An Edmonton hair salon has recently released an ad that glamorizes, sexualizes and normalizes violence against women. The ad depicts a battered women sitting on a couch while a psychotic looking dude plays with a necklace. The necklace further perpetuates the ads attempts at creating class and status amidst the violence. The clothing, for instance, suggests that the couple in the photo has a lot of money and they "care" about how they look by wearing expensive garb. The text within the ad reads, "Look good in all you do" suggesting that, even if your male-partner has beaten you recently, you can still get an expensive haircut from this salon.
To add fuel to the fierce rage that is already being experienced by many who have viewed this advertisement, the salon stands by their marketing stating, "Is it cutting edge advertising? Yes. Is it intended to be a satirical look at real-life situations that ignites conversation and debate? Of course. Is it to everyone’s taste? Probably not," says Sarah Cameron, owner of the salon. Can someone explain to me how it is "cutting edge" to depict battered women? Where is the artistic value within this advertisement?
Janine Fraser, director of the Edmonton Women's Shelter expressed concern over the advertisement, "This advertisement is at risk of glamorizing an issue that is of serious and life-threatening, ongoing concern to all the women and children who use our shelters."
In response, the salon owner has taken it upon herself to "explain" the advertisement to the Edmonton Women's Shelter, "If survivors of abuse interpret this ad to make light of any abusive situation, we sincerely apologize, that was never our intent as there are people that worked on this campaign who are survivors of abuse."
Here are my questions for Sarah Cameron. I am sure these questions, or similar ones are being echoed by Canadians and by those reading Canadian news:
1) How could survivors of abuse not interpret this photograph as offensive?
2) How does this photo not make light of violence against women? That is all it depicts.
3) If you are so sincerely apologetic, why not take the advertisement down? The Edmonton Women's Shelter has made clear the risk being posed, so why continue to show this ad?
4) How can you be so sorry if you are still desiring to make money from this disgusting advertisement?
4) What was your intent with this advertisement? How did you decide that violence against women was even relevant to salon services?
5) Considering most salons are targeting a female audience, why would you use a battered woman to promote your business? How do you believe women will feel about such violent representations? Do you believe this ad will benefit your salon and its image in the long-run?
***
Feel free to leave your feelings regarding this ad and what you think should be the next action taken by the salon and by the Edmonton Women's Shelter.
This entire ad is centered around violence against women, that is all this photograph represents; there is no notion of hair-styling or hair-cutting from this advertisement. The ad is blatantly misogynistic, violence-promoting and sexualized hatred of women. This is all done in the name of marketing and in the name of making money.
If we continue to use the idea - the concept of maimed and battered women for profit and for fashion, we will continue to perpetuate the dangerous and unpredictable environment in which survivors of domestic violence live. As women, we must be willing to call other women out on their blatant exploitative marketing maneuvers and their attempts to make violence against women sexy.
Notes:
Quotes and photograph from CBC news
Truly disgusting.
ReplyDeleteIf depicting battered women can have no artistic merit than no book or movie about the subject no written words by a battered woman about her experience can have any artistic merit. And if that's true than no sociological feminist works can have merit as literature.
ReplyDeleteNow art that is cutting edge has always been interpreted as offensive. This has been true for thousands of years (I'll give the greek drama Oedipus Rex as an example). That's no reason to hide expression.
Is violence against women sexy? That's obviously a matter of preference. Are you qualified to tell someone else what they should or should not be turned on by.
And then maybe the wman got in a fist fight with another woman earlier in the day. Did that ever occur to you? Of course it didn't because you practice seeing things only the way which supports your worldview. You will ead everything as supporting that.
"If depicting battered women can have no artistic merit than no book or movie about the subject no written words by a battered woman about her experience can have any artistic merit. And if that's true than no sociological feminist works can have merit as literature."
ReplyDeleteWho gets to find the artistic merit in the suffering of women? Other women? Or the men who deem what is "artistic" or not - art doesn't exist in a vacuum, our society and our society's framework creates what we call "art." How can you even compare women's literature or women's account of abuse on this clearly consumer-driven advertisement of a "classy" couple and a woman who has clearly been abused. Also, how "artistic" can you be when you are merely only trying to make a sale?
"Now art that is cutting edge has always been interpreted as offensive. This has been true for thousands of years (I'll give the greek drama Oedipus Rex as an example). That's no reason to hide expression."
This isn't about finding art offensive, this is about women being depicted in violent scenarios in order for a company to make sales. This violent advertisement directly impacts women and the way we are represented and normalized in our society. To pretend this just exists on its own would be naive - this isn't an argument about whether or not something is art. This is about violence against women and the continuous portrayal of violence against women in the media or played off as "art."
