I have a new column up at About-Face called “Empowerment…Lolita style?”
This column came out of seeing a short documentary at the Women in Film Vancouver Film Festival. Here’s the trailer:
The column asks if it’s possible for women and girls to borrow fashion from Victorian and Rococo eras without bringing along at least some of the moral regulation of the times. I’m a bit unsure myself but I’d love to hear what you think. You can comment here or on the About-Face post!
-Jarrah
So E. Cain’s post about American Apparel’s advertising strategies has broken a new record for most hits per day on this blog, and has generated a lot of interesting discussion. Should we assume the models are feeling empowered about their representations, or is the message the ads send of women’s sexual availability more important? Is it unfair to pick on American Apparel given their efforts to end sweatshop labour, or are they giving with one hand and taking with the other? Be sure to visit the post and add your thoughts!
In case you don’t have a chance to check out all the discussion so far, here’s one letter from Liz, which I particularly liked. For more about Liz, check out her MySpace.
(@ ZSMWISODM re: “Quit being so comfortable with your misogyny and male privilege.” LOVE that! :) I would love to see that on an AA t-shirt, rofl.)
Anyway!
I stumbled upon this, and decided to send a rather polite letter to AA. Thought I’d share:
Confused. . .
Hello there, American Apparel creators, consumers, and eye brow-raisers!
First, I’d like to start off by thanking the creators, employees, and supporters of American Apparel. I think that it is fantastic that you all are leading the movement towards responsible consumerism in efforts like taking care of your employees (paying a living wage PLUS bling bling-in medical benefits) and being a political symbol for immigration rights (WTF was that all about, Obama?). Not to mention your support of GLTG community, natural disaster relief, and organic products!! So, in short, w00t for 13 years strong in Los Angeles!
Another thing that I really appreciate about your company is the fact that you use “real” people for your advertisements! The natural, no touch-ups look of your ads is a welcome change to the unrealistic, Barbie-esque trend that our culture has leaned on for so long. You models are beautiful, natural, and <STRIKE>naked</STRIKE> wear your line well.
Ok, so this is where I am going with all the blither blather: it is great how socially and environmentally conscious you all are as a company. You are pioneers of our time, and show respect for many-a-cause. It is, therefore, striking to me that you all don’t seem to show such consideration for the F-word movement. (So sorry, that is Feminist Movement).
And I get it! Sex sells, without a doubt! Where most corporations exploit… well.. practically every marginalized group for the sake of profits, you all seem to have drawn the line at the sexualization of (mostly only) women in the media.
But that doesn’t make sense! Why would such a progressive, responsible company overlook a cause that affects such an enormous population? I’ve decided to consider the unlikely, preposterous idea that not everyone in the world (American Apparel, specifically) sees things exactly as I see them. Crazy, I know… but I’m really at the end of my rope here, so I’m putting my “the world revolved around me” mentality on hold for a moment to ask you this questions sincerely:
Whats up with that sh*t?
Now, be not intimidated by my use of the F-word (feminism…. in case you were thinking of the other, much less provocative F-word…). I know that we, as a group, have a bit of a bad reputation. After all, the radical notion of equality has never really been well received. But I promise that we, as a group, are not the man-hating crazy people that often come so readily to mind. In fact, we tend to err on the side of loving men, even if all of us don’t like to F-word them (er.. the other F-word)
Point being, in a culture where push up bra’s and thongs for 8 year old girls (who want to be.. sexy?) are almost acceptable and clothing ads look like porn (ahem…. I would just like to note that “How can I download photos from your ad archive” is in your top FAQ’s… just saying… ) it would be really great if us F-words had the support of such an awesome company!
Now, before you answer, I’d just like to squeeze in there the fact that women, myself included, enjoy feeling sexy, looking at women who are sexy (regardless of sexual orientation), and buying clothes that are comfy-a-la-sexy. But, for me at least (and remember, the world tends to revolve around me), there is a line in the sand!
On one side the sea-shell letters say something like “I feel like a sexually empowered Piranha ready to suck the stamina out of my lover(s).” Now, the other side is kind of blurry from so many corporate feet standing on it, but it says something like “hello underpaid bimbo’s– thanks for selling our sh*t and doing that thing you’re good at.. standing around looking pretty. Oh, and could you bed over a little more and turn this way, so we can see your nipples and ass? Thanks, doll.”
The allure of the provocative and taboo is great in our puritan-based culture, but then again so is the allure of cold, hard cash at the expense of everyone else.
So, my delectably brilliant and minority-friendly American Apparelers, why have you made such strong social-political stances on other major issues, but choose to “exploit” the sexuality of women (and men) in your advertisement? Clearly, there is a strong moral compass about your company, so what does it offer on the struggle of women in our culture and the ever-exhausting push to be perceived as something other than the playthings of (predominantly) men? I daresay the American Apparel sees the ads as provocative, sexy, but overall unharmful. Why?
Also, what color socks are you wearing? :)
All the best,
Liz
Vandalized American Apparel Billboard
Trendy clothing company American Apparel has a lot going for it. For starters, it has a great concept – simple yet fashionable clothes, available in a wide variety of colours. Secondly, the brand practices corporate social responsibility, it produces sweatshop free clothes made in downtown LA. In addition, workers are paid well over minimum wage, given full benefits, subsidized English lessons are provided for immigrant employees (on company time) as well as year-round employment. This worker-friendly model is rare and distinguishes American Apparel from competitors.
