but, for my two cents, i think it's progress, in a way (disclaimer below). nobody wants everybody in magazines to be ugly - we just want them to not all look the same. this campaign, even in and of itself, has a variety of women. some of them are hotter than others, and that i like.
what i think is lame is that at least what i've seen is mainly this campaign used to promote their "firming cream..." - so it's not like they're just using different models for their regular advertising, it's a niche product for which it actually suits them better to try to appeal to a certain market of larger women. so, though i like the ads, i think in the end dove is not trying to be progressive or forward-thinking, they've just got a really smart ad agency working for them.
so in that way, they're just using women's insecurity about being not being firm enough while at the same time telling them that they're still beautiful...
if they used it for a less lame product (which i am sure doesn't work, hence their need for some seriously forward-thinking advertising), i might be more inclined to think the approach is progress.
If women built like that (all of the women pictured) could consistently get work as models, that would be great. Considering that it's one campaign aimed at appealing to women buying a fat-reduction nostrum, good going for Dove, but it's not a particularly significant step.
Really teensy baby step style progress. Many of the models are quoted as saying, in effect, that they're insecure in their respective positive self-images—"I felt … beautiful on my wedding day"; "Waking up every morning and living a happy, healthy life is beautiful"; "I feel beautiful whenever I keep a positive attitude". Sigh!
Mostly I was hmphf-ing at the 'needs some sun' bit. Two blessed years in the South Pacific and I never got any more tan. Burn, fade to white. Burn, fade to white. Rinse and repeat, adding freckles ad lib.
I'll admit I was surprised when I first saw the ad, wondering if my eyes were playing tricks on me--just because I'm not used to seeing real-looking women in their underwear. Except in Kate Winslet films.
And, what SB said. The text is kind of apologetic -- 'we know we look like mutants, but even if you're as fat as we are, you can feel beautiful.' (That was a desperately uncharitable reading, but the tone was there.)
SB - yeah, it's like they were encouraging them to talk about their insecurity (to reach out to the target audience, i'm sure). i bet those women get mad play.
then again, i've noticed that how women feel about their bodies doesn't seem to have much relation to their objective level of attractiveness - i know women much hotter than me who feel much less secure.
So this campaign was up in DC before it was in New York (it was up there by July 1st at the latest and I think earlier), and when I saw it in DC a friend of mine asked me if I thought this was going to be a blue state/major city only campaign, or if it would be targeted at the whole country. I didn't see why the marketing scheme wouldn't work for the whole country (to the extent that it works at all), do other people? I think my friends claim was that it only works for people who regularly talk/think about the body image problems caused by advertising and other media, but I don't see why that would be localized in the way he thought.
#10, 11: Freckles are great, and fair skin, in general, is great as well. For some reason, though, when I see really pale people in the locker room, they look extra naked.
#16: I sometimes wonder if it would be better or worse if women knew how catholic many men are about female physical attractiveness. Better, because most women almost certainly fit. Worse, because it's usually discussed in fairly crude terms.
Following up on 22, I see that I talked right past ogged's point. So I'll say that it may be effective marketing, but that doesn't make it any more progressive.
I don't think we should be pushing the line that a woman's beauty or worth is something that other people, or events, or contingencies grant to her.
Uh, but isn't it?
Super. Now that a man has validated you, you're all set.
Well, that's not what feeling beautiful on your wedding day has to mean. It can mean feeling beautiful because everyone you love is gathered, or because you're full of hope, etc.
On 16 I should add, "in the media." See plenty of real women in their underwear at the gym.
21- What I wonder is how male attraction to women differs from my own attraction to women. Because I often find myself staring at women who are wearing low-riders that don't quite fit them, or that do fit them but are meant to emphasize the hips. Curviness there or... spillage seems so cute.
It also validates (to use jargon) the idea that these women are objectively unattractive -- that they're right to be insecure. Given that they are, in fact, far prettier than average, they've got nothing to be insecure about. Playing up their insecurity sends the message that if you look like they do, that's not good enough.
This isn't a huge deal, but I'd prefer the campaign without the insecurity.
I take the point, but absent their insecurity, might they not become just another species of unattainable beauty? (A legitimate fear given that big but hella toned bodies are themselves difficult to come by.)
I tend toward the "nice gesture" view of this. Gotta' see it for what it is: marketing, not art. The purpose is to sell soap and cosmetics, not genuinely to alter or inspire consideration of popular perceptions of beauty. This marketing isn't unusual in appealing to physical aspirations, and it is neither good nor bad for feminism. It's just ... um ... trying to sell stuff.
That said, I and many other men find bigger, more "real/natural" women consideraly more attractive than waif models. To the extent that my preference (which I imagine to be shared by a heck of a lot of people) is reflected in popular advertising, so much the better.
