Thread by @MForstater

OK so one more thing about the #periodpoverty campaigns being promoted by sanpro companies, govt and major NGOs. Its this: this is rebranding the "Tampax lady" who used to come into schools, for the woke age. Its corporate CSR

Which doesn't necessarily mean it should be dismissed. But its worth being aware of what the commercial incentives are; sell more product, sell more premium product.

Companies may have some altruistic concern but they would also like every woman to spend more on their products

Where is the robust evidence that "period poverty" is widespread (yes there is poverty, no it is not solved by providing sanpro. Most people even on low incomes can afford Sanpro) and yet #periodpoverty is a major branding effort into schools.....why....🤔

gov figures say that *average* annual spending on period products is £17.50 a year

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1213788929616470016

In discussion people have said "oh but those are only the cheap own brand products, they are nasty" etc...

So average is being rebranded as 'poverty' 🙄

The business sponsors talk about getting rid of "period stigma", but it would be a happy result for them if buying own brand products, and not using 5 or 6 different types is stigmatised by being associated with "poverty".

At the same time if you buy premium brands you get the feel good factor of donating to others to solve this 'problem'.

1 pack at of own brand = 65p
1 pack of premium = £1.90

So to donate 1 pack of premium involves spending £20 more on 16 packs of premium vs own brand.

Remember before you started your period how daunting it was? I worry that all this talk of the "devastating impact on girls lives" of menstruation is making it seem scarier and more of a big deal, rather than less

Do we really need a "society wide approach to bust the taboo"?

Or are do most parents support their daughters thru puberty, because thats a normal thing for parents to do?

I'd like to see the evidence, and not just from corporate sponsored surveys