Christina's curves seem less than curvy in the new London Fog ad.
Poems should be written about “Mad Men” star Christina Hendricks’ curves.
No, really.
The actress has one of those unbelievably beautiful bodies that only Botticelli could have dreamed up. The show’s costume department must have a field day dressing her up in vintage styles that showcase breasts, hips, and butt (all of which she has plenty of, thank you very much).
So why on Earth would London Fog feel the need to touch her lovely, decidedly unwaif-like body with even one click in Photoshop?
Jezebel put some unretouched photos side-by-side with the campaign’s final ad, and it definitely looks like some digital blasphemy has gone on.
The man (un-Photoshopped) curves of Christina's "Mad Men" character, Joan Holloway.
Whatever London Fog’s photo editors did, they managed to pare down Christina’s curves enough to make her look alarmingly like a typical Hollywood starlet.
Can we once and for all leave works of art alone, please? Otherwise, let’s just slap some extensions on the Mona Lisa, fit her with horsey veneers, and give her the Heidi Montag plastic surgery special. Sheesh.
Vaseline's Facebook app invites Indian men to try a lighter look.
Judging by Hollywood (and “Jersey Shore”), many Americans covet nothing more than the perfect tan. Imagine a Facebook application that allowed these tanning enthusiasts to tint their pasty profile pictures with a faux bronze glow.
No big deal? Now imagine a similar app inviting Indian men to lighten their skin.
If you just uncomfortably shifted in your seat, took offense, or spat an expletive at your computer screen, you’re not alone.
Vaseline’s new skin-lightening app for Facebook users in India is causing a ton of controversy. Created to promote Vaseline Men UV Whitening Body Lotion, the company argues the app is a harmless exploration of their new product. “Much like self-tanning products in North America and Europe, skin lightening products are culturally relevant in India,” the company said in a statement. “In India, men use these products to lighten and even out their natural skin tone and to reduce the appearance of spots while protecting their skin from the sun.”
While I absolutely don’t know enough about Indian culture to form an educated opinion on the matter, I do know that something about the concept irks me. And it has nothing to do with whether or not people choose to alter their skin color, but with how Vaseline is framing the decision.
The "Be Prepared" app invites users to upload a picture, lighten their skin, and "PREPARE your avatar for different occasions."
The text on their web site reads, “A fair complexion has always been associated with success and popularity. Men and women alike desire fairness, it is believed to be the key to a successful life.”
Whether or not anyone believes that seems irrelevant. I don’t need a company explicitly telling me (or my Indian friends) what to desire. The issue may be “culturally relevant,” but the company is still gleefully exploiting peoples’ insecurities and making big bucks off of them.
So is the app “unacceptably racist,” as Kunnath Santhosh, creator of his own protest page, alleges? Or is it just an international interpretation of beauty, no different from the GTL of “Jersey Shore” (that’s gym, tanning, and laundry for anyone not well-versed in the wise words of The Situation)?
Looking for somewhere to vacation this summer? How about Charlotte, North Carolina, recently named “America’s Manliest City”?
I’m sure it’s a lovely place, but the title drives me crazy. The Manliest City Competition, created by snack company Combos, is a great example of how our society uses labels like “manliness” and “girliness” to define acceptable behavior based on gender.
Let’s take a look at the Manliest City Competition criteria. Cities were ranked more manly based on such factors as:
1. The number of home improvement stores
2. The number of steak houses and power tools per capita, and
3. Manly occupations, including firefighters, construction workers, police officers, and EMT personnel.
A model shows off MAC and Rodarte's Juarez-inspired makeup collection.
Whether it’s a case of thinking way too far outside the box, or a cheap attempt to shock and awe makeup junkies,MAC Cosmetics has managed to seriously cross the line.
Collaborating with high-fashion label Rodarte, MAC recently unveiled plans to release a makeup collection in September based on life in the border town of Juarez, Mexico.
Just a little trivia about Juarez: it’s not exactly the picturesque tourist trap that typically inspires beauty trends. Besides being home to hundreds of multinational corporation-owned factories, the city is also known as a veritable murder capital.
At the center of Mexico’s drug wars, Juarez’s violence-related death toll is set to reach 6,000 by the end of the month. Hundreds of these homicide victims have been women traveling to and from their job sites.
Call me crazy, but these facts somehow don’t rouse my desire for a new shade of blush.
But let’s go back to the beginning. Last year, Sisters Kate and Laura Mulleavy, the designing duo behind Rodarte, took a road trip to the town and based their fall collection on the multitudes of female workers making their way to factory jobs in the middle of the night.
The Mulleavys slapped a sexy name on the laborers (“sleepwalkers”) and whipped up a line of ethereal garments based on their nocturnal procession.
