How we started. Where we’re heading

It was a comment about my book, Getting Real: Challenging the sexualisation of girls, which sparked the birth of Collective Shout: for a world free of sexploitation.

A contributor, Melbourne writer and blogger Tania Andrusiak (author of Adproofing Your Kids: Raising critical thinkers in a media-saturated world ) described the book as “a collective shout against the pornification of culture”.

Those words leapt out at me. I liked the phrase so much, I thought it perfect for a new grassroots campaign movement which had been brewing in my mind and in the minds of some of my friends and fellow activists.

Research describing the harms of objectification and sexualisation was building around the world. The book was out. People were asking: what can we do?

It seemed the time had come for a strategic organised movement to equip and empower people to take action and support individuals already active against the onslaught of hypersexualised imagery, stereotypical, objectified representations of women and girls and the almost chic images of women subjected to violence.

So when Tania uttered those words – Collective Shout – I thought: that’s it.

In December last year a small team of women got together in Canberra to discuss the possibilities. We developed these goals:

• To expose corporations, advertisers, marketers and media who objectify women and sexualise girls to sell products and services and pressure them to change their behavior

• To bring an end to the broader pornification of our culture by challenging the hyper-sexualised images which have become mainstream

• To, more broadly, challenge all forms of sexual trade and commerce in women’s bodies, including pornography, prostitution and trafficking

• To help concerned individuals take up their rightful voice in the public square

Collective Shout is about naming and identifying the ways that women and girls are represented as sexualised, subordinate and submissive.

The movement has established itself as a serious, dynamic, agent for change. Collective Shout is now at the forefront of challenging the pornification of culture in all its forms.

Victories

In its first 12 months, the movement has achieved a number of significant wins. These include:

• Getting Bonds to withdraw bras for 6-year-old girls

• Getting supermarket chain Woolworths to disassociate itself with a sexist Lynx promotion

• Getting Calvin Klein billboards suggestive of sexual assault removed

We’ve reminded companies of the importance of corporate social responsibility. We have put them on notice that if they do the wrong thing, they will be exposed and boycotted. The bodies of women and girls should not be seen as fodder for companies to exploit for profit.

We’ve had great media coverage. Just this month, we’ve appeared in everything from Harper’s Bazaar to the Tumbarumba Times. Here’s some examples of recent coverage:

Our first birthday party

Collective Shout’s achievements were celebrated last weekend in Brisbane.  Here are some pics from the night. Special thanks to Julie Gale, founder of Kids Free 2b Kids, our MC Erica Bartle, ‘Girl with a Satchel’ blogger, Margaret Keech, Member for Albert and Government Whip and Dr Robi Sonderreger, clinical psychologist, for your support and kind words on the night. Thanks also to all our sponsors, donors, musos and artists for your part in making the event special. Also to my CS colleagues and to Catherine Smibert for bringing it all together.

What’s Next?

Watch the Collective Shout website for an announcement about our new “Crossed Off” campaign, which targets companies who have done the wrong thing and don’t deserve your Xmas dollar. Cross them off your Christmas List.

If you haven’t done so already, please sign up. And if you’d like to help us make an even bigger difference in the coming year, please make a donation on line through the website.

See: Winning the War Against Sexualisation by Miranda Devine

Collective Shout flexes muscles to make a difference, by Jenny Cullen

Nothing about the Witchery images recognises that children are anything other than miniaturised adults. The images invite you to ‘read’ the children as adults

It’s always a pleasure to publish the work of Dr Emma Rush. A lecturer in ethics at Charles Sturt University, Emma is lead author of two significant reports on the sexualisation of children, published by the Australia Institute. She is also a contributor to Getting Real: Challenging the sexualisation of children.

Closing down the cultural space that allows children to be children

A child is not a miniature adult. They are not a fashion accessory. They are a developing human being and need the cultural space to be just that. Yet we are now seeing constant marketing of adult appearance culture to children, as in, for example, the latest ads for the Witchery Kids brand. The Witchery Kids campaign is simply one particularly sophisticated example of corporations functioning to close down that cultural space for kids to be kids, with resulting ‘appearance anxiety’ for children during a period in their lives when they need the space to develop into their own person.

The wording of the new Witchery Kids campaign, ‘We believe that fun and imagination are the centre of every child’s universe’, is not reflected in the marketing images. Not one of the children in the images is smiling and it would be stretching it to say that even three of them are engaged in imaginative activities

This campaign needs to be seen in context. Four years have elapsed since the release of the landmark Australia Institute paper Corporate Paedophilia: Sexualisation of Children in Australia . This paper criticised the sexualisation of children in marketing images (among related issues) and provoked considerable public debate, ultimately leading to a Senate Inquiry into the Sexualisation of Children in the Contemporary Media .

Over the same period, confirmation of the risks of sexualising children has come from major reports by psychologists in the United States and United Kingdom (Papadopoulos, 2010).

So put yourself in the position of an advertiser. They have to push the boundaries to get attention, but they don’t want to attract a backlash like the one seen four years ago… so this is the result. The public don’t like sexualisation? Let’s try adultification instead.

Nothing about the campaign images recognises that children are anything other than miniaturised adults. You could replace the children in the images with adults and nothing would appear odd. The images invite you to ‘read’ the children as adults.

