Posts filed under 'other blogs'
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.
– Michelle
August 26th, 2010
Kai Hibbard after her experience on "The Biggest Loser"
They laugh, they cry, they shed half their body weight!
Okay, admittedly I have never seen a full episode of NBC’s “The Biggest Loser,” but apparently, I’m in the minority. Since 2004, viewers in more than 90 countries have watched overweight contestants swap unhealthy habits for wholesome lifestyles, often emerging as toned and taut finalists vying for the ultimate clean-living reward: cold, hard cash.
While the contestants clearly and very, very literally work their butts off for the glory of being crowned “The Biggest Loser,” the breakneck speed at which some shed pounds can often seems too good to be true.
And apparently, it is.
Body Love Wellness founder Golda Poretsky recently spoke with Season 3 finalist Kai Hibbard about her experiences on the hit show, and Hibbard’s side of the story isn’t pretty. Nor is it anything like the warm and fuzzy accounts I’ve heard from “The Biggest Loser” fans who tune in every week.
Hibbard exposes a long list of behind-the-scenes transgressions, but the most startling is that participating in “The Biggest Loser” led her to develop an eating disorder.
You can read the full three-part interview at Poretsky’s site (warning: it’s full of potential triggers for anyone struggling with an eating disorder), but below are a few choice quotes:
“There was a registered dietician[sic] that was supposed to be helping [the contestants at the ranch] as well…but every time she tried to give us advice…the crew or production would step in and tell us that we were not to listen to anybody except our trainers. And my trainer’s a nice person, but I have no idea what she had for a nutritional background at all.”
“It gave me a really fun eating disorder that I battle every day, and it also messed up my mental body image because the lighter I got during that TV show, the more I hated my body… I do still struggle [with an eating disorder]. I do. My husband says I’m still afraid of food…I’m still pretty messed up from the show. It doesn’t help that when I go in public…the first thing they usually ask me is ‘what do you weigh no
w?’”
“I feel…that I have a responsibility to counteract some of the harm that that show does. Because I took a piece of being that problem, I now own a piece of being the solution…When I have people come to me crying, telling me how hard they work and how they log their food and how they’ve done everything they could and [they ask] ‘Why can’t I lose 12 pounds in a week like you?’ I feel a responsibility to get out there and go, ‘You know what? Sue me if you want to, NBC, but I’m telling these people, I didn’t lose 12 pounds in a week. It didn’t happen. It wasn’t a week. And even when it looks like I lost 12 pounds in a week…I was so severely dehydrated that I was completely unhealthy.”
Those are some serious allegations, and whether or not you believe them is up to you. But to complicate the sticky situation further, Kai promotes a line of diet pills and gushes about them on her web site.
She claims she lost weight “without exercising or changing my diet!” Ugh. Isn’t this contradicting every reason she might have had to expose the harsh extremes on the set of “The Biggest Loser”? If you’re speaking out against the show because you “feel a responsibility” to divulge the dangers of overboard weight-loss tactics, what are you doing promoting an appetite suppressant?
But as Poretsky points out on her site, “She may think that weight loss is an appropriate goal, and still be offended and harmed by her treatment and the treatment of her fellow contestants.” Good point. And something to think about next time you tune in to watch a too-good-to-be-true TV moment.
–Michelle
June 22nd, 2010
As we found out from The Root, Mattel is releasing a new line of Barbie dolls that are getting a lot of attention. The new line, called “So In Style,” or “S.I.S.” are supposed to be African-American and to have more “authentic” facial features. The S.I.S. dolls are sold in pairs, with one adult doll and one young doll, in order to model a mentor relationship.
What makes this new line of black dolls interesting is that each character has a different skin tone, representing the variety of skin tones that black women have. Also, the dolls have straight, wavy, and curly hair. Props to Mattel for including these differences, but while it may be a step forward in representing racial diversity, it is far from far enough.