With that being said, I feel compelled to write about American Apparel because I find it truly ironic that a company built on the principles of non-exploitation and social responsibility when it comes to workers rights, can be amongst the leaders in pushing the limits of social acceptability when it comes to depictions of women in consumer advertising.
American Apparel advertisements are easily recognizable based on their overtly sexual nature. They regularly feature women in provocative poses – lying in bed, legs spread, on all fours, from behind, bending over – trust me, they’ve done it all.
They're selling socks…I guess
These racy advertisements render the company vulnerable to charges of exploitation and objectification of women. They epitomize the male gaze and are taken from the perspective of a heterosexual man looking at a woman who is (presumably) sexually available for him. In addition, the women depicted in the ads are selling themselves – body and sexuality – not clothes (hell, most of the time they are hardly wearing any clothes).
So I ask you, what distinguishes consumer advertising from pornography? Why are certain photographs – often described as explicit, raunchy and sexually charged – relegated to the dark corners of stores and the backs of the magazine racks when American Apparel advertising – often described using the same language – is blown up and plastered on billboards, buses and magazines?
What are the limits and when do we decide that a company has crossed them?
These are important questions and American Apparel –worker friendly policies, sexually explicit advertising and all – provides a very interesting case study.
-E. Cain
Editor’s Note:
If you’re interested in recent campaigns against American Apparel, here are some links:
This doesn’t have much to do with gender, but I just thought I’d share the video for last weekend’s Silent Skytrain Dance Party, put on by Vancouver Improv Anywhere. I had a really good time, met some really cool people, and am excited to do more events with them. For a more detailed look at how the day went down, check out Jenni’s blog post or become a fan of VIA on Facebook!
-Jarrah
One of the things I love about running this blog is that I get to see terms that people searched, only to be led here. I thought in the interest of randomness that I’d share some of the oddest ones with you:
Not judging, just sayin’ I’d be really interested to know what information some of these people were hoping to find.
-Jarrah
Today’s round-up is a little more random than usual, starting with a mention that today is Shakespeare’s birthday and Geekosystem has 5 Geeky Ways to Celebrate. This is right up my alley as a Shakespeare/literature nerd. As far asking if Shakespeare was a feminist, debate rages on and the jury’s still out. But I’ll leave it at acknowledging that he created some pretty awesome women characters, my favourite being Portia in The Merchant of Venice.
For my fellow Gleeks, bloggers have been weighing in on this week’s Madonna-themed Glee ep. Alyx at Bitch Magazine has some good reasons for not being very impressed, but I thought the key factor was that the message about empowering and respecting women was accessible. And as Melissa at Women & Hollywood pointed out, it was also just really fun to watch.
Then on a less fun note, I wanted to mention a few un-cool stories that really should be read by those who argue that women in North America have achieved equality and therefore we don’t need feminism:
A woman in tech, with degrees from Stanford and Harvard, will still be told her business cards should read “Mom,” get shown naked pictures by potential investors, and asked if her husband’s libido is affected by his biking hobby.
Now these are all US stories, but the same ideas are around here in Canada. I’m not saying everything’s terrible for all women. Many women, especially straight, white, middle-to-upper class able-bodied women have a lot of advantages and privileges (including me!). But this week these stories reminded me I can’t take the rights women have won for granted. And I also need to remember that women’s equality cannot be achieved without achieiving equality for all women by also tackling racism, homophobia, class inequality, and ableism. So anyway, there’s still lots to do.
In other news, I’ve updated the blogroll in the right-hand column, so check out the new additions.
And I’ll finish off back on a more random/fun note with a link to a website where you can print off your own map envelopes. As a crafter and someone who collects stationery, I thought this was pretty wicked.
-Jarrah
And here’s another take on it from Darcy A.
Helena Guergis: No SympathyI must admit, I’ve been waiting for the online Globe and Mail to post a headline without Helena Guergis’s name in it for more than a week now. As much as I wish this story had never happened or for it to just go away already, allow me to keep it alive for one more headline.
For those of you who don’t know, this is a story about a female politician—a cabinet minister at that—who erupted in the Charlottetown airport (over being asked to obey the very laws her government enacted), caught the fascination of the media, turns out to have made some very bad (possibly illegal) choices and now finds herself marred in scandal and expelled from the Conservative caucus.
There are women I know who are enraged over the hard treatment Guergis has received. “If she was a man,” they say, “none of this would have happened.” Or “If she was a man, the Prime Minister wouldn’t have been so quick to dump her.” While I agree with them, I still find it hard to sympathize with Guergis.
I’m not going to disagree with anyone who says that women are held to different (Higher! Tougher!) standards then their male colleagues and that this is unfair (Unjust!). In my mind, all the more reason to be angry with Guergis. She’s a woman who made it pretty darn close to the top, only to support policies that reduced the power of women in Canada, and then put on a public display that reinforces the negative stereotypes of women in power.
Just because a politician is a woman doesn’t mean she actually supports women’s interests. Guergis is part of a party that doesn’t care about women’s shelters, childcare, LGBT rights, or poverty. Furthermore, one of the first things the Conservatives did when they came to power was dismantle the Ministry for the Status of women, making it more difficult for women across the country to access their Constitutional rights because they can’t personally afford our justice system. If Guergis had no problem sitting at the helm of that enfeebled ministry, I have no problem not defending her.
-Darcy A.