But what is really creepy is that the campaign ties into the child-as-fashion-accessory-for-the-parent’ trend, encapsulated in the expression ‘mini-me’. To all who see children in this way, I say children are not “a reflection of the adult’s personal style”, as the celebrity blogger on the Witchery Kids website says. Is there an expert out there who can explain to me how such colossal egoism can be compatible with effective parenting?

So I’ve coined a new definition of adultification: pressure put on children to prematurely adopt narrow and stereotypical forms of adult appearance and behaviour. ‘This is the way kids should look. This is the way kids should behave.’ This is about making money with scant respect for anything else. Give us a break.

The risks of adultifying children are similar to those of sexualising them, but sometimes not as obvious.

If children are vulnerable to self-image concerns, these may develop over time into self-objectification, that is, experiencing one’s body as an object. Psychological research suggests this detracts from both cognitive and physical performance.

We all recognise this in our daily lives: the child (or adult) who is overly focussed on their appearance will not be fully attentive to other things in their lives. This is of particular concern in childhood while the brain is still developing.

Even without the fully blown consequences of self-objectification, time and energy spent on conforming to adultified stereotypes may distract children from the important tasks of developing skills (physical, creative, intellectual) and relationships that provide a real foundation for rewarding teen and adult years. Think playing sports, climbing trees, making music, making art, reading, developing technological capacities – and developing caring relationships.

Contrast this with the Witchery Kids campaign, where the underlying message is clearly: ‘It’s all about me and how I portray myself through my look’.

Well, no. The world is so much bigger than that. That kind of limited self-understanding leaves children very vulnerable to the opinions of others. Children, just like adults, need a self-understanding based on substance rather than style.

Of course the Witchery Kids campaign will not cause such limited self-understanding by itself. It doesn’t need to. It’s just part of the constant corporate dripping that wears away the stone of a sane and healthy human life. We can’t just cut children off from the broader culture. Parents can’t do that and they shouldn’t have to.

We need a broader culture that doesn’t undermine children’s healthy development. Advertisers and marketers need to stop seeing children as fodder for their campaigns. In suggesting children are older and more knowing than they really are, Witchery has sent a harmful message. They need to be reminded that children are not smaller versions of adults.

Read more by Emma Rush: ‘Making children vulnerable to sexual danger and harm’; ‘The market is eating our children’

The backlash against corporate exploitation of women

“Women are frequently positioned very differently to men in media. Often shown as passive, vulnerable, scantily clad, headless, and sometimes dead…”

Today a guest post from eating disorder prevention specialist and member of Collective Shout’s core team,  Lydia Turner. It’s reprinted from the Fierce, Freethinking Fatties blog.

In recent years there has been a growing backlash against the prescription of a rigid beauty ideal. The bombardment of images of ultra-slim models, across a range of mediums, is increasingly gaining recognition as having a harmful effect on girls and women. Late last year, 45 international eating disorder experts released a statement, reporting that after reviewing over 100 international studies, the evidence was “overwhelming” that these images contributed to increasing rates of anxiety, depression, sexual dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, unhealthy weight loss behaviours, and eating disorders [http://bit.ly/cUwZSJ].

Rather than seeing eating disorders as ‘extreme’ responses to a culture that actively discriminates against those labelled fat, the Health At Every Size (HAES) movement recognises unhealthy weight loss practices have become culturally normative as a consequence. When fat people – especially fat women – are depicted in the media, they are usually held up as objects of ridicule, with a barrage of negative characteristics attacking their intellect, integrity, self-worth, and sexuality. For this reason, allowing ‘plus-size’ or fat women to be depicted as ‘sexy mynx’ may seem liberating, giving permission and visibility to women who are systematically denied sexual identity. Yet the need to prove sexual acceptance reveals that participation in a discourse of oppression is required – for women of all sizes – in order to achieve visibility.

We need to discuss the wider problem of the hyper-sexualisation of girls and women in media everywhere. It is not any one particular image that is problematic; but rather the reiteration of the same sexualised images that create a harmful cultural narrative of what it means to be a girl or woman in industrialised nations today. When corporations are given unfettered power, abuse of the consumer is a result. We have already seen this demonstrated in the massive conflicts of interest in obesity research and unethical practices promising thinness. It is now time to recognise that global brands are contributing to illness by cashing in on the narrow way in which women and girls are being depicted in media – even when the ideal is expanded to include fatter women.

While the beauty ideal for decades had already required women to be (usually) white and ultra-slim, pornographic themes are rapidly creeping into mainstream media, showing women in ways that suggest they are nothing more than sexual service stations for men. Consider Australian brand Lovable’s latest campaign. Employing Miss Universe, it shows Jennifer Hawkins in bra and undies, suggestively licking an ice cream with white liquid running down her arms, in reference to male ejaculation.

Then there are Calvin Klein and Dolce & Gabbana ads, known for ‘pushing boundaries,’ with many of their ads alluding to gang rape and violence against women, used in outdoor advertising. One Dolce & Gabbana ad has now been withdrawn in Italy.

In Argentina, Unilever’s child company Axe has launched ads that encourage boys to sexually harass women  .

Unilever’s other child company claims it will open a lodge in Sydney later this year, promoting female servitude as “the ultimate male fantasy,” with scantily clad young staff obeying men’s orders in adherence to the lodge’s central theme of “tell her what to do” .

