BeingGirl website accused of ‘exploiting’ teenage girls

Critics say advice and information website selling hair removal products to young girls is ‘cynical’ and ‘clearly a marketing tool’ A leading UK manufacturer of major household brands has come under fire for “crass” and “exploitative” marketing of its body hair removal products to young girls barely into puberty. Procter & Gamble’s BeingGirl website, associated with its Tampax and Always brands of sanitary protection, offers advice and information about menstruation to girls who have recently started or are about to start their periods. It is actively promoted to young girls in thousands of schools as part of its parallel education scheme, the About You Personal Wellbeing programme, which provides free information and sample sanitary pads and tampons. But alongside advice it also directs users to features on “hot underwear” advertising press-on pads which can be worn with “sexy strings” and endorses the use of long-term body hair removal products, including epilators made by its own brand Braun. The Mothers’ Union said the website was “clearly a marketing tool” and its advertising should be clearly labelled as such so girls using the site knew they were being sold a product. Rachel Aston, social policy officer for the Mothers’ Union, said she feared the adverts would send the wrong message to girls at a vulnerable phase in their lives. “It’s telling [girls] from the outset that they should be removing hair, so it is reinforcing a particular view of how girls should look. It’s not entirely sensitive bombarding girls with the message that when they’ve got their periods they need to be worrying about their legs as well.” Rebecca Mordan of the London Feminist Network said she was “overwhelmed” by “a completely crass set of exploitative marketing values” expressed on the site. “It’s literally telling them that ‘BeingGirl’ is to be hairless as soon as, if not before, you have your first period – bearing in mind that some children start their periods as young as eight or nine.” Mordan also criticised the images of “hot underwear” and linked it with the “pornification of culture and of childhood”. She added: “This is literally adverts for sexy knickers and hairlessness. Everything about this site is abusive to children and abusive to women. I think it should be buried.” The controversy comes just weeks after the publication of the Bailey report into the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood , which singled out sexualised and gender-stereotyped clothing, products and services for children as the biggest areas of concern for parents, worried their offspring are being encouraged to grow up too soon. The report was published at the end of a six-month review by Reg Bailey, chief executive of the Mothers’ Union. David Cameron has promised a follow-up summit at Downing Street in October, but believes the problems thrown up are best resolved by the self-regulation of retailers, manufacturers and broadcasters. Site defence Well-known for its Gillette and Fairy brands, Procter & Gamble is a major sponsor of the 2012 Olympics, through its “P&G proud sponsor of mums” message and its recently announced Paralympics sponsorship campaign. A spokeswoman for the company defended the site, saying: “BeingGirl is a community website set up for teenage girls to provide advice, support and information throughout this life stage. This is more than just about menstruation – it covers all areas of puberty and development through these formative years, including hair growth and the choices this presents. We are clear on the site that the content is provided by P&G and that we feature our products throughout.” She said its broader personal wellbeing educational scheme was strongly supported by schools. “All the free educational information and materials are provided by P&G, supported by teachers and external category, health and education consultants. This is a programme that is held in very high regard and valued by the schools.” Dr Merran Toerien, a research fellow based at the University of York, who has previously published research on women’s body hair, criticised the website’s “cynical” attitude in advertising to such a young age group. “Obviously, the younger you can catch somebody into an ongoing lifelong cost implication [the better for a company]. “A lot of the women in my study spoke about the fact that removing hair gains you confidence. One of the arguments I put forward is [this] idea depends on a society in which being hairy is problematic; so we have our confidence taken away then get sold the solution to that lack of confidence. I think this website is inducting young women into that right from the word go.” Consumer affairs Children Women Family Feminism Parents and parenting Rebecca Smithers guardian.co.uk

Posted by on August 23, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.