I love Dove so much for this -- I really don't give a crap if they're using it to sell cellulite cream. They're my kind of hypocrites.
Also, this one makes me cry every. single. time.
I get what you are saying, but I found the ad completely invigorating. The slow build in the beginning, focusing on the girl's face as the music starts pounding, followed by that brilliantly edited montage that is actually saying SOMETHING worth saying.
I have big issues with corporate 'make nice' gestures but I think Dove are trying to walk a delicate tight rope with their campaign. They have the clout and money to really push a campaign like this, but at the same time, they are a corporation answerable to their profit margin. If they go 'too far' (at least in current social terms) away from what is considered acceptable, then they risk the entire campaign being rejected by consumers.
It may be moving the goalposts just a tad, but its a start...
Also, duh, I didn't click "open wide," so I didn't read your analysis before I posted that.
I still stand by my glib comment, though I think your analysis is 100% valid.
I found the ad completely invigorating
I don't disagree. The ad alone is very good. It's the underlying campaign that I find problematic, because I don't think it carries through the message of the ad as meaningfully as it should. You can't talk seriously about self-esteem and then exclude as "unreal" every woman over a size 8.
Well, I appreciate Dove's campaign because, even with their ideals of what curvy women are limited to, even with the fact that they're also trying to sell beauty products, they're actually doing something, they're saying something that needs to be said. It actually wasn't until I saw this ad that I felt they were doing more than simply paying lip service to the idea of fat acceptance or that people of any size can be beautiful, because this ad is pretty hard core.
I'm not arguing with you by the way, I'm just saying that I think that, for a beauty product company, the fact that this campaign exists at all is a huge step forward for the industry and society.
I'm not arguing with you by the way, I'm just saying that I think that, for a beauty product company, the fact that this campaign exists at all is a huge step forward for the industry and society.
Holy shit, Brian G., I just agreed with you completely. The end times must be near. 
I don't know what to say to that.
Holy shit, Brian G., I just agreed with you completely. The end times must be near.
The stars have aligned!
Yeah, I agree that such advertising is problematic, but I think it is a good wake up call about what kind of message is being sent to girls in our culture.
The Body Shop's campaigns seemed to be quite popular 'round these parts and I am pretty sure that The Body Shop also sold beauty products AND tried to communicate that women are ok, just as they are... it is ultimately hypocrisy, but at least acknowledged hypocrisy.
I used to purchase Dove products until I read their corporate report card (I think they are owned by Unilever) so I switched to Dr. Bronner's Lavender Hemp Soap (Organic and Fair Trade).
I think they are owned by Unilever
They are--and Unilevel sells much more problematic items, such as skin-whitening cream.
But, just to be clear, my objection isn't really about the selling of beauty products nearly as much as it is to the borders that Dove is building around what constitutes "real beauty."
This doesn't seem like a statement of defined borders, it's more like a marketing issue. Dove seems to knows that baby steps have to be taken with something as emotionally-based as weight. People can be really sensitive about it, and I think Dove is at least trying to have some finesse in dealing with the issue; those plus-sized models wouldn't have made it off the wrapping of some off-brand woolly jumpers at Target not so long ago. When I was in high school, heroin chic in the fashion industry was still in in a big way, but in just the two or three years since then, we have the Dove campaign, models being turned down for being too skinny at fashion shows...it's really a huge change.
This doesn't seem like a statement of defined borders
It is, but the borders are not being defined by the women they are choosing to use/not use, but by choosing to use particular women and summarily defining them as "real women."
That's problematic, for reasons I shouldn't need to explain, for any woman who doesn't look like those women, either because they are bigger or smaller/less curvy.
I'm not disagreeing with the possibility that Dove simply made a "baby steps" marketing decision. I'm pointing out they could have done so without defining the limited scope of expanded notions of beauty in contradistinction to other body types.
Yeah, I agree that no one but Leonard Nimoy has been willing to really look at what "fat" is like.
I see two strands here - there's an advertising component (the campaign for real beauty) which seeks to use the idea of "celebrating real women" to sell products (while all the while not really celebrating all women. And then there's their community service efforts to promote young girls self esteem via their "Self-esteem fund" or whatever it's called. Yes, the two are interrelated (corporations don't do good in the world without an eye on the bottomline) but I think we can comfortably laud their efforts on the corporate social responsibility front, while questioning their advertising efforts.
Thanks kate, btw, for the link to that ad - it is a tear jerker.
Allie is absolutely right on this. Go read her comment again.
Yes, the two are interrelated
They're more than merely "interrelated" via the parent corporation, though--they're inextricably linked. If a girl goes to Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty site for more information, as recommended at the end of the spot, they're going to find the images I posted. They're going to find a recommendation to visit Jess Weiner's website, where she's pictured with (I shit you not) "Real Girls" Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson.
So, naturally, while the message of the spot itself is great, as I said in the post, I have mixed feelings about the campaign as a whole, because it's sending mixed messages.
