Proenza Schouler's new ad campaign features a model who seems to have misplaced her waist.
Flat abs, lean legs, perky breasts: these fashion industry staples have been mandated so long, you can pretty much expect to find them on any straight-size model. But what’s the newest must-have on the runways? A teeny-tiny, impossibly thin waist.
Obviously, this trend isn’t a new one (ever heard of a corset?), but recent media hype has drawn a lot of attention to the trait.
If you own a TV and have ever found yourself “accidentally” surfing the CW network (Yeah, I DVR “Gossip Girl.” So?!), you’ve probably seen promo ads for the upcoming season of “America’s Next Top Model.”
While it’s never exactly been a stellar representation of realistic beauty (a handful of plus-size girls and a season’s worth of petite ones does not a diverse show make), “Top Model” may have finally gone too far.
In the video below, cycle 15 contestant Ann shows off her unbelievably itty-bitty waist (J. Alexander’s hands successfully touch when wrapped around it). It’s surprising Tyra Banks doesn’t have to wipe the drool off her chin, given the awe-struck expression on her face.
The commercial is only 21 seconds long, but it does a pretty efficient job of planting the seeds of some seriously distorted beauty ideals. Does 6’2″ Ann really have that miniature middle naturally? Maybe. But it’s still disconcerting to see that “regular-thin” is no longer the modeling world’s gold standard. The hosts’ mesmerized gazes pretty clearly convey that to get ahead, it helps to have almost unfeasible body parts. Great.
Jumping on the “oh my god, is that for real?” bandwagon is fashion line Proenza Schouler. In the company’s new ad campaign (seen at the top of this post), a model quite literally disappears when viewed from the side. Too much fun with the eraser tool in Photoshop? An unfortunate angle? Does it matter? Either way, this is the image designers Jack McCullough and Lazaro Hernandez chose to project to the world, and it’s not healthy, beautiful, or for that matter, humanly possible.
While it’s wonderful to celebrate all the various eccentricities that go along with having a body, putting one on this high a pedestal can be seriously damaging. No amount of Spanx or sucking in will ever get most women the waist these fashion moguls are fetishizing. And it doesn’t matter one bit. But that doesn’t change the fact that swarms of style-savvy girls will buy into yet another unattainable aspiration.
UPDATE: Tyra Banks sat down with PEOPLE Magazine yesterday to issue a lengthy apology for the new “Top Model” promo.
“The passionate response the trailer has evoked proves that the message to promote and celebrate all different — healthy and natural –- body types has resonated with our viewers and I’m so proud of every one of you who voiced your opinion and participated in this conversation. I have experienced body image scrutiny from one extreme to the next –- as an awkward, extremely thin pre-teen who couldn’t gain weight no matter what I did, to later being slammed by the media for my fuller, curvier frame,” Tyra said.
“Driven by these personal experiences, I am committed to expanding the definition of beauty which includes ALL shapes, sizes and proportions, from skinny to curvy and everything in between. It’s about women telling the world to KISS their –- skinny, wide, droopy, flat, cellulite-covered or FAT -– you know what!”
Someone in Portland, OR gets me, man. Photo via flickr.
In a move that comes as a surprise to absolutely nobody, American Apparel has set a new standard for sexually objectifying women everywhere via their “World’s Best Bottom” contest. You’ve probably heard about it: CEO Dov Charney and company encouraged American Apparel customers around the world to send in photos of their butts clad in American Apparel underwear. Visitors to American Apparel’s web site would then vote for their favorite behinds, and the winner would become the new “face” of the company’s latest advertising campaign. The winners were announced recently, which means it’s time to do one of my favorite things: rage against Dov Charney’s machine.
Let’s run through what we already definitely know about American Apparel: their advertising is demeaning, at times straight-up pornographic, and often has undertones of sexual violence. [We linked so we don't assault you with these ads. Click to see them.-Ed.] Their hipster following and too-cool-for-school aesthetic shroud American Apparel’s objectification of women in a language of sexual choice and freedom: these girls want to take off their clothes, right? So who cares? No one was forced to enter this contest, so whatever, and those of us who have a problem with it are just uber-PC party crashers out to ruin everyone’s fun!
