For decades, advertisements for mainstream menstrual products have been criticised for upholding harmful menstrual taboos. Meanwhile, the range of alternative products has increased, and menstrual cups, discs, underwear, and cloth pads have become more easily available. This article examines how online promotional materials of alternative products relate to the menstrual taboo and other concerns raised by menstrual activists. Based on thematic analysis of seven websites selling alternative period products, the article shows how the companies function in a double bind typical for contemporary feminisms. While selling products meant to hide menstruation in a cultural environment that expects concealment, the sites discuss menstruation openly and declare periods as nothing shameful. The sites also support calls for fair access to products and education, advocate sustainability, and recognize the diversity of the menstrual experience. Yet, the companies also apply marketing language that stresses leak-prevention and discreetness. By doing so, they profit from the worries over leaks ingrained in menstruators by a culture of concealment. Furthermore, despite calls for openness, blood remains relatively invisible. The article discusses the results of the thematic analysis in relation to menstrual activism, and popular and postfeminism.

In the past decades, numerous disciplines have investigated so-called ethical and alternative forms of consumption. This has led to confusion about what terms to use and how to interpret the multiple ways in which people act within and upon the market. This article presents the first comprehensive review of the main concepts used in these discussions. Then, drawing on critical theory, in particular on Marcuse and Horkheimer, the article argues that the current debate over consumption lacks critical self-reflection with regard to the uses of these concepts. The second part of the article shows how the analytic structure of the debate over consumption creates an artificial difference between forms of consumption deemed deviant and those judged normal. By disregarding this artificiality, the article argues, research normalizes individual consumption as the sphere of political action and ends up legitimating forms of consumption it critiques.

No abstract

No abstract