As I previously mentioned, there’s a bit of a problem with this dreamy vision (Besides the fact that it’s grossly exploitative to produce high-end fashion designs “inspired” by workers trudging to factory jobs at midnight). Many of the thousands killed in Juarez have been the very “sleepwalkers” Rodarte claims as their muses.
To be fair, fashion is art and art can be controversial, but who in their right minds thought it would be a great idea to get MAC involved and spew out some inappropriately-named cosmetics?
The company was set to team up with Rodarte and release a collection of blush, lip gloss, eyeshadow and nail polish in such shades as “Factory,” “Juarez,” “Ghost Town,” “del Norte,” and “Quinceanera.”
Drawing artistic inspiration from a town’s aesthetic is one thing. Romanticizing an impoverished city’s laborers to market a line of department store cosmetics is another.
Attempting to associate a deceptively cheery mint-colored polish with the dark reality many women in Juarez face is insensitive and irresponsible. And several beauty bloggers agree. They were the first ones to call the cosmetics company out on their reprehensible behavior.
A sample product from the MAC/Rodarte Juarez collection.
Had MAC and Rodarte intended to draw attention to the horrific crimes in Juarez and raise money for the people living there, I’d be all for it. But it wasn’t until bloggers caused an uproar that MAC promised to donate “a portion of the proceeds from the collection to help those in need in Juarez.”
In addition to the $100,000 they will reportedly donate to charity, MAC will also change several names in the line. Rodarte claims that the collection was simply “intended as a celebration of the beauty of the landscape and people in the areas we traveled.”
That’s all fine and dandy, but a thirty-second Google search would have revealed that there’s plenty more to Juarez beyond the lovely scenery.
Whether it was complete ignorance or a totally tasteless publicity stunt, MAC and Rodarte owe a lot more to the people of Juarez than apology statements and a belated check to smooth things over.
The collection may have been born out of misguided creativity rather than manipulative marketing, but the result was still deplorable and thoughtless. And I prefer my makeup cruelty-free, thanks.
– Michelle
Was PETA neglected as a child? Was it deprived of attention as a young, burgeoning organization?
Why else would poor PETA feel the need to keep crying out for help by flaunting its half-naked celebrity supporters in compromising, often-sexist positions? To save the animals? Nah…
Once again, the ever-demure, painfully shy Pamela Anderson is causing a ruckus by baring her body in a controversial ad for the organization. Imagine!
Pam recently traveled to Canada and managed to piss off the world’s most notably polite population with her new poster for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). The ad features the critically acclaimed actress (seriously, she was brilliant in Borat) in a skimpy bikini and marked up like a butcher’s diagram.
To clear up any confusion regarding where Anderson’s most prized possessions are located, her parts are clearly labeled with helpful tags like “breast,” “leg,” and “rump” while the ad declares, “All Animals Have the Same Parts.”
Truly effective advertising, right? Aren’t you flooded with inspiration to go out and treat animals ethically? (Because if you need further motivation, check out last year’s thought-provoking, compassionate plea from PETA to “Save the Whales.”After all, who says campaigns should be tasteful and intelligent? Oh, most people? Nevermind then…)
In any case, officials weren’t so touched by the new poster’s wholesome message. Authorities denied Pam a permit to unveil the ad at a Montreal event, deeming the image sexist. An official explained, “It is not so much controversial, as it goes against all principles public organizations are fighting for in the everlasting battle of equality between men and women.”
Well, snap.
You’ve gotta hand it to that eloquent, anonymous authority. There really isn’t anything contentious about a stripped-down former “Baywatch” star seeking attention (I’m looking at you, David Hasselhoff). But the absence of controversy doesn’t translate to an inoffensive result.
PETA’s senior vice president Dan Matthews proclaimed, “I think that city officials are confusing ‘sexy’ with ‘sexist.’” Touche, Mr. Matthews. Because really, who doesn’t find a woman seductively emulating a slab of meat sexy (barring frat boys, perverts and lunchmeat enthusiasts)?
Pam in another subtle PETA ad.
As for Pam, she responded, “In a city that is known for its exotic dancing and for being progressive and edgy, how sad that a woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest over the suffering of cows and chickens. In some parts of the world, women are forced to cover their whole bodies with burqas — is that next? I didn’t think that Canada would be so puritanical.”
Perhaps envisioning the entirety of Canada’s female population clad in burqas is a teeny bit hysterical, Pam? I get what she’s saying, and I understand that censorship is a slippery slope. But no one’s telling her to put her assets away (she can go use them in Montreal’s burgeoning exotic dance scene if she likes), but is it really effective to use them in a “political protest”?
It’s not really an issue of Puritanism; it’s an issue of using sex for shock value and assuming women can only assert authority by baring their breasts.