In a pre-emptive response to those objections, I say this: I’m not out to shame anyone who submitted a photo to this contest. I’m not saying women shouldn’t think their butts are fly, or that we shouldn’t find bodies (or even specific body parts) attractive. What I am saying is that objectification is objectification with or without the consent of those being objectified, and that when one woman’s body is objectified in the media at large, it becomes much, much easier for other women’s bodies to be objectified in a similar manner.
When American Apparel invites people to vote on “ideal” bodies, it is contributing to a culture where women constantly evaluate themselves in terms of other people. Not only are we expected to compare our bodies to the bodies of other women, but we’re actually being encouraged to ask others to join us in making that judgment.
Just because the bodily ideal being promoted by American Apparel is more “raw” or “edgy” or “authentic” than other idealized bodies in media—American Apparel ads don’t look anything like Calvin Klein ads, for example—doesn’t mean it’s OK. It’s just a dressed-up version of the same old advertising trickery, where we’re made to feel like we’re just not hot enough or cool enough or sexy enough–and now, not “cool” enough because we’re not ok with being objectified.
And how do we get sexy? How do we get cool? By sending pictures of our butts to Dov Charney? By buying a $12 pair of underpants and walking around in them and only them all day? By “ironically” putting our bodies on display and thinking we’ve outsmarted the system because we’ve chosen to adorn ourselves in this way? By asking people: Hey, am I sexy now?
Those things don’t work. Objectification isn’t cancelled out by irony or intent. If you need proof, just look at the way the voting worked: both men and women entered the contest, but the top 10 winners were all female. In order to “balance” the results, American Apparel (in conjunction with BUTT, a Europe-based magazine for gay males) selected two male winners. If this were a contest about celebrating bodies or celebrating underwear or celebrating bodies in underwear, then there would have been at least one male winner in the top 10, right? But there wasn’t, because men’s bodies are not objects like women’s bodies are–and all the slick pseudo-liberation in the world isn’t going to change that.
What’s the first thing a woman wants you to notice when you meet her? Is it her smile, her eyes, or perhaps her sparkling wit or charm? Not according to Reebok–at least judging from their latest ads.
It’s no coincidence that in most of these ads, the woman herself is never seen except in bits and pieces. After all, that’s apparently how Reebok sees women: as just boobs and legs, with no pesky identity to distract from the pretty picture.
The first of these ads shows a perky young brunette who seems determined to explain the scientific basis for the benefit the shoes claim to provide, yet is constantly distracted by the cameraman focusing on her well-toned butt. Does this bother the young lady? Of course not, she is properly flattered by the objectifying gaze of the camera! After all, what woman doesn’t want to have men more focused on her butt than on a single word she is saying?
But wait–it gets worse!
Another ad shows a pair of toned legs, writhing sensuously on a bed, while the announcer recites the benefits of the new toning technology of the shoes. “88% of men will be speechless, 76% of women jealous, and 0% will know the reason is on your feet…Better legs and a better butt with every step.”
This ad simply focuses on the age-old idea of women’s self-improvement being simply another way to catch a man’s eye. Disgusting, of course, but nothing new.
But wait–it gets even worse!
The final ad in the new series doesn’t settle for encouraging objectification from men, or even jealousy from other women. No, now it’s time to make a woman’s body jealous of itself! The final ad shows a close up of a woman’s breasts, with a voiceover claiming to be the voice of the breasts. The breasts, the voice claims, are jealous of the attention that the butt is now receiving, after the unseen woman in the ad began using the new Reebok shoes:
It’s no coincidence that in most of these ads, the woman herself is never seen except in bits and pieces. After all, that’s apparently how Reebok sees women: just boobs and legs, with no pesky intelligence or career to distract from the pretty picture.
Reebok may have silenced the women in their advertisements, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t speak up! Let Reebok know what you think by contacting them:
A frame from the new Rethink Breast Cancer commercial (full video is on the jump)
Rethink Breast Cancer has released a new ad that they hope will catch the attention of heterosexual men and increase awareness of breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer death in young women ages 20 to 59. But though they may have the best of intentions, this ad is liable to do more harm than good.