I'm trying to think of contrasts b/w men and women when it comes to models. It seems that rippling males are fairly everpresent, but still at a low enough level that we approach such images as perhaps a challenge, perhaps with derision, but not as a normative model. I think it may be the volume and history, not just the content, of women's ads that endow them with such normative force. Well, I suppose we would have to go even beyond the ads to social pressures. Obviously, one of the reasons male models are normative ideals is that we don't assume they are in social settings.
Well, sure, but that, by itself, doesn't mean that it can't affect how our perceptions and prejudices. To put it another way, my question isn't "how noble is this?" but "what do you think of this? and "how much of a difference does this make?"
"what do you think of this? and "how much of a difference does this make?"
I think it's all to the good, for the reason I was stating in 16--just to get the eye used to different types, in that context. I didn't really read the copy of the ads I saw. Images are more powerful, anyway.
Mmm. Nice gesture, but I put it down to pragmatic marketing. A cellulite cream marketed by teensy models would strike me, and probably a lot of other women as "Oh, like they need that" instead of "Hmm, what a nice product I should try."
Am I the only one here that didn't go, Ugh, nasty fat women? Because tbh, most of them look just like they're thickly built, not overly heavy. (Especially super-pale chick.)
It seems that rippling males are fairly everpresent, but still at a low enough level that we approach such images as perhaps a challenge, perhaps with derision, but not as a normative model.
Generally, men compete on the mate market though cash, not physical attractiveness. You don't really think all those women find the Donald fascinating and gorgeous, do you? I don't quite know what happens as it becomes clearer and clearer that with women can work and (potentially) able to make nearly as much as men.
I walk by a bus stop with one of these ads every day, and the first day I saw it, I was honestly shocked. I couldn't quite figure out what it was...because, well, you don't see women like that on the side of a bus shelter! Once I took a closer look, figured out it was an ad, my next reaction, I swear to god, was, "My thighs look like hers!"
Good for feminism? Well, it's kind of nice to see a woman who looks like me in an ad.
Good for Dove? Well, my reaction, after my shock, was one of complete, intimate, identification. We have the same thighs! What could a marketer want more than that?
Tim, that's certainly a valid point, but it must be kept in mind that normative beauty models are for more than attracting mates. They're also about being appreciated by one's rivals and friends, and about appreciating oneself.
Ogged, what I was trying to get at was, this ad campaign does nothing to advance the idea that women are autonomous beings.
Do any ad campaigns advance the idea that anyone is an autonomous being? I mean, "Just Do It" and its ilk are superficially empowering, but the whole institution is fundamentally about taking advantage of our psychological weaknesses in order to induce action that someone else desires.
The consensus seems to be that this ad campaign is inoffensive, but not really socially significant and therefore maybe a little disappointing. But that'll always be the case with ads like this, because of course their creators' motives will never be pure.
Culturally significant ad campaigns are what caused this problem. I don't think they're very likely to provide a solution as well.
Ogged, re: 43, I see your point. Mine is that this sort of market-driven appeal is ephemeral precisely because it is motivated by a desire to sell. This, to me, goes to "what do you think of this? and "how much of a difference does this make?"
My answers would be:
(1) I think it's a neat phenomenon, but not wholly unexpected -- we've created a large gap between marketed ideal and observable reality. This kind of marketing cleverly seeks to exploit that unsustainable gap. It was bound to happen. The use of "real" and the overt appeal to commonness, though, strikes me as almost apologetic. By contrast, what would be really revolutionary would be to see more realistic female figures employed in sexually suggestive marketing without the obligatory disclaimers.
(2) I suppose that it makes a marginally positive difference, inasmuch as reality is moving the ideal instead of vice versa.
They're also about being appreciated by one's rivals and friends, and about appreciating oneself.
I wouldn't think this would come as news, but so's cash.
what is "fuck to oboe"?
I wish I could find the link, but I'm not very good at that. It just means a screwup, usually that the writer wrote something mistaken or nonsensical and realized that after posting it. (In the original, I commented "fuck to oboe"; I couldn't figure out what I meant to write.) Usually it's self-called. I think ogged is referring to my comment just above his.
Ogged, you need some kind of open thread to note celebrity sightings so that I can say I ran into Ga/briel B/yrne at a bar just now, and he had multipe hottt women hanging all over him. On second thought, since that's all I had to say, you probably didn't need an open thread.
Just getting to the post now...they're still trying to just sell a product but having models like that does add to the identification aspect of advertising (this coming from the person who's skin type has been described as 'transparent'). Viva le pale girl!
Wow, there have been so many great comments. Really great!
I'll note that science has identified one of the universal attributes that appeal to men when looking at women and it is the ratio between waist and hips. The other two attributes are youth and health, usually signalled by clear skin and symmetry.
So, yeah, these women are hot. Youth and plenty of clear skin, and, as someone above pointed out, they are more "thick" then "fat", meaning they have the waist to hip ratio men instinctively desire.
Not original, but I would say this is good for feminism, in the sense that any reduction of the gap between absurd body images and real women is a step forward.
More of a problem, in my hood (Upper West Side, doesn't get much bluer than this), someone wrote in giant letters over one of the bigger women 'Type II Diabetes'. I found that to be rather charming, in the way that only complete fuckin morons can be.