It's kind of like a campaign advert with a candidate who promises to support the middle and working classes. That sounds great! But then you go to his website, and you see that he doesn't support universal healthcare, which smart progressives know is a key component of really supporting working Americans. Campaign messaging is only as valuable as the depth of the campaign behind it.
Which is why I raised the issues I did--not to shit all over the ad, which is good (just like a promise to support the middle and working classes is good), but to really examine the depth of Dove's campaign and see if they're walking the walk as well as talking the talk.
And I found mixed results. Hence, my mixed feelings.
Gotcha, Liss.
Thanks for posting the ad and the the thoughts.
:D
I agree with Melissa, and Kate.
And this ad made me cry my eyes out--both times.
As well as look skyward to something or someone, somewhere, and give a tiny, silent prayer of thanks that I have three confident (understatement) sons and no daughters who'll wind up like me.
I actually work for a company that manufactured some signage for this campaign. We have samples sitting around the office and the initial responses from the men around here (they're ALL men) was a sort of offhand disgust. One wanted to know why they didn't just use a pretty girl or why they had to be "fat". Of course, after I smacked him, I explained to him that his ideas about beauty were pretty warped and if a woman who looked like any of those women deigned to speak to him in public he'd be overjoyed. He conceded. I think the fact that any corporation has taken a step in the right direction is great, but I think the message can only BE mixed, considering the source.
Yeah, I understand, Melissa, and I do feel the same way, I'm just saying...what else could they do? I know they're a corporation, they're there to make money, but considering they could just give us fatties the finger and do what they want, I'm appreciative of this relatively amazing overture. I'll take mixed messages over the very clear message all the other companies give: no fats.
Speaking of going in the wrong direction, or not going far enough in the right one, shouldn't there also be fat male models in this campaign?
what else could they do?
They could have simply not defined a very limited range of women as "real women."
They could have called their campaign "Natural Beauty" (which is in contradistinction to the "unnatural" beauty explored in "Evolution" and "Onslaught") instead of "Real Beauty," as but one alternative.
And they could have, at minimum, referred to their non-size-0 models as "Dove women," for example, as opposed to "real women."
There are very real issues with the dehumanization of fat women, and they aren't helped (and are quite possibly hurt) by campaigns that define real womanhood in terms that exclude them.
shouldn't there also be fat male models in this campaign?
Given that Dove doesn't market products to men, I don't know why there would be.
The "Real Women Have Curves" picture caught my eye. Is it just me, or does size correlate with skin color?
Let's just agree that all women are real women, because imaginary women don't buy Dove products.
All I was saying was that Dove seems to be doing what it can within the boundaries of what is (or what they think is) marketable. It's not perfect, they do send mixed messages, but I think that, overall, it's helpful. And as I said before, the ad in your post may seem tame compared to things you, Kate, me or loads of others would say, but in context, the context of being a large beauty product company, the Dove Campaign is amazing progress, and this ad is an undeniable slap in the face to other companies and magazines that start going after girls early.
Let's just agree that all women are real women
A public campaign isn't about us agreeing, though. It's quite literally about the message it's sending, which is what I'm exploring here (as are others, like Zurvan, who makes a very good point about women of color, above).
imaginary women don't buy Dove products.
When we're talking about how "real women" are defined, real vs. imaginary is a false dichotomy, obviously.
The existing cultural narrative about "real women" doesn't have anything to do with "imaginary" women, but women who do/do not conform to a very specific beauty standard, pitting women who ostensibly starve, bleach, make-up, and plasticize themselves into "fake" women against women who don't (or, usually, starve, bleach, make-up, and plasticize themselves less), thereby being heralded as the "real" women.
The "real women have curves" movement specifically pits thin women with boyish shapes (some of whom are shaped that way naturally) against women with more hourglass figures.
The whole concept is by its very nature divisive and exclusionary.
In this instance, women at both size extremes--extremely thin (curveless) or extremely fat (too curvy)--are excluded as not being "real women." This is problematic for some obvious reasons, and some maybe less obvious.
At its essence, the biggest problem is rooted in the reality that fat women quite genuinely aren't considered real women by a hell of a lot of people. Beyond that, we are stripped of our humanity, constantly compared to animals--pigs, cows, heifers, hippos, rhinos, elephants, whales, sea monsters, etc. We are animals, we are monsters, we are freaks, we are ogres. We get mooed and oinked at in public by perfect strangers. I get emails with my face put onto animals' bodies, onto Shrek's girlfriend's Fiona's body, onto creatures in cages. I've been called Quasimodo when my nerve-damaged left foot starts dragging after I've walked a distance. Those who remember the infamous "Opie & Anthony" thread will recall that I was depicted next to a hippo and a whale and so forth in an attempt to dehumanize me, right alongside the death and rape threats that did the same.
At a certain size, you become nothing but a beast--not human, and certainly not woman. So the "real woman" stuff seriously ticks me off, because it inevitably necessarily excludes those women who are struggling to have their very humanity recognized by a large swath of the population, no less their womanhood.
