Powder Fresh

Posted by Kathryn Soper | June 7, 2010 | 91 Comments

Secret: Invisible Solid Powder Fresh Antiperspirant/Deodorant, 2.6 oz It looks and smells innocent enough, with its pale pink label and delicate scent. But that’s the whole problem.

Yes, this is a post about antiperspirant. Specifically, about an antiperspirant scent that sends a particularly creepy mixed message: I’m a woman, but I smell like a baby. I’m talking about “Powder Fresh.”

I wasn’t aware of the unsettling implications of such products until I was college-age. Sure, I’d seen the labels—every major brand offers some version of Powder Fresh, and the store brands follow suit—but I didn’t realize they were referencing baby powder until I picked up a package on a whim and sniffed it. Immediately I remembered Jean Kilbourne’s film Still Killing Us Softly, a documentary about the damaging effects of sexist images in advertising. I saw it at BYU, 20 years ago, and I can still recall the shock of realizing just how extensively, consistently, and blatantly advertising degrades women.

Of course, anyone in our society who’s been awake at some point over the past few decades already knows that the media hypersexualizes everything from toothpaste to cars to jeans, because sex sells. Female sexuality, in particular. It’s bad enough when advertising sends the message that sex appeal is a woman’s most valuable commodity, but it’s not just your garden-variety curvy-girl appeal that laced the collections of ads that Kilbourne highlighted. These images quite literally objectified, dismembered, and even assaulted women in sexually charged ways—and they were all featured in magazines you’d find in your doctor’s office.

Yet even those ads weren’t the worst of the bunch. Without a doubt, the most despicable images were those which infantilized their subjects, suggesting that it’s sexy to be like a little girl. At one point Kilbourne showed an ad I’d seen for myself in mainstream publications, multiple times: a young girl (very young, maybe four or five) dressed provocatively and wearing a full face of makeup. As soon as her image hit the screen, everyone in the room gasped. And thanks to YouTube, you can see for yourself. Kilbourne revisits the image (causing another round of gasps) as well as the larger issue of the “sexy little girl” phenomenon in this segment of her latest presentation, in which she explains the impossible ideal (actually, one of the many) that contemporary women face:

For years now, for decades, we’ve been getting this message that we’re supposed to be both innocent and sexy, virginal and experienced all at once. Now as many of us know, this is tricky (audience laughs). And it’s also insulting, because the real message is don’t grow up, don’t become a mature sexual being; stay like a little girl.

Outrageous, right? But it’s such an acceptable message in our culture that we barely even notice it, until someone like Kilbourne points it out. These days, whenever I see Powder Fresh products on the shelves at my local Target, I imagine that gasp-inducing ad and think about how sick and wrong it is to make little girls seem like grown women, and grown women seem like little girls. Do we really think we’re doing ourselves a favor by smelling like baby toiletries?

I feel even more bewildered when I read stuff like this fascinating review of Dry Idea Powder Fresh roll-on (which includes a helpful tutorial for the inexperienced):

I haven’t used a roll on deodorant in years so was excited about using this one. I unscrewed the cap and saw the opaque ball at the top of the bottle. I held the bottle with my right hand, and it fitted perfectly into the weird shape of the bottle. I then moved the ball area over the underneath of my armpits. I then did the same with my left hand. I immediately could smell the ‘powder fresh’ fragrance, which was very pleasing. It always reminds me of freshly bathed babies.

And she’s not the only one. Online I scrolled through a couple dozen gushing reviews of powder fresh antiperspirants extolling the “wonderful feminine, yet clean, scent.” Yes, I’m a fan of clean. But clean like unto a dewy-faced infant?

I admit that even though I despise the child-woman beauty paradigm, I still perpetuate it some ways. Most, if not all, of us do. Take rituals such as leg shaving. I opted out for a couple of years back in the nineties, but nowadays I regularly pursue that silky-smooth I’m-two-years-old-again feeling via Gillette.

And heck, the antiperspirant I love most has an Asian pear scent. There’s plenty we could say about the potentially damaging consequences of the woman-as-juicy-fruit motif.

But at least this fruit is fully ripe.

Category: Daily Special

Comments

91 Responses to “Powder Fresh”

ESO
June 7th, 2010 @ 8:20 am

Maybe I am part of the misogyny machine, but Powder Fresh is my favorite deodorant scent. If it is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.
Kathryn Soper
June 7th, 2010 @ 8:24 am

We’re all part of the misogyny machine, ESO. And there’s nothing wrong with liking the scent of baby powder. But would you agree there’s something unsettling about adult women smelling like infants?
mom o' boys
June 7th, 2010 @ 8:35 am

Thanks for posting this. I’ve never thought about the whole “smell like a baby” thing. But, I fully agree…it is disturbing. I love Kilbourne. Her book “Deadly Persuasion” is amazing.
ESO
June 7th, 2010 @ 10:26 am

I guess I don’t think that infants have cornered the market on talcum powder, Johnson and Johnsons’s lotion, or “baby oil.” I can think of plenty of non-baby uses for each.

I DO think the infantilization of women is a problem, but I think more obvious markers are a bigger no-no than a scent that really isn’t that noticeable. Things like: EVERYONE coloring their hair so we live in a society of fake 20-year-olds; the aforementioned shaving, and legs isn’t even the most offending part–consider what has become the fashion with the pubic region; adults who wear over-alls or pigtails; women who downplay their accomplishments, intelligence, or income so they don’t “threaten” the men around them; the entire make-up/wrinkle industry, etc. etc.

I know lots of readers will look through that list and take offense because they really dig their Osh Koshes. I just think that we hold ourselves in a suspended adolescence that is not entirely healthy.
ESO
June 7th, 2010 @ 10:28 am

But like I said, I like Powder Fresh deodorant, so who am I to judge?
Leah Killian
June 7th, 2010 @ 10:31 am

Well, I don’t use baby powder on my babies. It can really feed a yeasty diaper rash, not to mention the mess, so I’ve always shied away. My babies smell like babies, not product.

I use powder deodorant because I’m allergic to almost every floral and musk scent on the market, and I just plain don’t like smelling like a raspberry. I think you could launch a pretty persuasive argument for any scent a woman chooses to wear.

Musk- oversexed vixen
Floral- delicate flower
Baby Powder- virginal innocence
Vanilla – ought to be in the kitchen
Fruit- because I wanna take a bite out of that
Candy- I’m so sweet
Patchouli- Lesbian

It’s complicated, and pretty difficult to get a hard and fast definition, as I’m sure the many women reading this all smell like one of the following, and probably don’t want to be labeled as such.