"someone wrote in giant letters over one of the bigger women 'Type II Diabetes'. "
The worst part of this is that you can't even hazard a guess what type of person wrote it lately: fratboy or health nazi?
In all the overflowing hubub of the "obesity epidemic" there's a whole cottage industry now badgering people about being 15 or 20 pounds overweight. Some of these people are the same ones who likely frown at the unattainable levels of beauty shown in the media.
I can't quite tell whether any of them are aware of the contradiction.
It really is a weird turn around though. In order to be against the corporate food industry's position, a lot of liberals nowadays seem to have jumped whole hog (ahem) onto the 'you're too fat' bandwagon if one is about 10% over "ideal" weight.
I'd be interested to know the BMI's of some of the women in that ad.
"The worst part of this is that you can't even hazard a guess what type of person wrote it lately: fratboy or health nazi?"
Oh, I'll hazard a guess. It was not a health nut. It was likely a man who thinks she's fat and wanted to make fun of her. I'll add it to the observation that given the time of a run for any poster in the NYC subway with a woman on it, someone will eventually draw a penis on her.
And don't say 'fratboy', it makes it seem like a stupid college kid rather than the widespread cultural phenomenon it is.
"It was likely a man who thinks she's fat and wanted to make fun of her."
Well that's exactly what "fratboy" was supposed to imply. You know, those pesky guys who make furn of nerds and ugly women? Perhaps they grow 'em differently where you come from. Feel free to substitute whatever your preferred stereotype of 'prone to insulting others' kind of person is.
"I'll add it to the observation that given the time of a run for any poster in the NYC subway with a woman on it, someone will eventually draw a penis on her."
Which is exactly my point. Scrawling "Type II Diabetes" is rather subtle for subway graphiti humor.
And your last sentence doesn't make any sense. The fact that it's a widespread cultural phenomenon doesn't negate the fact that there's a pretty small, and specific, type of person who's going to bother to scrawl insulting graffiti on bus stops.
What's baffling is that the ironic, anti-corporate graffiti artist that tom describes would expect her project to be even a little effective, given how likely it is to be misunderstood.
NTM if the message is good, then why not sabotage other corporations' billboards? Unless the idea is to communicate, through misogyny, the position that the legal construct of the corporation is itself to be decried.
The graffiti-protest—how could anyone think it would be remotely effective or a good idea? Incomprehensible!
The comment itself, too, in that in making it tom, who seems a reasonable fellow, seems to be endorsing the idea of the graffiti being a cogent protest.
Ok, I actually agree with you guys, and tom is banned, but I can also well imagine that it wasn't graffitied in protest, but as a joke, in the moment, between the graffiter and a friend. It could have been a funny moment.
Maybe Peter wrote it in order to provoke this exact discussion including the comment I am writing AOTW. Or maybe I did it for the same purpose; but I haven't spent much time in the UWS lately, nor been blacked out drunk.
And yet again, one can imagine a circumstance in which the model and doctor had known that they would be unable to communicate after her exam, and had agreed beforehand that her diagnosis would be written above that very picture on a particular day. In which case, the doctor is only looking at a misdemeanor charge.
After hunting down and killing all the models, destroying an entire ad agency, and force-choking his nurses into early retirement, Darth Pancreas repented by leaving a sympathy card at the foot of the Eiffel Tower and taking up pediatrics.
The BMI of some of those women is probably in the high end of the healthy range, around 24 or 25. BMI's kind of a red herring, given that it doesn't take into account muscle mass all that well, but I can't imagine these women as obese or at risk for type II diabetes. Models are usually significant below ideal weights.
1) the model of beauty in contemporary culture is (at minimum) somewhat absurd
2) many (but not all) women chafe at this image, and would welcome a change in both the images, and likely their own bodies
3) many (but not all) men buy into the image of women-as-skinny-hotties and would prefer to change actual women rather than the image. The 'type II diabetes' scrawl was an indication of this
4) I am definitely going to be banned and/or mocked for being the humorless guy about this
Hey, I'm not trying to argue that it's effective anticorporate graffiti, or well-thought-out, or consistently applied. It just seems a little too transparent (yet wordy) to me to be clear-cut misogyny. Can I get a "bitch"? Help me out. The idea of a rabid anti-feminist who's incensed by realistic portrayals of women just seems a bit cartoonish.
Also, the graffiti seems pretty analogous to some anarchist scrawls in my neighborhood: somebody wrote "Wasted Indeed..." and a couple anarchist symbols over a Smirnoff billboard. None of the copy on the ad puts this in a context that makes any sense, and as far as I know Smirnoff doesn't use any slogans involving the word "wasted". But despite being a complete non sequitur, it's still pretty transparently an anti-booze-company defacement.
i meant to say, it's true, he IS fat. and i just tried to insult my boyfriend on a blog comment thread when he's sitting next to me on the couch. i should have just punched him in the arm.