It just doesn't feel at all helpful to me, from either the feminist or the fat acceptance perspective, and I think it may actually be harmful to the women at either size extreme in the long run to reinforce the narrative that only certain body types are the essence of womanhood, represent the "real women."
I'm a real woman.
And I'm a real woman who doesn't happen to give a flying fart if someone wants to waste his time cutting and pasting my face onto a hippo's body (because, hey, I'm not a real person, anyway). But not everyone has nine-inch-thick skin, and I have no interest in ignoring memes that reinforce (even if unintentionally) dehumanizing narratives just because I personally don't collapse into a heap when someone thinks it's the height of cleverness to call me a pig.
There are other real women who are really affected by that crap, and it's my obligation to speak for them, because the price of being a big fatass bitch who speaks her mind online is weathering all that shit. Which I can do.
Melissa, when I said "real vs. imaginary" women, I wasn't setting up an actual dichotomy. My point was that all women, no matter who they are or what they look like, are all real women. I was agreeing with you.
The only thing we seem to disagree over is the message of the campaign. I agree about "Real Women Have Curves", it divides women into opposing groups just like the prevailing ideal that only skinny women are "real" does. I just don't think that's the message of the campaign. To me, real beauty means the natural beauty we all have. Earlier you said that they should have said natural rather than real beauty, but in real life and the campaign itself, I don't see a functional difference between the two; natural beauty is obviously real.
I'm not arguing with you about it, by the way, I think we just have different interpretations of the message.
I just don't think that's the message of the campaign.
And that's why we are, in fact, in disagreement, because the whole point of my post (and subsequent comments) is that the underlying campaign actually subverts the message of the spot.
Which, for the third time or wev, is why I have mixed feelings about it and do not agree that it is helpful overall or "amazing progress."
And that's fine. We don't have to agree.
That's true, we don't. My interpretation isn't any more correct than yours or anyone else's because that's all it is, an interpretation. In this case, the interpretation of the message of the campaign is what matters. I think it's helpful; you don't. Some girls will find it empowering; some will find it excluding. The only reason I believe it's helpful is that unlike the messages of all other companies, which are unambiguous and very excluding, Dove is actually doing something positive. The only thing I can find to fault them with (and we apparently do agree on this) is that they aren't inclusive enough.
I'm late in chiming in here, but I just want to say your points about the "real women" definition are excellent, Liss.
In this case, the interpretation of the message of the campaign is what matters.
To you. To me, the efficacy of the campaign in affecting (for good or ill) larger cultural narratives is what matters, hence my post and subsequent comments.
In the short-term, it's probably accurate to say more people will find this campaign good than not. Taking the long view, however, I see potential long-term problems with this approach, based largely on my knowledge of such "baby steps" marketing, which almost never blossoms into a broader, more inclusive campaign.
I'm pleased for you that you derive some personal satisfaction from the campaign, but I'm examining it from the perspective of a cultural anthropologist who has a wider interest in social themes.
I agree that the "real" women have curves idea does exclude a lot of real women. I'm completely flat-chested... but I have curvy hips and thighs. I don't usually see my body type in advertising.
However, I think it's excellent that they are willing to use plus size models to sell stuff that isn't geared to plus size women. It's a step in the right direction... a small step, but a step none the less.
In my personal opinion at least half the ladies in their undies for the "real" ad are double-digit sized.
Try and wear a fitted shirt with those boobs in a single digit sized shirt. I think not.
So they aren't 20's, but some are 10, 12, and 14s. Better than zero.
Melissa, I couldn't agree with you more. Your comment on 10/2 @ 4:28 PM was beautifully written!
When I first heard about the Dove campaign a year or so ago (or whenever it was that it first came out), it was being discussed on the radio about how "real women" were used and how many people felt they were "fat". And I was like, "Oh cool, someone has put fat women in undies in an ad! How awesome!" So I immediately googled it and found the picture of the undie-clad "real" women, and I felt EXACTLY as you have described! I felt AWFUL about myself. I was like, "OMG, if this is 'fat' then what the hell am I???? If this is 'real', then what the hell am I????" because to me, NONE of those women are fat and none of them look like size 18 me! I was like, "FUCK DOVE!" (yeesh, sorry for all the "i was like's"!) I've purposefully stayed away from all Dove products ever since then (not that I bought a ton of Dove stuff to begin with, but still.)
So, Melissa, thank you for so eloquently putting into words what my own reaction was. I wish I was that great with words. All I could muster up was "fuck off Dove".
All I could muster up was "fuck off Dove".
- Sometimes that's all I can muster, too.
Just another Liss cheerleader here. As a soapmaker, I think Dove sucks, too.
But they sure are successful marketeers. I just don't think that that's anything to be lauded. And I don't think for a second that their entire "self-esteem" and "real women" campaigns are about anything but getting more free PR and moving more cellulite cream.
No cookies for Unilever.
I'm pleased for you that you derive some personal satisfaction from the campaign, but I'm examining it from the perspective of a cultural anthropologist who has a wider interest in social themes.
