Girls, pay no attention to the naked supermodel sitting next to you, or, Dove’s at it again
The new video from Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty is a doozy (check it out at Feministing). ”Onslaught” juxtaposes the innocence and natural beauty of a young girl with the images and messages she sees every day — lots of skinny models with large breasts wearing sexy underwear.
It is a stark and sad message, especially since we know the many ways in which it is detrimental to girls.
So whose problem is this?
Yours, Mom and Dad: the video ends with a message that you should talk to your daughter, quick, before the “beauty industry” gets to them.
So, once again, it’s solely our responsibility. We have to counter the effects of the billion-dollar advertising budgets aimed at our children. We have to talk to them about the irresponsibility of advertisers, marketers and the media. We have to convince them that their normal, daily encounters — the images they see, what their friends say, and the way many adults act – are unreasonable.
I’m all for parental responsibility. But where is the corporate responsibility? How do they get away with their incentive-charged focus groups, their brain-based research, their unregulated television programming, and their cradle-to-grave-brand-ambassador thinking?
Mine may be a “tiresome” (according to Angela Natividad at AdRants) and “played out” (according to a Two Knives comment from JJBugs) argument, but evidently the message is not getting through.
Stop using my child’s insecurities to make money.
This goes both ways: to the corporations promoting brands to make girls “feel better” about themselves — and to the marketers who enlighten us by pointing them out.
The good news is that parents really do have a lot of influence on their children, so talking to daughters will certainly help.
Don’t worry, Dove, I’ve talked to my daughters plenty. And they know not to buy what you’re selling.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
[…] Reinforce the artificial ideals behind the superficial nip-n-tuck cues. Or it could just plain tick people off…Which, actually, is not a bad thing either, if it works to raise awareness. (Two Knives for […]
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I’m all for parental responsibility. But where is the corporate responsibility? How do they get away with their incentive-charged focus groups, their brain-based research, their unregulated television programming, and their cradle-to-grave-brand-ambassador thinking?
How do they get away with it? Ask their shareholders. And if you look closely, its Mrs. and Mr. Average Parent whose 401(k)s are help driving the stock value.
You need to go after the parents to go after the companies, not the other way round. The Board of Directors of any business answers only to their shareholders.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
[…] blogosphere, and yesterday even some of my very, very faves like Jill over at Feministe and Two Knives… had at it — both making extremely good points. So good that I agreed with them 90% […]
October 4th, 2007 at 6:28 am
Charlie, thanks for stopping by. You make an excellent point and one that I don’t want to overlook. And I’m going to do my best to to “get the parents to go after the companies.” You read my mind! Stay tuned.
October 5th, 2007 at 6:19 am
Found my way here from outside the (toy) box.
I have a completely different take on this ad though I think you’ve raised some great arguments but I’m just too excited about finding another feminist motherhood blog out there, to talk about that ad right now. And anyway I posted on it already. I can’t wait to look around your blog!
October 26th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Interesting that none of Angela Natividad’s commenters agree with her. Not one.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Oh, yes, and meant to make the point: How the #$%&* am I supposed to be in control when there’s scantily clad women on the damn railway station billboards and other public spaces?!? (Sorry to go into excitable mode, but this has pushed my buttons)– and its not just the GIRLS - the boys are seeing all this stuff and being warped out of shape, too, in a different way.