Women are frequently positioned very differently to men in media. Often shown as passive, vulnerable, scantily clad, headless, and sometimes dead such as in these ads:

These images inform women over and over that their body primarily exists for the purpose of evoking male desire, as though their bodies are merely sex aids. Robbing them of their humanity, women are often referred to as “it” or “that”, for example on Facebook’s Lynx Effect UK site fans say things like “you no [sic] you would ruin that all night long” commenting on photos of young women in bikinis. Axe, also a child-company of Unilever, has ads recommending men use its shower gel to “scrub away the skank” the morning after a regretted sexual encounter (including women who are disabled, ill, or elderly).

These images and language choice have a very dehumanising effect, which is dangerous on many levels. They help create a climate which increases violence against women, or at least, puts women in danger of violence. As we see on Lynx Effect Ireland’s page, fans discuss types of women they dislike: “She’s a bitch,” says one commentator. Others advocate violence against them, saying things like “spray Lynx in her face.” Lynx Effect Ireland insists this is all just ‘tongue-in-cheek.’ Lynx are not alone in portraying violence against women as sexy.

It is not just women that are affected. Given these many of these images are displayed in public areas, children can’t be protected from seeing them. Yet if such images were shown to a child by a paedophile in a private area, we would call this “grooming.” Images such as these are also not allowed in the workplace, as they are considered a form of sexual harassment. Yet they pollute our public landscape.

What message do these images send boys about how women should be treated? What message do they send girls about their own bodies and self-worth? Academic psychologist Cordelia Fine revealed numerous studies confirming that environments that cue gender stereotypes negatively affect how men interact with women, even when women are fully clothed. With advertisements positioning women as sex objects, such as in this banned Toyota Yaris ad, this “drip drip effect” has a detrimental impact on women, and on the way men relate to them.

Children are further affected when corporations try to out-sell competitors by pushing boundaries by ‘adultifying’ and sexualising them. Up until two weeks ago, corporate giant BONDS was selling bras for girls as young as six. They weren’t the only ones. Retail chain Best & Less, and even Kmart was stocking ‘bralettes’ for little girls. Another company went as far as selling padded bras – with lace – for six year olds.

These messages go against the spirit of the Health At Every Size and Fat Acceptance movements, as they erode body trust while inducing bodily anxieties, for girls of all sizes. Retail chain Supre whose target market are ‘tweens’ ages 6-12 has sold t-shirts stating “Pussy Power” and “Santa’s Bitch.” In rap/hip hop culture this means the girl is ‘owned’ by Santa as he is her ‘pimp.’

Another retail chain, Witchery was just this week exposed for their latest catalogue showing little girls wearing mini-adult clothing and striking adult poses.

While these are not sexualised images, adultifying girls blurs the line between girls and women, where girls feel increasing pressure to achieve the same beauty ideals traditionally applied only to their mothers. The cultural messaging teaches them that their worth depends primarily on whether they are ‘hot-or-not,’ instead of fostering real values, talent, and intellect. It is predictable these days that when a young female celebrity reaches the age of 16, she must “prove” she is “all grown up” by stripping down, such as in the example of pop singer Gabriella Cilmi and Miley Cyrus. Funny how young male celebrities are never required to do the same.

When a ‘plus-size’ woman is allowed to be ‘sexy,’ she is still positioned as a sexual object rather than one who ‘owns’ her own sexuality and personhood. Take former Australian Idol contestant Ricky-Lee Coulter for example. It was considered a victory posing her on the cover of lads mag Ralph because she was not waif-like.

Yet she was required to be scantily clad, donning a dominatrix-style outfit with whip. ‘Bigger’ women are often positioned in this way. We are still attaching unhealthy messages to women of all sizes – being ‘plus-size’ or fat does not provide immunity against the damaging effects of objectification.

While the Health At Every Size and fat acceptance movements actively speak out against the harms of promoting thinness as the only acceptable body type, I urge all supporters to consider also supporting movements that send other harmful messages to girls and women about their bodies. Messages that tell women all they are ‘good for.’ While some argue that the increasing sexualisation of girls and women is sexually liberating, I say these corporate messages are actually sexually prescriptive.

As Gail Dines argues in her latest book Pornland, it’s time we stopped allowing corporations to hijack our sexuality. Accepting one’s body does not include feeling that everyone must have big breasts or obligatory fattened lips to feel good about themselves, nor that their stripping is necessary to prove their newfound body-love. Just as fat is not “evidence” of poor health, neither is aging- yet we are told on shows like Oprah that aging is somehow linked to not taking good care of oneself. It’s imperative these movements collaborate with others that challenge other notions that also affect body image.

In Australia, a new grassroots advocacy group has already achieved a raft of successes against advertisers, corporations and marketers which promote body shame through their hyper sexualised products and marketing practices. Headed by author and social commentator Melinda Tankard Reist, ‘Collective Shout: for a world free of sexploitation,’ has managed to stop the sale of bras and bra-like products to girls under age 10, block a rape-simulation game console from being accessed in Australia, successfully pressured Woolworths to cancel its support of the Lynx Lodge, amongst many other wins. Collective Shout is less than a year old already with over 1500 members worldwide. If you would like to show your support, please sign up here .

