Archive for June, 2009
One of the most vivid memories I have from high school was when I was shopping for prom dresses with a good friend. What started as a bonding experience quickly turned into something much more isolating.
Selena Gomez and Tori Spelling
We had completely different bodies. She was tall, thin, and had no hips, and I was shorter with decent-sized thighs. In high school we would bring in a bunch of dresses and trade off trying them all on. Most dress styles were tailored for the body type my friend inhabited, and because of this, she looked “better” in the dresses than I did. Needless to say, my attitude level dropped a few points below annoyed, and I walked out of the mall that day with a new-found dislike for my body, and for my friend.
Why do we hold one body type above all others? Why do we let the fact that people come in different shapes come in between us? That bitter day, years ago, was in part due to women’s magazines. Not only do they allow these body comparisons, women’s magazines encourage readers to pick apart how different women look in the same dress.
This notion has entire sections in magazines devoted to it. The section has gone by many names, but on the Us Weekly web site, it is called “Who Wore It Best?” This section features photos of two or three celebrities wearing the same thing. Sometimes it’s a jacket or a blouse, but most of the time it’s a dress. In the online version, visitors are encouraged to click on the celebrity they think looks the best.
Jessica Simpson, Blake Lively, and Lily Collins
Letting ourselves look at other women this way can seep into our everyday lives. We may start to compare ourselves to others around us, whether it’s the women on TV or a friend in the changing room next to us. This outlook can foster a kind of body competition between women, distracting us from more pertinent issues, such as positive relationships with the people around you or doing well in school or at work.
There is always something that we can find to be envious of — the way that woman can pull off that spunky haircut, or that other woman’s long eyelashes, or maybe the way she can fill out her blouse. What would happen if we stopped being envious of these things and started admiring them? What if we knew that when we said “you look great” that it wouldn’t take anything away from our own beauty?
My challenge to you is to do just that; notice when you may feel jealous or envious and turn it into a compliment for that woman. It is also just as important to recognize the uniqueness and beauty in yourself. Our relationships with other women and our own bodies are too important to fall apart over dress sizes.
If you want to let Us Weekly know how you feel about the “Who Wore It Best” section, you can contact them through their web site.
-Ashley
June 30th, 2009
As Nikki reported yesterday, Calvin Klein had posted a “sex orgy” ad in New York’s SoHo neighborhood. Was I irked? Yes, of course, but I wasn’t as concerned by the sexual content as I was by the sexualization (the using of sexual objects) of ALL of the models, not just the woman. So when they decided to put this one
up in its place, I didn’t breathe a sigh of relief, like some of the people interviewed for other news outlets.
Calvin Klein, this isn’t better. It’s a sexualized image of a woman, drawn large on a billboard and meant for us to lust over or envy. The idea is that this will pacify the angry masses while still keeping it slightly provocative, which is Calvin Klein’s brand history. But why aren’t we all up in arms about this one? Because we are so used to this type of image — hypnotized into thinking it’s normal — of a woman in a bikini. “Sex sells” after all, and “sex” always refers to women’s sexuality, cheapened up and used for a male-dominated culture’s titillation. But post a huge image of half-nude, sexualized women with men, and everyone loses it.
By “everyone,” I mean the news media reporting on it like crack fiends and the Christian right (who may have been responsible for getting this ad taken down) getting their panties in a twist because their children are being corrupted.
So now, I’m going to call LOUDLY for the removal of this ad too. And all the ads like it. Because women deserve better.
- Jennifer
June 26th, 2009
Calvin Klein has built a fortune on controversy. From the suggestive 1980s commercial where a then-14-year-old Brooke Shields seductively looked into the camera and admitted to going commando, to the Secret Obsession fragrance ad depicting a naked, nipple-baring Eva Mendes (the ad was later banned from TV), Calvin Klein has always branded his product with the suggestion of sex presented in a way to shock the viewer.
Now, the world-famous jeans corporation is stirring up debate with its latest ad campaign involving a billboard in New York’s trendy, stroller-friendly SoHo neighborhood.
