Objectification whatever the size: MTR on Online Opinion
On the 7pm ABC News Sunday, June 27, a report on the Federal Government’s new voluntary body image code of conduct was illustrated by the story of size 14 model Laura Wells. Laura was proud of her body and very confident, even though she didn’t conform to the typical model body type.
That is a good thing of course. It’s positive to have women in the industry who challenge the thin ideal.
But the argument fell apart for me, because, as the ABC report informed us, Laura was so confident that she even took her clothes off for modeling shoots. And then we saw some footage of her squeezing her breasts together for the camera. She was naked. Read the complete article here.
As readers know, I was a guest on the Gruen Sessions, broadcast online on the ABC website last Wednesday. I blogged on it here. Just came across this blog, ‘Head, Heart, Hands’ commenting on the show. I particularly liked Sheryl’s insightful observation below and thought you might be interested in what she says as well.
What I found really interesting was the ability of the advertising executives to hold a position of defensive innocence in tension with their
1. agreement that advertising images are connected with negative mental and physical health outcomes for young women.
2. acknowledgement that when the advertising industry uses real women in ads it’s only as a strategy to sell more product, not because it’s the right thing to do.
3. acknowledgement that advertising taps into consumers’ aspirations and desires, including aspiring to very narrowly defined “good looks”, because aspiration creates sales.
4. agreement that advertising has a responsibility to “get it right” and not objectify women when solving their client’s brief.
5. agreement that there should be transparency about the use of digital technology to enhance images.
6. agreement that there should be stricter standards on outdoor advertising because “you can’t get away from it”.
7. acknowedgement that only 4% of women in our society are like the women used in advertisements.
You can read Sheryl’s post here.
UK Bans Diesel ads – but not because of offense to women
The Revolution of Real Women has criticised the UK’s advertising watchdog for banning the Diesel ‘Be Stupid’ ads – for the wrong reasons.
The ads were banned not because they were objectifying and offensive to women, but because they might encourage copy-cat behaviour (cos like a woman in a bikini is going to take a photo of her genitals with a lion lurking in the background).
As RORW writes: “…this is an ad campaign that BLATANTLY preaches that appearances, promiscuity and sexiness is far more important than WHO we are and what we accomplish”.
July 7th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Melinda TankardReist, Melinda TankardReist. Melinda TankardReist said: New blog. Objectification, advertising execs inconsistencies, stupid Diesel ads http://bit.ly/aaMU6o #objectification #advertising […]
July 7th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Even as a teenager I always saw through the so called ‘positive body image’ messages magazines would try to promote. They would just throw in some size 12 models on the back pages and claim it was about ‘loving your body.’ No, it was about saying look, even size 12 women can be ‘hot’ and wanted by boys, as if that is the ultimate goal for a woman.
If they want to get serious about body image, they could try promoting anything other than the constant focus on ‘beauty’ as though this is the only quality a woman need have.
July 8th, 2010 at 8:37 am
I love what REVOLUTION OF REAL WOMEN say “ad campaign that BLATANTLY preaches that appearances, promiscuity and sexiness is far more important than WHO we are and what we accomplish.”
Diesel have always gone for a edgy raw type ad but seemingly they are now doing anything in their campaigns that they can get away with….all in the name of fashion….excused as long as someone is wearing a pair of jeans with the brand on.
I find the ads offensive. The ad with the girl taking the picture of her genitals alarms me – teacher and counselors worldwide are discussing the damage done by this act especially with the huge number of girls devastated by sexting situations. (and boys impacted too)
In my opinion Diesel lacks responsibility and care as well as objectifying women and girls
But what does that matter to them? It’s about selling jeans right???
(and I await the comment about me lacking a sense of humour, me being hung up about sex, I am boring and like to complain and I knit big jumpers to put on women so that men can’t look at them blah blah same old same old same old!)
July 8th, 2010 at 10:29 am
More on the Gruen Transfer re last night’s show where the team got to play the Lynx ad again.
http://ohmykozy.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/just-in-case-you-missed-it-the-gruen-transfer-exposes-truth-in-advertising-again/
This time they didn’t try to defend themselves … they were free to tell us how clever they are, and that objectification or women and men in advertising, if it exists, is OK because it sells product.
November 27th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
[…] Diesel has a history of sexualised and degrading ad campaigns. ‘Be stupid’ is one of these campaigns with the accompanying slogan: ’smart may have the brains but stupid has the balls.’ Melinda Tankard Reist has written about that campaign here. […]