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.
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?
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.
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?
Known for larger breasts, bleached eyebrows, a sizeable gap between her two front teeth, and hips that round out between a U.S. size 4 and size 6, Lara Stone is different from what we’ve become accustomed to seeing on the runway and in fashion magazines.
(While a size 4 is still extremely thin, size 4 models are almost unheard of in the modeling business. Today, most models average between a size 0 and a size 2.)
Stone’s commanding presence and comparatively curvy physique are a throwback to the times of “supermodels” like Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer, and Naomi Campbell, women known for their beautiful curves and Amazonian stature.
Most interesting is the fact that designers are falling head over heels in love with Stone’s body. Just this year, Stone walked in all of the major fashion shows, renewed her contracts with Givenchy and Hugo Boss, and became the new face of Jean Paul Gaultier. In February, Vogue Paris dedicated an entire issue to Stone.
Of course, it is frustrating that it took almost 20 years for the enthusiasm for rail-thin bodies to wane. During the early 1990s, Kate Moss burst onto the scene in a highly publicized campaign for Calvin Klein. In the fashion world, one girl can change everything. No one is a better example than Moss. With her protruding bones and childlike frailty, Moss became synonymous with the terms “waif” and “heroin chic,” and the fashion industry embraced her physique as the new sought-after look for models on the runways and in advertisements.
Stone’s growing success, and the fact that designers have not pressured her to slim down, are promising signs that designers are embracing a healthier, more inclusive shape for women’s bodies. With the foundation set for fashion’s return to curvaceous, tall figures, now is the perfect time for a new “it” girl, a symbolic body that signifies the changing times. Lara Stone’s increasing success suggests it may be time for Kate Moss, and her waif-like predecessors, to pass the torch.
It’s absolutely appalling that 25% of young women questioned in an Oxygen TV poll reported that they would rather be awarded first prize on America’s Next Top Model than be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize! A total of 50% said they would happily marry an ugly man if he was rich!
I thought this was incredible too, speaking to female competition: “More that 25 percent said they’d make their best friend fat for life if it meant they could be thin.”
What is going on with our female population? Is anyone paying attention? Where are our priorities?
Where have the parents, teachers, and mentors that should be influencing and encouraging
Doris Lessing, Nobel Prize in Literature 2007
young females gone? Has the media completely overpowered them? Young women are constantly being bombarded with frivolous ideals and goals that are only short term. Beauty is fine, but the type of beauty that is being promoted won’t last. Eventually we all get older despite that wrinkle cream.
What will happen to girls with this mindset when they hit 40 and realize that their first prize on America’s Next Top Model does not qualify as job experience? It would be very sad if one day they wake up and realize they are unhappy in their marriage since they only married for money, but they can’t escape… they are entirely dependent. Will they turn to plastic surgery? Become alcoholics? Commit suicide?
No! Something needs to be done now to prevent this absurd youth consciousness. I am asking for your help.What ideas do you have? How can you reach out to young women in your community to turn this around? And asking you to cast your vote in the comments: America’s Next Top Model or Nobel Prize, which do you choose?
"(Lucky magazine) preferred her over this model, so we went ahead and pieced together a new girl." (click image to watch the video on NYTimes.com)
Jesse Epstein, the filmmaker who made the terrific short documentary “Wet Dreams and False Images,” is back with a video op-ed on the NYTimes.com. In it, she asks whether American magazine editors should be required by law to disclose how much they have retouched images in their magazines. Well, should they?
This guy retouches photos and tells about it in the video.
So why does it even matter whether magazines are showing retouched, fake women?
Here’s why: When the female body is edited beyond recognition (or created) by a photo retoucher, and women and girls see that as the ideal, chaos (and oh, self-harm) ensues for those women and girls. Examples:
cosmetic surgery carrying huge health risks (including death)
over-exercise (or “exercise bulimia”)
unhealthy, risky dieting
disordered eating behaviors (that may or may not mean a person has an eating disorder)
eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia (which, by the way, can cause death)
general, all-consuming obsession with appearance that takes our attention away from truly important parts of our lives
Know what I’m saying? Check out the video and let us know what you think. – Jennifer
THIS is the model who won America’s Next Top Model last night.
