Ah, Julie. Again you grace my life with your message of insecurity, self-loathing, and narrow definitions of beauty. In case you can't make out the text it says "I am Julie. Today I shopped for everything I liked, not just anything that would fit." Whatever, I won't go on too much about that because anyone who has faced plus-sized shopping knows that there is limited availability that means you don't have too much choice. No, what pisses me off more is the picture. What's with the mannequins? Is the ad trying to suggest that Julie has dieted herself down to look like these mannequins? Most store mannequins are around a size two or four and a weight loss of 5-10 pounds represents about 1 dress size so if Julie lost "just a few pounds" and now looks like a mannequin than Julie was a size 4 or 6 when she decided she was too fat and that this was a medical crisis necessitating medical intervention.
Anyway, so I was looking at the ad and thinking "Is this ad trying to say that this is what women should look like, these mannequins?" and I thought "No, no advertiser in their right mind would actually set up that kind of a message." It's one thing to say women should be thin but to be mannequins - faceless, lifeless dolls to dress up and stare at? Then I started thinking, "Why aren't the mannequins wearing any clothes? Isn't the point of this ad the "joy of fitting into fashionable clothes?" So then I thought, "Oh, maybe Julie is supposed to have bought all the clothes right off the mannequins." Which would again reinforce that Julie has dieted herself down to the size of the mannequins, since she bought the clothes they were wearing. So anyway you cut it, this ad is really saying the women should look like the mannequins.
And look at the mannequins in this ad!! I mean, the one on the right has NO bum. Even thin women still have bums. And then there's the fact that they are all naked - whether this is to emphasize their thinness or to hint at sexuality or to strip women of individuality by reducing them to generic forms I'm not sure but given the ad is focused on clothes, I think it's weird. And why is the one holding a purse? And notice how they're all facing away from the camera. Much like the lingerie ass and thigh shot in the other ad, it seems that the people at Julie's story have something against showing women's faces. Once again, I can't help but imagine how this ad could have been different - how about a laughing, smiling woman spinning in a new dress (I know it's the ultimate weight loss cliche shot, but you get my drift) or a woman piled down with shopping bags and a big grin on her face. How about some personality, some individuality, some, oh, I don't know, living people???
Anyway, to sum up - women as lifeless, plastic, generic, faceless, shapeless, skinny objects to be posed and looked at. Women who are larger than mannequins needing to undergo medical treatment (which is never, ever safe) for weight loss. This ad is creepy and disturbing. I think I find it more offensive than the ass and thigh ad. Look closely and think about it for a minute. It is some fucked up shit.
Stupid Julie's story. Still pissing me off.
4 comments:
And now Julie's Story can piss you off in multiple media. I just saw the ass/thigh version in Sunday's Toronto Star.
There is no way that ass ever had any fat on it. Where are the stretch marks and cottage cheese bumps? Any real woman over the age of 21 has 'em - even the skinny ones.
howdy. i reckon it might just be a frustrated artist trying to make some kind of statement. it's worth remembering how much true creativity is stifled because the only art that pays is commercial art. Still, it's nice to find people who get as angry at ads as I do. rock on.
I guess I haven't stopped to consider the art behind this ad so fair enough for pointing it out. And yeah, it does sort of look like someone trying to be stylish. But I'll stand behind my belief that this entire ad campaign is misogynistic and extremely harmful to women. The fact that someone might produce images like this without the intention that they actually be damaging means that a) that person needs to think more and b) that the way we as a society view women is so twisted that we don't even notice anymore.
But anyway, feminist ranting aside, rock on back at ya for getting the righteous anger on about ads in general. It drives me crazy how it's a one-way interaction - the ad companies get to shove their stuff at us and we get to just... take it? My blog is my outlet, a pitiful,nearly powerless response in many regards, but at least it's a response.
Glad to hear from you! :)
I wish I'd checked back sooner, but I don't disagree at all with the idea it's sexist. Maybe we should consider ourselves lucky that women are represented with manequins and not the more obvious choices like sides of beef. Patience, I suppose. Yeah, I don't think the ad industry types pause much to think about the sociological implications of their work. They just know they have 8 men in expensive suits who like looking down underlings' tops who will approve or disapprove of their pitch, y'know? And that's what's scary, and what makes it so hard to convince people of their own sexist nature, is that it is all so implicit.
Actually, this righteous rant makes me think I'll have to post about this tonight. Thanks for the inspiration!
Post a Comment