And what of the women who are wearing powder deodorant, strawberry shaving cream, musk perfume and just washed their hands with sweet pea hand soap? Would this be termed an identity crisis? Is she confused as to which role she should pursue, or is she just made happy by these smells?

Because I use a lavender and sandlewood fabric softener on my husband’s clothing, would that be considered emsaculating him? Here, honey, I fluffed your shift and now you smell like a pretty flower. . .oh wait, I guess I should have used essence of man.

Food for thought. Not trying to be contentious, just spinning it the other way.

I completely agree that females being subjected to this silly virgin/vixen paradox is ridiculous. Children shouldn’t be sexualized and women shouldn’t be infantilized. But sometimes I think we read a little too much in to things.
Lindsay
June 7th, 2010 @ 10:33 am

I’m with ESO. I agree with everything you said, Kathy, about the over-the-top sexualizing of women in advertisements and the conflicting attributes society expects us to posses. I just think you picked a funny example–I don’t find “powder fresh” scents sinister or disturbing at all. Maybe because talcum/baby powder works for underarms the same way it works for baby’s bottoms. I also doubt that men are attracted to the smell (otherwise we’d probably see a lot more “powder fresh” perfumes!).

I, personally, don’t like fruity deodorants–to me, it feels kinda wrong to get whiffs of peaches from “there” throughout the day. Kinda makes me lose my appetite, you know? I like the mildness of the powder scent–I don’t even smell it after it’s dry. To each their own, I guess.
Leah Killian
June 7th, 2010 @ 10:48 am

ESO- I completely agree on the hair dye and nether-regions grooming. Lets add botox and boob jobs to the list. Where do we cross the line between maintenance and abuse?

A few conferences ago Elder Holland (love him) spoke to the YW about this emphasis in the physical. He said, I see women [including young women] … pulling this up and tucking that back. It’s really insane … what society is doing to women. In terms of preoccupation with self and a fixation on the physical, this is more than social insanity; it is spiritually destructive”

I think that is more of what we see destroying womanhood in this race to be the most beautiful and most physically enticing. It absolutely stems from the cultural trend toward this sexualization at every age. We can’t all be 21 our entire lives, and until we start viewing the vehicles by which we fulfill our mortal tests and carry future generations as a sacred part of the divine work of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, we will always fall prey to this satanic deception.

In caring for our sacred temples the best we can at every age and stage, and showing the world how truly beautiful each and every firm stomach, well earned laugh line, and sagging breast really are, and the divinity they convey – we truly feel the measure of our creation. We glorify it in Him, and we show our gratitude.

Flowers are beautiful budding, blooming and blown over, as are we.

Here’s the link to that talk, in case anyone is interested:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b99c78de9441c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Paradox
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:03 am

I’ve never felt objectified by my deodorant. And if I ever do, I shall promptly put it into a long time-out in the medicine cabinet.

I think the real problem here is that baby powder is a misnomer. The product itself is useful to minimize wetness and odor for a variety of circumstances. I don’t think we need to feel guilty about using a product that works simply because it’s associated with babies.
Sue
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:25 am

I almost always agree with you, Kathryn, (and I am all about neither sexualizing, objectifying or infantilizing women), but I just can’t get on board with this particular example.

For me, it’s a bit of a reach to place baby powder in the context you have created here. I’ve been using baby powder since I WAS a baby, because it smells good and is easy on the skin. I also prefer the baby powder fragrance in my deodorant because I’m allergic to the flowery smells and don’t like the others.

And I can promise you that my husband doesn’t think of me as anything less than a fully adult and empowered woman…but he does like the way I smell (though I doubt he could identify it as baby powder).

Why should babies have the market on this excellent talc cornered?

JMHO, of course.
Tay
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:35 am

I’m not much for scents or lotions, or even shaving my legs for that matter. My skin is just very sensitive so most things I use are completely unscented. However, I do see that there is a problem with the way females are targeted.

The fact that advertisers play on our emotions and dedication to our family is disturbing to me.

Oh and the ones where if I have on a certain scent, I’m going to be hounded by my muscular and dangerously attractive dream-guy? Dream on.

But I’ll stick with my herbal essences, it’s apparently supposed to be more satisfying than my husband.
Corktree
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:35 am

Not sure if baby powder is really a misnomer or not, but I sat next to a woman with a baby on her lap in SS yesterday and I could strongly smell that powder freshness. It took me a while to realize it was the mother, not the baby, however, and I’ve never even used baby powder on my own children. It was weird…

Another interesting side of deodorants that may or may not play into this, is the fact that all antiperspirants not only mask our natural scents, but they also block our pheromones! There are effective ways of eliminating offensive body odor, without completely overpowering and masking our natural scents, so I wonder why we have been conditioned as society to go to this extreme?

I don’t use any artificial scent if I can help it.
Kathryn Soper
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:38 am

Thanks for your comments, all. I sincerely appreciate your input.

It doesn’t surprise me that those of you who use baby-powder-scented products don’t see their relevance to the overarching issue. If you did, you wouldn’t be using them (I hope)!

Watch the Kilbourne clip–the most pertinent segment is a minute long. Watch all 10 minutes if you can, and watch the entire presentation start to finish (40 minutes) as soon as you can. The whole point here is that destructive paradigms are carefully constructed beneath our radar one ad, one product, one connotation at a time.

Killing us softly, indeed.
Giggles
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:46 am

If your point is that women are being sexualized, have you looked at men lately? My husband and I can quote word-for-word the ad that first ran in the Super Bowl about how “anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice and not a lady.”

I don’t know any young girl who has smooth legs, they all have hair on their legs that you can see and feel. Shaved legs are for grown ups.

And as for shaving “nether-regions,” who are you showing them to? And if someone is looking at my “nether-regions” there are going to be a lot of other signs that I’m an adult (I’ve got boobs!) and not a child.

The sexualization of women, and children, is an issue, I just really don’t think it was made well here.
Kathryn Soper
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:51 am

Giggles, I don’t think men should be sexualized in advertising, either. But if you think that sexual messages about men are just as potentially dangerous as sexual messages about women, then the gap in understanding between the two of us is so wide that I have little hope of bridging it. Still, I’ll try, if you’d like.
Dovie
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:00 pm

Naturally my babies never smelled like powder. Sometimes they smelled sweet and milky, sometimes a little sour milky, sometimes like spit up, sometimes like baby poop, and sometimes a little like me because we were in such close contact, nursing and snuggling, but never naturally like baby powder.

