![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kangeiko(I'll keep this brief because essay beckons.)
Dear feminist readers,
You and I both despair of the ridiculous standards of beauty prevalent in the world and manifesting in everything from eating disorders to Barbie dolls to skin-whitening creams. A popular magazine attempted not too long ago to use 'real women' as their models in an attempt to counteract this destructive dominant discourse. The result was a drop in the magazine's circulation figures: real women, it sees, do not want to look at real women modelling. Although women say they want to see 'real women' in magazines, they are unwilling to purchase those magazines once they see the result. Patriarchy has tightened its grip to the extent that women cannot free themselves from the image of the Barbie doll as they still want her to 'aspire' to. (It also shows that numbers and polls lie lie lie.)
Very well then. If women are unable to free themselves from the Barbie image because they don't want to, we should look at why they don't want to. The social conditioning of aesthetics is much more rigorous than a quick glance in a woman's magazine indicates. Perhaps, then, the first step is to allow women to identify their internalised beauty standards. After all, the first step to being free is to realise that you are in a cage.
This is all well and good. There was a recent post on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
feminist about young Japanese women throwing blonde wigs into the air to demonstrate their rejection of the Western beauty ideal. This was generally taken as a good thing: after all, it highlights the problem of the extant ideal and symbolises a rejection of it.
You can imagine my surprise when I saw the vehemence with which many women reacted to the Dove 'Real Beauty' campaign. I'm based in the UK so I can only really talk about the ads over here, but I'm at a loss as to why they are anti-feminist and exploitative.
1) To those that argue that "fat or fit" indicates that they are mutually exclusive:
it's not rocket science. Most internalised reactions will result in a 'gut' instinct - whoa! or yuck! - that you then either go with or reject. By asking a short question (really nothing more than a yes/no), it elicits a gut reaction, then makes you question it. Do you think this woman is fit? Yes. Is she fat? Yes. That doesn't mean that she's not fit, though. All good, move along. Do you think that this woman is fit? No. Why? She's fat. Can't you be both? Er.... *long deep thoughts*
We can but hope.
2) To those that argue that the use of feminist rhetoric in advertising is exploitative:
advertising is one of the avenues by which external standards of beaty are projected onto children's bodies and then internalised in preparation for adulthood. This particular beauty campaign has been all over the UK. People are talking about it in boutiques and chippies alike. If it makes you question extant beauty standards, how on earth is it exploitative?
3) The argument that 'they' are getting money from the product and don't care about feminism:
I've actually met several of the people that were involved in the campaign, including those that selected the winners. You know what? On the whole, they are women and, as a general rule, they have an awareness of and a concern for feminism. If a a female CEO decides to implement maternity benefits throughout her company, feminists stand up and cheer. Utilising feminism in the businessplace isn't a problem in labour relations. It shouldn't be a problem in the actual product. Would that more feminists worked in the ad agency creating the "Mum's gone to Iceland!" adverts!
4) To those that cite Foucault's counter-discourse at me:
Go away, you are giving me a headache. I can argue that feminism itself is merely a counter-discourse to patriarchy's dominant discourse, and then where would we be?
5) Finally, to those that object to Dove supporting a self-esteem charity:
Are you kidding? You're objecting to a charity that supports vulnerable young girls - why? Because it's Corporate Social Responsibility and good PR? Maybe. You know, it's amazing. If an oil company has an oil spill and responds by cleaning up the area and launching new environmentally-friendly programs, we'd yell at them for being polluters, but feel mollified that they saw the problem and fixed and are genuinely trying to improve themselves so it doesn't happen again. But when a company decides to contribute to social projects without prior court orders or fines, all of a sudden it's a cynical PR stunt to boost sales.
Isn't possible that a company might decide to set an example? No? I don't get it.
I. Don't. Get. It.
If anyone has an adequate explanation - or just feels the need to argue - go right ahead. Comment space is free. I'm still buried in dollar signs and buckets - simply buckets - of utility, but we shall see.