So while I always appreciate PETA’s mission and Pam’s passion for the cause, I can’t really get behind all the attention-grabbing insanity.Here’s a thought: show me a picture of an actual animal deserving ethical treatment in one of your ads, and I might take your organization seriously.
And no, “animals” sporting bikinis and barbed wire tattoos don’t count, despite any anatomical similarities.
A few t-shirt designs from the PinkStinks online store.
Majora Carter. Janine Benyus. Maggie Aderin-Pocock. Ever heard of them?
Probably not. But besides embodying change and breaking down gender barriers, these women all have one thing in common: they’ve been featured as role models by PinkStinks, a British organization that provides young girls with alternatives to media messages.
By promoting real role models, Ema and Abi Moore–the sisters and founders of PinkStinks–encourage girls to feel good about themselves without needing to being rich, famous, beautiful, and fake. To the Moore siblings, the culture of “pink” is more than the color: it is a message that puts girls in boxes and limits them from reaching their full potential.
As for the role models they pick, women like Carter, Benyus and Aderin-Pocock move beyond the “pink” message.
Carter is an environmentalist who founded the Sustainable South Bronx Organization, Benyus is a science writer and president of the Biomimicry Institute, while Dr. Aderin-Pocock has a doctorate in mechanical engineering and makes handheld mine detectors and optical systems for the James Webb Space Telescope. Slightly more inspiring than the female role models the celebrity-obsessed world typically glorifies, right?
PinkStinks not only lauds women like this, but critiques the messages aimed at girls on a daily basis. For example, the organization analyzed a message on a Scrabble game box for girls that was colored in pink and displayed the game tiles spelling the word “fashion.” To revolt against the stereotypical images like this, PinkStinks also has an “Approved” section on their website, which applauds products that are not gender-biased.
Some creepy T- Shirts for 8 year olds, courtesy of the Zara Fashion Store.
And it doesn’t stop there. Aware of unethical advertising strategies aimed at young girls, PinkStinks actively campaigns against alarming commercial messages in the U.K. A recent one was against the Sainsbury Company’s sexist dress-up clothing for children which labeled doctors and pilots as boys’ items, and princesses, beauticians and 1950s nurses as girls‘. Thanks to PinkStinks, the company responded and changed their approach to dress-up clothing!
In addition to the campaign, PinkStinks also maintains a blog and a “Name and Shame” section to keep its U.K. audience aware of many of the outrageous commercial tactics that they are surrounded by.
While the Moore sisters are busy countering the culture of pink, their online store enables us to keep the revolution public. T-shirts titled “Future Role Model” and “I am no princess” can be found on their site.
It looks like the women behind the U.K.’s PinkStinks are making some major, global changes.
- Sheena
While the Moore sisters are busy countering the culture of PINK, their E store enables us to keep the revolution public. T-shirts titled “ Future Role Model” and “ I AM NO PRINCESS”can be found on their site http://pinkstinks.spreadshirt.co.uk/. In addition, during the Soccer World Cup Season this month, you can resist the media obsession with wives and girlfriends of soccer players (WAGS), by wearing a PINKSTINKS shirt titled “ WAGS:Women against gender stereotyping”.
WORLD CHANGERS IN ACTION, is all I can say about PINKSTINKS!
Australian supermodel Myf Shepherd arrives in Sydney for Rosemount Australian Fashion Week 2010.
Leave it to the Aussies to come up with another awesome global contribution (you can also thank them for Kylie Minogue and Vegemite).
The Australian government recently partnered with The Butterfly Foundation, an eating disorders awareness and prevention group, to create a body image initiative. Magazines, designers, retailers and modeling agencies will be encouraged to follow a voluntary code of conduct, and will be deemed “body image friendly” if they do. According to Feministing, some of the recommendations from the government’s National Advisory Group on Body Image include:
“disclosing and avoiding the digital enhancement of images; banning ultra-thin female models or overly muscular male ones, in addition to models under the age of 16 to advertise adult clothes; employing a greater diversity of ethnicities and model body sizes; eschewing editorial and advertising content that promotes negative body image through rapid weight loss and cosmetic surgery, and, for retailers, carrying a wider variety of clothing sizes that better reflects the demands of the community.”
Sounds pretty good, right? Celebratory sirens definitely went off in my head when I read the news, along with some grumbling regarding my geographical whereabouts (I really just have a weakness for that Aussie accent).
But then I realized why all this groundbreaking brilliance sounds familiar. It isn’t as groundbreaking as I’d hoped.
In January 2007, the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) also formed a health initiative with a long list of recommendations (educate the industry about eating disorders, require models with eating disorders to seek professional help, develop workshops, supply healthy food at fashion shows, etc). A who’s who of industry insiders signed off as supporters of the initiative, including unabashed advocate for all things ultra-thin, Vogue editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour.
