Do these American Apparel models convey similar messages despite their age difference?
When it comes to children, it can be very difficult to distinguish what is exploitative from what is innocent. If a certain pose signifies sexual provocation amongst adults, must that pose have the same meaning when created by a child? And how does this increasingly blurry territory affect how the judicial system defines child pornography?
This issue came up while I was searching for a scandalous, though not X-rated, photo on the American Apparel web site to include in our Gallery of Offenders. While there, I noticed that the web site had a children’s section, and out of curiosity, I decided to see how their children’s photos compared.
Most of the children’s photos were age-appropriate, cute, racially diverse, and positive overall, but there were a few that caused alarm. If I had seen any of the questionable photos in another context, I wouldn’t have given them a second thought. However, because they were from American Apparel, a company notorious for their pornographic advertising, I deemed them inappropriate.
Some of the children’s photos were disturbingly familiar. Here’s what I mean:
All photos were found on American Apparel's web site and pasted together.
In context, they look pretty bad. Whether the children were posed that way, mimicked the adult models, or were simply caught in a random position that we have given a sexual meaning to–does it really change the fact that these photos are the ones used to advertise clothing?
What complicates the situation is that adult women often mimic the innocence and playfulness of young girls as a way to flirt or behave in a sexual manner.
These American Apparel ads each show models in childish poses.
Basically, women are imitating girls in order to look young and innocent, and girls are in turn imitating women in order to look more adult and sexual.
This issue reaches far greater than fashion advertisements. Pedophilia and the sexual abuse of children are serious problems that are no doubt getting worse, due to the increased sexualization of little girls. But are we unable to separate the harmless from the harmful?
A photo from the parents' alleged collection of child pornography
A few months ago I ran across the San Francisco Chronicle story Are bath-time photos child pornography?, and was shocked to learn that parents faced child-abuse charges for the bathtime photos’ “sexual exploitation” of their daughters.
In more recent news, the U.S. Army charged a soldier serving in Afghanistan with child pornography possession after the soldier’s mother sent him photos of a young relative playing in her swimsuit.
Why does our culture both try to protect children from sexual abuse (sometimes without reason), yet recklessly perpetuate pedophilia by sexualizing childhood? Why can’t we just act our ages and treat and view others in an age-appropriate manner? Or is the concept of “age appropriate” too ambiguous to define?
The other day my friend and I were flipping through a recent Cosmopolitan magazine, and I was shocked by the comments coming out of my mouth:
“She’s so skinny!”
“Ew, what is she wearing?!”
“Her eyes look weird!”
With these exclamations,I was actually morphing into the person I despise–the person I imagine beauty magazines make you become: she who judges other women.
Magazines seem to always pit woman against woman, or at least encourage it. “Who Wore it Best?” articles in some publications call on readers to vote on which woman celebrity looks better in identical outfits.
Other magazines regularly ask readers to vote thumbs up or down on a celeb’s look—like, “Are these stripes flattering on Kim?” and “Does Eva Look Hot or Boring?”.
Around Oscar season, some magazines completely dedicate issues to Best and Worst Dressed lists, where we scrutinize the dresses and accessories famous women have worn.
It doesn’t stop with magazines. Reality shows, soap operas, romantic comedies–even kids’ movies (think the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen franchise)–often idealize competition between women, usually over men.
In shows like The Bachelor, Gossip Girl, and The Hills, there always seems to be an immediate enemy inherent in any other woman–often over a prospective boyfriend.
The Bachelor popularized reality shows in which many women compete against each other for one man's attention
But as my friend and I were scrutinizing the obviously-airbrushed Cosmo cover model, I was appalled by the other comments coming out of my mouth: hateful comments about the actress herself.
What was first a critique of the model’s impossibly clear under-eye area and unnatural waistline (thank you, Photoshop) became critiques of her eyebrows, her hair, and even what she said in her interview.
We should not only strive to resist becoming influenced by media messages, but resist becoming the women who judge one another, who compete with one another, who rip on one another’s hairstyles and career choices, and who compete for the opposite sex.
And sure, maybe certain actresses themselves share different values than we, and perhaps the women on The Bachelor DO need to chill out with all the competition over one guy.
But that still doesn’t permit us to pass nasty judgment about anybody. Because what starts as a simple vote on who looks better can easily translate into real life. And who wants to become that woman?
A previous version of this blog was originally posted at tallanna.com.