Isn't that Roeper of Ebert and Roeper fame? Has he ever done anything good? And wasn't the original point of Siskel & Ebert to get the movie critics from two different Chicago papers together, rather than two on the Sun-Times staff?
I almost always call back rather than leave a message, provided that I realize I missed the call soon (5-10 minutes) after I missed it. Otherwise I might check my voicemail. I also have a fairly strong aversion to leaving voicemails, so this is proably just a small part of some underlying pathology.
I like to leave voicemails because I like to end them by saying "bye bye!" the way McLaughlin says it at the end of each McLaughlin Group. I don't think my friends know that's what I'm doing though.
I like to leave voicemails because I like to end them by saying "bye bye!" the way McLaughlin says it at the end of each McLaughlin Group. I don't think my friends know that's what I'm doing though.
Um.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:03 PM
So you approve?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:06 PM
I'm probably going to be very depressed by the answer to this, but you think the women in that ad campaign are ugly and cellulite-ridden?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:08 PM
Not at all!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:09 PM
the link appears not to be working.
but, for my two cents, i think it's progress, in a way (disclaimer below). nobody wants everybody in magazines to be ugly - we just want them to not all look the same. this campaign, even in and of itself, has a variety of women. some of them are hotter than others, and that i like.
what i think is lame is that at least what i've seen is mainly this campaign used to promote their "firming cream..." - so it's not like they're just using different models for their regular advertising, it's a niche product for which it actually suits them better to try to appeal to a certain market of larger women. so, though i like the ads, i think in the end dove is not trying to be progressive or forward-thinking, they've just got a really smart ad agency working for them.
so in that way, they're just using women's insecurity about being not being firm enough while at the same time telling them that they're still beautiful...
if they used it for a less lame product (which i am sure doesn't work, hence their need for some seriously forward-thinking advertising), i might be more inclined to think the approach is progress.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:10 PM
the link appears not to be working
It's a slow site, it seems.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:11 PM
So you approve?
Of the copy editing, not so much. The campaign itself is baby-step style progress.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:14 PM
Ah. All right, not so depressed.
If women built like that (all of the women pictured) could consistently get work as models, that would be great. Considering that it's one campaign aimed at appealing to women buying a fat-reduction nostrum, good going for Dove, but it's not a particularly significant step.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:17 PM
This is the fourth post in 48 hours which might be termed "Womyn on My Mind." Does the TiVo weigh heavily, or did Unf's news just give you a shake?
(And the women are very attractive. Except for the super pale woman in the middle, who needs some sun.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:24 PM
Hmphf. Tannist.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:26 PM
I was going to mention that he's talking to at least two pale, freckled women.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:29 PM
if you watch the video, the women look even hotter than they do in the ad campaign.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:31 PM
She looks more normal in the video; the camera lights are brutal.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:31 PM
Really teensy baby step style progress. Many of the models are quoted as saying, in effect, that they're insecure in their respective positive self-images—"I felt … beautiful on my wedding day"; "Waking up every morning and living a happy, healthy life is beautiful"; "I feel beautiful whenever I keep a positive attitude". Sigh!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:32 PM
Mostly I was hmphf-ing at the 'needs some sun' bit. Two blessed years in the South Pacific and I never got any more tan. Burn, fade to white. Burn, fade to white. Rinse and repeat, adding freckles ad lib.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:33 PM
I'll admit I was surprised when I first saw the ad, wondering if my eyes were playing tricks on me--just because I'm not used to seeing real-looking women in their underwear. Except in Kate Winslet films.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:35 PM
And, what SB said. The text is kind of apologetic -- 'we know we look like mutants, but even if you're as fat as we are, you can feel beautiful.' (That was a desperately uncharitable reading, but the tone was there.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:36 PM
SB - yeah, it's like they were encouraging them to talk about their insecurity (to reach out to the target audience, i'm sure). i bet those women get mad play.
then again, i've noticed that how women feel about their bodies doesn't seem to have much relation to their objective level of attractiveness - i know women much hotter than me who feel much less secure.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:36 PM
they're insecure in their respective positive self-images
Why is that bad? Aren't they supposed to represent "normal" women, and their insecurities?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:36 PM
So this campaign was up in DC before it was in New York (it was up there by July 1st at the latest and I think earlier), and when I saw it in DC a friend of mine asked me if I thought this was going to be a blue state/major city only campaign, or if it would be targeted at the whole country. I didn't see why the marketing scheme wouldn't work for the whole country (to the extent that it works at all), do other people? I think my friends claim was that it only works for people who regularly talk/think about the body image problems caused by advertising and other media, but I don't see why that would be localized in the way he thought.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:38 PM
#10, 11: Freckles are great, and fair skin, in general, is great as well. For some reason, though, when I see really pale people in the locker room, they look extra naked.
#16: I sometimes wonder if it would be better or worse if women knew how catholic many men are about female physical attractiveness. Better, because most women almost certainly fit. Worse, because it's usually discussed in fairly crude terms.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:41 PM
Why is that bad? Aren't they supposed to represent "normal" women, and their insecurities?