To its credit, the CFDA is still keeping the dialogue going, three years after the initiative formed (earlier this year, a group of industry insiders gathered on the eve of New York Fashion Week for a panel discussion titled, “The Beauty of Health: Resizing the Sample Size”).
But let’s be honest—has anything changed? Do you notice a more diverse pool of models in fashion magazines? Are there less visibly protruding bones on the catwalks? Have you seen yourself or anyone you know physically represented in advertisements? Or is it all just a lot of talk?
Will the Australian government put a stop to pin-thin models?
Feministing says the Australian initiative is apparently the first of its kind in the world, unique in its view of “negative body image and associated issues of low self esteem, poor self confidence and eating disorders as serious health and societal issues that need to be addressed in a comprehensive way across our society.” But all these hopeful prose sound suspiciously similar to the CFDA’s earlier assertions.
I’ll keep my fingers crossed for some real change from Down Under, but I don’t think I’ll be holding my breath.
Just when I thought they couldn’t get worse, something new and insidious surfaced.
Gawker wrote recently about AA’s looks-based hiring policies, leaking internal documents that discuss AA’s “New Standard”: “Classy-Vintage-Chic-Late 80s-Early 90s- Ralph Lauren-Vogue-Nautical-High end brand.” Their employees are the front line of the brand’s new image, and should represent the company accordingly.
So who are they looking for to help represent the new look? The more important question is (and always should be in cases like this), who aren’t they looking for?
“None of those trashy [black girls],” said one e-mail from corporate. “We’re not trying to sell our clothes to them. Try to find some of those classy black girls, with the nice hair, you know?”
Let me just repeat that for you for a second: “some of those classy black girls with the nice hair.”
Women of color have long been victims of a white beauty standard that others them. Black women in particular are generally represented as animalistic and hypersexualized. AA’s policy plays directly into those stereotypes, defining black women as either “trashy” (good) or “classy” (bad) based on outer appearance, as though a woman’s hair reveals all about her personality, politics, and ability to be a fashionable employee.
We’ve blogged about this before, but hair has always been a huge point of cultural contention, especially when it comes to a white-male-defined standard of beauty. Natural black hair has been seen in the past as ugly, lower-class, and even threatening. Other employee comments on Gawker suggest that when AA says “nice hair,” they mean “natural hair”—two employees were told to stop straightening their locks.
I’m sure American Apparel is patting itself on the back for this, like encouraging black women to wear their hair “naturally” is some kind of slap in the face to oppressive beauty standards. But really, all it’s doing is continuing a long history of white men telling black women how to look and act, lest they be deemed undesirable.
Why does anyone still support this cesspool of a company? Yeah, ethical manufacturing and no slave labor, blah blah blah, but at this point it’s clear that anything AA does for workers is coming not from a place of respect, but of pseudo-liberal principles that allow the company to earn cred with upper middle class white youth who think of themselves as so damn progressive.
AA can print “legalize LA” on as many pairs of brightly-covered briefs as they want, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that people of color, women, and especially women of color are nothing to this company but objects to be played with and adorned as the company desires.
P.S. CEO Dov Charney seems to be none too happy about the buzz this news is generating: employees are now bound by a confidentiality agreement regarding the hiring process. Any employee found giving information to media will be sued for—wait for it—ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
Special K has come out with numerous television commercials promoting their Special K diet plan.
Their latest ad features a modelesque woman sitting at the breakfast table, staring forlornly at her breakfast bowl. Then, she opens her cabinet and smiles at the array of Special K cereals at her disposal.
In the opening scene of the commercial, you can clearly see the model’s protruding collarbone as she pushes her bowl away. It also doesn’t help that the model is wearing a boat-neck sweatshirt which greatly accentuates her collarbone.
It is absolutely ridiculous that Special K is insinuating the already-thin model needs to lose weight (or that someone that thin would actually think she needs to lose weight).
This ad is another example of how the media projects an unrealistic idea of thin. While Special K might be playing on the fact that women are unsatisfied with their bodies at any size, this is not the message they should be promoting. Rather, Special K should be promoting body acceptance.
By now, you know how much we despise American Apparel’s advertising. Well, here’s your chance to make your voice heard TOMORROW, whether you’re in San Francisco or supporting from afar:
An Afternoon with Dov Charney
Saturday, May 1 at 1:00pm
Haight St. (at Clayton), San Francisco (and online)
Using street theater and performance art, this parody interview with American Apparel CEO and President Dov Charney will give “Mr. Charney” (i.e. a friend of About-Face playing the CEO) a ribbing for the company’s treatment of its female models in its advertising.
When you arrive, there will be a way for you to be a part of the action immediately.
Can’t make it in person? Here are some other ways to support “An Afternoon with Dov Charney”.