Girls’ mag wrap September-October issues

For many girls, the magazines they read are their lifestyle bibles. How should they look, dress, act and relate? What’s important in life? Who should they look up to? My analysis of the September and October issues of Girlfriend, Dolly, Girlpower, Totalgirl, Disney Girl and Little Angel shows that girls are being delivered a fairly one-dimensional view of girl/young womanhood. The emphasis is on looks, fashion, beauty practices, gossip, celebrity culture and consumerism. While there are a few redeeming features, for example a little more body diversity in Dolly and features on real girls who have overcome difficulties in life to achieve their goals, in Dolly and Girlfriend, overall the message remains normative, limited and limiting.

This review was recently published as a guest blog on the Generation Next website.

Calvin Klein: selling the degradation of women

(Trigger warning for survivors of sexual assault) 

 “I cannot escape one simple fact: that if we continue to subject future generations of young men to great barrages of aggressive, misogynist, over-sexualized and violent imagery in pornography, movies, computer games and advertising, we will continue to see the rates of sexual violence against women and children that continue unabated today. Or worse.”

Alison Grundy is a Clinical Psychologist with 20 years experience working with victims of sexual and interpersonal violence. We got to know each other when she asked me to address sexual assault counsellors on the sexualisation of girls, at a seminar in Sydney last year. Alison posted a comment on my piece Sexism: alive and well in Australia (reprinted here from The Drum Unleashed)which I thought deserved expansion as a guest post.

As a therapist in the field of sexual violence for 20 years now, I always thought things would get better over time. As more people became aware of the pain and suffering, the utter devastation, the long-standing and often severe psychological problems, the drug and alcohol addictions, the relationship and parenting difficulties, society would change and we would protect women and children from abuse, especially sexual abuse. In short, we would become more civilized. 

But as I look at the Calvin Klein poster clearly intimating the gang rape of a woman to advertise the brand, the inescapable conclusion is that we have somehow gone badly backwards. All kinds of questions occur to me.

How can it be OK to use sexual violence as a marketing tool? When did gang rape stop being abhorrent and become “sexy”? When did gang rape get minimized to “group sex”? Why does it seem so easy for the average person to believe that a woman (often a very young woman) would really consent to having sex with large groups of drunken, abusive men? 

Of course there are many complex socio-political and psychological issues involved in sexual violence in all its forms. Given that orgasm is a powerful reinforcer of behaviour -and I would argue, attitudes – if our boys and men are watching and masturbating to endless scenes of women being sexually tortured by groups of men while breathlessly claiming they want more (through gritted teeth), we can hardly be surprised that our daughters are less safe from this type of sexual crime now than ever before.

Unfortunately, as this advertisement shows, the mainstreaming of pornography and violent sexualised imagery is ubiquitous. Boys and men no longer need to be ashamed of accessing demeaning and debasing images of women. They are everywhere, condoned by society, reflecting its values and therefore proudly shared on computers and phones, billboards and catalogues.

Meanwhile the sex industry is now seen as just that, an industry as like any other in the market place. But instead of selling the newest type of skateboards to our young men it sells the degradation of women. In doing so, it reduces their humanity to what they offer sexually, and contributes to making the world a very dangerous place – especially for women and children.

We now have 30 years of research demonstrating that what we watch on TV, play in interactive games and see in pornography, does affect us, does change us and does influence our choices of behaviour.

I am still surprised that most people think sexual violence is relatively uncommon. I think this is because the victims are so blamed, shamed and persecuted they rarely speak up – and because the perpetrators of this type of violence rarely face any consequences.

There are many studies showing that interpersonal violence is so common. As a clinical psychologist it is the foundation of most of the issues I will ever encounter no matter where I work. And one of the most damaging forms of interpersonal violence is of course, sexual abuse.

In its 2006 report, the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research tells us there were more than 7000 reports to police of sexual and indecent assault in NSW in 2004. However, it is widely recognised that reports to police represent only a fraction of the assaults that are actually happening, perhaps only ten to fifteen percent.

So the Bureau’s statistics roughly translate, in the real world, to 50-70,000 crimes of this type against mostly women and children in 2004 in NSW. (The year 2004, by the way, did not differ much from the previous 10-year data and is probably reflective of the years since).

Most people would be staggered to know that only about one in ten of these reported incidents resulted in someone being found guilty in court and about half of those who were found guilty did not receive a prison sentence.

So, to summarise, a rough (and probably conservative) estimate of 50- 70,000 acts of sexual violence in one year in NSW and only 251 people receiving a full time prison sentence as a consequence of these actions. This sobering reality perhaps explains some of the high recidivist rates.

These are very complex issues, and there are very many reasons why sexual violence is so endemic in Australia. We need a much more concerted effort to bring these crimes into the light.

We need to believe victims and help them to heal with compassion and justice. We need to treat offenders with programs that accept no excuses and help them to recognise the immense damage their behaviour has caused.

But this will only happen in the context of the society we live in and the kind of world we allow. In this world, the horrifying crime of gang rape is being increasingly reported to professionals such as myself.

And this crime is being carried out on the bodies of young and younger girls. A phenomena my colleagues and I are seeing is younger and younger girls presenting – often 13 and 14 years of age – after gang rape.

I have sat in counseling with many women – often very young – and therefore just beginning to define what they would like their lives to be – who have experienced the terror and unrelenting horror of rape and gang rape. It’s a struggle that goes on and on through years of rebuilding a sense of self, a world view and working out a way of being part of a society again that not only allows the vast majority of rapes to never be punished but allows constant in your face debasement and trivialization of their trauma in billboards like this.