I don't think we should be pushing the line that a woman's beauty or worth is something that other people, or events, or contingencies grant to her.
"I felt … beautiful on my wedding day."
Super. Now that a man has validated you, you're all set.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:44 PM
SCMT - and by "catholic," you mean...?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:45 PM
Following up on 22, I see that I talked right past ogged's point. So I'll say that it may be effective marketing, but that doesn't make it any more progressive.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:47 PM
Not narrow-minded, partial, or bigoted; liberal; as,
catholic tastes.
[1913 Webster]
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:47 PM
I don't think we should be pushing the line that a woman's beauty or worth is something that other people, or events, or contingencies grant to her.
Uh, but isn't it?
Super. Now that a man has validated you, you're all set.
Well, that's not what feeling beautiful on your wedding day has to mean. It can mean feeling beautiful because everyone you love is gathered, or because you're full of hope, etc.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:48 PM
On 16 I should add, "in the media." See plenty of real women in their underwear at the gym.
21- What I wonder is how male attraction to women differs from my own attraction to women. Because I often find myself staring at women who are wearing low-riders that don't quite fit them, or that do fit them but are meant to emphasize the hips. Curviness there or... spillage seems so cute.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 4:52 PM
Ogged, what I was trying to get at was, this ad campaign does nothing to advance the idea that women are autonomous beings.
I've tried to express this more fully, but keep getting tangled up in my thoughts and deleting what I've written. Sorry for the ill-reasoned argument.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:01 PM
It also validates (to use jargon) the idea that these women are objectively unattractive -- that they're right to be insecure. Given that they are, in fact, far prettier than average, they've got nothing to be insecure about. Playing up their insecurity sends the message that if you look like they do, that's not good enough.
This isn't a huge deal, but I'd prefer the campaign without the insecurity.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:14 PM
I take the point, but absent their insecurity, might they not become just another species of unattainable beauty? (A legitimate fear given that big but hella toned bodies are themselves difficult to come by.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:18 PM
Here, Ogged, maybe you would be interested in this.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:22 PM
I tend toward the "nice gesture" view of this. Gotta' see it for what it is: marketing, not art. The purpose is to sell soap and cosmetics, not genuinely to alter or inspire consideration of popular perceptions of beauty. This marketing isn't unusual in appealing to physical aspirations, and it is neither good nor bad for feminism. It's just ... um ... trying to sell stuff.
That said, I and many other men find bigger, more "real/natural" women consideraly more attractive than waif models. To the extent that my preference (which I imagine to be shared by a heck of a lot of people) is reflected in popular advertising, so much the better.
Posted by gl | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:25 PM
I'm trying to think of contrasts b/w men and women when it comes to models. It seems that rippling males are fairly everpresent, but still at a low enough level that we approach such images as perhaps a challenge, perhaps with derision, but not as a normative model. I think it may be the volume and history, not just the content, of women's ads that endow them with such normative force. Well, I suppose we would have to go even beyond the ads to social pressures. Obviously, one of the reasons male models are normative ideals is that we don't assume they are in social settings.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:26 PM
Gotta' see it for what it is: marketing, not art.
Well, sure, but that, by itself, doesn't mean that it can't affect how our perceptions and prejudices. To put it another way, my question isn't "how noble is this?" but "what do you think of this? and "how much of a difference does this make?"
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:29 PM
I and many other men find bigger, more "real/natural" women consideraly more attractive than waif models.
Cf. Aria Giovanni, one of the most downloaded (in the top 3, I think) nude models. She definately has visible cellulite. (work safe)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:29 PM
(though not in that picture, i might note.)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:30 PM
"what do you think of this? and "how much of a difference does this make?"
I think it's all to the good, for the reason I was stating in 16--just to get the eye used to different types, in that context. I didn't really read the copy of the ads I saw. Images are more powerful, anyway.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:36 PM
Yeah, I hadn't read the copy, and didn't even realize it was pitching a particular product.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:38 PM
Mmm. Nice gesture, but I put it down to pragmatic marketing. A cellulite cream marketed by teensy models would strike me, and probably a lot of other women as "Oh, like they need that" instead of "Hmm, what a nice product I should try."
Am I the only one here that didn't go, Ugh, nasty fat women? Because tbh, most of them look just like they're thickly built, not overly heavy. (Especially super-pale chick.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:38 PM
In other words, I doubt it will do much -- it's marketing a cellulite cream, not showing that you can be (say) sexy in lingerie or in jeans.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:40 PM
Am I the only one here that didn't go, Ugh, nasty fat women?
? I thought the consensus was that they're hot.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:40 PM
Withdrawn.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:45 PM
It seems that rippling males are fairly everpresent, but still at a low enough level that we approach such images as perhaps a challenge, perhaps with derision, but not as a normative model.