The S.I.S. dolls are just another example of how America loves to see African-Americans: as white as possible. The women most regarded as beautiful, who likely serve as popular role models for young girls, have light skin, more Anglo features, and, of course, are very thin. Beautiful black women with darker skin, more “ethnic” features, or with curves or muscles get nowhere near as much attention or praise for their beauty. What kind of message does that give to black girls and the rest of society?
In terms of hair, the S.I.S. line includes one adult doll with curly hair and a young doll with afro-puffs (not pictured). The rest of the dolls have long, wavy or straight hair — just like white Barbies.
Of course many black women do have hair like this, but most don’t grow it that way naturally. There are six different dolls — why not six different kinds of hair? To me, this lack of representation just reaffirms the notion that “nappy” or “kinky” hair is bad, while promoting long, sleek hair as the most (or only) beautiful option.
African-American women have a variety of hairstyles, natural and otherwise, that should be represented in this line. How would dolls with dreadlocks or interchangeable hair weaves fly? Would they be marketable? Would they be offensive? I don’t know. But I do think that they would provide some much needed representation for the differences within black women’s hairstyles and practices.
In the range of skin tones for black women, I would say that these dolls come in very light, medium light, and medium skin tones only. The darkest one is actually not so dark at all.
It pretty much goes without saying that Barbie dolls are going to be ridiculously skinny with impossible proportions, but if they must be the supermodels of toys, I’d like to see dolls that look like Alek Wek too.
(Left to right:) Black supermodels Tyra Banks, Iman, Alek Wek, and Kimora Lee Simmons
Seeing more representation of females with dark skin, natural hairstyles, and various facial features and body types on screen, in print, and in toys will not only help African-American girls and women feel more beautiful and appreciated, but will also provide a much needed additions to the set of characteristics our society holds as beautiful.
-Sabrina
Sabrina is a student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, studying Community Studies and Sociology. Her area of focus is cultural politics and she is interning with About-Face for a field study. Sabrina is especially interested in women’s roles and representations in mass media.
July 17th, 2009
Lest we think that the images we see in ads are the gospel truth, here comes the blog Photoshop Disasters, featuring the most egregious blunders in digital manipulation. It features the so-called flawless retouches that accidentally defy the laws of physics and/or human anatomy. Not only is this blog absolutely hilarious, it serves as a reminder of the extent to which every ad we see is edited.
My heart goes out to Ms. Summer. However, you will see much worse on the site: extra hands, people with eight-pack abs but no bellybuttons, even my favorite here (may be NSFW). It’s interesting to note that, although PsD is a site that is open to all types of ads, photos of Frankenstein women dominate the blog. I definitely recommend visiting this site as an affirmation that, no, no one actually looks like that.
-A.I.
June 28th, 2008
Bon mots abound in copyranter, a blog from an ad copywriter from NYC:
“Jugs missing Caps. Puppies missing Noses. Pillows missing Buttons. Boulders missing Crevices. Ad apparently from Mexico for Mia “seamless” lingerie. Is it a good ad? No. Why am I posting it? DUH — it’s sleazy, and I’ve got a reputation to uphold. Added note: the obvious implants contribute to the seamlessness and seaminess. related: WonderBra ad doesn’t show breasts, bra.
To see the NSFW (not safe for work), NSFL (not safe for life) ad, click here — but don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Copyranter often strikes a note halfway between thoughtful and enraged, which, given the content of some of these ads, makes a lot of sense. I wouldn’t recommend reading his (yes, his) blog if you have a problem with profanity. However, the sheer volume of ads in the archives is worth checking out.
He also says, “In the 21st century, misogyny in advertising is still rampant, rampant, RAMPANT! You wanna know why? Because many, many ad agencies are still basically just boys’ club bastions with hardly a female writer or art director in sight. Women belong at home, supervising the Roomba!” Wow! How thoughtful. And correct.
– A.I.
February 7th, 2008