Where are the regulators? Where are the minds and hearts of the people who get paid to make these offensive campaigns? Maybe they can spend just an hour or two in my office any day of the week.

I cannot escape one simple fact: that if we continue to subject future generations of young men to great barrages of aggressive, misogynist, over-sexualised and violent imagery in pornography, movies, computer games and advertising, we will continue to see the rates of sexual violence against women and children that continue unabated today. Or worse.

We should be striving to be more, not less civilized. But Calvin Klein just makes this goal less attainable.

Take action here

Lynx Lodge promo ‘not in keeping with our values’ 

Last week I exposed the fact that Woolworths was in bed with Lynx in a promotion based on female servitude and sexual objectification.

 Today Woolworths has announced they’ve broken up. 

Here’s a letter the grocery corporation sent Collective Shout supporter Jade today:

 

“Thank you for your email to Woolworths concerning the recent Lynx Lodge marketing campaign. A number of customers have contacted us and expressed their concern about Woolworths’ involvement in this promotion which was primarily focused on an associated competition to win dirt bikes.

 We have reviewed this activity and agree that the nature of the overall Lynx Lodge promotion is not in keeping with Woolworths’ values as a company. As a result we have spoken to the manufacturer and taken steps to remove the association between the Woolworths brand and the Lynx Lodge promotion. We sincerely apologise for any offence caused.

Kind regards,

Woolworths Supermarkets”

We are pleased Woolworths has responded to community concern including from customers and shareholders. We also hope they won’t make the same mistake again.

But Lynx Still Stynx

Woolies might have done the right thing. But Lynx still stinks. That’s why we’ve launched our new Lynx advertising parody on You Tube today. Please watch it and share! 

Unilever Stynx Too

Parent-company Unilever continues to justify its anti-women behaviour with patronising and condescending cut-and-paste responses to the many who have complained.

Kath at Fat Heffalump has had enough of the P.R spin. She takes apart Unilever’s response here.

Well, well, well. I got a response from Unilever regarding my complaint to them about their Lynx Lodge campaign. Brace yourselves for some of the worst correspondence to a customer complaint that you are likely to see: Read the entire post here.

Unilever’s new product to ‘wash away the skank’

Ms Magazine exposes a new Axe body wash called Snake Peel, to ‘wash away the skank’. Lynx is the equivalent of Axe, which is the US brand name.

“I noticed a website address scribbled on the body of the man in the third storyboard. So I visited www.thefixers.com and found The Fixer Show, a faux-talk show made by Axe and dedicated, apparently, to advice for men. Each of The Fixer’s five segments corresponds to a new Axe body wash. In the Snake Peel segment, I learned that “questionable hookups” whom you might wish to “scrub away” include: “the geriatric, the bedridden, the lazy eye, the girl that has way more muscles than you, which is sexy only until she has you pinned down and she’s asking you to call her Frank …” And more! For three minutes! Thanks, Axe. You sure know how to make a girl feel special”.

That’s right, a man can use this Axe body wash to rid himself of any traces of sex with women who are sick and disabled (and skanks as well, apparently). Because who could possibly find these women attractive? They must be erased from the body and mind. I’d like to know what disability rights groups think of Unilever’s degrading and demoralising depictions.

 

Sexism: alive and well in Australia, published last week by ABC Unleashed, is reprinted today on Online Opinion.

Collective Shout has had three wins in less than a week. It shows what’s possible when individuals speak out. If you haven’t done so already, please join Collective Shout  and we will see even greater things. Also find us on Facebook.

Read this: Getting corporate giants to buckle by BodyMatters Australasia, documenting Collective Shout’s recent victories.

Bonds withdraws all ‘bra like’ products in girls sizes 6 and 8

A Victory for people power.

Only three days ago, Collective Shout started a campaign against the latest bra product for girls aged 6. ‘More Bonds Bras for little girls’ can be read here

This sparked three days of activism from our members and media engagement including this News Ltd piece. Adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg and Julie Gale from Kids Free 2B Kids also added their voices to the campaign.

And so did Trinny and Susanna who labelled the bras child abuse.

Yesterday Bonds announced it was withdrawing this product and all bras and bra-related products for girls under 10.

Collective Shout is delighted with this outcome.

This is the media release from Bonds this afternoon in response to our campaign:

Media Statement

Wednesday 29 September 2010

BONDS WITHDRAWS GIRLS BRALETTE PRODUCT

Bonds has decided to withdraw all bra like products in girls sizes 6 and 8 from the market effective immediately.

Bonds takes its brand and product range extremely seriously, and is particularly conscious of the sensitivities of developing and marketing products for children.

The decision to remove these products from shelves has been made following recent consumer feedback regarding the “girls wideband bralette” product.

The rationale behind offering the range was to meet a consumer need of modesty, coverage and confidence.

In response of market sensitivities, we have instructed our retail partners to commence removal of these products from their shelves.

In light of this issue, Bonds has reinforced its children’s sizing policy for underwear, and will not be offering any children’s bralette or bra related product below a size 10.

Well done Bonds for making this decision! And Well done to all who made their voices heard on this issue.

Why would Woolworths associate itself with the objectification of women?

It’s not news that Lynx’s revels in degrading representations of women to promote its body spray.