Generally, men compete on the mate market though cash, not physical attractiveness. You don't really think all those women find the Donald fascinating and gorgeous, do you? I don't quite know what happens as it becomes clearer and clearer that with women can work and (potentially) able to make nearly as much as men.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:55 PM
Fuck to oboe.
Don't mention it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 5:57 PM
I know I should know my unfogged canon, but what is "fuck to oboe"?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 6:03 PM
I walk by a bus stop with one of these ads every day, and the first day I saw it, I was honestly shocked. I couldn't quite figure out what it was...because, well, you don't see women like that on the side of a bus shelter! Once I took a closer look, figured out it was an ad, my next reaction, I swear to god, was, "My thighs look like hers!"
Good for feminism? Well, it's kind of nice to see a woman who looks like me in an ad.
Good for Dove? Well, my reaction, after my shock, was one of complete, intimate, identification. We have the same thighs! What could a marketer want more than that?
Posted by MH | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 6:11 PM
Tim, that's certainly a valid point, but it must be kept in mind that normative beauty models are for more than attracting mates. They're also about being appreciated by one's rivals and friends, and about appreciating oneself.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 6:15 PM
Ogged, what I was trying to get at was, this ad campaign does nothing to advance the idea that women are autonomous beings.
Do any ad campaigns advance the idea that anyone is an autonomous being? I mean, "Just Do It" and its ilk are superficially empowering, but the whole institution is fundamentally about taking advantage of our psychological weaknesses in order to induce action that someone else desires.
The consensus seems to be that this ad campaign is inoffensive, but not really socially significant and therefore maybe a little disappointing. But that'll always be the case with ads like this, because of course their creators' motives will never be pure.
Culturally significant ad campaigns are what caused this problem. I don't think they're very likely to provide a solution as well.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 6:33 PM
Ogged, re: 43, I see your point. Mine is that this sort of market-driven appeal is ephemeral precisely because it is motivated by a desire to sell. This, to me, goes to "what do you think of this? and "how much of a difference does this make?"
My answers would be:
(1) I think it's a neat phenomenon, but not wholly unexpected -- we've created a large gap between marketed ideal and observable reality. This kind of marketing cleverly seeks to exploit that unsustainable gap. It was bound to happen. The use of "real" and the overt appeal to commonness, though, strikes me as almost apologetic. By contrast, what would be really revolutionary would be to see more realistic female figures employed in sexually suggestive marketing without the obligatory disclaimers.
(2) I suppose that it makes a marginally positive difference, inasmuch as reality is moving the ideal instead of vice versa.
Posted by gl | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 6:55 PM
They're also about being appreciated by one's rivals and friends, and about appreciating oneself.
I wouldn't think this would come as news, but so's cash.
what is "fuck to oboe"?
I wish I could find the link, but I'm not very good at that. It just means a screwup, usually that the writer wrote something mistaken or nonsensical and realized that after posting it. (In the original, I commented "fuck to oboe"; I couldn't figure out what I meant to write.) Usually it's self-called. I think ogged is referring to my comment just above his.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 8:02 PM
Am I the only one who finds that 'click on the woman to learn more about them' interface on the linked to site just a little... odd?
I keep instinctively looking for the 'add to shopping cart' button. I don't think that's what they were going for.
Posted by Dr Pretorius | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 8:11 PM
This may be the answer to 45 (scroll down for attempt at explanation).
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 8:42 PM
No Pretorius, it's not just you.
Posted by gl | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 8:57 PM
Tim, so you're saying that one reason men, on average, worry less about body image is that they have alternatives? Sure, agreed.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 9:00 PM
Ogged, you need some kind of open thread to note celebrity sightings so that I can say I ran into Ga/briel B/yrne at a bar just now, and he had multipe hottt women hanging all over him. On second thought, since that's all I had to say, you probably didn't need an open thread.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 10:33 PM
The original fuck to oboe.
GB,eh? He'd get action just for being good looking and having an accent. And he's a celebrity...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 11:00 PM
You didn't click on the link in 52, did you? I guess I should have phrased it better.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 11:05 PM
Sorry eb, I saw Cala's comment just as I was stepping out a few hours ago and answered it when I logged on.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 11:07 PM
No big deal. Just some reflexive nitpicking on my part.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 11:14 PM
Just getting to the post now...they're still trying to just sell a product but having models like that does add to the identification aspect of advertising (this coming from the person who's skin type has been described as 'transparent'). Viva le pale girl!
Posted by Karyn | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 7:33 AM
Wow, there have been so many great comments. Really great!
I'll note that science has identified one of the universal attributes that appeal to men when looking at women and it is the ratio between waist and hips. The other two attributes are youth and health, usually signalled by clear skin and symmetry.
So, yeah, these women are hot. Youth and plenty of clear skin, and, as someone above pointed out, they are more "thick" then "fat", meaning they have the waist to hip ratio men instinctively desire.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 8:57 AM
Not original, but I would say this is good for feminism, in the sense that any reduction of the gap between absurd body images and real women is a step forward.