Well, imagine my surprise when I tuned in to America’s Next Top Model (a Tyra Banks vehicle) to see which of the three finalists would win, only to see Whitney, a “full-figured” model, take the prize. It’s quite an accomplishment for the show, since Tyra gets all kind of flack for being size-positive on the Tyra Banks Show, her daytime talk show, but not supporting full-figured models enough on America’s Next Top Model. So finally Tyra reconciled her two TV pursuits a bit better.
We at About-Face are pretty pleased, though Whitney is not actually “plus-sized” by any stretch of the imagination. She’s pretty normal. But you know, the modeling and fashion industry needs this right now.
If you’re unfamiliar with the show, here’s a good recap of last night’s episode (the web site makes you install a Java applet, and the best bits are from 1:23 to 2:00).
Great quotes from the episode: Es gibt aber auch ein paar deutsprächige online Kasinos , wo man internet Kasino poker spielen kann.
Tyra: “She’s not big, J. [Alexander, a judge]! This is the modeling industry — she’s considered big, but walking down the street, she’s just a hot chick.”
Paulina Porizkova [former supermodel]: “[Whitney] should not be called ‘plus-sized’ or ‘full-figured.’ [She] should just be called ‘beautiful.’ ”
Whitney: “I’m here because I do feel good about myself, and I want other women in America to feel better about themselves.”
Whitney: “[I realized] I can do that [be a model]. I don’t have to starve myself or have cosmetic surgery.”
It was all rather touching.
Is this a step in the right direction? Does it matter that there’s a larger-than-model-sized model who won? And what will it do for (or to) the fashion and modeling industries, if anything?
[Update 5/9/08: An article in AdAge today reports on a statement from Dove and the retoucher mentioned in the New Yorker article discussed below. See updates throughout this item. -J.B.]
[The Dove ads: Lots of retouching? Really? Did you have to break our hearts?] [Update: Phew -- turns out there may not have been much retouching after all.]
Ah, Photoshop retouching, how you pain us, how you confuse us all. Reading a very amazing (and very long) article in the New Yorker (May 12, 2008 issue) today, I learned about the techniques and life of master photo retoucher Pascal Dangin. I encourage About-Face visitors to take the time to read the entire article, either online or in the magazine itself.
My rose-colored glasses were cracked by this statement about his work on the Dove campaigns. From the article:
I [the article's author] mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual “real women” in their undergarments. It turned out that it was a Dangin job. “Do you know how much retouching was on that?” he asked. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive.”
Retouchers, subjected to endless epistemological debates — are they simple conduits for social expectations of beauty, or shapers of such? — often resort to a don’t-shoot-the-messenger defense of their craft, familiar to repo guys and bail bondsmen. When I asked Dangin if the steroidal advantage that retouching gives to celebrities was unfair to ordinary people, he admitted that he was complicit in perpetuating unrealistic images of the human body, but said, “I’m just giving the supply to the demand.” (Fashion advertisements are not public-service announcements.)
Of course they had some retouching done — but a LOT of retouching? Wait a minute. Aren’t they supposed to be “real” women?
[Update: Dangin says he did not work on the "women in their undergarments" ad, said, "In my experienced opinion, based upon what I have seen, it does not appear that the women had been retouched."
Turns out that he did work on the Dove Pro-Age ads, which were photographed by Annie Leibovitz. Per the AdAge article mentioned above:
In her statement, provided by Unilever, Ms. Leibovitz said, "Let's be perfectly clear -- Pascal does all kinds of work ... and only does retouching when asked to. The idea for Dove was very clear at the beginning. There was to be NO retouching, and there was not."]
In the article, Dangin comes across as an artist, but he’s still manipulating the public image. Then there are tons of other photo retouchers out there who, at the urging of their advertising and magazine clients, shave off too much hip, remove too much bulge, and create a Frankenstein’s monster. Case in point:
[Some bad image manipulation.]
The resulting image can have one of two effects: Girls, boys, women, and men can see the image and 1) perceive it as real, assuming that it is the way a beautiful woman should look, or 2) see it as a grotesque, malformed person. We make the choice, and the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty makes the point well: we often can’t tell whether an image is retouched. (See the irony here?) Will we continue to believe our eyes and try to get ever more “perfect”?
I don’t believe that photographers should never use Photoshop on their photos — everyone wants a pimple removed in their family picture for posterity or their MySpace or Facebook page — but completely changing a body to within a centimeter of its former self? And selling us a literally unattainable form of beauty we are told we must fit into? That’s where I draw the line.
accordingly.