I can’t handle strongly smelling anything so sometimes the lighter scented “baby” stuff is what I’ll use. Even sunscreen I will always opt for the “baby” versions because they are have a light fragrance and my eyes and respiratory system can’t handle anything else. I do use “baby” powder for all kinds of things. Most often for shoes, mostly sweaty Sunday shoes in the summer time.

My mom is from the humid east coast and she used it a lot more growing up and used it on us as children. You dusted yourself down after a bath every time grown ups and kids a like.

There are lots of mothering feelings tied up in the smell baby powder smell. I don’t think it is because I am being infantized I think it is a smell akin to comfort food. My mom also used pHysoderm on us as babies and little kids. A baby that smells like pHysoderm that is a wonderful baby smell.
Marintha
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

Kathryn,
I am so happy to see this post here at Segullah. I don’t think we realize as women how we buy into it too. I am increasingly concerned about the messages my daughter sees as she grows up. I am flummoxed as to why all shorts for 6 year old girls are Daisy Duke sized–while they seem to have no problem making a normal length for boys.

Loathing is the message that it’s ok to be a smart girl, as long as you’re sexy too-and smart, but not too smart, you still need to be somewhat sexy.

While I use powder scent–I certainly distinctly remember when it came out as a teen and thinking, “I don’t want to smell like a baby!” But alas, I’m not fond of the other scents. That all being said, the example is 100% accurate, on point, and dead on! and I really hope the powder thing is not so distracting to everyone as to miss the point of the post–can we quit talking about powder already?
Marintha
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:14 pm

and a plug for Sarah Haskins,
sunny
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:18 pm

Ok, I don’t think anyone is saying talcs and powders aren’t useful for anything other than a baby’s bottom or that baby powder doesn’t have a pleasing scent (I mean, come on, babies don’t pick it out. Parents buy the stuff). But let’s think about this. There is a certain scent associated with certain powders marked “baby powder”. There are lots of powders with other scents, but we all KNOW the scent of baby powder. Powder fresh deodorant used to be call “Baby Powder” or “Baby Fresh” when I was in high school. FDS still makes a feminine spray called “Baby Powder Fresh”. There is a difference between someone using a baby product because it is useful or they simply like the smell, and an industry marketing a form of baby products to women. BIG difference.

Now, can we quit arguing about who likes what deodorant/talc? There is a relevant OP sitting at the top of this page and all this nonsense is distracting from the point. Quit defending your choice of scents (nobody’s asking) and step back and take an objective look at the subject matter of the OP.
Claudia
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:22 pm

Wasn’t it Freud who said, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

Advertising being what it is and as sophisticated as most of us are wouldn’t it be safe to say that sometime an ad is just a sales pitch that is aimed at what might motivate the target customer. All the hidden meanings just might be our own invention. They do sell books.
Kathryn Soper
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:28 pm

an ad is just a sales pitch that is aimed at what might motivate the target customer

Thanks for underscoring my point, Claudia.
Marintha
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

Claudia,
I don’t think anyone is implying there is a hidden message. Having a 5 year old in heavy makeup or two people having sex (practically) is not hidden. There’s no secret there what is going on.

I think the point is, women and girls are sexualized–right out there, in the open. People like it so much they use it to sell stuff. You don’t need a guy fondling a girl’s bare bum to sell jeans. You need jeans. It’s not targeted at a need for women to buy jeans, it’s targeted at the inner need for the woman to feel sexy/or the guy to feel like he could have the sexy girl if he had those jeans.

In general, ads don’t market their product, they appeal to the psychology of the buyer. The ads then reinforce the psychology of the buyer. (Or the other way around–who knows what came first).

I dare you to find an ad that sells a product on its own merits and doesn’t appeal to the psychology of the buyer–how it will make them feel.
Morgan Lee
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:32 pm

While I can’t quite get riled up over deodorant, I can recall a better example of what Kathryn is talking about.

I don’t know if they still make it or not, but back in the 80s and early 90s, they used to advertise this perfume called Baby Soft. If I remember correctly, the ads usually featured an innocent-looking teenage couple on a date. At some point, the boy would say something to the camera like, “I love the way she smells… It’s baby soft.” I was a teen at the time, and while the larger social message underlying the ad did not occur to me, I did think the ad was strange because I didn’t know why a teenaged girl would want to be baby-ish. I was a teen who was so eager to be a WOMAN and to have sex, that I could not relate to the desire to regress, or to make childlike my sexuality.

Then a roommate I had in college told me how much she loved Baby Soft perfume, and how much her high school boyfriend just loved, loved, loved the scent on her, too, and how much it turned him on. Weird.

As for me, I usually wear powder fresh deodorant, but a nice, musky perfume. I guess that makes me an oversexed baby…
Jill Shelley
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:40 pm

I am far more concerned about the potent chemicals in this, than the implications of the scent. Think about it…we put this under our arms which is very close to our glands and breasts. Without a doubt these chemicals get into our glands and into our blood stream. Is this really what we want? Secret in particular has always been one of the more potent ones (at least it was years ago when I did a study on deodorants.) There are safer things to use on the market.
Kathryn Soper
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

Right on, Morgan. There’s a Love’s Baby Soft ad in the Kilbourne clip. Totally creepy.
jks
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:46 pm

Talcum powder used to be used for a lot of things. Men used to use it too. People used it on feet. No one uses it for babies anymore, do they?
I get the post and don’t like women being infantilized. I refused to give my girls names that end in the -y sound like a little kid.
But…..I think lots of people like the smell of baby powder and it isn’t just about babies being sexy.
I have a poor sense of smell so maybe I’m not the one to ask about scents. I have little or no opinion about smells.
Marintha
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

“I think lots of people like the smell of baby powder and it isn’t just about babies being sexy.”

Was it ever? I think the point is the other way around, women being child-like.
Tracy M
June 7th, 2010 @ 1:28 pm

When my youngest daughter was a newborn, a woman from church came over, and offered to change her diaper. In the process, she powdered her up. When she handed my baby back to me and I smelled what she’d done, I burst into crazy tears. Before then, my daughter was perfect- new, fresh like the sea- I love the way a baby smells, briney and new. And suddenly my daughter was reeking of cosmetic and chemical and Official Baby Smell. I wept all afternoon.

Until today, I hadn’t really figured out why. Sure, hormones were in the mix, but it was also about grieving and rejecting someone else imposing what they thought my perfect daughter should be/smell/look like.

Awesome post KLS. We are so entrenched we miss the forest for the trees.
Morgan Lee
June 7th, 2010 @ 1:36 pm

OK – I just watched the 10 minute clip. The lipstick ad with the pacifier is pretty bad, and they just get worse from there. For me, the most disturbing ads from Kilbourne’s presentation are the ones that depict violence against women. The Baby Soft ad makes me roll my eyes; but the skateboard, shampoo, and shoe ads, which depict dead, or soon-to be dead, women, actually upset me.