More of a problem, in my hood (Upper West Side, doesn't get much bluer than this), someone wrote in giant letters over one of the bigger women 'Type II Diabetes'. I found that to be rather charming, in the way that only complete fuckin morons can be.
Posted by Peter | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 10:26 AM
"someone wrote in giant letters over one of the bigger women 'Type II Diabetes'. "
The worst part of this is that you can't even hazard a guess what type of person wrote it lately: fratboy or health nazi?
In all the overflowing hubub of the "obesity epidemic" there's a whole cottage industry now badgering people about being 15 or 20 pounds overweight. Some of these people are the same ones who likely frown at the unattainable levels of beauty shown in the media.
I can't quite tell whether any of them are aware of the contradiction.
It really is a weird turn around though. In order to be against the corporate food industry's position, a lot of liberals nowadays seem to have jumped whole hog (ahem) onto the 'you're too fat' bandwagon if one is about 10% over "ideal" weight.
I'd be interested to know the BMI's of some of the women in that ad.
Posted by rufus | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 11:52 AM
"The worst part of this is that you can't even hazard a guess what type of person wrote it lately: fratboy or health nazi?"
Oh, I'll hazard a guess. It was not a health nut. It was likely a man who thinks she's fat and wanted to make fun of her. I'll add it to the observation that given the time of a run for any poster in the NYC subway with a woman on it, someone will eventually draw a penis on her.
And don't say 'fratboy', it makes it seem like a stupid college kid rather than the widespread cultural phenomenon it is.
Posted by Peter | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 1:39 PM
64: are you really so sure? do we suddenly have a monopoly on irony?
Even if it's a generally positive message, it's still a corporation pushing it. Someone who decides to push back isn't automatically a misogynist.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 1:58 PM
"It was likely a man who thinks she's fat and wanted to make fun of her."
Well that's exactly what "fratboy" was supposed to imply. You know, those pesky guys who make furn of nerds and ugly women? Perhaps they grow 'em differently where you come from. Feel free to substitute whatever your preferred stereotype of 'prone to insulting others' kind of person is.
"I'll add it to the observation that given the time of a run for any poster in the NYC subway with a woman on it, someone will eventually draw a penis on her."
Which is exactly my point. Scrawling "Type II Diabetes" is rather subtle for subway graphiti humor.
And your last sentence doesn't make any sense. The fact that it's a widespread cultural phenomenon doesn't negate the fact that there's a pretty small, and specific, type of person who's going to bother to scrawl insulting graffiti on bus stops.
Posted by rufus | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:02 PM
(Does 65 baffle other people?)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:03 PM
I think it makes sense, but maybe I'm missing something. What's baffling?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:08 PM
What's baffling is that the ironic, anti-corporate graffiti artist that tom describes would expect her project to be even a little effective, given how likely it is to be misunderstood.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:15 PM
Sure; I thought Wolfson was saying that it was incomprehensible, not just wrong.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:17 PM
Oh.
Benji?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:18 PM
NTM if the message is good, then why not sabotage other corporations' billboards? Unless the idea is to communicate, through misogyny, the position that the legal construct of the corporation is itself to be decried.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:19 PM
I was wrong.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:20 PM
Are you saying that it's not incomprehensible?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:21 PM
I was right!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:22 PM
It all depends on what "incomprehensible" means.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:22 PM
Which, the comment or the graffiti-protest itself?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:22 PM
This thread is closed.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:24 PM
That's so Clintonesque.
"It depends on what the meaning of 'incomprehensible' incomprehensible."
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:25 PM
The graffiti-protest—how could anyone think it would be remotely effective or a good idea? Incomprehensible!
The comment itself, too, in that in making it tom, who seems a reasonable fellow, seems to be endorsing the idea of the graffiti being a cogent protest.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:25 PM
Ok, I actually agree with you guys, and tom is banned, but I can also well imagine that it wasn't graffitied in protest, but as a joke, in the moment, between the graffiter and a friend. It could have been a funny moment.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:27 PM
I see your point.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:30 PM
Maybe someone asked the graffitist "How do you spell 'Type II Diabetes'?" and the ad was the first available writing surface.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:31 PM
Whose point?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:32 PM
Don't play innocent.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:32 PM
Or it could have been a foreigner unwittingly using a joke phrasebook.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:33 PM
And it could be that the comment is true and left either by the model's doctor, or by the model herself.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:34 PM
Would the model's doctor be allowed to make such disclosures?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:35 PM
The model in herself forms the basis for the ideal.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:36 PM
Would the model's doctor be allowed to make such disclosures?
I don't believe so. There might be grounds for prosecution.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:37 PM
Maybe Peter wrote it in order to provoke this exact discussion including the comment I am writing AOTW. Or maybe I did it for the same purpose; but I haven't spent much time in the UWS lately, nor been blacked out drunk.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:37 PM
Would the model's doctor be allowed to make such disclosures?
