Racist contraceptive?

[BLMquestion]

Name changed because I’ve discussed this in real life and don’t want to link to my other posts.

Recently started on the EVRA contraceptive patch. It sticks on your skin. I’m white (this is relevant). The patch is coloured a skin tone that matches mine, a pinky/beige colour.

Is it racist? Because it makes me feel like it’s been made for my skin tone and that a black woman wearing this would have something very much more visible than a white woman and so be disadvantaged.

AIBU?
YANBU- contraceptive patchers should be available in all skin tones or clear

YABU - it’s perfectly fine to have a pinky/beige contraceptive patch

@Valkadin

I have experienced in your face racism as has my child a couple of times. I cannot get worked up about a plaster. I understand it could be considered a small thing that adds up but I honestly can’t. I had red and black ballet shoes as a child so it is untrue that only 3 colours were available.

Ballet shoes yes, pointe shoes no

Anything skin colour is made caucasian skin colour. They should be made clear or in other skin tones. Its not something white people will easily understand though because it's not something they'll ever experience

Firstly, not true, there are lots of skin colour products that are very shads of brown as well. Secondly, it is something many white people will understand when "skin tone" products are nothing like their skin tone!

Ballet shoes yes, pointe shoes no

Could get black pointe shoes 35 years ago, for sure....

Just an aside but why are white people called Caucasian?

I’m wondering because during various DNA admixture tools there is some ‘Caucasian’ but it’s used there to refer to not particularly light skinned Asian and Middle Eastern ancestors.

@Ylfa they aren't Caucasian refers to the people surrounding the Caucasus mountain range of which there are varying ethnicities and varying colours as it runs through many Eurasian countries

There can only be, what, 5% vegans in the UK, yet we fall over ourselves in Oat, Almond, Coconut & Hemp milk despite the vast majority happy with cows.

Yeah, but the NHS doesn't fund vegans drinking oat milk.

If calling things racist gets people's backs up, maybe they should do some self & examination as to why.

No self-examination needed. I know exactly why it gets my back up. Because it’s not racism, and the conflation of lots of different things with racism leaves people confused and sceptical. It’s annoying.

There can only be, what, 5% vegans in the UK, yet we fall over ourselves in Oat, Almond, Coconut & Hemp milk despite the vast majority happy with cows

Lots of non vegans drink all that shite, and its a commercial product, to make money. If the NHS was funding alternative milk, you'd get one type of soy and lump it.

There can only be, what, 5% vegans in the UK, yet we fall over ourselves in Oat, Almond, Coconut & Hemp milk despite the vast majority happy with cows

And those products are far more expensive than cow’s milk. Someone is exploiting a commercial opportunity, not righting a ‘wrong’. People aren’t going to pay more money for darker plasters (and not should they) so there’s more limited incentive to invest.

No self-examination needed. I know exactly why it gets my back up. Because it’s not racism, and the conflation of lots of different things with racism leaves people confused and sceptical. It’s annoying.

Thank you! If you use something too much it loses meaning. Getting hysterical over things like a mass produced plaster that isn't anyone's skin tone and branding it racist undermines real instances of racism.

This all smacks of white people speaking for and patronising non whites, who are more than capable of speaking for themselves or inventing a product to market. We should all stand up against racist actions and words but maybe some of those screaming racism about a plaster need to address why they feel the need to play the white saviour. Are you being the arrogant white preaching on behalf of others becasue you don't think they can speak for themselves? All to make you feel better about yourself?

[quote HallieKnight]@Ylfa they aren't Caucasian refers to the people surrounding the Caucasus mountain range of which there are varying ethnicities and varying colours as it runs through many Eurasian countries[/quote]
Thanks Hallie! It’s confusing me to see it used here to refer to people of Northern European appearance and origin!

I vote Yanbu as I absolutely agree that skin shades should be catered for but am not convinced it is racist.

The whole "white is default" argument is tricky Imo, if you look at the %of the population only 13% is Bame, so yes, if were going to make one colour then 87% of you default customer base is where you aim it. What happens in countries where the default is POC? Is the situation reversed? More out of interest really. However not catering for 13% of the population is a poor approach and hopefully companies will catch on if we say that it is not acceptable loud enough and often enough, it needs to come from all of us, regardless of our colour, we need to say that this is ultimately not acceptable, people in our community should not be othered due to the colour of their skin, whilst the "default" is understandable, it is not acceptable.

@Cam2020

YANBU. If they were white that might be understandable (bleached paper etc) but they’re actually white-skin tone.

Who do you know that is that horrid peach?

It's as near as approximation that the manufacturers could get to 'skin-tone' i.e. white skin tone.

They're DYEING it in this colour!

They don’t match any skin tone really, I don’t think anyone is beige.

So why is Boots full of 'Beige' tone foundation? and 'Peach' blush?

I can’t quite believe anyone would even try to defend or deny this. Yes it’s misogyny when women are killed by their partners and ex partners and yes it’s misogyny when women appear on screen displaying a lot of skin compared to their male co-host or whatever, in a suit. It’s all part of the same oppressive system. One is not separate from the other, it all works together as part of some giant Othering.

skin-tone' i.e. white skin tone

Could we all stop pretending like there is one skin tone for all white people, when really there is a huge range.

Racist Contraceptives? wheres Titania MGrath when you need her?

@SwimbleCold

skin-tone' i.e. white skin tone

Could we all stop pretending like there is one skin tone for all white people, when really there is a huge range.

Sigh. It’s as near to white skin tone as manufacturers can get. Funny how you’re so sensitive to varying shades of white skin tone yet completely unable to acknowledge that the patches are designed for white skin in mind.

@Ylfa

I can’t quite believe anyone would even try to defend or deny this. Yes it’s misogyny when women are killed by their partners and ex partners and yes it’s misogyny when women appear on screen displaying a lot of skin compared to their male co-host or whatever, in a suit. It’s all part of the same oppressive system. One is not separate from the other, it all works together as part of some giant Othering.

I think you are confusing misogyny and sexism. Yes they are linked, but they are not the same thing. Only one is inherently abhorrent.

Systemic racism is different from racism. You need the word systemic be talking about the right thing (the factors built into society which makes things harder for one racial group than another because of their race). The lack of patches would be racist if the reason they didn't exist was because eg someone decided that black people didn't deserve appropriately coloured patches but white people did. Notwithstanding that possibility, the lack of such patches could be said to contribute to systemic racism, if having skin tone plasters/patches is important to society. Alternatively, society as a whole might just not be that bothered by having patches/plasters that match their skin tone, in which case though there is a racial inequality, it may or may not be one that people affected are fussed about. To the extent that enough people who are affected are bothered, then there is a business opportunity and possibly the need for consciousness raising for society at large.

Yes it’s misogyny when women are killed by their partners and ex partners and yes it’s misogyny when women appear on screen displaying a lot of skin compared to their male co-host or whatever, in a suit. It’s all part of the same oppressive system

Patriarchy is a system. Misogyny is a feeling. There are aspects of patriarchal systems which arise from misogyny. There are patriarchal systems which arise from biology. But biology isn’t misogynistic.

The weaponisation of our female biology (rape, surrogacy etc) is inherently misogynistic though. Misogyny isn’t a feeling, it’s an act of everyone’s will.

It is interesting as ever to read alternative viewpoints though.