I started reading YM and Seventeen magazines when I was 9 years old. By the time I was 11 or 12, I knew enough about accidental pregnancies, what type of lip gloss to wear to the beach and how to tell if a boy likes you (answer: he accidentally gets you pregnant) and I decided it was time to become a woman. By this I mean that I started buying face wash and deodorant. There is no logical reason why an 11-year-old needs a separate cleansing product for her face, but the fresh-faced models in the Neutrogena ads looked clean, carefree and like they were probably allowed to go to the mall unsupervised – an important marketing angle for the preteen set.
The first face wash I ever bought was Neutrogena and the first deodorant I bought was Secret. To this day, I will only buy Neutrogena and Secret. This is partly because of my irrational brand loyalty (it’s a sickness, a generic brand shunning, sale ignoring sickness) and partly because I have lived my entire life free of acne and bad body odor and who am I to quit a good thing?
Because I only buy Secret, I notice whenever they change their product line. Secret has developed an elaborate marketing system designed to trick the consumer into thinking she has a variety of underarm de-stinking options. They have the “invisible solid” line and the “clear solid” line which, if you think about it, ought to be the same thing. Then there’s the “platinum solid,” the “platinum invisible solid” and the “sparkle collection” (I have no idea). Not to mention all the gels and roll-ons that I never buy because let’s face it, those are lame.
About a week ago, I went to the grocery store to buy new deodorant. Because I’ve been buying the same thing for 13 years, I don’t even have to read Secret’s product labels, I just sort of wander over to the “body care” aisle and pick up the blue stick with either the pink or purple label, depending on my mood and if I’d rather spend the next few months smelling like “spring breeze” or “shower fresh.” But last week, I discovered that they’d changed all the labels. Instead of the usual non-descript geometric pattern test marketed to evoke freshness and youth, there were cartoon women staring up at me.
Apparently Secret (which is owned by Proctor & Gamble) turned 50 this year, and to celebrate they have re-categorized their existing line of “invisible solid” deodorants by decade instead of by fake scent (what does “optimism” smell like, anyway?) So now I own a deodorant that claims to be “Celebrating 50 Years of Strong Women.” I didn’t know this, but feminism smells like lilacs.
But here’s the thing. The deodorants are loosely categorized by the female stereotypes as they pertain to each decade.

You have someone who looks a little bit like a brunette Donna Reed under the “’50s: Sophistication” label. A disco diva represents “’70s: Independence.” A woman in an 80s business suit and shoulder pads charges into the male work force with “’80s: Power.” A generic t-shirt wearing college student poses coyly for “’90s: Expression” and a girl with sunglasses on her head represents “Generation Me” which I guess is the 2000s decade. Apparently we haven’t figured out how to label ourselves yet. Maybe the sunglasses indicate that it’s summer, which means that it’s warm, which is subtle nod to global warming. That’s my theory.
If you noticed that I skipped the 1960s deodorant, that’s because I bought it and I have a close up picture for you.

That says: “’60s: Freedom.” That’s right. I have been freshening my underarms with a commercialized representation of the Civil Rights Movement as it appears on a deodorant canister. This is only because I hadn’t yet seen the “’80s: Power” stick when I bought it. If I knew I could immortalize both women’s attempt to win respect and equality in the workforce and an entire race of people marginalized in our country, I would have bought two sticks of deodorant. I really would. I like to commemorate huge social movements through my toiletries.
I don’t have a punch line for this. I have no quippy remark to make about how maybe the Catholic church should put out a series of Bibles related to great Catholic achievements in each century (11th Century: Crusadey, 12th Century: Crusadey, 13th Century: Crusadey, 14th Century: a bit less Crusadey, and with the pope hat!). I don’t even thing it’s wrong. I really like my socially conscious spring breeze invisible solid. I just think it’s weird, that’s all.
Now if I could just get some Roe. v. Wade tampons I’d be all set.
25 November 2006 at 1:40 pm
I came across this via StumbleUpon and loved it.