Kilbourne seems to be suggesting that these two ideas (1. that little girlishness is sexy on women and 2. that violence against women is sexy) are connected by the idea of vulnerability — that women are sexiest when they are subject to male control, physical or psychological, or when a man at least knows he could beat and control the woman if he wanted to. I guess I agree with her point, and it makes me think of the many times when I’ve seen the “sexy innocence” thing called “girl next door” appeal. I think sometimes they become the same thing.

I think Kilbourne proves her point with the ads, but to what extent does the presence of these ideas in the media carry-over into real-life male/female relationships? In other words, do real men in romantic relationships with real women actually have these conflicting expectations? And are these conflicting expectations possibly more prevalent among LDS men? (in my experience, yes…)
Kathryn Soper
June 7th, 2010 @ 1:55 pm

The violent ads have a violent effect on me, too. I think we’d all agree that it’s a greater crime for a man to choke or shoot a woman than to treat her like a child, and I don’t want to argue about which set of ads is worse. But I do want to point out that acts of physical violence against women don’t require the victim to be complicit in the assault. These big-little-girl images especially disgust me because IRL, this kind of appeal can only be generated if women choose to present themselves as children. This damage doesn’t come at the hand of a perpetrator in a dark alley or the back seat of a car; rather, we degrade ourselves–often unknowingly, always tragically.
Kathryn Soper
June 7th, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

And yes, I believe that elements of LDS culture contribute to these impossible ideals. Just last April, in GC, Elder Andersen praised his wife as “a precious daughter of God, full of purity and innocence.” Of course he meant no ill with this remark–in fact, he intended it to be a tender compliment–but it’s a revealing cultural marker nonetheless.
Leah Killian
June 7th, 2010 @ 2:40 pm

Just last April, in GC, Elder Andersen praised his wife as “a precious daughter of God, full of purity and innocence.”

You can be full of innocence and still be a powerful woman. You can know the evils of the world w/o embracing them. Our purity and innocence is only an insult in the eyes of the world- not in the eyes of the Lord.

I always loved the verse in the scriptures that tells us to be “wise as serpents and gentle as doves.”

The Savior was at once meek and firm.

The problem is perception, and I think Elder Anderson’s perception is spot on. If I heard someone referred to that way in mainstream media, I would understand it as an insult.
Kathryn Soper
June 7th, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

Leah, I’m not suggesting that Elder Andersen meant anything insulting or offensive. I’m saying that the way we praise women in the church has some unintentional yet still unfortunate overlap with damaging messages about women that originate elsewhere.
Sue
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

Okay, I went over and watched the video. I fully agree with the woman’s points and believe that she expressed them well, though I will say that I have not seen much advertising as extreme as the examples she was using. (A number of the ads looked European to me.) But that doesn’t change the fact that every single one of the ads depicted was offensive, demeaning, disgusting or all three, including the “Baby Soft” one.

I’ve never liked child beauty pageants or CJ jeans and A&F ads, having always considered them highly inappropriate. So we are definitely on the same page when it comes to sexualizing women in our society.

The only place where we differ here is in your use of Powder Fresh-scented deodorant to make your point. I truly do not believe that scent is marketed from the paradigm of infantilizing women. Rather, I think it is just a scent that appeals to a broad range of women.

Again, JMHO, and I’m glad that you are discussing the sexualization issue, which is a valid one.

=)
Katie
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:35 pm

So, apparently I’m going against the grain, but it seems to me that not buying a product because of the way your interpret an ad is only slightly less silly than buying a product because of the same ad. Of course, my opinion may be skewed because I see so little advertisements – we don’t own a television so I only see a handful of ads a week when I watch a TV show on hulu. My philosophy is to buy what makes sense for our family, which is an easy choice to make when you don’t see ads all the time.

I am totally comfortable in my role as a woman, I do not need to prove it by buying or not buying certain products. I do not get wrapped up in how what I am doing or using or watching will be interpreted by other people. I just do what I want and buy what is useful and let everybody else think what they may.

Today I bought deoderant for my husband. I bought it for one reason, and one reason only: I like the scent. The name of the scent is “extreme sport.” I could get all wrapped up in the way it is implying that men should be super athletic and play lots of sports. The fact is that the only “sport” my husband “played” in high school was being on the regional championship ballroom dance team. He is completely comfortable in his masculinity, as am I. He doesn’t need to use, or not use, some paritucular product just because of the political implications. Since I buy his deoderant, and since I am the one who gets to smell it, I will continue to buy the scent I like whatever the name of the scent is.

I have a daughter and I hope to teach her to also be whoever she is. Whether she is interested in science, or baseball, or cheerleading, or whatever I will support her because I want her to learn to be proud to be herself. Whoever she is, she will always be a woman, and she doesn’t have to take any action to prove it. I think the absence of advertising in our lives (from not watching television) will do far more good for her than getting upset about ads we don’t even watch.

Was that too strong? I hope not. I love Segullah! Great post, I just happen to disagree.
Marintha
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

Can you ever imagine men told they are, “a precious son of God, full of purity and innocence,”?
Leah Killian
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

Leah, I’m not suggesting that Elder Andersen meant anything insulting or offensive. I’m saying that the way we praise women in the church has some unintentional yet still unfortunate overlap with damaging messages about women that originate elsewhere.

I know you didn’t mean that

I think the problem is that this overlap in perception is being perpetuated by the author of lies, and he has a gift for making what is good look bad. I don’t see the “damage” in being told that you are a good and pure woman. That does not negate my effectiveness or intelligence in any way.

I think we are trained to take offense at any label that could possibly belittle us, and that when something like this comes up and we take offense- in a way we are being double crossed.

Women need to understand who they are, and what they are capable of. The day they do, this nonsense will stop, both the degrading messages and our tendency to degrade ourselves.

I know Mormon Housewives have a stigma. I hate the whole barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen image with a passion (even though at times, I have fit that description to a T lol!) I know we get flack and disrespect, and I know that many of us are actually very intelligent, educated, capable people.

I think this is why they spend so much time and effort trying to explain the concept of Divine Nature when we are young. Unfortunately, because of ineffective leaders who struggle in this area and a very loud opposing cry from the world, many of us fail to hear.

How many of us will waste our potential on being offended by a world that we KNOW is designed to offend everything that is good and right, and how many will realize their own divine nature and rise above?
Giggles
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

I appreciate your attack on my level of understanding Kathryn. I was simply commenting on the strength of your point.