We’ve all seen the “pinkified” ads for breast cancer awareness and research. They usually focus on women as mothers and daughters and frequently feature emotional music, pastel colors, and a plea for support. It’s no doubt time for a new approach, but the ad recently created by Rethink Breast Cancer is a big step in the wrong direction.
The video opens with a shot of a pool party, with a crowd of women and men enjoying themselves in the water. Then, to the amazement of all the men, Aliya-Jasmine Sovani (a host for MTV News Canada) walks onto the scene, wearing a small white bikini. The video is slowed down and cropped to showcase Sovani’s breasts, and reveal the motion of her breasts with every step she takes. The men at the party are excited, while the smaller-breasted women surrounding them look on in envy and disapproval. The caption reads, “You know you like them. Now it’s time to save the boobs.”
Apparently, to the makers of this advertisement, the ability to look at breasts is the only reason men care about women. It would be impossible to appeal to them as lovers, fathers, sons of women who are affected by breast cancer. No, best to keep it simple for the dudes: “If they lose their boobs, we can’t ogle them anymore!” (And that’s not even taking into account the other women in the ad; clearly, women with smaller breasts aren’t worth saving.)
This ad not only reinforces the objectification and valuing of women based solely on bodily perfection, but it degrades men as well, portraying them as incapable of seeing beyond their own desires to the concerns of women they care about. Real men care about the women in their lives as full people: minds and spirits, as well as bodies. When a husband loses a wife to breast cancer, it’s not the loss of the breasts that he is mourning, but the loss of a woman.
While getting men concerned about the dangers posed by breast cancer is an important goal, ads like this will only serve to remind women that their value in the eyes of men is determined by the perceived perfection of their bodies.
In recent news, a former VH1 reality TV star, Ryan Jenkins, killed his model girlfriend, Jasmine Fiore, cut her up in pieces, and stuffed her in a suitcase. It’s pretty disturbing to imagine that something as horrific as cutting up a body and packing it into a suitcase could actually happen. What is even more disturbing is that I’d seen this image before.
However, it wasn’t due to a story about domestic violence — it was an advertisement I had seen (for designer Guiseppe Zanotti’s line Vicini) of a woman’s body stuffed in the trunk of a car with just her legs sticking out under the hood. [Warning: Disturbing images on the jump page.]
It’s not just the crime itself that is disturbing, but also the fact that, as a society, we take violent images, especially those against women, lightly. Such violent images are deemed as “art”, but what does such art express? What do they say about actual violence against women? How can we condemn these heinous acts and not the “art” that glorifies them?
The examples are endless.
This contestant's challenge was to pose as if she had died from being pushed down the stairs
One America’s Next Top Model challenge had contestants pose dead in grotesque crime scenes. These models depicted glamorous women who had been electrocuted, disemboweled, shot, decapitated, strangled, pushed off of a roof, drowned, poisoned, pushed down the stairs, and stabbed — all in the name of art and entertainment.
A recent window display by Barney’s in New York featured female mannequins wearing fancy dresses with blood splattered all around them. Thankfully, the people took action against the display and Barney’s was forced to take it down, but why did Barney’s have that display to begin with? Especially when one out of three women experience sexual assault and/or abuse in their life (that statistic is only based on crimes that are reported).
A recent window display at Barney's
This is not to say that perpetrators of violence are influenced to commit violent crimes against women because of what they see in advertisements or on television. However, we should take responsibility for the ways women are objectified in our society. We have to ask ourselves: are rates of sexual assault and domestic violence related to objectification and violence against women in the media?
Part of the Gold's Gym "Cankle Awareness" campaign
“Cankles” is a charming term (like “love handles”, “muffin top”, “saddlebags”, etc.) that describes yet another thing women are made to feel insecure about: having ankles the size of one’s calves.
As reported on Feministing, Gold’s Gym graciously took a step to eradicate this nonexistent problem by declaring July “Cankle Awareness Month.”
Both the Today Show and ABC News report that ankle size is a genetic predisposition. The first solution they offer their news-seeking audiences is liposuction in the area. Popular news sources advocating surgery for a body-type trend? Ankle size is not a medical condition, and yet, it is being treated as something we should rush to talk to our doctors about.
