"Washing feminism": decoding a commercial practice Bangladesh: victims commemorate the tragedy of Rana Plaza
At the end of August, several major brands in the clothing sector agreed with the unions to extend the agreement on health and safety in the textile and textile industry for two years. clothing in Bangladesh, a major supplier to Europe.
The number of signatories to the new version of the "Bangladesh Accord" on textile workers' safety, however, has fallen sharply, from 200 in 2013 to around 80 today. Among the supporters are still some big chains like H&M, Inditex (Zara), C&A and Jack & Jones. In Belgium, JBC and Tex Alliance are also involved, reports the achACT platform. Major players present in Bangladesh, such as Adidas, Mango and Primark, are waiting.
"All brands that care about the lives of the workers who produce their clothes and the opinion of their consumers who are increasingly aware of the impacts of their purchases must sign this agreement. Those who refuse it knowingly endanger the lives of their workers. This indifference must end!", underlined on this occasion the Belgian MEP Saskia Bricmont in a press release.
The text preserves and extends the worker safety protection model inaugurated by a 2013 agreement that was established following the collapse of Rana Plaza. The tragedy had claimed the lives of more than 1,100 workers, and highlighted the safety conditions in which people work in this sector, as well as the terrible human cost of fast fashion - a term which designates the companies which produce many collections each year that supply our stores.
It should be noted that workers in the textile industry are mostly women, it is estimated that 70 to 80% of workers are women.
►►► Find by clicking here all the articles of the Grenades, the RTBF media that unpins the news from a feminist point of view
The case of washing feminism
And yet, feminism can be used as a marketing argument, this is called feminism washing, on the same model as greenwashing, that is to say a marketing technique which consists, for a company, to give itself a committed, eco-responsible and ethical image, even though its practices are in fact polluting.
On March 4, Léa Lejeune, economic journalist and president of the French association Prenons la Une, published her first essay with Seuil editions. The title, Feminism washing, when companies recover the cause of women, could not be clearer: its objective is to analyze the marketing actions of the most famous companies in the world from a feminist point of view. The word is acerbic, lively and sourced, and the author points out how much feminism has become, in a few years, “bankable”.
Washing feminism is the fact for a company to create advertising campaigns committed to the place of women, gender equality, thanks to words, images, which are currently in fashion . Léa Lejeune defines this dishonest practice as the “set of marketing practices, communication strategies and human resources that aims to make people believe that a company is feminist in order to win customers or attract job candidates when the company in question does not really act for equality”.
Her investigation cites well-known brands such as Dior, H&M, Amazon, Publicis or McDonald's, with examples of "feminism washing" campaigns. She notably pins the Dior brand, which produced a “We should all be feminists” t-shirt (“We should all be feminists”) … for the modest sum of 620 euros
Why is washing feminism a problem? Because it removes all its substance from feminist movements, which are revolted, politicized, and which put forward a questioning of the capitalist system. Because companies are surfing on this word, which has become fashionable, and they therefore hide the concerns raised by feminist struggles, and because the money generated by these brands does not serve the interests of women: it is sometimes even quite the opposite.
►►► To receive information from the Grenades via our newsletter, do not hesitate to subscribe here
The same goes for purple, the official color of feminist movements since the 1970s and already used by the English Suffragettes at the beginning of the 20th century, is now widely taken up by the fashion industry, as if to testify to its commitment to a more egalitarian society, even though no questioning of their economic model takes place.
Pink washing, or the reappropriation of LGBTQIA+ struggles
Pink washing also works on the same model: the concept refers to the marketing practices of a company, a political party or an organization whose objective is to give itself an image committed to the rights of the LGBTQIA+ communities.
In June 2018, the BBC published a shock investigation into several fast fashion brands, which had launched pro-LGBTQIA+ ranges a few months earlier.
This was particularly the case with Levi's Pride collection, a range supporting LGBTQIA+ people and whose marketing was inclusive. Only, the investigation raises a crucial point: the range was manufactured in India, a country where homosexuality was penalized at the time (it was decriminalized in September 2018). The investigation also points the finger at Primark, which launched a similar collection, made in Myanmar, a country where homosexuality is still illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
For a fashion revolution
"Many feminist logo T-shirts are in fact made by racialized women, exploited in impoverished countries", specifies Léa Lejeune at the microphone of Europe1. "So these are questions to ask: where are the T-shirts made and under what conditions are the women who make them paid and treated?"
In this same interview, the author proposes solutions, in particular "checking whether companies have quantified objectives for combating wage inequalities, setting up plans, adjusting working hours to allow women not to have meetings after 6 p.m. so that they can go home and take care of their children if they wish, check the salary gaps, promote women in management through quotas".
At the consumer level, it is essential to recognize these techniques to mark our disagreement and collectively move the lines.