Sexual messages about anyone are dangerous. Men have been so sexualized that it’s up to women to keep men in check. It’s a woman’s fault if she’s sexually abused because men are men and can’t control it on their own.

And Marintha, I’ve referred to a man as being full of purity and innocence and couldn’t have thought of a better compliment to give him.
marintha
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:09 pm

Channeling Dostoyevsky’s The Idiot.
Anna Maria Junus
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

I’m not on board with the whole baby fresh example. I like the scent and see nothing wrong with wearing it.

However, I am grateful for the link to the sexualization of women through ads.

Although not specifically sexual, I recall seeing ads when I was a kid to sell cigarettes (Virginia Slims). It featured women at the turn of the century who had to hide while they smoked. Basically it was saying that empowered women can smoke whenever and wherever they want to now, and isn’t it a great thing.

Now this is the time of the ERA and women fighting for their rights to get decent wages and so there’s an ad saying that if you believe in equality you’ll smoke.
Vennesa
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

I have a vivid memory of sitting in German class in jr high. I usually wore unscented Secret deodorant, but I guess my mom bought the wrong scent. Anyway, I remember that I kept smelling the baby powder smell. I hated it. I didn’t know that anyone else could smell it, until a boy sat down in the seat behind me and said “Some one smells like a babies butt!”
I’ve never worn it since.
On a side note, a worse smell: the baby powder scented maxi pads. Another memory: My first day in Relief Society and a large woman sat down in the row in front of me. Poof! I almost gagged!
RunnerMom
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:34 pm

To one of the first commenters: Yes, get rid of overalls for adult women. Blech. Down with denim overalls for grown women! But can I keep my tiny pigtails? I like ‘em.
I, too, cringe a bit when I hear the rhetoric at church or in talks about women being sweet as honey and pure, etc. While those are ideals to which I aspire, either I am a freak of nature or those are also ideals which take work to obtain and traits which shouldn’t be gender-specific.
I once had something relatively serious weighing on my mind as a teenager. I went in to talk to my very, very good Bishop. He prefaced our visit with, “Oh, I know I don’t keven need to ask you some of these questions because you are such a sweet, good girl, etc.” Gulp. I just couldn’t talk to him after that.
Kathryn Soper
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:40 pm

Venessa, LOL!

Giggles, I’m sorry you felt attacked. I don’t consider you to be on any kind of different level. Bridges across gaps run horizontally, not vertically.

Leah, if I’d made Elder Andersen an offender for a word, I could see the relevance your recent comment. But I didn’t, so I don’t.

Cheers, all.
Tracy M
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

Can you, just for a moment, imagine President Julie Beck referring to brother Beck: “I’d like to acknowledge my husband, a precious son of God, full of purity and innocence,”?

We don’t infantilize men, in society generally, but in the church specifically (and problematically) like we do women. We are all so submersed in it, it’s hard to even see.
Melissa M.
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

About Elder Anderson’s description of his wife: as one who loves to think about words and their connotations, I’ve pondered Elder Anderson’s word choice ever since he gave that particular talk. Too bad Elder Anderson didn’t use the word “guileless” to describe his wife, because I think that word comes closer to the quality he was trying to praise. But you’re right, Kathy: using the words “pure” and “innocent” to describe a grown, capable, married, mature woman is problematic.

Thank you for this post. I’ve always been disturbed by the misogynistic messages in advertising, but I hadn’t seen Jean Kilbourne’s film. The clip you posted here is disturbing, indeed, and should give us all pause.
Deborah
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

Tracy: Yup. If I had a penny for all the men who have said that it is “sweet” that I teach middle/elementary school. Conversely, my husband is “brave” for teaching these same ages.

Speaking of deodorant: last week, I accidentally bought a “man-scented” stick, but I’m cheap, so I am using it. Can’t tell you how many of my fifth graders (all girls) have hugged me and then said, “You smell good” in the last few days.
Ardis
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

Women shave not to be like-babies but to be not-like-men.

Sorry, but this post and the linked Kilbourne stuff strikes me exactly the same as 9/11 or Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories: Kilbourne comes up with a conspiracy theory, and supports it by scraping up every possible bit of “evidence,” no matter how ludicrous. Like all conspiracy theories, the goal is to overwhelm rather than enlighten — if you challenge one bit of evidence, she won’t debate that but will focus on something else, until you give up and go away.

With all the legitimate arenas for improving women’s lot in life, it’s a shame that this wild stretch of the imagination is getting so much attention here.
sunny
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

Ardis,

I’m trying to understand what you’re saying here. Your comparisons don’t seem to match up. Saying that Kilbourne’s claims and evidence are ludicrous is more akin to claims that the Holocaust didn’t happen, despite the evidence. I don’t even begin to understand how pointing out the blatant sexualization of women in advertising is anything like the conspiracy theories you mentioned.

My head is reeling from your comment.
Leah Killian
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

Leah, if I’d made Elder Andersen an offender for a word, I could see the relevance your recent comment. But I didn’t, so I don’t.

I was referring to your comment on the “unfortunate overlap” between what might be considered virtues from one perspective, and twisted to look like insults in another.

I’m pretty sure that if you read my comment again, it would become more clear, as I stated that I knew you weren’t trying to make Elder Anderson out to be a bad guy, and I also began my first sentence referencing this overlap of which you speak.

Just because you disagree or do not understand someone’s comments does not make those comments irrelevant.
martha
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:56 pm

I have to agree with Kathryn. At a young elementary school age,I remember recognizing (despite having stalwart parents) that my worth, as a female, was to be found in being able to balance both a virginal and sexually charged state all at once. My parents allowed me very little exposure to television and movies, but somehow that message seemed to be able to infiltrate my development.

Navigating my teenage and young adult years was confusing and difficult because of these messages.

Because of my awareness, I feel that I am able to combat these images somewhat when teaching my children and Young Women.
Angela
June 7th, 2010 @ 6:25 pm

Ardis, I, too, am a little confused by your comment. After reading this post earlier today, I immediately thought of a post I’d seen on your blog, http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2010/05/20/the-sexiness-of-innocence/, so when I saw you’d commented I thought it might be to link back to the disturbing ads you’d found in the Improvement Era. I was therefore a little surprised that you’d liken the sexualization of children (or the baby-fication of women) to a conspiracy theory.