Cosmetic surgery is promoted as a cure for cankles
Cankle Awareness Month is apparently a humorous attempt to get people in the gym, but I’m not laughing. Call me crazy, but I don’t think breeding insecurity among the already body-conscious public is funny.
While I was watching reruns of a family-friendly sitcom the other afternoon, a commercial came on advertising longer and fuller eyelashes. Usually commercials with promises of pumping up eyelash volume are reserved for mascara. This commercial, however, was for the prescription medicine, Latisse. The commercial informs the viewer that one must consult a doctor before using the beauty product.
Though the common side effects are relatively harmless (itchy eyes and redness), the fact remains that the Latisse advertisers are selling doctor-prescribed medicine to improve one’s appearance. Through the bumping music, the before-and-after shots, and the spokesmodel Brooke Shields, the commercial lures viewers into thinking life would be better with long eyelashes. With the long eyelashes Latisse would give them, they too could have fun at parties and flirt with men as Brooke Shields would.
It really took me aback that a medical body “enhancement” procedure is being advertised on daytime television. Not only was this medical cure to a non-existent problem being sold to viewers, it was being sold during a family oriented show! With the beginning of summer comes a sharp increase in the number of children watching television during the day. The chances of tweenagers watching this commercial are high.
No woman needs to be told her lashes are “inadequate or not enough” but especially young girls should not be subjected to the notion that their bodies need fixing.
If you want to make your voice heard about these advertising techniques, you can contact the makers of Latisse through the Allergan web site.
For the past few weeks, I’ve seen this link for the 15 Sexist Vintage Ads floating around cyberspace, shared among Facebook friends and highlighted on humor and culture blogs. It takes you to a web site that showcases 15 “sexist” ads from the early and mid-twentieth century. With overtly sexist tag lines like “The harder a wife works the cuter she looks,” “Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere,” and “Men are better than women,” these ads look different from what we’re used to seeing today.
Or do they?
Take a closer look.
In this first group, notice the vintage ad’s placement of the women’s lips and the lipstick. Then notice the similarities to the modern ad. Both ads portray the sexualization of women.
In this next group, notice how both ads portray women as less than human.
In this last group, notice what both ads insinuate — that women are dumb, or should strive to be so.
In both worlds, decades apart, women are portrayed the same: as unintelligent, as submissive, as sexual fiends, and as objects.
Sure, the vintage ads are a little different. Advertisements today don’t have blatant, wordy warnings, stating that if women don’t smell good or feel soft, they risk having their husbands literally not come home that night. But look around. Look at fashion magazines, billboards and TV commercials. The overall message of nearly every single ad is that we women are imperfect and need to strive to keep a man’s attention.
Advertisements — those from 1949 and 2009 — never let us forget that a woman is judged only on the basis of her appeal to men.
And even though we don’t see sexism spelled out, as in the vintage ad that reads, “Men ask ‘is she pretty?’ not ‘is she clever?’ ” we see that sexism when ads continually warn us to slim down, whiten teeth, curl hair, smell better, shave, primp, yet never to — get this — be strong, brave, intelligent, and powerful. In the twenty-first century, women are absolutely still being told to be pretty. Forget clever.
Also, notice the disconnect in the ad on the left: How is spanking a woman at all related to selling coffee?, you might be asking. But I would ask the same thing today of the ad on the right: How is a naked, faceless woman at all related to electronics?!
Furthermore, these vintage ads are nowhere near as sexually explicit as ones today. These ads don’t feature extreme closeups of women’s breasts, butts, and unrealistic and unattainable body images, all to sell a product and make girls feel ashamed. Ads back then may have been sexist, but ads now are sexist and sexually explicit.
So before you pass the 15 Sexist Vintage Ads link onto your friends, laughing at how much things have changed, think again. Have they?
Let us know what you think, About-Face blog readers. Go through the vintage ad web site and About-Face’s Gallery of Offenders to find similarities and differences yourself. Leave your findings and thoughts in the comments.
From the moment the Obama family moved into the White House, our newest President and his wife became instant American icons. A beautiful and intelligent African-American couple, the Obamas exist under a social microscope with the media reporting on virtually every aspect of their lives.
In the midst of all the Obamamania, one of the most interesting news trends is the increasing interest in Michelle Obama, often subjecting her to a level of attention beyond the normal scrutiny reserved for a first lady.
