When my husband and I first saw those commercials, his first comment (as a person from a developing nation) was, "wow. They are exploiting those girls to get people to buy their products." Regardless of the "good" that might come of it, the commericals are certainly exploitative, and I'm glad that bloggers are addressing the issue.

Certainly, lack of access to proper supplies is an important issue, but it's a loaded one as well. And I know people will hate me for saying this, but what's wrong with missing a few days of school a month? I skipped school constantly because of my period, and it certainly didn't hurt me (I'm in grad school now). Maybe it's the strict school system that should change to adapt to girl students (perhaps let them do work from home a few days a month), rather than forcing them to accept a western solution.

Just a thought. Oh, I do think Goods 4 Girls is a great idea. At least it's sustainable.

http://earthly-paradise.blogspot.com/

I read this entry this morning and started thinking about it, and I just think this is a mountain out of a molehill. It seems like the New York Times is trying to make P&G into this evil company, with a hidden agenda trying to sell African girls’ souls by providing them with free sanitary hygiene products.

P&G is one of the BIGGEST companies in the world. They don’t really need to expand into Africa to keep afloat and stay profitable by trying to hook girls there on maxi pads. If the situation is so bad, where girls will stay home for days and maybe even a week at a time, once month while they have their period, perhaps P&G saw a way they could help keep these girls in school. They sound to me like they are being VERY responsible in the effort- providing the incinerator, and not offering tampons to be culturally sensitive. Remember tampons are more expensive than pads too, so if they had a hidden monetary gain agenda, why not try to get the girls hooked on tampons, so they can turn an even bigger profit?

Here are some my responses to the “what’s in it for P&G?” questions ( I didn’t write a response for everyone- that would be another post entirely)

“For one, girls who use free pads today can turn into paying customers when they grow out of the school programs. They could persuade their mothers and aunts to use the products.”

So what? Isn’t that what a good product should do? If pads are introduced and women like them, and have resources to purchase them, what is wrong with that? If you were a girl in Africa and liked using pads, and saw that they might help out other women in your family, wouldn’t you want to tell them about it?

“I started to wonder if Tampax or Always are really suited to a life of poverty or near-poverty in rural sub-Saharan Africa. The costs of continuing provision will be high and who will cover those costs when the girls leave school? How will they manage when the facilities provided at the school are no longer available to them? I can't help feeling that there is little altruism in Procter & Gamble's efforts, and that they are hoping to turn the girls into paying customers.”

So if something that can benefit these girls may not be available to them or they can’t afford it after leaving school, then they shouldn’t have them at all? This is what it sounds like to me. How does that make sense?

How many kids in our schools get things that they normally wouldn’t have access to? Computers, free lunches, technology, etc. Should Apple Computers (as an example) not provide kids with computers in schools, because they may not be able to afford their own Apple when they leave school? Should we not give poor children free lunch, since they may not be able to have the same type of lunch on weekends and during school breaks?

Let’s think about kids in college, especially athletes who get anything and everything they ever want while in school. It is highly doubtful the majority of them can keep up with this lifestyle when they are out of school- trainers, tutors, catered food by professional chefs, massages, high-end clothing, etc. You don’t hear the same arguments against Nike for providing the most expensive basketball or football shoes to these kids. This is all so they can play a sport.

Providing maxi pads to girls, so they can stay in school and hopefully better their life is far more important in my book than providing athletes’ with high end sports gear.

Just like any company who donates their products, there is expense involved in it, and if someone ends up buying that product when they can- that is how donations work. Don’t tell me that Apple wouldn’t want any of their computers bought by kids who use them in schools today. It may not be the motivating factor for them to donate the computers, or any product, but if you can get your brand name out there, then it is an extra bonus.

Personally, I have donated some merchandise from my on-line store to causes I believe in. I do it for that reason, but the organizers tell me right off the bat, that my store’s name will be mentioned in their flyers, and I can include my logo. Of course they realize that if I can get my name and logo out to their group, I may make some extra sales, I otherwise would not. I guess this is just a bad thing when a company of P&G’s size, who actually has the resources to provide sanitary products to these girls in Africa does it.

"I mean, it’s great that they want to help girls out with this difficult time of the month and make sure they stay in school, but is the best way to do that with bleached wads of cotton and disposable plastic? It made me fret, I must say.”

The original line from the post says, “the Procter & Gamble (P&G) unit that makes Always pads and Tampax tampons, started a program called "Protecting Futures" to donate Always disposable sanitary pads to girls in southern Africa in hopes of keeping African girls in school.”

P&G is NOT donating tampons for cultural reasons- only menstrual pads. There are no “disposable plastic” applicators or “bleached wads of cotton” with pads. Only the backing on the pad and the pads themselves. This is the next line from the original post:

“In Africa, where adequate menstrual supplies are generally nonexistent, it is not uncommon for girls to use newspapers, rags or camel skin to try contain their period.”

Using a sanitary pad could go a long way in helping keep these girls not only in school but also healthy. How many of us would want to use newspapers or rags (can’t even imagine camel skin) in our underwear, next to our genitals? Not to mention how horribly these would probably be at containing a period.

I think it is a noble cause for P&G and Good 4 Girls, to get involved with this effort. If water is scarce though in a region, what is a girl to do? P&G doesn’t make reusable maxi pads, but they have offered free products that they do make to help these girls, and a sanitary way to dispose of them, producing them to just ashes. What else do they need to do? Why is it never enough? What did they have before P&G stared this program? Nothing.

It seems if you are a small non-profit, then anything you do is great, but if a big for-profit company tries to get involved in a cause, they are butchered this way in the media. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. It is scary, because a lot non-profits don’t have the financial backing to carry out their visions. They need help from corporate businesses. If we massacre every big for-profit company that tries to take up a worthy cause, can we really blame them if they decide they don’t want to have to do damage control every time, and stop or significantly cut back their financial involvement?

I think it would be a lot more productive of the media, instead of criticizing companies like this in print, is to try to point out helpful ways the program could be improved or expanded on. Maybe when approached in the right way, P&G could start making reusable products for the girls in Africa. But to just assume they have a bad ulterior motive, and assume they are only in it to get customers out of these African girls, is irresponsible and it takes the focus off the real situation- the help they ARE providing.

Whether it is buying yogurt that has potentially cancer-causing hormones in it to support breast cancer research or buying pads so that girls in Africa can get one for free, cause marketing does not provide sustainable solutions for thorny public issues. It merely allows people to feel good about buying things.

That said, I swear the commercial made me cry when I saw it while I was at the gym. More should be done to support the intellectual development of women and girls around the world...

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

As CC already pointed out on her blog, the enviro downside of these donations isn't just the disposable pads but the plastic packaging that will be *burned* -- so whether or not it was well-intentioned, the campaign seems misguided. Many thanks to CC for providing people with a constructive way to not just criticize an ill-advised campaign but a way to provide real help to these girls.
--
Check out my blog at
surelyyounest.com