We have already faced the issue of discrimination in communications, referring particularly to the world of children’s toys: pots and dolls for girls, cars and superheroes for boys, sold in separate departments respectively, differentiated by the predominance of pink or blue. Not only choices like this are ethically unjust, but do nothing more than undermine the free will and the potential identity of young developing minds.
Assuming – which is not only wrong but also UNACCEPTABLE – that there are products “for females” and “for males”, it’s clear that even in adulthood things do not change. But who can we blame for this? There are many answers to this question, the most plausible of which are three and I will explain why with examples.
1) THE BRAND
A certain pharmaceutical company is going to release a new drug against migraine. James and Jane are husband and wife, he suffers from migraines because he spends too much time in front of the computer; she suffers from migraines during her PMS. James and Jane have the exact same symptoms.
Gino takes out the dog and takes this opportunity to go by the pharmacy, where they sell a blue box of “Manment”, the analgesic that acts on a stressed man’s headache. James comes home, takes a pill and feels better immediately. Jane wants to take one of those pills as well, but Gino explains that this drug is made specifically for men and that women should take a different one, otherwise the pharmacist would have specified that it was fine for both. Jane goes to the pharmacy and buys a pink box of “Woment”, the specific drug for women with migraines from PMS. Jane takes a pill and the headache disappears.
Now you and I, looking at this story from an external point of view, we are pretty sure that these two drugs are chemically identical, therefore they contain the same percentage of an active ingredient that has an analgesic effect. James and Jane instead trust the “expert’s opinion” that is, the pharmacist’s. The pharmacist is not the villain of the story, as he sold to both the drug that was most suitable; maybe if James and Jane had gone together to the pharmacy experiencing the same symptoms, he would have sold them a yellow box of “Migrent”, a generic analgesic that obviously costs half the price of the specific drugs “Manment” and “Woment”. So in all of this story, the winner is the pharmaceutical company, who is selling the same pill in different boxes with different names and at different prices.
2) THE ADVERTISEMENT
Let’s go back to James and Jane. It’s almost Valentine’s Day and since they’re not very original they decide to treat each other to a perfume. James is watching TV when an advertisement comes on with a beautiful woman who walks at night on a tropical beach, reaches a bonfire near which there is a handsome man waiting for her, in the background a panther walks by, and the woman approaches the man, grabs his face and kisses him; a soft voice in French says that “Smellishous” is le nouveau parfum capable of transforming all women into seductive panthers. James spends a fortune and buys a rose-shaped bottle of “Smellishous”.
The next day Jane is reading a magazine and on a glossy page there is a photograph of a muscular man stripped to the waist, surrounded by three beautiful women at his feet who glance at him from below; underneath the caption states that “Eau de Sweat” is the fragrance that makes your irresistible man. Jane spends a fortune and buys a rectangular bottle of “Eau de Sweat”.
James and Jane exchange gifts and put the perfumes in the cabinet in the bathroom. James soon regrets his purchase, because since his wife has been wearing it, she smells like a church during Easter mass. Jane meanwhile wears “Smellishous” just to please her husband because she actually hates the fragrances “for women” and would rather use the scent she gave to James. By the way, James actually doesn’t wear “Eau de Sweat” because it irritates his skin. Jane sees the bottle always full and thinks that her husband did not appreciate her gift. Long story short, James and Jane ended up separating. They fell in the advertisement trap that promoted stereotyped, discriminating and hypersexualized types of people and pushed the customer to purchase a specific product not based on its quality or the free choice of individuals, but because someone in the marketing department said that one is pour homme and the other pour femme.
3) THE VISUAL
Strange but true, here we meet again James and Jane, who are now single and must polish up before starting to date again. James looks in the mirror and thinks that “with this beard I look older and scruffy, so I better cut it”. Meanwhile, Jane’s best friend convinces her to go clubbing; Gina wants to wear a sleeveless top but it’s too late to book a waxing appointment for the armpits so she opts for the quickest solution. James and Jane go to the supermarket at exactly the same time (because fate is ironic) but will never meet and I’ll tell you why. Both of them are looking for an emollient soap and a set of razor blades. They are, in fact, about to buy the same products for the same purpose: to cleanse and soften their skin before shaving it.
If I remember correctly, products at the supermarket are divided by category; so we have the pasta and rice department, dairy products, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks… But this – as we saw at the beginning it doesn’t apply to toys – it doesn’t apply to beauty products either. Yet this doesn’t really make a lot of sense, as men and women need the same products, shampoo to wash their hair, a facial moisturizer, to hydrate their skin, deodorant, toothpaste and so on. In cosmetics and personal care products it’s obvious that there are differences but not according to gender. A shampoo can be for thick of thin hair, a face cream for dry or problematic skin, a deodorant may be suitable for sensitive skin or can be alcohol-free… well, none of these products are good for men or for women, they are good for both as long as they respect the nature of the specific body. However, they are sold separately, as James and Jane are looking for the same thing but in two different departments. And that’s not all:
– James buys a 3-pack of disposable razors by the “Hairless” brand and pays €5.90
– Jane buys a 3-pack of disposable razors from the women’s line of the “Hairless” brand and pays €9.50
Something doesn’t sound right because the same product, from the same brand, differing based on the recipient for which it was designed, is sold at a price sometimes double that of his twin intended for the opposite sex. And it makes sense that if the same product, in this case the razor blades, were placed on the shelves without depending on the gender, the individual would have the freedom to choose what they prefer, based on the characteristics and price.
As I said previously, this type of sexism has other culprits that are rooted in an old culture, when the socio-economic possibilities were very different from now and when gender identity was not the main concern because there were much bigger problems such as war, epidemics, malnutrition… Stuff from which people died that pushed communication in the background.
Since then, however, we haven’t really evolved; we actually have done nothing more than feed the myth of a society based on different rights and obligations. I hope this article has ringed an alarm and has helped you to reflect and not to get fooled, read the labels, search the Internet, find an alternative, in short, look out for traps! And next time you’re in a store and you see something you need and you like, for the colour, the shape, the scent, the taste, the feel, no matter what, don’t worry about it and just buy it, because if it’s right for you then it’s right for everyone.