Melissa McEwan
I wasn't talking about my personal satisfaction, I guess I didn't make myself very clear. The interpretation of the message of Dove's campaign by society is what's important, which is what you were talking about anyway. You said that in the short term, most people would see the campaign as good, but long-term it could be harmful, and that's true. I was only saying, for the wev time myself, that the affect of this campaign is better, or at least less damaging than normal marketing. Is "It's okay to be fat, even if you're fatter than our models, now buy our shit" not better than "You're all fat, even you 'normal' people. Feel bad, eat another donut, and then buy our shit"?
Also, I'd like to point out that showing plus-size models and calling them "real women" comes off more as a contrast to normal marketing, where only skinny women are considered "real" AKA of any worth, rather than excluding skinny women or women fatter than the models. I do, and already agreed with you that the campaign isn't inclusive enough, though. If they're going to make a campaign just about a certain group of women, then real was a bad word to use.
So they aren't 20's, but some are 10, 12, and 14s. Better than zero.
hk | 10.02.07 - 6:39 pm |
Thanks, hk. That sums up very well what I've been trying to say. It's better than zero.
showing plus-size models
Okay, this? Shows what's wrong with this campaign. They are not "plus-size" models. They are bigger than the usual size-0 models, but they are not plus-size. Actual plus-size models (like those former model and designer Emme use in her runway shows) start at size 14. She uses size 14, 16, and 18 models.
This is what I'm talking about when I say we're moving the goal posts by inches and it will be bad in the long-term. Our ideas of thin and fat and "normal" and "plus-size" women are getting even more fucked because we applaud this crap without qualification. No one, and I mean no one, is helped by our beginning to regard the women pictured in this campaign as "plus-size."
Fuck. That.
>>Is it just me, or does size correlate with skin color?
Yes! Yes it does. Oprah and Queen Latifah are allowed to have "curves," while Kirstie Alley and Jenny McCarthy (and of course Britney) are told they need to lose weight.
Apparently "real" women only have curves if they happen to also be women of colour...
Well, the alternative is going back to heroin chic, then, because you're not going to see size 24, 26, 30 or more models in a major ad campaign by a company as huge as Dove right now. Believe me, I'd love it if we did and I'll email them every day asking for it, but I'm not gonna hold my breath because they're still trying to sell their products and they don't think a size 30 model can do that. Accepting that fact, this campaign is better than that alternative; it at least shows women that could be considered average, even if they aren't plus-sized, and it's the first time I've seen positive beauty marketing. All the beauty marketing I've ever seen has screamed to me "You need this product to be considered attractive", but Dove comes off more like "You're beautiful, but our products could help maintain and protect it." That's the only reason I support this campaign, but I'm definitely not uncritical, since I agree with you about most of it.
I guess the thing is, Brian, that from one perspective, this IS a good thing. But from another, it is not only not as good as it could be, it's just not good, period.
Here's a grossly exaggerated example of the distinction I'm drawing:
Imagine (it's not too hard) a society in which women are completely dominated by men. Along comes an ad campaign that, in essence, says, hey, some women aren't as stupid as other women - they're practically men!
This is a good thing, compared to the status quo.
But the larger effect is to reinforce the idea that equality is something limited to rare exceptions.
A more radical, and more ethical, response would be to say, What the hell? Why are women considered inferior in the first place?
So what Dove is doing, with regards to women's body issues, is much more like the first scenario - it's better than what their peers in the industry are saying, but it's still pretty limited and eff'ed up.
What Melissa is saying is that we shouldn't have to settle for such meager concessions, especially since those concessions do more to reinforce the problem than solve it.
We need real solutions, and a company that makes its living perpetuating the underlying problem should be viewed with scepticism when it purports to offer such a solution.
What Melissa is saying is that we should have to settle for such meager concessions, especially since those concessions do more to reinforce the problem than solve it.
How is this a meager concession when its message undermines the prevailing ethic of the entire beauty industry, that being that you're ugly first, you're always ugly first, and you need their products to get beautiful, that being skinny is the only way to be considered human, let alone beautiful, that your first answer to a zit should be concealer, to being fat is a pill, to getting old plastic surgery? Dove's ads say none of that and make what, for a beauty company especially, are shocking expositions of what the beauty industry does, considering it could lose them business partnerships, credibility, market share; Photoshopping of models, bombarding women, especially young girls with all of this shit, the sequence of the woman losing then gaining back weight struck me particularly as a damnation of dieting.
Their signals may be mixed, their methods flawed, their inclusiveness incomplete, but I don't see how it could be as bad as or worse than the norm.
It's not.
And that's not what I said.
"Better than" is not the same as "best."
You're judging Dove compared to other beauty companies, which say that all women are flawed, instead of (as Dove does) just some of them are.
(And that's what the "real woman" language implies; why is "woman" not enough? Answer: the only reason to use "real" is if "unreal" women exist. That's where Dove fails: by including actual women in that category of "unreal" by defining what "real" is, via their ad campaign.)