I don’t think that Kathy’s larger point is to rail against the use of powder fresh deodorant and banish it from our bathrooms, nor is she promoting the idea that the chemists who work for Soft-n-Dri are part of some secret conspiracy to weaken women by making them smell like babies’ bottoms. I read this post as an interesting example of how we accept a certain amount of infantilization as women; no man would ever consent to be compared to a baby, which is exactly what’s happening when a product is advertised as “baby powder fresh,” or “baby soft,” or any of those other labels. Now, do I think the smell of baby powder in an armpit is, in and of itself, a big threat to womankind, undermining us in a serious way? Not really. This was simply a small example in a sea of examples. It’s the sea of examples that’s the problem, and the Kilborne presentation (as well as the examples on your blog) simply illustrate that point.

I do hope people check out the ads on your blog that I linked to above, though. They blew my mind.
Kathryn Soper
June 7th, 2010 @ 7:06 pm

Leah, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Angela, will you marry me?
Leah Killian
June 7th, 2010 @ 7:18 pm

Thanks, I really wasn’t trying to attack you.
chris
June 8th, 2010 @ 3:53 am

Never seen the scent. What you’re saying can be true and can be false. Depends on the situation I suppose.

But my wife loves the smell of baby powder because it reminds her of our kids when they were small. Don’t know if she uses that scent (she buys whatever is cheapest within a couple choices), but perhaps if she was aware of it she might…

So I guess you could say something about adults wanting to transfer some of the innocence of childhood on to them. But I think it’s rather just the connotation of cleanness with a human element. Your clean dishes smell like lemons, your clean baby smells like powder. Take your pick.

Of course, you can also smell like a cucumber or a strawberry.

So this seems like an effective market function. Individuals pick the scents that speak to them the most.
Jennie
June 8th, 2010 @ 6:16 am

I’m in the camp of “if they really wanted me to smell like a baby they’d have spit-up scented perfume”. I’ve never cared for the smell of baby powder (for me or my babies) so I don’t really get the appeal.

I honestly don’t see much of a push anymore for girls to be sweet. All I see these days is sexiness for girls everywhere I turn. It’s depressing looking for bathing suits and everything (even for my five year old) is a bikini. Have these parents never heard of pedophiles? Do you really want them ogling your almost naked daughter?

Fortunately my daughters are all pretty supportive of modesty and looking their ages. Let’s hope it continues.
sunny
June 8th, 2010 @ 8:28 am

Jennie,

I think you’re right that there is a huge push to get girls to “embrace” their sexuality and be seductive. However, the infantilizing of women is alive and kicking. Take, for instance, this image of John Edwards’ mistress:

http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/05/15/covergirl-lipstick-ad-infantilizes-women-but-also-sexualizes-them/image001-3/

The juxtaposition of available sexuality and a child’s bed is beyond disturbing.
Jennie
June 8th, 2010 @ 8:31 am

I guess there is that whole bizarre Angels thing over at Victoria’s ~~Bordello~~ Secret. Slutty and Angelic at the same time? Ooookay.
Kathryn Soper
June 8th, 2010 @ 8:39 am

Thanks a lot, Sunny. You’ve utterly ruined Barney and Kermit for me.
sunny
June 8th, 2010 @ 9:08 am

No, I’ve just taken them to a whole new level.
StillConfused
June 8th, 2010 @ 10:09 am

I love scented deoderants. I am not a huge fan of the baby powder scent. My favorite is Vanilla Chai. I have another one that is the flower from a berry bush (can’t remember which one). I find regular perfume to strong and it makes me sneeze, but I love a little fragrance. Also, my husband loves to smell my pits (strange I think) so I like to have a nice scent going on in there.
Marintha
June 8th, 2010 @ 10:28 am

StillConfused,
A little too much information.
Angie
June 8th, 2010 @ 12:47 pm

Thanks for the links. I was so bummed this term when the college where I teach didn’t have a copy of Killing Us Softly that I could show my students (instead they suggested I cross dress and use that as a discussion starter, which I opted out of. But that’s a much longer story). Anyway, you just helped me out! And BTW, I have always thought baby fresh scent was a little weird for exactly the reasons you mentioned.
Miggy
June 8th, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

I watched the whole clip and was most concerned for some of the other points she was making–the idea that we use not just sex, but bondage to sell. Or that women are always portrayed as “asking for it” and that p*rn has become so mainstream in our society it’s used in advertising so openly–I mean I admit that it’s almost not obvious until she talks about it in context and shows the pictures. And I think that while baby powder scented deodorant in general doesn’t bother me {like many people I use baby powder for other things that have nothing to do with my babies} BUT it does bother me to know that we’re being so directly assaulted with these subtle messages in a very deliberate and ultimately evil way. Thanks for the food for thought.

{ps–Have you ever read Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander? He’s a former advertising exec. who speaks very knowledgeably about these things and the subtle but direct messages we’re being sent. It’s more than that too, but I think you’d like it.
Miggy
June 8th, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

Regarding Elder Anderson’s quote about his wife…I’m trying really hard to see why this would be perceived as negative and the only way I can see it being perceived that was in through the lens of political correctness. Through a worldly lends that sounds degrading, but through a gospel lens it sounds exactly like what we should be aspiring to. {Just like the term meek–in the worlds it’s a bad trait, in the gospel it’s good–even necessary}. When I think of our charge to become like little children, I often think of how we shelter them from harshness and from things that are impure. As adults I think we are to still strive for purity and innocence, but not in a way that suggests that we aren’t to be strong and capable adults. I don’t equate innocence with being naive. And if we never hear men referred to as such, I think it’s because in the church we often hear men put women on a pedestal of higher spirituality and being more naturally inclined to goodness. I can’t think of a righteous man using that term negatively–not even subconsciously. I think he knew exactly why and what he was saying.

Just my 2 cents….
gst
June 8th, 2010 @ 2:30 pm

Agreed, “Powder Fresh” is kind of weird. I prefer my women “Poppin’ Fresh.”
Neylan
June 9th, 2010 @ 6:15 am

Kilbourne came to my all-girls middle school in the 80s and gave her presentation. I still remember it to this day. It helped me define who I wanted to be as a teenager. I’ve often been surprised at how unaware women are to these messages, especially in the church where we should be scrutinizing the messages we receive.
CatherineWO
June 9th, 2010 @ 8:44 am