I’ve talked about the company’s ‘Spray More Get More’ campaign which features women transforming into out-of-control-sex-maniacs the second they smell Lynx on a man.

Collective Shout has also exposed the sexism and misogyny of the Lynx brand in a recent post about the ‘Lynx Lodge’.

But what is new is the discovery that Lynx has the support of one of the world’s biggest supermarket chains – Woolworths. Is Woolies to be known as the women-as-fresh-meat people?

Prostitute-like services at the Lynx Lodge

Described as the ‘ultimate man-cation’, the Lynx Lodge appears to be parent company Unilever’s foray into the sex industry. The lodge seems to have all the trappings of a brothel, without explicitly identifying itself as such. “Lynx Lodge – Get Laid Back” declares the website.

“The ultimate man-cation destination to get you back to your primal roots.”

“Get laid back, as lodge staff pamper you with breakfast in bed and on-the-spot massages.”

“Golf range: Grab your wood.”

“Pool hall: Scared of being beaten by a girl? Some of our guests quite enjoy it.”

“Ball Games: Teamwork is everything, so be sure to focus on your partner’s backside to make out her block signals.”

The Lynx Effect site presents provocatively dressed women (including in busty maid outfits) ready to do a man’s bidding, entertain and excite him. Emma, for example, is a “great cook” and “can do the splits – what more could you ask for?”

A video ad on the site shows a number of young women lonely and desperate for men to arrive at the lodge. Helpless and passive, they have no man to serve, therefore no meaning in life. One girl takes off her clothes and wades naked into the lake waiting for him to arrive.

Another video shows more women in sexually inviting poses and scenes. While  called ‘hospitality staff’, the message is  they will provide forms of sexual entertainment. Women are shown in wet t. shirts, borrowing from girls-gone-wild type themes.  

“The concept of the Lodge is a play on popular male fantasy, so the girls are there to hang out and ensure Lodge guests have fun,” Lynx spokeswoman Laura O’Donnell told the Courier Mail.

She claimed all activities would happen in open public areas and that Lynx security staff would keep a watchful eye on everything.  Does that include in the master bedroom where the site promises lodge staff will tuck you in and prepare you for sweet dreams?

Lynx draws attention to the backsides and cleavage of their models, but doesn’t expect any physical engagement? What about sleazy jerks who come expecting the girls to get their kit off, and try to grope them? Male visitors are primed to expect compliance, with the models at the ready to cook and serve them breakfast  after a ‘sexy wake-up call.’ The Lynx girls are represented as seeking – indeed desperate for – every kind of male attention.

What is in place to protect women from sexual assault at the lodge? Will they have panic buttons? (What  if they’re in the boat?) Given that the place is spread out and there are many different activities each day, how will a woman’s safety be guaranteed? 

Submission: telling her what you want her to do 

The theme repeated over and over is that the Lynx Mynx is to be ‘told what to do’.  Lynx comments on its Facebook pages suggest a voyeuristic web-cam scenario:

“… if you love Faye so much, you’ll tell her what to do”

“The videos get released tomorrow and we’ll reveal more Tom… basically imagine a big brother-style house with these girls and you have to vote for your favourite and give her stuff to do….” 

 ”so yesterday we filmed the first things you told the Lynx Mynx to do… it was a lot of fun, video coming soon so watch this space, but here’s a couple of pics to give you a little taste…”

Unilever: real sexism not real beauty

In case you didn’t know, the Lynx brand is owned by Unilever which also owns the Dove ‘Real Beauty’ campaign. Unilever is fueling borderline-prostitution of women through its Lynx brand while claiming to care about women’s true beauty and worth.

Trawling for business in Martin Place

Last Thursday Unilever took its Lynx Lodge promotion to Sydney’s Martin Place. The event featured young women in bikinis in a hot tub while men were offered massages on their way to work.  Lynx shower gel was spread across the women’s breasts, in an image reminiscent of porn shoots. (Being linked with porn is no problem for Unilever, with cross promotions for Axe- the US version of Lynx- with Playboy models. For example “Watch how Playboy.com gets dirty and how they get clean with Axe shower gel”).

The event was described in ‘Time Out Sydney’ this way:

Lynx Lodge Pop-up SpaDate

Bikini-clad ladies, steaming hot tubs and on-demand massages sound like your thing? They’ll all be on offer at Martin Place for one day only to offer a sneak preview of the soon-to-come Lynx Lodge. The new all-male travel concept, located at Lake Macquarie and set to open in November this year, comes courtesy of the team behind its namesake, lady-wooing antiperspirant.

In the meantime, dudes can dive into one of the pop-up resort’s many spas along with a bevy of female beauties, or opt for a stress-relieving back rub from an accommodating hostess. Stop off on your way to work to take part in the ultimate boys’ trip draw – the chance for one guy and seven very lucky mates to initiate the first of many man-cations at the Lodge.

Did Sydney City Council have no qualms about approving this event? Were there any objections to offering sex-based entertainment in the middle of the street? Or should we expect to see more of this?

Woolworths gets into bed with Lynx 

Now we discover that Woolworths is supporting the competition for eight men to be the first to visit the lodge.

 ”Lynx is holding a competition with Woolworths, where a winner will be the first to stay at the resort with seven friends.”

