How does this keep happening?

Dove's newest ad for their VisibleCare body wash promises "visibly more beautiful skin in just one week". However, due to the unfortunate juxtaposition of images in the ad, it seems to be saying that "visibly more beautiful skin" means whiter (and thinner and blonder).

You can see it for yourself:

The black woman is obviously standing under the "before" while the white woman is standing under the "after" with a Latina woman in the middle. The problematic aspects could easily be removed by rearranging the images, or even by removing the words "before" and "after", and yet here it is. I have to wonder how this ever made it to print without someone noticing what the ad was really saying.

Dove released this statement about the ad:

We believe that real beauty comes in many shapes, sizes, colors and ages and are committed to featuring realistic and attainable images of beauty in all our advertising. We are also dedicated to educating and encouraging all women and girls to build a positive relationship with beauty, to help raise self-esteem and to enable them to realize their full potential.

The ad is intended to illustrate the benefits of using Dove VisibleCare Body Wash, by making skin visibly more beautiful in just one week. All three women are intended to demonstrate the "after" product benefit. We do not condone any activity or imagery that intentionally insults any audience."

Notice the lack of an apology. This statement reads more like "You're making a big deal over nothing" than "Oops we made a mistake. Our bad". The ad is also still running on their website dovecloseup.com.

I want to think that this was simply an unfortunate mistake and were simply trying to portray women of different colors and sizes in their advertising, but the lack of an apology and the fact that the ad is still being used really makes me wonder. At the very least, they seem ambivalent towards the message that this is sending.

Vandana Shiva, a world-renowned environmental thinker, founder of Navdanya, http://www.navdanya.org/, and leader in the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), and the Slow Food Movement has written a plethora of books, articles and scientific journals. Check out some of her books if you're interested in learning more, they'll make great summer reading.

-Bridget Guiza

And Out Come the Claws

I have a distinct memory from several years ago that I feel speaks volumes on how I now feel about my gender and gender roles. I will never forget the moment a now ex-partner held my hand, gazed down at it and then up into my eyes, and said, "You don't really do your nails do you?"

Way to kill the mood. All jokes aside, this comment astounded me in terms of the implications for how feminine gender roles were supposed to dictate my behavior as a self-identifying woman. Did not doing my nails imply that I was not fully a woman that embraced such feminine commitments to my appearance? I questioned the immediate feeling of surprise, next mild self-loathing, then resentment. At first I wondered if maybe I was missing something. After some thought, I realized the masculine privilege and socialized expectations that manifested themselves in this statement. I don't have to do my nails to be a woman, and I can choose the effort I commit to my physical appearance. Nails don't make the woman, and a woman isn't defined by doing her nails.

Actually, for a long time I was uncomfortable with my hands. I actually was very insecure about my nails, which are weak, break easily, and don't grow out very well. I used to think my hands were too big, too masculine. And it was even more severe. I could barely wear shirts that were short-sleeved in middle school and some of high school because I couldn't bear how hairy my arms were. It sounds trivial, but my discomfort and insecurity with my body was great enough to influence how much of it I showed. It took years to finally overcome this and fully accept my body for what it was and is now.

Thus, this explains the arrival at my lasting reaction to this comment about my nails: disgust. I am proud of my acceptance of my body, and was completely put off by the dismissal of my growth and self-acceptance. Now I have learned to reflect on the influence of socialization and privilege that culminated themselves into this comment. I am glad I could point those elements out for what they are, and be proud of my accomplishments in acceptance of my physical self. I also learned something else: in this situation, I chose to not let vocalized expectations of my gender have a lasting effect on how I saw myself.

Now with it being 8th week and all, I imagine I'm not the only person on this campus who feels dangerously on the verge of burning out before finals even come around. In any case, I thought I'd include some fun goodies for you all as well. For any electro or house fans out there, I found this track a few days ago and just can't stop listening to it.

Also, a pretty solid track from an indie band called Dirty Gold. Hope this helps you get through the rest of the quarter and on to a great summer.

Much love to the community,
Neda

A little misogyny for your Mother's Day

Mr. Clean seems to think that the best way to honor your Mother tomorrow is by reminding her where she belongs: in the house.

The problematic and sexist connotations of this ad are obvious, and I'm shocked that this actually made it to print.

The lingerie line Triumph has launched a campaign to change the way women see their body shapes. Responding to studies that show women feel self-conscious and unflattered by being called "pear-shaped" or "hourglass", they've renamed body types after famous painters and the body shapes of the women they depicted. The "pear" is now a "Botticelli", and an "inverted triangle" is now Raphael. They've also used famous celebrities such as Jennifer Aniston, Beyonce, and Kate Winslet to help women identify positively with their new body shapes and see themselves as works of art.

I feel rather conflicted about this new campaign for several reasons. While I applaud their stated mission, I can't help but question some of the implications. First of all, each of artists they've used is a famous male artist: Raphael, Rubens, da Vinci, Botticelli, Rembrandt, and Matisse. Each of these men were chosen for the distinctive female figures in their paintings, creating through their art a certain representation of what they felt women should (or did) look like.

I also wonder at the need for classifications at all. Triumph is aiming to free women of the negative associations of body labels such as "pear" or "apple", but these new labels still align with the old categories, so what prevents those associations from crossing over? Wouldn't it be truly freeing if women didn't have to be labeled at all? And what about the way they went about advertising the campaign, with women in lingerie walking through a mall?

Let us know what you think in the comments. Is this campaign helpful or hurtful? Click here if you'd like to keep reading about this.