We're judging Dove by a higher standard: that ALL women (and people overall, for that matter) are real and beautiful, and NOT flawed at all.
We're judging Dove by a higher standard: that ALL women (and people overall, for that matter) are real and beautiful, and NOT flawed at all.
Rana | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 1:06 pm |
Yes, but do you realize that, in context, Dove is making a point in marketing that contradicts "fake" women, i.e. Photoshopped women? Melissa makes these posts called Impossibly Beautiful, which is what Dove is talking about; the women in ads aren't real, even if the women they're based on are; it's fiction.
Melissa makes these posts called Impossibly Beautiful
Hey, good point. Now stop to consider the difference in messaging between a title like "Impossibly Beautiful" and "Real Beauty."
Speaking of context and all...
To me, it's a difference in your targeting. It'd be like if I described myself as either "gay" or "not straight". You're really not saying anything that different. When they say "real" beauty, the obvious opposite would be "fake" beauty, in this case Photoshopping. In your post title, impossibly beautiful would also be "fake" beauty in the sense that it's unattainable, the opposite of which would be possibly beautiful, which is beauty that would be attainable, thus "real". That's why I don't think you're saying anything that different, which might be what our miscommunication has been about.
When they say "real" beauty, the obvious opposite would be "fake" beauty, in this case Photoshopping.
Obvious to whom?
As I said above, many women understand the unspecified dichotomy of real/fake very differently. Let me repeat myself:
The existing cultural narrative about "real women" doesn't have anything to do with "imaginary" women, but women who do/do not conform to a very specific beauty standard, pitting women who ostensibly starve, bleach, make-up, and plasticize themselves into "fake" women against women who don't (or, usually, starve, bleach, make-up, and plasticize themselves less), thereby being heralded as the "real" women.
The "real women have curves" movement specifically pits thin women with boyish shapes (some of whom are shaped that way naturally) against women with more hourglass figures.
What's "obvious" to you is not "obvious" to a lot of women, who have experienced the world--surprise!--in a way that is not the same as a young, gay man.
What's "obvious" to you is not "obvious" to a lot of women, who have experienced the world--surprise!--in a way that is not the same as a young, gay man.
Melissa McEwan | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 1:51 pm |
I didn't say it was obvious to me because I'm gay, I wasn't even talking about me, that was an example. I'm talking about forming dichotomies, about framing. You can say something two or more ways but mean the same thing, that was my point. My example was meant to point out that if I say "I'm gay", I'm describing myself as something; if I say "I'm not straight", I'm describing myself as what I'm not. That's how I was reading both the campaign and your post, that your title and the campaign were saying the same or similar things, but defining them differently. If that's not the case, then I've been duly corrected.
describing myself based on what I'm not*
I didn't say it was obvious to me because I'm gay
You've missed my point yet again.
And my point wasn't about me; you can switch it to anything and say "I'm straight" vs. "I'm not gay", "I'm a woman" vs. "I'm not a man", etc.
You've missed my point yet again.
Melissa McEwan | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 2:06 pm |
Your point was that I perceive things differently from women regarding this campaign, and that women will perceive it differently from each other, correct? I know that, and I've said it before to the effect of "some will find it empowering, some will feel excluded". What I was trying to point out is that I didn't read your post and the campaign as saying anything that different; if that's wrong, then you've corrected me.
The thing is, Brian, that if Dove was really concerned with challenging the whole "impossible beauty" thing by offering more realistic role models, they wouldn't need to identify a specific type of women as "real."
They could just say "women."
Fat women. Skinny women. Old women. Ugly women. Handicapped women. Bald women with cancer. Saggy women. Even anorexic, breast-implanted, surgically altered women.
They are all real.
But in the Dove ads, women are only "real" if they are size 8-12, with curves, nice skin and hair, and attractive features.
For most women, Dove's "real woman" IS "impossible beauty"!
THAT'S the issue.
Sure, it's nice to see models who look happy and healthy. But to claim that this represents the broad range of female experience any more than do the unhealthy images is reinforcing the very set of assumptions that lead to the unhealthy models presented elsewhere.
Why does a woman have to look like ANY ad, in order to be considered "real" and "beautiful"?
Why can't she just be herself, on her own terms?
I DO understand what you're arguing. I just think that, for me, your response is inadequate to the frustrations I - like many women - feel when we are offered yet another image upon which we are supposed to model ourselves if we are to be "real" or "beautiful."
I can't look like one of the supermodels without doing profound damage to my body. But I can't look like one of the Dove models either. BOTH are unhealthy and unrealistic and impossible for this very real woman.
THAT's the problem that you're choosing to overlook in your praise of Dove's campaign.
It's not about celebrating real women or challenging unrealistic beauty norms. It's about substituting one limited image for another, one limited vision of beauty for another. It's different in the details, true, but not in the underlying assumptions.
Good news: the end times definitely are not upon us. Sigh.