)
5 December 2006 at 9:39 pm
I came across this via StumbleUpon as well. I read it because I noticed it all too. I’m giving Dove a chance right now though. I dig their real beauty campaign. Anyway. I think it should be a Roe V Wade diaphragm instead of a tampon… tampon’s don’t stop babies. Haha.
6 December 2006 at 11:31 am
“We have Brittany Spears and Madonna to thank for a generation lost in Skank” …let’s face it…mainstream feminism in any real sense is dead. This is a bad thing. Who killed it? I think it must be commerce. Got boobs? You can sell anything. Then again, European standards have been pretty skanky for a long time too. Are we just catching up with them?
6 December 2006 at 12:34 pm
I found this on StubleUpon, and I thought that the last line was genius. But what really annoys me, that Newsweek devoted printed pages to the “war” between Barbie and Bratz. Not the effects of sexualizing girls as young as four with toys who wear thong diapers, but on who will win the marketing war. Maybe we should hunt down the people who are in advertising and make them wear their products’ attire themselves. That would be apropos. Also, for anyone who agrees with my belief that sex shouldn’t be sold to fourth-graders, they should check out the South Park episode entitled “Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset”. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, and then you’ll want to murder Paris Hilton.
6 December 2006 at 8:05 pm
Well written random thoughts, blog chick. Wendy: it’s about toiletries; the tampons would merely be celebrating the moment in history, just as the deodorant isn’t actually going to empower you. And finally, Martina: Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve reserved that South Park episode on netflix, can’t wait. Rock on Stumbleupon.com
6 December 2006 at 9:36 pm
You can thank marketing consumerism in America for such brand loyalty! Consumerism has brought us to this (citizenry more interested in pop culture than learning / living their civic responsibilities to democracy) and will bring us down eventually (money will rule the govt, but we won’t know it b/c of the political spin). In addition, I too am disgusted by the sex marketing to young girls…see book: Female Chauvanist Pig and the Rise of the Age of Raunch. Self-worth from sexiness, implants and plastic surgery..
Excellent blog…ruminating on toiletries is a secret affliction for almost all women!!
StumbleUpon powers on!!
7 December 2006 at 9:06 pm
I stumbleuponed here, too. Love the blog, and I especially loved the comment pertaining to Barbie vs Bratz
I must say, marketing like that is the exact reason I switch brands. Seriously, could we keep it relevant to what I want it for? No more stinky, please. That’s all I need.
8 December 2006 at 5:28 pm
I ’stumbled-upon’ this blog. In regards to deoderant I prefer Le Stick. It’s natural. I hear so many bad things about Secret. I appreciate you blog, but I would never buy a product just because they are trying to use ‘feminism’ values etc. on me. It’s pretty ridiculous on Secret’s end.
9 December 2006 at 12:15 am
StumbleUpon rocks! Love the blog.
/giggle
9 December 2006 at 10:34 pm
I stumbled upon this as well.
10 December 2006 at 12:56 pm
Another Stumbler.
I just wanted to say I really dig your writing style.
10 December 2006 at 10:05 pm
This is awesome! Welcome stumblers, and thanks for checking the site out.
I have no compunction saying that C is the best writer of all our contributors, and I always love when she posts.
Glad to see some agreement in the ’sphere
10 December 2006 at 10:52 pm
great site
11 December 2006 at 12:41 am
I don’t know what stumbleupon is (although I can take a guess, and you can bet I’m googling it right after I write this) and this isn’t even my blog, it’s my friends’ blog and they let me write stuff on it. But I’m glad so many of you liked this. That makes me happy! Thanks.
22 September 2008 at 8:15 pm
I’ll admit to being ridiculously loyal to the same brands, but in my defense they work pretty well and I already know I’m not allergic to their products. The marketing is ridiculous, though. It kills me that they think changing the packaging will actually entice consumers. I’m also not a huge fan of stupid additives to products like these: I don’t effing care if there are shimmering ribbons in my body wash, I just want to be clean!
Secret’s vanilla-scented deodorant is AWESOME, though. It makes my underarms smell like cupcakes!