Naked and un-airbrushed Jennifer Hawkins on the cover of Australian Marie Claire
In 2009, a light bulb turned on. (I sure hope it was a CFL.) Someone in mainstream media — new or old, internationally or nationally — an editor, an assistant, maybe it was a PR rep, realized that “Oh hey! Not everyone is a size 2, huh? All the other ‘beautiful’ people in this industry deserve a chance.”
Dove was way ahead of the game with their Campaign for Real Beauty (launched in 2004). But last I heard, Dove doesn’t drive home magazine sales. Sexy things do. And naked sexy things will sell even more magazines.
And suddenly, we embraced the body — naked (or nearly so) and often un-airbrushed — while we also further embraced the plus-sized.
A couple months before that, model Natalia Vodianova bared all on the cover of British Vogue’s June 2009 Body Issue, an issue that vowed to look at how women — yes, even women thinner and more famous than you — felt about their bodies and how they, too, obsessively watch their weight and wished their butts were perkier. (But wait, if even the “perfect” feel insecure, is there hope left for the rest of us?)
If all bodies are beautiful, shouldn’t we focus equally on the thin and not so thin? The short and tall? The curvy and boxy? Despite the valiant efforts, we can’t assume that occasionally swapping out rail-thin models for those with some meat on their bones will, on its own, make 2010 the year the fashion, beauty and advertising industries suddenly changed their minds.
These women — underweight or slightly overweight — are still models. The images we digest are the results of teams of makeup artists, hairstylists, wardrobe assistants, lighting specialists and creative photographers that none of us “real” people have at our disposal.
Fashion spreads, despite the model and her size, are still perpetuating parts of a beauty myth — the glowing, perfect skin, the undimpled thighs — and the message that you are not good enough the way you are. (And that products have all the answers!)
Designers’ samples are still size 4 … or smaller. Runway models are still hired as emaciated hangers that catch your eye and on which designers can hang their art.
Shedding light on the fact that different body types exist — sure, it’s a step in the right direction. But for maximum impact, to make the change that communicates my body and my self are awesome just the way they are, we have to be able to prove that a different message and image will make the industries more money than what they’re making now.
What sells the most — whether it’s putting women down or lifting women up — will eventually win in the end.
On August 15, 2009, the About-Face Take Action group members, About-Face volunteers, and their friends posted decals with positive messages on various stores’ fitting room mirrors in the heavily populated Union Square area and downtown shopping area in San Francisco.
They also handed out decals to others who wished to do the same or to keep one for their mirrors at home.
On the same day, our Take Action Group also set up its own “dressing room” at Powell St. and Market St. in downtown San Francisco and invited people to write inspirational messages about body image on the walls. Watch our video and see how it went!:
To learn more about this action, check out this page.
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?
Designer Marc Jacobs is really rubbing we About-Facers the wrong way lately. Following on the heels of his ad showing Dakota Fanning as a Hollywood tartlet and some other ads with dead-looking women and nubile girls laying in the grass, we’ve got the newest in the series: Victoria Beckham in a shopping bag.
In this ad, Victoria Beckham (aka Posh Spice) literally becomes a product to purchase. Never mind the disembodied legs and suggestion of violence. Has she been killed and then put in the bag? or is she about to be taken home and put in the closet?
According to a recent New York Times article, the photographer asked Victoria, “You’re kind of a product yourself, aren’t you?” He reports that “She was, like, ‘Uh, yeah.’ “
We will give Marc Jacobs one little point for putting the fabulous M.I.A. on display so all can see her greatness. But that’s all. Just one point.
Thanks to Feministing.com (which you should be reading every day!) for the tip.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Marc Jacobs that you think this ad shows women’s bodies, and women, as products, and that you will not be buying his goods any time soon. Go ahead and e-mail these people: Asa Larsson at a.larsson@marcjacobs.com and Renee Barletta at barletta@kcdworldwide.com, and fax 212-966-0782.
And then remember, don’t buy any Marc Jacobs stuff.
For more bad ads and ways to talk back, check out our Gallery of Offenders (brand new update coming soon).
Normally, I look up to Canada as an example — I even talk about moving there if the next election goes sour.I find their publicly-funded health care system and their official position of non-involvement in the war on Iraq both refreshing and laudable.I tend to think of Canadians as peaceful, level-headed, practical Midwesterners.After reading about Canadian-based Plain Jane Couture, I fear I’ve been brushing with too broad a stroke.