Is violence against women sexy? You think it is a preference? Well, i know who doesn't "prefer" it - people who are part of a powerless class; the ones who are being abused. They usually don't find it sexy. Maybe instead of making this a simple case of "Don't like it, don't look at it" you can actually critically analyse such ads.
This also has NOTHING to do with inducing boners. The fact that people get boners from this material is exactly why I am concerned for women's liberation. Your clear lack of critical thinking and your insistence on ad homs like "Don't tell people what to be turned on" is merely deteriorating your so-called "art argument."
Of course, it seems that you are more concerned with those who are consuming such violent material and their erections and "rights" to be aroused by "art" - and so, please ask yourself why are you are on my blog.
The only way I can see this ad appealing to women is that women have already been *sold* on masochism as an essential element of the "beauty" mindset. Women finding and creating "value" from their own emotional and physical masochism.
ReplyDeleteI was going to say something about how terrible this advertisement is, but then I read Emma Goldman's comment and my fucking brain exploded. You seem to have taken it apart pretty thoroughly, however.
ReplyDelete"And then maybe the wman got in a fist fight with another woman earlier in the day. Did that ever occur to you? Of course it didn't because you practice seeing things only the way which supports your worldview."
Uh-huh. That, of course, seems the most plausible explanation, now that I think about it. How stupid I obviously was to think this was glorifying male violence towards women. You can see how concerned that man is towards his battered partner, as he pays loving attention to her necklace, whilst not acknowledging she's even in the room. Or alive. The look on his face definitely says "loving partner" not "potential batterer/killer" doesn't it?
Wait the way an artist depicts a woman directly affects other women. Once you get to the conclusion that art affects others it's not a far step into demanding that art fits into your moral standards. And who sets the standards. Who decides which expressions will have a positive or negative impact? Art is open to interpretation by those who view it. Or should art always be propaganda that pushes for your views and worldview? Maybe you should write a book on guidelines for what subjects an artist can cover, how they can cover it, and what their opinions they should have.
ReplyDeleteBy the way someone who adheres so strictly to their radical feminist school of thought while interpreting things might not be in a position to accuse others of lacking in critical thinking. Unless you think critical thinking is questioning everything except your beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAnd criticizing someone for telling others what not to be turned on by is not Ad Hom. Ad-Hom would not be attacking the idea but the person behind it. Ad Hominem is literally "the Man" In Latin which I'm sure the fact that it is such a gendered phrase is the reason you did not know it's meaning. Actually being a University student you should at least know what an Ad-Hom is. It seems that you have picked up very little real knowledge and much indoctrination.
Looks like you've got a troll here, O.E. This comment section is starting to look like the ones at the CBC discussing this very story.
ReplyDeleteEmma, I believe that part of the point is this: Real people, real women suffer violence every day at the hands of their spouses, or boyfriends, or other family members, or friends and so on. Perhaps THEY don't want to see a depiction of that real violence masquerading as 'art' or 'advertisement' or 'haute couture, regardless of what the artist is trying to convey.
And don't directly insult our host, or cast allegations at her level of education. That's fucking tacky.
Ok here's my interpretation. The ad neither glorifies nor condemns domestic violence. That is merely the situation in which the girl looks good. It's selling looking your best even through the worst circumstance. Is it insensitive? Yes. Does it promote violence? No. Does it "perpetuate the dangerous and unpredictable environment in which survivors of domestic violence live"? Well since it doesn't promote the behavior but uses it as plot device of sorts than no. Any more than the Wizard of Oz promotes setting living scarecrows on fire.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emma wholeheartedly. I mean jeeze, can't we just have our delicious pretendfuntime images of women being brutalized without all this serious business stuff?
ReplyDeleteI mean, it's not like it's normalizing violence against women, and it's not like violence against women is common,or anything.
Jeezus, Funfems love creating fucking discourse in non funfem spaces.
This ad is disgusting. I really don't see how anyone could ever give their money to these people after this kind of stunt.
I'm going to use this in a video and I'll link back to you okay?
ReplyDeleteThere is perhaps one good thing that could come out of this ad?
ReplyDeleteWe often talk about class in the sense of rich vs. poor, but we very rarely talk about woman and child abuse within a class.
This ad could show that even upper class women are susceptible to abuse in a male dominated world.
If males have all the power then even women in up market settings can suffer horrific abuse just as women of other classes. It is a fact that many women who are successful in their career are victims of male abuse.
@Maoist, for sure, but don't worry about linking me - i don't want my blog circulating on youtube. Makes me nervous after everything that's happened on there. ya know. But i would love to watch your take on it, so feel free to link me up with it when you are finished.
ReplyDeleteAs requested
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHWe4gIeOf4
ITS NOT ABOUT THE 'ARTISTIC' VALUE, OR LACK OF, ITS AN AD! a commercial in print that USES a victim of violence to MAKE MONEY. how in any real universe is that OK????
ReplyDelete