Here’s an extract from Woolworth’s commitment to its customers:

As Australia’s largest food retailer and second largest private employer, Woolworths recognises we have a high level of social responsibility, and we take these responsibilities seriously…

And

As a member of those communities we understand that we have a duty to be more than just a retail outlet, but to also make a positive impact on the societies that we serve. We work to the principle that we can never take our customers for granted – we need to earn their trust and respect and this means acting responsibly both inside and outside our stores.

And

All Woolworths’ businesses are active in the local communities in which we operate…Our partnerships and programs are continually reviewed to ensure they align with broader social issues and community concerns.

How is supporting a view of women as subservient sexual slaves having a positive impact and acting responsibly? Does “high level of social responsibility” apply to the status of women in the community?

Does this look like one of your fresh food mum’s, Mr Michael Luscombe, Woolworths Managing Director and CEO?

Lynx – encouraging and rewarding sexist behaviour

Comments from men on the Lynx Facebook fan page show the effect of its advertising on them. Women are products to be won, they are ‘it’ or ‘that’ and judged mercilessly. 

“DO I WIN A BLONDE , NICE ASS , LARGE NATURAL BREASTS,NICE EYES”

“you no that you would ruin that all night long”

“nice PAIRsonality!”

“ugly”

“nah i seen better”

“flat-chested”

“she’s not that great”

On a pic of Jessica Simpson: “isn’t she a whale now?” “yeah she is”

On Scarlett Johannssen: “Scarlet get me a beer “

Lynx asks: “We thought it’s time we started talking about those annoying irritations when it comes to the dating game. Her clingy mates, the drunken brother, the barman that ignores you… what else shall we add to the list…?” 

Jay Cooney: “the fuckin horrible moose that attempts 2 dance wit u”

Nathan Ireland: “The fat ugly mate that drags them away because she is upset the fittest bloke in the pub (besides us*) does not fancy her hippo-croc-a-pig ass!”

Allan Davison: “The fat friend” 

And there you have it, the Lynx Effect, proudly supported by Unilever, Woolworths, Sydney City Council and maybe even Lake Macquarie  Council.

The ultimate man-cation is, really, the ultimate objectification.

And even if the lodge is just a marketing ploy and not a real place, Unilever’s contemptuous attitude to women still comes through, loud and clear. Its campaign is a threat to the equality, freedom and wellbeing of all women.

Details on how to complain can be found here. We at Collective Shout are about to launch our Lynx Stynx campaign. Keep an eye on the Collective Shout website for more on this.

“I won’t be buying Lovable underwear again”

Melissa is another to write to Lovable to complain about its current Jennifer Hawkins ad campaign. What she has written is so important that I’m reprinting it from the Collective Shout website, where she posted her letter yesterday. How much more evidence does Lovable need that its current campaign is harmful and its claims to want to change the cultural on body image just don’t stand up?

Mainstream media takes up the issue

The Lovable/Jen Hawkins/body image issue has now gone well beyond these humble blog pages.

I spent a significant part of yesterday being interviewed on the subject. Susie O’Brien gave it a good run both as a news piece and a comment piece spread across two pages in the Herald Sun. An extract from the first:

 Lovable lingerie firm cops a serve over Jennifer Hawkins campaign

LOVABLE lingerie company has come under fire for using thin Jennifer Hawkins in a sexy campaign, while professing to help women combat poor body image.

The Australian underwear company says it is “dedicated to changing the culture surrounding eating disorders and body image” and wants to reverse “the influence of celebrity and model culture”.

And yet it is using the former Miss Universe extensively in its advertising.

The company is donating a quarter of online sales profits this month to The Butterfly Foundation, a body image issues and eating disorders support centre.

Women’s issues campaigner Melinda Tankard Reist, who first raised the issue on her website, said the company was hypocritical in its approach.

In a post on the issue she attacks the company for displaying “double standards around claiming to boost self-esteem in women and supporting positive body image, while acting in ways that undermine these messages”.

“It seems to me companies like Lovable are happy to spruik a ‘love your bodies, we’re all beautiful’ positive self-esteem message, while not doing all that much,” she said.

“It has become an empty mantra.” Read the full story here

And the opinion piece:

Jennifer Hawkins lingerie ploy is hypocrisy, says Susie O’Brien

TAKE a look at this saucy, sexy woman selling Lovable lingerie.

What part of this picture is helping improve young women’s body image, do you think?

In my view, absolutely nothing.

In fact, some women who have low self-esteem will feel worse about themselves when faced with these near-naked pictures of Jennifer Hawkins and her tall, slim, tanned body.

So it’s the height of hypocrisy for Australian lingerie company Lovable to try to buy credibility with female customers by donating 25 per cent of the online sales profits to The Butterfly Foundation.

In fact I think the campaign could be decidedly damaging to the very cause the foundation is committed to – helping women with eating disorders and body image problems.

And, it must be said, what the hell is The Butterfly Foundation doing accepting money from a lingerie company that uses a famously slim, busty model plastered all over its advertising? Read full piece here

NineMSN also picked up the story, in a piece by Ali Best.

Lovable under fire for ‘double standards’

The Lovable lingerie brand has been slammed for partnering with an eating disorder organisation to combat unhealthy body images.

The Australian lingerie company has pledged to donate 25 percent of all of their online profits this month to The Butterfly Foundation.