The Plain Jane Couture line features a large logo of a woman’s silhouette.Now, before you envision the reclining silhouette typically gracing the mud flaps of an 18-wheeler, think again.This silhouette is of a woman standing with a pair of underwear around her ankles.The logo is about the size of a hand, so there is no missing this degrading detail.
The Canadian designers, Hardip (hard-up?) and Zoum state that they make clothes for the kind of women they like. (I would tend to believe that this logo represents the kind of woman they never get, but that is just my speculation.)They define their kind of woman as “cute, fun, witty and wild.”I challenge you to find a single model on the website that fits that description.On the contrary, I would suggest spineless, malnourished, pale and angry.Additionally, I know a lot of witty women — and none of them would consider wearing such a demeaning image of women on their clothes.
But it gets worse; these two go on to say that their patrons “hold the new voice of feminism.”Shortly thereafter, they state, “Jane permanently has her panties around her ankles.”And quite frankly, that’s where they want them to stay.Sure makes getting around difficult for poor Jane, especially if she plays hockey up there in Montreal.C’mon boys, no one is buying your attempt to sell feminism with permanent sexual availability.
Again, and I’m quoting: Their line is nonchalant, fun, cheeky and likes to “take the piss.”I’d like to offer my editing services again in order to make this sentence more accurate:Their line is adolescent, degrading, pedestrian and likely to never get off the ground.
I’d like to remind Hardip and Zoum that there are a lot of young girls who are inundated with hundreds of humiliating images of women on a daily basis.It’s time to man up, boys.Do either of you have sisters, nieces, daughters, or girlfriends?If you answered yes, why not be true to them, honor them even, and be a different kind of company?Be the clothing company whose advertising doesn’t disgrace, offend, or confuse girls and women.Be the company that refuses to have a size zero.Be the company that cares about what women think. Be the company that actively demonstrates that how and what a woman thinks is far more important that how she looks.Be the company that acknowledges the intellectual contributions of women.You could even use a brain as your logo – now that’s sexy. –Amy Scott
We came across a posting on the San Francisco Chronicle’s Daily Dish a few weeks ago, on Allegra Versace’s battle with anorexia. Here are some excerpts from the post:
Fashion queen Donatella Versace’s daughter Allegra is under medical care, battling a serious eating disorder.
Donatella, 52, has expressed her heartache and has admitted Allegra was being “consumed” by the illness, and pleaded with the media to “respect our pain.”
She says, “My daughter is very ill. Anorexia is consuming her and we are very worried. However, the doctors are doing all they can to snatch her away from this cruel disease and we have faith in them.
“Please think of us and respect our pain. Many mothers will know well what I am going through and what my daughter is risking.”
It’s disturbing to see this as gossip-worthy. Why is a disease a hot topic? Let’s say they found out that Allegra had breast cancer. Would they show her in her hospital bed, post-mastectomy, with a shaved head, struggling to recover? Second, Allegra’s mother runs one of the world’s top fashion companies. Will she see a connection between her daughter’s illness and the effects of the fashion industry on women’s body image? Here’s what Marcella, our eating disorders expert, had to say about it:
“I really dislike this type of coverage. There is always picture of the physically ill person so that we can look at her as some kind of circus freakshow. I am curious to see how and if this evolves. It just seems so twisted to have one of the top fashion designers’ daughters have an eating disorder. Right now, this story does not sit well for me because it is ignoring the obvious elephant in the room. I think it would be powerful if ‘Mom’ Donatella could perhaps see how toxic her line of work is for a growing girl around body image and make a statement about this and include more diversity in body shapes and sizes for her clothes and runway models.
I am glad there is more coverage on eating disorders in popular media, I just don’t like the way it is being covered, and many experts in the field hold my opinion.”
From government concerns with uber-thin models affecting eating disorder rates amongst women to models defending the fashion industry to the name-calling of an ex-model who’s gained weight… Here’s the news, people.
Fashion & Government
Many of you may have heard of Spain’s ban on excessively skinny models last year. Recently, Spain’s Health Ministry has been working with several top-name, Spanish fashion designers to find ways for the fashion industry to curb unhealthy body image among women and girls. Standardizing clothing sizes is one of the several agreements they reached. Way to start a trend, Spain!Italy, France, U.K. and the U.S. are beginning to think about (that is, sorta kinda ponder) this as well. About-Face is glad to see that these countries are beginning to see a relationship between the fashion industry and eating disorders, but merely reporting on this isn’t enough. It’s time to see some actual changes! STAT!