I apologize for not reading all the comments, and I know that my comment is a little off-topic. However, I feel compelled to comment about the whole issue of using fragrance to make us feel more feminine. I am disabled with a medically diagnosed condition called MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity). The chemical compounds which cause me the most problems (migraines, heart palpatations and life-threatening asthmatic attacks) are derived from petroleum. This includes ALL synthetic fragrances (any fragrances not derived from essential plant oils). Those are the chemicals that make this deoderant smell the way it does.
I read enough of the comments to see than many of you like using scented deoderant and personal care products. Not only are you feeding into the sexist advertising, but you are making it impossible for people like me to be near you. This is why I am unable to participate in any church activities. Though our stake has a fragrance-free policy in all of our stake buildings (because we have at thirty members with this same condition), it is ignored by most people, so I am still unable to participate.
Lest you think that this is a rare condition, a recent scientific study found that 19% of the general population and 33.5% of asthmatics reported headaches, breathing difficulties, or other problems from air fresheners and deodorizers (which contain the same chemicals as this deoderant) and 30.5% of the general population reported that they found being next to someone wearing a scented product irritating. [Source: "Prevalence of Fragrance Sensitivity in the American Population." Caress, Stanley M., Steinemann, Anne C., Journal of Environmental Health 71 (Mar 2009): 46-50. Dr. Steinemann is a researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle.]
Please, please, please think about others (as well as yourself) when you think about wearing these scented products.
Kristine
June 9th, 2010 @ 9:03 am

Neylan, this should be a yearly YW activity, like Standards Night. (Because, for one thing, without it Standards Night will be far less effective).
Ardis
June 9th, 2010 @ 9:53 am

Angela, and anybody else who is confused between my rejection of this post and my publication of a similarly themed one: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes talcum powder is just talcum powder. The existence of one conspiracy doesn’t prove the existence of another conspiracy. I think the images in my post do sexualize children. I do not think that the scent of talcum powder infantalizes women. (Does it make baby porn out of men who use talcum-scented Shower-to-Shower? or out of college jocks who use talcum-scented athlete’s foot spray? or out of adults of both sexes who use similarly scented oils or powders to keep their thighs from chafing?)

The issue is real. The target of this particular post, though, overshoots the mark by miles and sees (or smells) evil where there is none.
Marintha
June 9th, 2010 @ 9:56 am

Ardis,
Did you look at the links? Powder was a lead in, not a conspiracy theory.
Kathryn Soper
June 9th, 2010 @ 10:49 am

overshoots the mark by miles and sees (or smells) evil where there is none

The irony pleases me.
Allison
June 9th, 2010 @ 10:54 am

I have to agree with Leah (#6) and Ardis (#69).

I don’t think there is anything demeaning or creepy about powder-scented APDO. In hot, humid places, both women AND men dust themselves with powder after bathing. Also, as someone who has sensitive skin and reads product ingredient labels, I sometimes buy products marketed for babies/children for myself because they are kinder to my skin. While it’s obvious that babies don’t use APDO (anti-perspirant / deodorant), makers of powder-scented APDO want women to associate their products with gentleness, subtleness, and suitableness for sensitive skin. With as much money as women spend on personal care and skin care, can you blame APDO makers for wanting this association?

I watched the whole Kilbourne clip. I agree with most of the original post but think that the powder fresh example reads more like something that belongs in “The Onion” than Segullah.
Kathryn Soper
June 9th, 2010 @ 10:58 am

Fair enough, Allison.

Here’s what I consider Onion-worthy: people insisting that women who smell like babies do not in any way perpetuate a destructive paradigm of female sexuality.
sunny
June 9th, 2010 @ 12:43 pm

Allison and Ardis,

Again, please see my comment #19. Nobody is saying talcs and powders aren’t useful. Nobody is saying you can’t use a baby product on an adult or a puppy or anything else. There is a difference between using a product marketed for babies because it is useful elsewhere, and marketing baby-esque products to women. BIG difference. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp. Let’s think about this: FDS makes a feminine spray called “Baby Powder Fresh”. Really? How about if they called it “Baby Fresh Vagina”? Cuz it’s kinda the same idea. Gross. But again, totally different if a woman chose to use baby powder or any talc for the same reason simply because the product was effective.
m2theh
June 9th, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

Personally, I prefer unscented deodorant.
CatherineWO
June 10th, 2010 @ 8:31 am

Thank you, m2theh.
Natasha
June 10th, 2010 @ 9:43 am

Huh. A lot of these comments sound unmoved by the issue Kathryn’s bringing up, which really surprises me.

Kilbourne is a bit of a hero of mine. The ads don’t all appear European to me. I remember some from the 80s and 90s. I see examples of this all the time and almost started my own collection until I remembered that Kilbourne had already made Killing Me Softly.

I thought the Baby Powder deoderant example was a good one, and yes, a lead-in. It IS a scent we have come to associate with babies; maybe that’s why we like it so much. As Sunny said, “There is a difference between using a product marketed for babies because it is useful elsewhere, and marketing baby-esque products to women.” Just because some men’s products have a similar scent, does not mean that the more pervasive use of this scent in women’s products is all innocent. Come on– athlete’s foot spray? Right, that’s the same thing as my armpits releasing a scent all day that’s up near my pretty little face.

And we have all these food-related scents for women like chocolate and vanilla because it makes them smell wholesome. I think what Kilbourne says is exactly true: We want women to be whores in the bedroom but secretly so, masking their naughtiness with innocent expressions and scents that have no associations with sex at all. Meanwhile, what do most men’s cologne’s smell like? There’s usually a musk base. Men are the keepers of sex, women are the keepers of virtue and self-control. We want women to be innocent while men can be wise. Women should be in the home oblivious to the battles that their men have to wage, making for their men and children a refuge to come home to. This idea is pervasive in Christian cultures.

(Note that that scripture didn’t say “Be as innocent as a serpent.”)

Chanelling The Idiot? I don’t recall Prince Whatshisname being innocent so much as being without guile and these are not the same thing. He was honest and good and open and that’s why he was perceived as an idiot. He was a Christlike character. Would we say Christ was innocent? If we’re talking about sin, yes, he was innocent. But he was wiser than all.

For all who don’t see “innocent” as a bad thing, please explain exactly what you think it means. I don’t see innocence as being naïve, either. I think naïve is when we have the information but don’t know what to do with it, how to apply it, how to believe it, etc. I think innocence is when we lack information. Any other explanation sounds like it’s trying too hard.

And I’m with CatherineWO. The only perfumes I’ve been able to find that don’t hurt my nose and make me sneeze and give me headaches are from Jo Malone, and only some of them. The thing is, there are over 400 fragrance chemicals that are banned in Europe that we still use in North America. They’re in no way natural. What bothers me most is the clothing detergent people use. If you’re going to choose to smell like perfume, why choose the cheapest kind available? What’s wrong with cotton smelling like cotton? I like the smell of people, not cheap chemical perfumes from Tide and Gain. And to layer some expensive deliberate perfume over cheap detergent that REEKS when it comes pouring out of your house when you do your laundry and I try to walk my dog seems like a big perfume fail to me. I used to not be able to go out in public much, too, because of chemicals. And I hate it when people call it an allergy, as if I’m just some unfortunate anomaly. Allergies are responses to things that are natural. Being offended by chemicals is actually sensible and not at all anomalous. These chemicals are bad for everyone.