On a light and fluffy note, there was a pointless daytime tv programme on a couple of days ago that stuck with me. It was following the budgets of several young families on income support, or something. I didn't catch the specifics. Anyway, there was a guy there whose wife was expecting their third child. Now, these people were not well-off. Neither of them worked, they lived in a council estate, they would periodically pawn something to make ends meet etc. The guy had millions of tattoos and was missing most of his teeth; the girl had bottle-bolnde hair and was wearing hot pink clothing. Very much a stereotype, yes. Anyway, the girl's maternity money came through. (Maternity money? I had not heard of this. Apparently, you get a lump sum with which to buy baby things, which sound fantastic, frankly.) So, theyw ent off and bought baby thing,s including a wee little babysuit thingie with a matching cap. It was white, and had the england flag stitched into it, with a football logo or something. Anyway, the presenter asked, "would you buy the same thing if the child is a girl?"
The guy, glowing with pride, said, "of course I would. Any kid of mine would love football. Anyway, most of the baby clothes are unisex anyway, and it's only a baby, nobody's looking at it, you could dress it however you like. Except if you put a dress on a boy, that would be daft. Although, that Beckam's wearing sarogns and stuff, so if he can, I don't see why I can't buy wee dresses for a boy."
Which left me speechless. In a good way. Ah, the power of advertising.
Dear feminist readers,
You and I both despair of the ridiculous standards of beauty prevalent in the world and manifesting in everything from eating disorders to Barbie dolls to skin-whitening creams. A popular magazine attempted not too long ago to use 'real women' as their models in an attempt to counteract this destructive dominant discourse. The result was a drop in the magazine's circulation figures: real women, it sees, do not want to look at real women modelling. Although women say they want to see 'real women' in magazines, they are unwilling to purchase those magazines once they see the result. Patriarchy has tightened its grip to the extent that women cannot free themselves from the image of the Barbie doll as they still want her to 'aspire' to. (It also shows that numbers and polls lie lie lie.)
Very well then. If women are unable to free themselves from the Barbie image because they don't want to, we should look at why they don't want to. The social conditioning of aesthetics is much more rigorous than a quick glance in a woman's magazine indicates. Perhaps, then, the first step is to allow women to identify their internalised beauty standards. After all, the first step to being free is to realise that you are in a cage.
This is all well and good. There was a recent post on
feminist about young Japanese women throwing blonde wigs into the air to demonstrate their rejection of the Western beauty ideal. This was generally taken as a good thing: after all, it highlights the problem of the extant ideal and symbolises a rejection of it. You can imagine my surprise when I saw the vehemence with which many women reacted to the Dove 'Real Beauty' campaign. I'm based in the UK so I can only really talk about the ads over here, but I'm at a loss as to why they are anti-feminist and exploitative.
1) To those that argue that "fat or fit" indicates that they are mutually exclusive:
it's not rocket science. Most internalised reactions will result in a 'gut' instinct - whoa! or yuck! - that you then either go with or reject. By asking a short question (really nothing more than a yes/no), it elicits a gut reaction, then makes you question it. Do you think this woman is fit? Yes. Is she fat? Yes. That doesn't mean that she's not fit, though. All good, move along. Do you think that this woman is fit? No. Why? She's fat. Can't you be both? Er.... *long deep thoughts*
We can but hope.
2) To those that argue that the use of feminist rhetoric in advertising is exploitative:
advertising is one of the avenues by which external standards of beaty are projected onto children's bodies and then internalised in preparation for adulthood. This particular beauty campaign has been all over the UK. People are talking about it in boutiques and chippies alike. If it makes you question extant beauty standards, how on earth is it exploitative?
3) The argument that 'they' are getting money from the product and don't care about feminism:
I've actually met several of the people that were involved in the campaign, including those that selected the winners. You know what? On the whole, they are women and, as a general rule, they have an awareness of and a concern for feminism. If a a female CEO decides to implement maternity benefits throughout her company, feminists stand up and cheer. Utilising feminism in the businessplace isn't a problem in labour relations. It shouldn't be a problem in the actual product. Would that more feminists worked in the ad agency creating the "Mum's gone to Iceland!" adverts!