Bundchen and Family Values?
Gisele Bundchen, a Brazilian model, says that the fashion industry should not be to blamed for promoting eating disorders. Lack of family support is the problem, she says. She knows first-hand! Ms. Bundchen has strong family support which helps her maintain a healthy body image.Um … No matter what the situation, it is always a bonus when your loved ones support you and help keep it real. However, Ms. Bundchen’s opinion doesn’t seem to account for the fact that there is only one body type seen as beautiful in the fashion industry. And it’s of the thin to uber-thin type. Family support or not, women are likely to feel pressure to be thin. And
some women might go to great lengths to achieve it.
T-T-Tah-Tyra
In other news, Tyra Banks is stunned! Ms. Banks, a former model and now the host of America’s Next Top Model and The Tyra Banks Show, was appalled to find pictures of her in a one-piece bathing suit mocked as “fat”! She tells People magazine that she has gained weight, but is happy with her size. She was also sure to add that the pictures taken of her were “snapped at an unflattering angle,” making her look heavier than she actually is.Though Tyra is trying be a positive role model, it’s unfortunate that her weight gain is an issue, and an issue she feels forced to defend! With so much controversy over what’s too thin and what’s too heavy, it’s hard to have a positive body image at all. It’s good see Tyra is trying to work through hers. She seems to make a concerted effort to be honest about it.
Two movies came out on DVD recently — “Little Miss Sunshine” and “The Devil Wears Prada” — that are super About-Facey (that is, they take on issues of women’s and girls’ body image and media influences), so around the kitchen table the other night, we decided to make up a special rating system. Check it out — and let us know what you thought of these flicks.
Little Miss Sunshine (R, but should be PG-13) The good: “This is for my grandpa, who taught me these moves.” Olive’s performance in the beauty pageant and more in that scene I can’t reveal here lest I spoil the fun. (Oh, and Alyza thinks Paul Dano is lovable.) Olive (Abigail Breslin) is the little girl we all remember ourselves being.
The sad: Whoa, the beauty pageant scene with the little freaky girls! Scary! (And the directors’ commentary reveals that they are for real.) And when Olive’s dad breaks it to her over breakfast that ice cream is going to make her fat. Heartbreaking. Luckily Uncle Frank (Steve Carell), Grandpa, and Dwayne, show her they love ice cream, even if it does make you fat.
Up in the air: Grandpa’s misogyny.
Reckoning: A funny, sweet comedy. Do four Oscar nominations (including one for Best Picture) lie? Also great to watch with your mom.
RATING: 5 out of 5 About-Faces
The Devil Wears Prada (PG-13) The good: Meryl Streep being perfectly evil. Was she just having fun, or was that just me? (Oh, and she’s up for a Best Actress Oscar too…)
The sad: Emily (Emily Blunt) says to Andy (Anne Hathaway) “I’m just one stomach flu away from my goal weight” as they enter a gala. Andy tells Nigel she is now a size 4 (down from 6) and they toast with Champagne. C’mon people, seriously.
Up in the air: Doesn’t really take on the insane thin ideal fashion-y people and models feel they must conform to at all times. But at least it kind of makes fun of those ideals. It also makes it seem that Andy can have either a high-powered career or a boyfriend, not both. (The older women we know dispel that myth handily.)
Reckoning: Eh. We’re not so thrilled from a hard-core chick perspective. But it’s pretty entertaining, especially if you REALLY like fashion. Or you’re contemplating the work/life balance. Or both.
RATING: 2 out of 5 About-Faces
Some other About-Face-approved movies: Lovely and Amazing: Serious body-image talk, with a mom having liposuction, an actress being self-loathing, and a little fat girl trying to make sense of it all.
Drop Dead Gorgeous: If you’re into black comedy, this movie represents some of the blackest. Its take on beauty standards is nothing short of skewering.
If you’ve see any of these movies, tell us what you thought! Just click “Add Comment” below!
Fashion & Government
Bundchen and Family Values?
T-T-Tah-Tyra
Up in the air: Doesn’t really take on the insane thin ideal fashion-y people and models feel they must conform to at all times. But at least it kind of makes fun of those ideals. It also makes it seem that Andy can have either a high-powered career or a boyfriend, not both. (The older women we know dispel that myth handily.)