In recent years, a thrilling wave of positive and inclusive marketing campaigns has surged, celebrating the female body and womanhood with newfound vigor. Empowered women are proudly embracing their bodies, and businesses across the nation are rallying behind this movement. From waxing salons encouraging their clients to strut confidently to online boutiques promoting an extensive size range, the message is clear: women are taking pride in their autonomy.
Even the fitness industry chimes in with powerful slogans like “Power in motherhood,” while shapewear giants narrate their corporate “HERstory” in bold red letters. International Women’s Day and Women’s History Month have become platforms for businesses, ranging from beauty brands to banks, to declare their unwavering support for women’s empowerment, encompassing both body and soul.
However, amid these affirmations of sisterhood, a deafening silence prevails on one of the most fundamental issues facing women today: the impending threat to reproductive rights signaled by the leaked Supreme Court brief, which hints at the reversal of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
In this era of “woke capitalism” and the rise of milquetoast female empowerment narratives, why do so few companies speak out on abortion rights, an issue that has been enshrined in law for half a century? And should we even expect corporations, driven by profit and often amoral in nature, to take a principled stance on this matter, leaving us outraged by their silence?
It’s essential to recognize the historical struggle for recognizing women as consumers and full citizens. For a significant part of American history, advertising targeting women predominantly revolved around products associated with femininity, focusing on body care, homemaking, and family. As women ventured into the workforce and gained access to credit, advertisements adapted, acknowledging and even celebrating their newfound independence. Nevertheless, the ideal woman was still expected to invest in maintaining a slender, fashionable, and self-disciplined image.
The landscape evolved as societal perspectives on women changed, influencing advertising strategies. The 1960s saw social revolutions that critiqued capitalism, yet American businesses adeptly co-opted the essence of counterculture, combining irreverence with market imperatives. This transformation, often referred to as the “conquest of cool,” illustrates how corporations began to perceive that taking stances on controversial issues could be strategically valuable, even if it meant some reputational risk.
In today’s environment, where the catchphrase “silence is violence” resonates widely, corporations openly express their support for causes like anti-racism, gun control, and LGBTQ rights. These statements often explicitly condemn those who remain silent or offer mere “thoughts and prayers.” Pride Month witnesses numerous businesses wrapping themselves in rainbow flags as a show of solidarity.
However, when it comes to abortion rights, the line appears to be drawn. Surprisingly, many corporations that are willing to engage with other contentious topics maintain an eerie silence on this issue. Even within progressive organizations, there seems to be hesitation when it comes to advocating for reproductive rights. Conversations are stilted, and the pause is palpable when compared to the swift action taken on issues like racial justice.
This silence on abortion rights is a jarring contrast, and those paying attention may be disappointed but not entirely surprised by the narrow scope of “women’s issues” that brands are willing to address. The “girlboss” era, which initially inspired but then faced a wave of critique, exposed the shallowness of corporate feminism, both in external messaging and internal practices. Across various sectors, from sportswear to fashion, companies have been accused of hypocrisy, boasting inclusivity while enabling eating disorders or exploiting their workforce.
The gender pay gap persists, and women remain underrepresented in C-suite positions. Representation in leadership roles is identified as a part of the solution to this conundrum, as those in power can prioritize issues based on their personal experiences. Having more women in positions of influence could potentially make “personal” issues a priority.
While some companies have taken action to ensure abortion access for their employees and, to a lesser extent, support reproductive rights more broadly, these efforts fall short of the energetic advocacy seen on other contentious political issues. During the Black Lives Matter protests, some companies were criticized for superficial gestures that did little to combat structural racism. However, when it comes to abortion rights, not even this level of scrutiny exists.
One of the largest public relations firms even advised its clients to “stay silent” on abortion rights, deeming it a “no-win” issue. However, public opinion suggests otherwise, with a majority of Americans, especially those under 45, supporting abortion rights. Young people are impassioned by this issue and would likely support companies that articulate commitments to women’s reproductive rights as loudly as they do on other less contentious topics.
Policy protecting abortion rights is worth fighting for, and we should pressure corporations to show solidarity. Although brand messaging can often be cynical and self-serving, representation matters and can bring about meaningful change, even within an amoral capitalist system. Companies can choose not to simply echo the cautious consensus but to push the culture forward. Educating both employees and consumers can make a significant difference, even if the change starts with baby steps.
In this critical moment, where the Roe decision’s fate could set a precedent that affects countless lives, it’s vital that companies acknowledge their role in shaping society. The conversation surrounding women’s reproductive rights deserves the same attention as other prominent issues, and it’s time for corporations to step up. In a world where profits and principles often collide, we should hold them accountable for their commitment to women’s rights.