4) To those that cite Foucault's counter-discourse at me:
Go away, you are giving me a headache. I can argue that feminism itself is merely a counter-discourse to patriarchy's dominant discourse, and then where would we be?
5) Finally, to those that object to Dove supporting a self-esteem charity:
Are you kidding? You're objecting to a charity that supports vulnerable young girls - why? Because it's Corporate Social Responsibility and good PR? Maybe. You know, it's amazing. If an oil company has an oil spill and responds by cleaning up the area and launching new environmentally-friendly programs, we'd yell at them for being polluters, but feel mollified that they saw the problem and fixed and are genuinely trying to improve themselves so it doesn't happen again. But when a company decides to contribute to social projects without prior court orders or fines, all of a sudden it's a cynical PR stunt to boost sales.
Isn't possible that a company might decide to set an example? No? I don't get it.
I. Don't. Get. It.
If anyone has an adequate explanation - or just feels the need to argue - go right ahead. Comment space is free. I'm still buried in dollar signs and buckets - simply buckets - of utility, but we shall see.
On a light and fluffy note, there was a pointless daytime tv programme on a couple of days ago that stuck with me. It was following the budgets of several young families on income support, or something. I didn't catch the specifics. Anyway, there was a guy there whose wife was expecting their third child. Now, these people were not well-off. Neither of them worked, they lived in a council estate, they would periodically pawn something to make ends meet etc. The guy had millions of tattoos and was missing most of his teeth; the girl had bottle-bolnde hair and was wearing hot pink clothing. Very much a stereotype, yes. Anyway, the girl's maternity money came through. (Maternity money? I had not heard of this. Apparently, you get a lump sum with which to buy baby things, which sound fantastic, frankly.) So, theyw ent off and bought baby thing,s including a wee little babysuit thingie with a matching cap. It was white, and had the england flag stitched into it, with a football logo or something. Anyway, the presenter asked, "would you buy the same thing if the child is a girl?"
The guy, glowing with pride, said, "of course I would. Any kid of mine would love football. Anyway, most of the baby clothes are unisex anyway, and it's only a baby, nobody's looking at it, you could dress it however you like. Except if you put a dress on a boy, that would be daft. Although, that Beckam's wearing sarogns and stuff, so if he can, I don't see why I can't buy wee dresses for a boy."
Which left me speechless. In a good way. Ah, the power of advertising.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-04-23 09:58 am (UTC)1) They didn't exactly pick the most 'unconventional' looking models. One woman has got freckles, but apart from that she is thin and conventionally pretty. One woman is slightly overweight, but apart from that is very conventionally pretty, One woman has a small chest but she's gorgeous and skinny etc. etc. It's the 'one-flaw' rule that counts here.
2) The tick boxes on the posters was a BAD idea. In many places where I see them (mostly going up tube escalators), the 'bad' boxes have now been ticked i.e. 'fat', 'grey' etc. Nowhere have the other boxes been ticked (do feminists not graffiti??) Which completely subverts the whole advertisement... And annoys me every time i go past it.
But yeah, I see your points. I guess I'm just too cynical to give an advertising campaign any credit...
no subject
Date: 2005-09-18 01:22 pm (UTC)I am the type of person who actually believes that the Dove real beauty campaign can make a difference. It is fantastic that finally someone gave it a thought and actually did something about it. I feel sad that people when given the chance of a change for the better reject it by criticising it. Maybe it's time we give out some credit even if it is to companies like Dove who I believe do it because they are concerned.
If you just take the time to look on the dove website you'll see the amazing things it does as a company for 12 year old girls who actually think that they are either too fat or too ugly. Imagine this at 12 years if you start with low self esteem what will happen once you hit adolescence or even adulthood??? Would you like to see your own daughter in that position?
We are so concerned about what we should look like and changing to what other people would like us to be that we completely ignore who we are and how to be happy and content with the way we are and yes that might involve love handles or chubbiness but hey at the end of the day a charming personality, intelligence, wit are better than looks.