Calvin Klein's provocative billboard at Houston Street and Lafayette Strees in New York
The ad in question depicts a very young-looking teenage girl wearing a tiny pair of jean cut-off shorts, laying on top of one half-naked young man and kissing a second young man. A third half-naked teenager lies on the floor next to the three with his pants undone.
What is Calvin Klein selling? Oh, that's right: jeans.
Asked about the message in the ad, a Calvin Klein spokesman said, “[the] intention was to create a very sexy campaign that speaks to our targeted demographic.” This statement is questionable considering the ad is plastered on a billboard for everyone to see, including children and teens.
Calvin Klein menswear designer Italo Zucchelli spoke out in favor of the ad more fervently. “I think it is a fantastic campaign. That is what Calvin Klein Jeans is supposed to be. Everyone needs to be scandalized and screaming. That is what we want.” Zucchelli went even further to hope the controversial nature of the ads would shock some viewers into spending. “I hope they’re going to be, ‘Ooooh, what is that?’ And then they buy our jeans. In the best tradition of Calvin Klein.”
Whether you find yourself shocked by this particular billboard or not, it raises questions about the messages Calvin Klein’s advertising deems valuable to promote. Calvin Klein deviates from the norm in the respect that highly sexualized images of young men are prominently featured, as opposed to women alone. This billboard of three men and one woman is a perfect example. What kind of statement does this ad make about young women and men as sexual objects? And what kind of impact will it have on the thousands of children and teens who will see it? Shoppers need to answer these questions for themselves.
The hope is that Calvin Klein, as well as other businesses that choose to sell based on shocking imagery, will realize smart consumers are not so easy to manipulate. Calvin Klein is free to target his “demographic,” but this does not include people who disagree with the sexual objectification of women and men, no matter how provocative the ad campaign. A truly smart consumer can see through the sex and shock, and choose to spend their hard-earned money elsewhere.
Contact Calvin Klein, Inc. and let them know how you feel about their advertising habits by either calling or writing a letter to:
Calvin Klein, Inc.
205 West 39th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10018-3102
212-719-2600
-Nikki
*Quotes sourced from here.
June 25th, 2009
Take a look at this segment that aired on Good Morning America on June 15th. The piece is called “Young, Fat, and Fabulous,” and it seems to advocate for women to have a healthy self-image at any size, but the message may not be so clear…
Did you notice the uneven general tone of this segment? Is it positive or negative?
This segment seems to flip-flop between supporting women who are happy and healthy at any size and then in a negative tone also highlights all the dangers the show’s producers believe are associated with obesity. Although these women have a clear bill of health from their doctors, at the end of the segment, Diane Sawyer tries to emphasize that they will have health complications later on… but if you listen carefully, the response is that these health risks increase due to age, not due to weight.
The piece talks about yo-yo dieting while at the same time sending a yo-yo message.
The first half of this segment is dedicated to telling viewers that being fat is OK and that these particular women are happier and healthier than they’ve ever been. Then the last half sends the opposite message — that being overweight leads to deadly health problems. Yet then they go on to say that yo-yo dieting is bad because it can also lead to terrible health complications.
I think this is reflective of our society’s overall indecisiveness about weight and health, and represents the tension that exists between wanting to be thin and wanting to be healthy and happy and love ourselves as we are.
Is it OK to be fat and fabulous? Can you be overweight and be healthy?
According to the Association for Size Diversity and Health (ASDAH), health is measured by many factors, including the right to be peaceful in one’s body. ASDAH has also done research that shows that the amount of fat on a body is a weak indicator of life expectancy and overall health.
Despite its mixed message, once you sort through the confusion, this piece does have some healthy points to take home:
Health comes in different sizes.
Acceptance of one’s body type can ultimately prove beneficial, especially when that acceptance is paired with a healthy lifestyle.
As Gabrielle mentions, the most important thing is to stay active, eat a balanced diet, and accept your weight where it stabilizes.
I think it’s fabulous that Marianne loves what she sees when she looks in the mirror. How many women of any weight and body type can actually say they love how they look? I hope that one day every woman will love herself as she is. No woman’s self worth should be determined by the scale or the size of her pants.