People who say that advertisements just target the psychology of the product’s market fail to mention the role the advertiser has played in creating that psychology. It’s all deliberate, it’s all cultural, and we play into it.

Boy, this comment sounded grumpy. Well, don’t take that personally. I’m just very grumpy these days for good reason.
Natasha
June 10th, 2010 @ 9:50 am

Okay, just to make my point (and maybe Kathy’s) more clearly: Why do we wear fragrances? Or rather, what is the commercial objective of fragrance? The primary objective, certainly as marketed, is to attract someone to us. And why? So we can become friends and have them over for a play date? Or so we can be perceived as desirable for the purpose of mating? That’s why animals have fragrances. Anyone see Alvin & the Chipmunks? “It’s called scenting the area, Dave.” Fragrance is primarily to attract people to us for the purpose of making a match and getting it on. So, what does it suggest if we think that the type of scent that men like is a scent that we don’t traditionally associate with sex? If we associate it with babies or we associate it with food, it’s like we’re saying that men want women to be childlike or to be homey. So, maybe men want women for the goods they can offer like children and food.

Maybe pachouli is associated with lesbians (that was funny, BTW) because lesbians want women for the things that make them women, not for the things that make them feel more safe or more powerful or more virile. Maybe lesbians aren’t afraid to smell like sex? Interesting….
Marintha
June 10th, 2010 @ 10:20 am

Natasha,
Touche. The problem was he wasn’t able to live in the real world.
Kathryn Soper
June 10th, 2010 @ 12:18 pm

Can we all at least agree that Kilbourne’s rice joke is awesome?
Natasha
June 10th, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

Yes, that was very awesome. Something about instant rice? I don’t remember the whole thing but I remember giggling for a while.
Tay
June 10th, 2010 @ 1:14 pm

I’ve been thinking a lot about this article over the last few days. And I don’t like that I as a woman am being infantalized. And then I looked at Ardis’ post and thought some more and came to another disturbing realization.

We females are not allowed to be our age. We are handed huge responsibility as children to ‘grow up’ and endure ads that rarely show little girls as little girls. When boys are depicted, I feel like it’s more accurate – they are allowed to be wild and free and dirty until about 13 (but that’s another issue).

And then once we reach the age where we’ve been trained to act like our whole life, we’re discredited and told that it’s preferable for us to be more like children: thin out, lighten your hair, lose any thing resembling thighs, have a womanly figure without really have one.

On top of this there are still many, many men who believe us as capable as children in decision making. Examples? Here’s one from yesterday: we’re trying to get our a/c going. Repair guy refused to talk to me about pricing and says ‘if only your husband were home we could do this and this…’ and ‘too bad your husband had to work, I really wanted to talk to him about that.’ Needless to say, we went with another company – this guy was typical of the response I’d received from two others in the same company.

Whether or not the intent is there, the interpretation still is in the ads. Openly. Defiantly. Aggravatingly. We subconsciously absorb things whether we consciously see it or not. Marketers are well-informed on the human psyche so it would be ignorant to suggest that the purpose couldn’t ever be to give a woman infant-like qualities and little girls womanly qualities.
Natasha
June 10th, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

Tay, my husband and I built a house about 2 years ago with a building company. And when I say “we” I mean that he did absolutely nothing and I did everything, an agreement we were both happy with. I dealt with a lot of men during the process and sometimes, yes, they talked to me like I was an idiot, thinking they could get by without me noticing mistakes. They didn’t expect me to be so assertive and unintimidated and I had one experience where I was miffed while talking to a roofer about the builder. He went back and reported that I cussed up a storm and threatened lawsuits and this was sent to me on a typed letter. All a lie. I highly doubt that they would have treated my husband this way.

I hear ya.

Good point about us not being “allowed” to get older, period.
Brit Carman
June 10th, 2010 @ 4:40 pm

Proud patchouli user since 1993.
chris
June 11th, 2010 @ 7:32 am

Saw this today and immediately thought of this post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ0M9CBEkw0

Somewhat interesting (in a disturbing way) that we have moved on from sexualizing little girls (that’s just too taboo) to sexualizing little boys.
Kristin
June 11th, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

“For all who don’t see “innocent” as a bad thing, please explain exactly what you think it means.”

I see it in terms of opposites. The opposite of innocent is guilty. When he says his wife is innocent and pure, I see that as his compliment to her for living a righteous life. I’m sure she makes mistakes as we all do, but she uses the Atonement as needed so she can remove sin and guilt and be left pure and innocent.

Which is definitely not a bad thing.
Natasha
June 11th, 2010 @ 7:53 pm

Ahhh. That makes sense. Another opposite definition is “knowledgeable”.
Kristin
June 11th, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

Natasha–You’re correct on that. I’m just assuming that Elder Anderson was speaking in terms of innocence meaning “without guilt” rather than innocence meaning “without knowledge” in referring to his wife.

This last part is a more general statement and not particularly directed at Natasha:

I respect the right of others to view things differently than I do and others may disagree with me here, but in the case of taking issue with the word choice of an apostle praising his wife, I think some may be taking offense when none is warranted. I do think there are mixed messages in the world about women being expected to be innocent but still sexy, etc, but *I* simply don’t feel that in the church. I have received the message that the Lord delights in the chastity of women and in their purity and virtue. And I don’t feel that this expected sense of purity makes me feel childish or unlearned or unappreciated as an intelligent being. I am genuinely sorry for any who have felt that way either through their own hyper-sensitivity or as a result of thoughtless comments of others.

I appreciate much of what Kathryn has shared. This was certainly a thought-provoking post with a great discussion. With four daughters of my own, I would like to be more conscious of advertising messages and do agree that they have a damaging affect on women.

Is it possible though, that whoever picked powder scent for an antiperspirant thought it would sell well because moms would like it because they just like that smell? Maybe this particular example wasn’t about demeaning women, but appealing to them to get their business by offering a familiar scent that might be popular? Just a thought.

(BTW I prefer unscented.)
Kathryn Soper
June 18th, 2010 @ 10:42 am

Enough said.
Tallulah
June 22nd, 2010 @ 3:06 am

My grandpa uses baby powder itself as a deodorant in his underarms. My grandma considers it to be a masculine scent. It never seemed odd to me until I read this post… and then I realized that none of my aunts ever used it with their babies. Interesting.
Daisy Jackson
June 29th, 2010 @ 12:02 am

body odor is nasty that is why i always take a bath twice a day.;”.