But critics accuse Lovable of hypocrisy for using former Miss Universe Jennifer Hawkins in advertising campaigns while also claiming to help women battle poor body image.

Women’s issues campaigner Melinda Tankard Reist addressed the supposed double standards in a blog post last week entitled ‘Everybody’s Loveable: especially if thin, sexy and covered in ice cream’.

Reist told ninemsn she didn’t mean to “gun” the Butterfly Foundation but rather companies who she claims do little for body image issues despite claiming they do.

“There is a contradiction involved,” Reist said.

“[Lovable] is giving the appearance of social responsibility while not actually doing anything.”

Lovable’s website declares its backing of the Butterfly Foundation “in support of Eating Disorder research, support services, awareness and prevention programs.”

But directly underneath this the homepage reads: “Check out the hot new TV ad featuring Jen Hawkins.”

The ad shows Hawkins modelling a range of underwear while suggestively licking an ice cream, drinking a milkshake and staring alluringly into the camera…

Reist told ninemsn that a number of women have contacted her saying that they feel “unlovable” after seeing the ads.

One woman said she hated the ad more than any other because it “tears at her self-esteem.”

Reist has warned of the dangers for The Butterfly Foundation in accepting high profile corporate sponsorship from a brand that promotes bodily perfection in its advertising.

“They need to have a good, hard think about it,” she said. “It’s undermining their core message…”

Lovable could not be reached for comment. Read the full story here.

It’s because we’re jealous and stuffing our face with cheezels

These stories and  coverage elsewhere outraged Jen Hawkins fans, who accused me – and those who agreed with me- of being fat, lazy, jealous, ugly slobs (among the words which were printable). Jen was hot, hot hot and I needed to get more exercise. Some of my personal faves from the Herald Sun comments section:

“Here we go again, someone who’s years are past them, and gravity has taken over having a good old whinge again”.

‎”Let me guess…Melinda is fat”

“People like Melinda Tankard are why girls and women now think it is ok to be fat, overweight, and unhealthy”.

“…more complaints from fat and overweight women that would rather die on their sofa eating cheezels and watching reality TV”

These comments brought to mind this piece by Dannielle Miller about how it’s so much easier to insult and ridicule someone you disagree with than to engage the arguments. 

 Not fit to be loved

But these were more than  outweighed by intelligent and thoughtful comments. Like this, also in HS comments:

[Comment From Peter]

My daughter has an eating disorder, and while Jen Hawkins is beautiful, it sends the wrong message to her, to associate Jen Body image with the Butterfly foundation.

 And this from Tabitha, in blog comments on my site

OK, having read the comments on this article I feel compelled to add my two and sixpence. I’d like to add that as backup for some of the things I’m about to say – I used to be a personal trainer, and I am currently a doctor.

Firstly I completely agree with the article about the hypocrisy of Lovable sponsoring the Butterfly Foundation. The fact that you can click on the Lovable link on the BF website and be taken to an ad with Jen Hawkins slinking all over the place covered in icecream just absolutely astounds me.

And for those who don’t understand why it’s a problem if the company are providing finance for a good cause, this is why: I’m not talking about people who are carrying a bit of extra weight. I’m talking about eating disorders. People who have eating disorders suffer daily under the feeling that they are not thin enough or attractive enough to be loved or desired. They feel this to such an extent that people throw up or starve themselves until they die over trying to get thin enough. Organisations like the Butterfly Foundation are designed to be a place of safety and support for people who feel this way, one voice telling them that being their own weight is ok and is good enough as long as they are healthy. And that the purpose of their existence is not to be attractive – it’s to enjoy their own life. Lovable is a company which both exploits women as sexual objects to sell products, and represents Jennifer Hawkins as its ideal. Even their “fuller figure DD” bras are sold with pictures of people with JH type of body. For the BF to associate with this company tells people with body image issues (and in fact all of us) that this is what it considers a healthy body, and that it has no problem with the sexualisation of women. This is an enormous betrayal of those the Butterfly Foundation claims to support…

People are tending toward being overweight and if it does harm your health then that’s a problem. But many comments have implied that if we disagree with Jen Hawkins weight, then we are advocating people being overweight. Do you understand the ridiculousness of that statement? JH is 180 cm tall and weighs 57kg. This gives her a BMI of 17.5 which is considered dangerously underweight. Then in addition she is airbrushed for these ads. There are thousands of people in Australia who have perfectly healthy BMIs between 20-25 (myself included – I am 173cm and weigh 63kg who end up feeling like we are actually OVERweight, because of ads like this). And as a personal trainer I happen to know that that weight is, as well as being unhealthy, almost unattainable for most women unless they do indeed begin to stave themselves, or throw up what they do eat. SO are we being encouraged to have poor body image and develop eating disorders? Your call. But in the shouting about whether people should be fat/thin/allowed to advertise how they like etc, try to remember the thousands of people in our society who are literally starving themselves to death because we continue to allow them to be told that they are not fit to be loved.

The critique I and others have made is not about jealousy or personal insecurity. It’s not personal at all. And it’s not that some women need to ‘get over themselves’.  It is about analysing harmful messages and shining a light on double standards in current body image campaigns. It’s about deconstructing an ad campaign by a company that wants to be at the forefront of cultural change while running ads featuring (in their words) “hot” pics of an “enviable” supermodel presented as a male porn fantasy stereotype. I just don’t think you can have it both ways. That’s all.