Let's not get into their #mydressdoesntmeanyes posts.

While being guilty of the above, I Saw It First took this to the extreme by offering free anti-spiking test kits in every order. They acknowledged the dangerous day-to-day women face, especially at night, but infer the lack of awareness is the issue. However, they brush over it in a very nonchalant way as opposed to donating to Safe Nightlife campaigns or, at the very least, providing informative posts on how to deal with and prevent spiking along with this free 'gift'.

On the more disturbing side, PornHub changed the O of their logo to the female venus symbol (♀). While only subtle at face value, the irony spoke volumes.

Pornhub is regularly host to unethical videos, from content featuring those underage and those part of nonconsensual acts – for them to use the female symbol on a day of female empowerment and appreciation seems almost patronising in their disregard for the multiple women whose lives they have hurt. Not only have their bodies been used for profit, but they are a constant reminder of the trauma.

Adverts also furthered gender stereotypes through the connotations of pink with femininity or the idea that female nipples must be covered – shown through Boomba’s offer of free nipple covers.

Hilariously, AirBrush – a company used to change women's bodies throughout multiple campaigns and photoshoots leading to an increase of eating disorders as a result – created an equality filter. It was advertised with a female-presenting person who looks nothing like reality, with her dramatic but perfect windswept hair and poreless skin.

Again, seemingly harmless, these demonstrations prove brands' ignorance of the use of social media and how editing can cause mental health problems.

Always be wary. Do brands genuinely care about the cause or is that just what's popular in the public and therefore in marketing that week?

Edited by Michelle Almeida