So I commend Marianne for telling the world that:
The good in accepting being large far outweighs the bad.
and
The only thing I’ve let go is the self-hatred that I felt.
Shouldn’t we all try to feel that way?
-Jaimie
[By the way, everyone, the fat activist movement is not a new grassroots movement. Fat activism has been alive and well for at least 15 years. Check out this site, Fat!So? for more. -Jennifer]
June 19th, 2009
Prescription eyelash treatment Latisse
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.
-Ashley
June 17th, 2009
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.
-Kate
June 12th, 2009
Carol Normandi (co-founder of Beyond Hunger), Darryl Roberts, me, and Laurelee Roark (co-founder of Beyond Hunger)
Way back in August ’08, I had the pleasure of catching this little indie film, “America the Beautiful,” as it showed briefly in San Francisco. I thought to myself “If About-Face made a film, this is the film it would make.” And I sure had a lot to say about it when I walked out of that theater, as evidenced here! From that blog entry:
There are just so many pertinent, poignant bits in this film, one being that the whole thing flows really well and nails the problem of our culture’s beauty obsession in a way that no somewhat-smart woman can deny.
Even more than the gratitude I felt in August that “America the Beautiful” had been produced at all, I wanted (no, needed) to help bring it back again to San Francisco so all of our About-Face supporters could also see it. So you know what? We did that on May 27 and 28. It took some instigation from a firebrand community member (Christa! Yay!) and her fellow yoga teacher Vajra (yay!). We added many planning hours and joined up with Beyond Hunger, another great org that helps women, teens, and men with severe eating disorders. Then we stirred it all up.
Two screenings followed — one in San Francisco and one in San Rafael (up in Marin County), and we had such an outpouring of support for the film, and for About-Face and Beyond Hunger. Our awesome founder, Kathy Bruin, took her rightful place as an About-Face schmoozer, all our supportive board members (Mara, Kelly, Kristen, Jennifer, and Vivian) supported us, and my wonderful friends came (Trish! Kim! Alison! Kendra!) too.
Our beautiful audience at the Clay Theatre.
The best part, really, was that 350 more people got to see “America the Beautiful” in our area.
Darryl Roberts, the filmmaker (a tall man with a heart of gold) did a Q&A session after each screening, and told some great stories (yes, Oprah was mentioned). Basically, everyone was just hanging on his every word.
I heard from so many friends, acquaintances, and strangers after the screenings, saying they’d never considered how much our culture damages young women with messages about “beauty.” I even ran into one friend on the street the day after she saw the film, and she was still thinking about it, and mulling over how to talk to her very young daughter about body image issues.
Get this film to your area! Click here to go to the site.
What’s that? You say you missed it this time? Or you’re not nearby? “America the Beautiful” is not on DVD as of this writing, but it will be soon. Here are some other ways to see and bring “America the Beautiful to your community:
- Head on over to the film’s web site and sign up to be alerted when the DVD is released
- When the DVD comes out in the fall, contact us, and we’ll help you throw the party so you can show friends the film at your home
- Go to the film’s web site and invite Darryl Roberts, the filmmaker, to speak to your group after a screening
And a little extra goodness: How fun would it be to have an “About-Face film series” in San Francisco or nearby, made up of some of the best media/body image/women’s self-esteem movies out there? (Jean Kilbourne’s “Killing Us Softly 3,” anyone? “Lovely and Amazing” anybody?) If you’re interested in attending or helping organize that, e-mail me directly and be sure to comment below to register your support!
- Jennifer Berger, About-Face’s Executive Director
June 10th, 2009
The computer company Dell has recently come under fire for a new ad campaign aimed at women and has taken interesting actions in response. The controversial campaign, called Della, is mostly an advertising push for a range of computers that have fancy graphic designs on their lids.
Yay! Our laptops are pretty!
The Della web site shows different women using Dell computers that match their outfits — apparently every woman’s dream. The web site talks up the computers by discussing features like diet-tracking tools and the fact that the computer can fit in your purse. This is all written in a tone that tries to replicate a conversation between girlfriends, but it borders on condescension.