THAT's the problem that you're choosing to overlook in your praise of Dove's campaign.
The thing is, I'm not overlooking it. I already said it doesn't include the full spectrum of human womanhood. That's a major fault in the campaign, but I also realize that no matter what we want or what Dove wants, they are still trying to sell things! And as sad and emotional and beautiful as bald women with cancer are, they're not going to sell soap or shampoo. I'm not condoning their exclusions, I'm merely accepting the campaign for what it is and what they can do.
By the way, I've said all along that I don't unconditionally praise this campaign. I feel it's positive, but flawed; at least it's a decent start.
as sad and emotional and beautiful as bald women with cancer are, they're not going to sell soap or shampoo
Winner: Douchiest Comment of the Month Award.
Though it is only the 3rd, I am almost certain nothing will beat it for the rest of the month.
For god's sake, Melissa, can you listen to me for one fucking second? That's not my opinion, it's just how things are. Even if it would work, Dove isn't going to do that. Even if I want them to, they aren't going to. You could once in a while stop yourself and think about what I say rather than call me a douche, or what I say douchey.
By the way, if you meant "bald women aren't going to sell soap or shampoo", that's not douchey. That's irony. The two are easy to confuse.
That's not my opinion, it's just how things are.
Yeah, actually, it is just your opinion that women who suffer hair loss from chemo are "sad and emotional."
I've known too many women with cancer, some of whom had hair loss, and I would have described them as feisty, strong, admirable, cool, and lots of other things, "sad and emotional" not among them.
You could once in a while stop yourself and think about what I say
I did think about it, and I found it to be a stunningly rude, flippant, and narrow-minded description of women with cancer. It had nothing to do with your conclusions about whether bald women can sell shampoo. (Ho ho.)
But your accusations of knee-jerk reactionism are nonetheless deeply appreciated.
I sent you an email regarding this, but to clear something up, I was talking about how they would appear in advertising, it was NOT a description of their personality.
I was talking about how they would appear in advertising
YES, I KNOW. And I think saying that women who have hair loss because of cancer treatments would appear "sad and emotional" in advertising, particularly advertising that's meant to be celebrating the beauty of "real women," is just all kinds of wrong.
And, btw, your email is just all kinds of classy, tough guy.
Yes, Melissa, if I insult you or anyone else, I'm supposed to apologize, and I do. You insult me and I'm supposed to take it, because you're always validated in doing so.
By the way, you want an example of a flippant and rude comment fucking up a discussion?
as sad and emotional and beautiful as bald women with cancer are, they're not going to sell soap or shampoo
Winner: Douchiest Comment of the Month Award.
Though it is only the 3rd, I am almost certain nothing will beat it for the rest of the month.
Melissa McEwan | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 5:55 pm |
I've never asked you to apologize for anything, dude.
Yeah, because it's impossible that you wouldn't need to, that we would've gotten into an argument I would've folded because of peer pressure or manipulation. That you knew my desire to belong and to get along was stronger than my convictions and that I would fold. Yes, that's impossible.
Also, would a conversation like this annoy you?
Melissa: I agree with you for the most part about X, except for this.
Person: That's not what I said, I said this.
Melissa: Okay, but what about this?
Person: That was the douchiest thing I ever heard.
Melissa: Uh, why?
Person: Because it sounded wrong to me.
Because that's essentially the conversation we just had; I was discussing this with you and at least a few others, and you not only ignore my post, but throw out a douche award, and when I question it, you tell me your only justification for your rudeness was that you didn't like what I said. That explain why it pissed me off?
I love the evolution and onslaught ads. The line-up ad less so, for the point you made, plus it's still women doing "sexy" unnatural flirting with the camera for commecial purposes -- in short, exploitative. (I realize this doesn't bother all people, for some it's just about the sizism.)
I appreciate the intent, though. And if the purpose is to change perceptions, maybe it just does have to be done in stages to be effective.
On the other hand, I'd appreciate it a lot more if it wasn't being put out there as an issue that we're supposed to be thankful to Dove for being so enlightened about. That's kind of offensive in itself -- because the implication is that these are not ideal bodies. If they were, we wouldn't need to be thankful, right? Addressing it in the ads as an "issue" -- rather than just simply putting the bigger bodies up there as if they are valid in themselves -- is ultimately contrary to the notion of true body acceptance.
Brian -- perhaps the problem you're running into is in this comment that you made: "That's a major fault in the campaign, but I also realize that no matter what we want or what Dove wants, they are still trying to sell things! And as sad and emotional and beautiful as bald women with cancer are, they're not going to sell soap or shampoo."
I believe that, until you realize that the reality of "they are still trying to sell thing" does not trump the concept of overall integrity and truthfulness in advertising, no matter what, that maybe you haven't seen how deep the rabbit hole goes.