If the model's doctor is already committed to an act of vandalism, he might as well go all the way. It worked for Anakin.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:38 PM
And yet again, one can imagine a circumstance in which the model and doctor had known that they would be unable to communicate after her exam, and had agreed beforehand that her diagnosis would be written above that very picture on a particular day. In which case, the doctor is only looking at a misdemeanor charge.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:41 PM
After hunting down and killing all the models, destroying an entire ad agency, and force-choking his nurses into early retirement, Darth Pancreas repented by leaving a sympathy card at the foot of the Eiffel Tower and taking up pediatrics.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:46 PM
The BMI of some of those women is probably in the high end of the healthy range, around 24 or 25. BMI's kind of a red herring, given that it doesn't take into account muscle mass all that well, but I can't imagine these women as obese or at risk for type II diabetes. Models are usually significant below ideal weights.
(Though I chuckled at the graffiti comment.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 2:48 PM
Can we just acknowledge that:
1) the model of beauty in contemporary culture is (at minimum) somewhat absurd
2) many (but not all) women chafe at this image, and would welcome a change in both the images, and likely their own bodies
3) many (but not all) men buy into the image of women-as-skinny-hotties and would prefer to change actual women rather than the image. The 'type II diabetes' scrawl was an indication of this
4) I am definitely going to be banned and/or mocked for being the humorless guy about this
Posted by Peter | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 5:34 PM
Peter, we had our big model bodies discussion here.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 5:36 PM
damn, now I have to actually remember what you wrote a week ago? you win...
Posted by Peter | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 5:42 PM
Hey, I'm not trying to argue that it's effective anticorporate graffiti, or well-thought-out, or consistently applied. It just seems a little too transparent (yet wordy) to me to be clear-cut misogyny. Can I get a "bitch"? Help me out. The idea of a rabid anti-feminist who's incensed by realistic portrayals of women just seems a bit cartoonish.
Also, the graffiti seems pretty analogous to some anarchist scrawls in my neighborhood: somebody wrote "Wasted Indeed..." and a couple anarchist symbols over a Smirnoff billboard. None of the copy on the ad puts this in a context that makes any sense, and as far as I know Smirnoff doesn't use any slogans involving the word "wasted". But despite being a complete non sequitur, it's still pretty transparently an anti-booze-company defacement.
and tom is banned
This is because you think I'm fat, isn't it?
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 6:17 PM
It's because he knows you're fat.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 6:29 PM
It's because you think you're fat. Have a positive body image and everyone will accept you just the way you are.
I hear there's a soap that can help you out with that.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 6:33 PM
it's true.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 6:34 PM
i meant to say, it's true, he IS fat. and i just tried to insult my boyfriend on a blog comment thread when he's sitting next to me on the couch. i should have just punched him in the arm.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 6:39 PM
No no, you did the right thing.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 6:40 PM
But the real question is, "How did that fat-ass get a girlfriend?"
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 6:44 PM
I use dove moisturizing bars and have very few body image issues. Ivory soap is just barbaric.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 6:44 PM
I wrap myself in fresh baby caul each night and am a bronzed Adonis.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 6:53 PM
I don't believe you.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 9:06 PM
"But the real question is, 'How did that fat-ass get a girlfriend?'"
'cause he has a good sense of humor?
Posted by Peter | Link to this comment | 07-16-05 6:24 AM
Check it out, a Chicago Sun Times columnist talking about how unsettling it is to have to look at chunky women on billboards. (From Pandagon)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 8:43 AM
Columnists are never worth reading.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 8:49 AM
True, just thought it was worth pointing out someone being a jerk about this.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 8:58 AM
Wow, he's really an idiot. And sometimes I call back before listening to the message.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 9:01 AM
Yeah, he's quite the turd there isn't he.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 9:09 AM
Isn't that Roeper of Ebert and Roeper fame? Has he ever done anything good? And wasn't the original point of Siskel & Ebert to get the movie critics from two different Chicago papers together, rather than two on the Sun-Times staff?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 9:43 AM
I almost always call back rather than leave a message, provided that I realize I missed the call soon (5-10 minutes) after I missed it. Otherwise I might check my voicemail. I also have a fairly strong aversion to leaving voicemails, so this is proably just a small part of some underlying pathology.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 9:47 AM
You mean listen to the message, yeah?
I like to leave voicemails because I like to end them by saying "bye bye!" the way McLaughlin says it at the end of each McLaughlin Group. I don't think my friends know that's what I'm doing though.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 9:51 AM
I like to leave voicemails because I like to end them by saying "bye bye!" the way McLaughlin says it at the end of each McLaughlin Group. I don't think my friends know that's what I'm doing though.
A case ripe for study.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 9:56 AM
You know what I love? John McLaughlin's ass.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 9:57 AM
I like his guitar playing.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 9:58 AM
I like to leave voicemails because I like to end them by saying "bye bye!" the way McLaughlin says it at the end of each McLaughlin Group.
If endearing quirks were llamas, you'd have a lot of llamas.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 10:46 AM