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

I’m white and I certainly wouldn’t wear a brown contraceptive patch! Why should my fertility status be obviously on show (and telling people they can wear long sleeves is just childish!) Having multiple colours (four would be reasonable) would add pennies to the patch!

@EmpressoftheMundane

Having worked in pharmaceutical supply chains, I can assure that they aren’t snubbing women based on race, but are being cheap. Opaque will be cheaper than clear. Having one colour will be cheaper than managing additional SKUs. This is one if the inconveniences of not being a member of the dominant group. In my mid 20s I worked in West Africa. Lots of things around fashion, beauty, grooming weren’t designed for me. It was a downer, but no harm was intended. Merchants and beauticians were just being commercially minded.

I assume that is the case. But presumably it’s possibly to make them clear (I had a different branded hormone patch which was clear) and they chose not to and that would be cheaper than lots of different colours.

Actually it's only this year that elastoplast thought to launch a darker colour plaster in South Africa. Default flesh colour even in Africa was.... nude.

It’s not racist, no. Racism implies distaste or antipathy. At worst it’s thoughtless

Its systemic racism when the default favours one group. Just as its systematic sexism when "default" requirements restrict access for women.

Be grateful you have a free contraceptive

The NHS isn't free, its a service for which we all pay.

@Bessica1970

I’m white and I certainly wouldn’t wear a brown contraceptive patch! Why should my fertility status be obviously on show (and telling people they can wear long sleeves is just childish!) Having multiple colours (four would be reasonable) would add pennies to the patch!

Put the patch on your back or inner thigh

They may be evidence of inherent bias which can be part of racism, but the patch is not in itself racist, at least that's my understanding

Its systemic racism when the default favours one group. Just as its systematic sexism when "default" requirements restrict access for women.

It’s not racism or sexism when there is no intent to discriminate based on race or sex. The words are being used incorrectly and the implication here (if we use the word “racist”) is that someone, somewhere, is making a decision that is racially biased. But in the case of the UK, where nearly everyone is white and the 15% or so of those who are not have lots of different skin tones, there’s no evidence it’s racially biased at all. Just commercially pragmatic. I get that it’s not ideal but I don’t agree at all with labelling a system “racist” unless it actually is racist.

Its systemic racism when the default favours one group.

So if a white woman living in, say, Nigeria, was unable to find this patch in a light skin tone, would that be evidence of systemic racism?

Should I feel 'less than' because my Caucasian skin tone is not bright plaster peach or or dull beige? You've giving me a complex now, OP.

@flaviaritt

Its systemic racism when the default favours one group. Just as its systematic sexism when "default" requirements restrict access for women.

It’s not racism or sexism when there is no intent to discriminate based on race or sex. The words are being used incorrectly and the implication here (if we use the word “racist”) is that someone, somewhere, is making a decision that is racially biased. But in the case of the UK, where nearly everyone is white and the 15% or so of those who are not have lots of different skin tones, there’s no evidence it’s racially biased at all. Just commercially pragmatic. I get that it’s not ideal but I don’t agree at all with labelling a system “racist” unless it actually is racist.

Racism doesn’t require intent though does it? For example, I fully intend to be anti racist, but I accept that I could do something racist without meaning to because I have subconsciously accepted ideas that are racist without examining them.

Dd uses this, she is lily white, and has a beige patch on her, that looks ridiculous. Can you explain the racism to me please?

Racism doesn’t require intent though does it? For example, I fully intend to be anti racist, but I accept that I could do something racist without meaning to because I have subconsciously accepted ideas that are racist without examining them.

Precisely which "subconsciously accepted ideas" are you accusing the manufacturers of contraceptive patches of?

Racism doesn’t require intent though does it?

Not intent, but conscious decision making and awareness. You seem to be working with a definition of the word you are happier with, but it isn’t the correct one. Racism literally means you feel something negative towards people because of their race. If you make a decision which is disadvantageous towards people of one race and not another, but your motive is pragmatic and not emotional, it’s not racism.

In terms of patches & sticking plasters, the colour of these products is supposed to make them unobtrusive on your skin. Obviously not fully invisible, but not to stand out.

That's why hospitality plasters are bright blue - to be the opposite, so if they fall off in the food or surfaces, they are easy to spot.

I feel sad that so many people on this thread don't seem to think there is anything wrong with perpetuating one global default for flesh - white. Small things add up.

Another example of white privilege.

Plasters or anything ‘flesh coloured’ are always too dark for me - I am very peely-wally with freckles (although not unusual for a Scot). They match my husband more - and he is from the ME. Some plaster colours are just a weird, almost terracotta colour.

A company won’t make several shades unless it is a cosmetic thing that people would pay premium for. It’s not cost effective. So they plump for a beige that will match nobody.

It’s just another way that we are made to feel “wrong”.
Flesh/skin tone plaster is not my skin tone. Call it something else.

Patches, plasters and make up are all default white.
Look at concealer - the range in pink tones is much larger compared to darker tones.
Yes it’s a majority white country but we exist.

I feel sad that so many people on this thread don't seem to think there is anything wrong with perpetuating one global default for flesh - white.

It would be weird globally, definitely.

I think it is a fair point.

I think transparent patches may be best.

@flaviaritt

Racism doesn’t require intent though does it?

Not intent, but conscious decision making and awareness. You seem to be working with a definition of the word you are happier with, but it isn’t the correct one. Racism literally means you feel something negative towards people because of their race. If you make a decision which is disadvantageous towards people of one race and not another, but your motive is pragmatic and not emotional, it’s not racism.

I do accept we are using different definitions. I’m obviously don’t think mine is wrong, though it certainly is more expansive.

@flaviaritt

I feel sad that so many people on this thread don't seem to think there is anything wrong with perpetuating one global default for flesh - white.

It would be weird globally, definitely.

Absolutely agree with that. As pps said, it's not ideal, but it's more of a money decision due to market. Not great, but I don't think it's racism. Just greed.

As a Black woman, I’m baffled by the people saying that the white population is 86% as if that’s a sufficient reason. I’m sure 86%+ of the population are still meat eaters but imagine every single restaurant failed to cater for vegetarians and vegans- that would be annoying and missing a huge market.

And also given the fact that women’s tights in Boots and supermarkets come in 3+ shades for white people but can’t do one shade for black skin. I spend £12 per pair on skin coloured tights in London which I can only get online- it’s a joke especially since it wouldn’t cost existing cheaper brands much to add a couple more shades.

So while it might not be racism - it shows a complete disregard for the black and dark skinned market.

8You seem to be working with a definition of the word you are happier with, but it isn’t the correct one*

"Systemic racism" (or institutional racism if you prefer) is not one word its a phrase.

I'm not sure your argument that its not racism because the attitudes toward black and brown people is so utterly encoded in every aspect of society is quite as compelling as you seem to think.

Rummikub

I hear you. The concealer thing is a good example.
My DD dances ballet- and everything is in a pink/white skin tone.
Thing is though companies are responding to sales and economics. It may seem racist and harsh, but consumer values are horrible.

@speakout

I think it is a fair point.

I think transparent patches may be best.

Yeah. And as they could be distributed worldwide since not dependant on local majority skin colour, it could maybe save some money?