I never said it trumpted it! I said it's what they're doing! I don't agree with it, but it's what companies do. They'll lie to you to get your money. Even if they ran a perfect ad that made me, you, and everyone else here totally satisfied, they still wouldn't be doing it out of a sense of duty or service to women or a desire to fight societal injustice, they'd be doing it to expand market share and move product. That's why I simply take this campaign for what it is, a slightly less assholey way of selling their crap, an ad campaign with something approaching a positive message. That's all I get out of it; other than that, it's essentially the same garbage we all hear every goddamn day.
And because I chose to be slightly less cynical for once, I'm a douche! That's apparently totally valid, ignoring the fact that calling me a douche isn't a cogent or relevant refutation of ANYTHING I SAID.
Well, actually, I think that Melissa pointed out the the comment that bald women with cancer were sad and emotional was the source of the douchery. I'll read back to see if I'm incorrect about that.
OK, I went back, and that was definitely when any "douche" comments arose, so, I don't find your statement that "because I chose to be slightly less cynical for once, I'm a douche!
to hold true, at least for me.
Yeah, her calling me a douche for that was because she thinks those are bad words to call a woman with cancer, because she has personal experience. Guess what? I have personal experience and I would STILL USE THOSE WORDS. They are NOT negative, I do not use them negatively, and I am not going to take being insulted for it. Insulting me for it means you have zero merit for challenging me other than you didn't like it. If you do have a good reason, tell me what it is. If you don't, don't insult me.
"Insulting me for it means you have zero merit for challenging me other than you didn't like it. If you do have a good reason, tell me what it is. If you don't, don't insult me."
What?
I'm talking about Melissa. If you think I'm a douche or that what I said was douchey, do you have a good reason? Will you ignore why I would use those words and assume I'm just a callous asshole?
I don't think that I would particularly characterize what you said as "douchey" -- but that's not a term I generally use.
However, I think some of your assumptions are pretty status-quo, and "sad" doesn't fit with my experience of people who are dealing with cancer. I don't have a problem with "emotional", and frankly, I think it would be better if our culture was a little more "emotional".
No to sad? How about pity? Sympathy? Pathos? I didn't mean sad like watching the Republican debates, or like seeing a middle aged guy trying way to hard to chat up women, I mean sad like the underlying tragedy of it all. The times when people put on a brave face but then cry their eyes out when they're alone. To me, that's sadness; you can be happy and feisty and anything else makes you you, but that doesn't mean you can't be sad, or that you won't ever be.
Blah blah blah. As if talking about women "crying their eyes out when they're alone" was really how "sad" was used in the first place.
Let's go to the tape!
Brian: "[A]s sad and emotional and beautiful as bald women with cancer are, they're not going to sell soap or shampoo."
Huh. So we weren't really talking about ill women in the privacy of their homes, or in any other context besides in an advertisement. And specifically, their appearance in an advertisement. Which was deemed "sad" and "emotional."
As fun as it is to watch Brian's justifications move further and further away from reality, I just thought I'd point out nonetheless that describing the appearance of cancerous women in adverts as "sad" and "emotional" is, by any rational deduction, a commentary on how those women appear to the viewer of the ad. In other words, Brian was saying he finds the appearance of ill women sad and emotional...and beautiful--which is the word that really gives away this is truly about how they appear, not how they feel.
And, yeah, I still find that pretty douchy.
Oh and pity? Is so not an improvement.
It does, however, confirm yet further my point that this is about how you view the women in question, and that it's pretty ungenerous.
Brian -- While I understand that your original use of the word "sad" was to imply "pity", "sympathy", and "pathos", I think that you are a pretty intelligent person, so I have to consider that you either read the preceding comments and ignored what they said, or that you didn't really comprehend them.
Personally, I think I can "feel sad" or demonstrate emotion but that I can't "be" "sad and emotional" from an external context.
That's what I mean by the "status quo" aspect of your stance.
Feelings from the personal, internal experience are inarguable. Feelings from the external, projected stance, are, IMO, arguable.
Melissa, this may not have occurred to you, but if someone is in a TV ad, and the viewer looks at them, all they have to work with is how that person appears. A person, not just a woman, with cancer appearing in an ad looking vibrant and happy and everything is a wonderful image, but the truth is that most people with cancer face an endless string of hospital visits, painful treatments, and eventually most of them die, and we can't do anything about it. It happened to at least some of the people you knew that had cancer, it happened to my grandfather, it happens to lots of people. We are all allowed to be sad about that.
You can dictate what you think I mean, but luckily, there's only enough room in my head for one. I know what I meant when I said it and what I mean now hasn't changed.
Personally, I think I can "feel sad" or demonstrate emotion but that I can't "be" "sad and emotional" from an external context.
Has anyone you've ever known died of cancer? Family member, friend, coworker? How about from any other kind of disease? I may not know the person, but if I find out someone has cancer and I don't even know them, I feel more than a twinge of sadness; all the memories of what happened with my grandfather come flooding back and all the emotions come with it. I may not break down, I may not cry, but I definitely feel more than "just sad".
Oh and pity? Is so not an improvement.
It does, however, confirm yet further my point that this is about how you view the women in question, and that it's pretty ungenerous.