Michelle Obama has essentially become public domain, with every aspect of her body up for discussion, from her clothing choices to her physical body itself.
The interest in Michelle’s clothing is like most relationships we have with public figures. There is a fun and escapist quality in watching her wardrobe choices. Mrs. Obama has a huge fashion following, often referred to as “the new Jackie O”, she inspires blogs that track her every outfit, and coffee table books celebrating her style. She makes headlines whether she’s wearing designer Narcisco Rodriguez or J. Crew, and even her penchant for sleeveless frocks inspires nationwide controversy.
Like the obsession with her wardrobe, the attention given to Michelle Obama’s body feels inspired by the public’s voyeurism (the press and public often critique the bodies of female celebrities), as well as a desire to be like Mrs. Obama. From Fitness Magazine to Glamour, magazines everywhere are promoting articles on “How to Get Michelle Obama’s Arms!” Very interesting. But what does this say about us?
Is it strange that the press is focusing so much on Mrs. Obama’s clothing and body, and rarely mentioning her other life accomplishments? Or are women simply inspired by an extraordinary first lady who always looks fantastic?
The desire to dress and look like Michelle Obama is understandable, she is a beautiful woman who promotes a healthy body image, which the public is clearly responding favorably to. But here are 4 facts about Mrs. Obama that get a little less press coverage:
Michelle was born and grew up on the South Side of Chicago and graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
Michelle met Barack Obama when they were working at the same law firm, and she was assigned to mentor him.
She promised Barack that she would support his decision to run for President if he quit smoking.
She is a strong and down-to-earth mother who values her children remaining as normal as possible, keeping them involved in play dates, school, and sports activities.
Mrs. Obama’s body is something to be desired, but I would like to know that as many women are inspired to attend Ivy League schools, go to law school, support their husbands, and become strong mothers because of her example, too. Obviously, Michelle is truly a positive female role model, and the media should treat her as such…with or without those toned arms.
For a company that prides itself on making all its attire in the United States, American Apparel deserves no congratulations when it comes to its ads. American Apparel already has one ad posted in our Gallery of Offenders and the obviously have done nothing to improve there act–they seem to have gotten worse!
Just take a look at these four recent advertisements from American Apparel:
American Apparel Ad for Socks
American Apparel Ad for Underwear?
American Apparel Ad for ???
American Apparel Ad for Opening in Japan
What is the first thing you see in these pictures? Certainly not the apparel. What kind of position are the women in? What are their faces saying? What does it mean when you can’t see her face? Where are the men? What does their absence mean?
What kind of language is used in the advertisements? How do these words reflect the photos in the ads, and how do they connect to the ads’ messages?
Socks and underwear aside, what are the ads really selling?
After rubbing my eyes a couple times and staring at the computer screen with my mouth agape and my face flushing with anger — incidents that are probably happening to you right now — one of the first things I noticed was the candid-photo style of these photographs. The odd lighting, the grainy-ness — doesn’t the style of these photos give you the feeling that the women were unsuspecting subjects in the photos? There’s a sense in the ads that a man is snapping photos of the woman — helplessly left to be the object –and we are lucky enough to voyeuristically view the results. Gee, that makes me want to go buy socks!
So what are the ads actually getting at? American Apparel advertisements — advertisements that are plastered all over magazines and weekly newspapers nationwide — aren’t selling clothes. They’re selling the notion that scantily clad girls in compromising positions are hip. American Apparel caters to a hipster clientele, and the company is equating coolness with sexualized positions, and the idea that it’s okay to treat women as things that should be stared at.
The women have become the products, not the clothing. We’ve all seen the countless advertisements in fashion magazines and on billboards — women in shopping bags, women without faces, women’s body parts taking up the entire photo. American Apparel wants to be trendy, but they need to step away from this current advertising trend. They need to stop objectifying women to sell socks.
Congratulations, American Apparel. You make clothing in a socially sound manner. For that we thank you. Now please stop using half-naked models in inferior positions to convince us all to buy your company’s underwear.
If you’re as furious as me, please send your thoughts to
American Apparel Inc.
747 Warehouse St.
Los Angeles, CA 90021
United States