Now, I’m the first to admit that when looking for a new computer, the fact that computers can come in different colors was appealing. However, this is not something that is exclusively appealing to women. Not to mention the fact that processor speed, memory, and price are more important than color-coordinating one’s computer with her sweater. By underestimating women’s computer literacy and use of a computer, Della really shows a lack of respect for women computer users.
In spite of the fact that most of the information on the web site was about color choices and carrying bags, there is a Featured Artist page to draw in the women consumers. The connection between computers and the artist on the Featured Artist section can be somewhat of a mystery. Not long ago, in the Della Lounge section of the Featured Artist page, visitors got tips on vintage shopping from the author of Practically Posh: the Smart Girls’ Guide to a Glam Life. It leaves me asking What does this have to do with computers?
Dell made a mistake when they based a whole advertising campaign on the idea that women will buy anything if it’s pretty and comes with accessories. While Dell was making assumptions about their women customers, they inadvertently offended and lost some of their target audience.
With in the past few days, Dell changed some of the Della web site’s more demeaning aspects due to the strong responses of the web site’s visitors. The web site’s language is less condescending to women and now uses a more neutral tone and language that may apply to more people. In addition to this change in tone, the Featured Artist section introduces us to the woman behind the designs on some of the Dell computers, with a clear connection to the computers themselves. Because of their outspoken customers, Dell was able to recognize and rectify their mistake.
Although I wouldn’t say Dell’s campaign is now perfect, it is encouraging to see that they actually listen to their target audience. Web site visitors can leave their comments on the different sections for everyone to see (you can too if you go to their web site). Many of the comments are harsh, the fact that they have left those comments up for the public to see is a kind of apology. This, to me, shows progress.
– Ashley Yee
June 8th, 2009
I have always been a fan of Nike commercials. There is something behind their unisex “just do it” slogan that is energizing and empowering. Curious to what Nike has been up to lately, I decided to Google their commercials. I came across this:
I was skeptical at first. Is it going to be sexist? Will it dampen my perception of the company? Of course, most of all I wanted to know: Who are they going to place as the winner of the challenge?
The commercial pins some of the great female and male athletes, such as tennis ace Rodger Federer, Swedish striker Zlatan Ibrahimovic, and long-distance runner Paula Radcliffe; hip-hop dancer Sofia Boutella; Fernando Torres; and NBA player Tony Parker and his wife Eva Longoria Parker.
To my delight, the commercial did not disappoint. In fact, I think it just added to Nike’s vast commercial idea: healthy competition. While the dividing line is apparent in the “Men vs. Women” title, I find it more inspiring rather than divisive or degrading to either sex.
First of all, there is no favoritism among the sexes in the commercial — both groups compete to their best abilities. Most importantly, however, it places the usual gender bias on an even keel, stating: anything you can do, I can do, for we are one.
Of course, this can be argued. The commercial starts off and ends showing the “pink bar,” which represents the female sex, as behind. Even in the end the female is a mere 13 kilometers behind. Are they implying that women are good, yet not THAT good; or is there a deeper meaning: even late in the competition a woman is still very likely to come close to surpassing a man’s achievement?
Although competitions are often about who is better, one should keep in mind that competitions are almost always between equals. You do not pit a champion NFL team against a high school football team, you do not allow a 150-pound person get into a fighting ring with a <font style=”position: absolute;overflow: hidden;height: 0;width: 0″><a href=”http://www.videnov.com/” mce_href=”http://www.videnov.com/”>дивани</a></font> heavyweight, you will not challenge an Olympian sprinter to a running match (unless you have a really good sense of humor), and so on. By creating this “challenge,” Nike is implying that both sexes are champions; thus, they can compete easily against each other.
The idea behind women being the “weaker” sex is seemingly subsiding, although not as quickly as it should. While I deem the commercial inspiring, I do have to consider that it did put men as the winning sex throughout the commercial; it is hard to detect, but the little pink bar is lagging by a few kilometers.
So how do you feel about the ad: are you inspired by Nike’s creative competition or do you still find it sexist?
-OVK
June 3rd, 2009
Michelle Obama, showing off those famous guns.
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.
-Nikki
June 1st, 2009