Melissa McEwan | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 10:38 pm |
I have tremendous respect for anyone with cancer that can keep it together and stay themselves, because I know I'd probably lose it. If I see someone with cancer, though, I'm not gonna think happy thoughts about it. I'm gonna feel a lot of things, but happiness never really comes into it; first of all, I'd more likely think, I dunno, I wish they didn't have cancer. I'd want to help them. I'd wanna cure them. I wouldn't want them to go through what my grandfather went through, or their family to go through what mine did. That's empathy, of which I used sad as a poor synonym.
And not to cut you off at the pass, but yes, I believe you can feel empathy and emotion for a sick person while still respecting them, without impugning on their dignity or ignoring their character.
"Has anyone you've ever known died of cancer? Family member, friend, coworker? How about from any other kind of disease?"
Yes.
I sat with my 30-year-old friend through the last three days of her life when her breast-cancer mastasticized to her brain (after I had been present with her in hospital and out, for two years of treatment, including stem-cell therapy). My grandfather died of liver cancer after months of illness. I sat with, cared for, wiped the butts of, and watched 11 different friends die of AIDs in the 80s in the days before effective treatments. (6 of whom were very close friends)
I have also sat with friends who did not die of cancer, AIDs, and other diseases as they puked, pissed, shit,and triumphed their way to continued life.
NONE -- NOT ONE! of these people were any more "sad", nor any more "emotional" than every other person (including myself) that I knew. In fact, my 30-year-old (now deceased) friend was cracking jokes right up to the moment she went into a coma (that's the way I want to go, BTW -- funny to the last!).
In fact, there are a lot of my friends and loved ones who have weathered life-threatening illness (myself included) who think this was the most important thing that ever happened to them -- it wasn't a "tragedy", but a "transformation".
I think there's a difference between "empathy" and "projection". In truth, I don't know what my friends and loved ones were experiencing during these incredibly intense passages and transformations -- and I think it would be absolute arrogance for me to project onto them my fearful thoughts of how "awful, sad, or emotional" it was for them.
But now, we have strayed sooooo far from the point of the original post, which was, IIRC, this: Melissa said that she "continue(s) to have very mixed feelings about Dove's "Campaign for Real Beauty".
And IMO, those mixed feelings are perfectly reasonable, and Melissa has already said (yesterday, even) that you and she may simply disagree about the campaign.
You can dictate what you think I mean
Still not getting it, I see.
This is the last thing I'm going to say in this thread: Brian, this medium of communication is dependent upon saying things carefully so that what we say and what we mean are in alignment. There are nonetheless bound to be occasional misunderstandings--and those misunderstandings are going to be much more frequent if you A) respond after skimming posts, which you admit doing; and B) respond flippantly, which you also admit doing.
In addition to your tendency to expect my (and others') posts to speak to your experience (thread hijacking), which has been problematic on several occasions and which you have also admitted doing, all of this adds up to your being a rather antagonistic presence in these threads, even if unintentionally.
But the real problem here is not that you've been (possibly unintentionally) antagonistic, because that is easily taken care of and easily forgiven. All you had to do was listen to the advice given you by me, Sarah, Kate, and PortlyDyke (possibly others) and take it to heart and stop repetitively engaging in the same behaviors.
But you have not done that. You have been belligerent, you whine about being misunderstood, accuse me of not listening to you, expect me to know and accommodate your specific complex psychology, and expect me to continue to be nice and gracious to you while you send me emails telling me "fuck you."
And the frustrating part about this situation is that after I've taken the time to spell all this out to you one more time, it probably won't make any difference and will somehow be further evidence that I don't care about you or like you enough.
Yeah, I know. "Fuck you."
You're right, Melissa. I shouldn't have gotten mad when you said that to me. However, I wasn't rude or belligerent until you were, so I stand by everything I said that was on topic. And no, I wasn't going to say "fuck you", you see, I actually listened to you. I apologize for sending you that email, for fighting with you, but not for the things I said about your post, which were not rude or belligerent.
*sigh*
In the world that we live in, advertisers do jerky things in order to sell their products and make money. Some are slightly less offensive than others, and we should be aware of this.
Okay. I get this. Your point, Brian, is taken.
Can you now appreciate the point I'm making?
It is:
Just because this is the way things ARE, does NOT mean that they are GOOD.
Accepting tiny improvements in a status quo that is destructive and harmful is NOT ENOUGH, especially when those "improvements" do far more to reinforce that harmful status quo than to challenge it.
Can you accept that as a reasonable point to make? Can you do that without yanking this discussion back to "But, that's how companies are?"
I KNOW that's how companies are! That's why I'm annoyed with them! Including with Dove!
"Boys will be boys" is an inadequate answer to complaints about male violence. "Companies will be companies" is just as bad.
So Dove is trying to be slightly less exploitative than other companies.
Whoopee. Good for them. Do I have your permission to criticise them now that I've admitted that?
Commenting by HaloScan
