Edmonton Salon Wants you to "Look Good In All you Do" with Ad of Battered Woman

Just in case you have not heard about the recent controversial ad filling the headlines - here it is. 

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

Harper's Power Trip

photo found here

Harper is "legislating" striking workers "back to work" and "prostitution may become legitimate business in Canada"


Under Harper's regime, it's all about destroying unions and slashing worker's rights and putting women back in their "place" 


Welcome to the post-election, authoritarian disaster that Canada is becoming. 

8 Year old with Botox Injections and How our Culture Consumes Girl-Children

Spray tans, fake teeth and heeled feet - life for the 8 year old pageant girl-child is very far from endearing, but recently an 8 year old girl-child has had her face injected with poison on a regular basis. Yes, you read correctly, an 8 year old child has been regularly injected with Botox. The injections were administered by the girl's mother, in their home without medical approval or supervision. The girl-child, Britney, partakes in various beauty pageants which, as most of my readers will know, encourage young girls to compete with one another and obsess about their body image and physical appearance, rather than skills or personality. Britney's mother publicly admitted injecting her daughter with Botox, while assuring the rest of the world that it was justifiable and even logical for her daughters allegedly bright future:


"I know one day she will be a model, actress or singer, and having these treatments now will ensure she stays looking younger and baby-faced for longer"

Britney after receiving Botox injections. Photo found here

Surely, we can look to patriarchy for the answer to why a mother would potentially harm her own daughter for the sake of a few hops on a pageant stage.Under male-supremacy, all females are told to become hyper-feminine, passive and subordinate or face the social consequences. "First World" women and apparently now girls are taught to fear age and "signs" of aging such as wrinkles to the point of shooting themselves and others up with sausage poison 1. It's extremely unlikely that anyone knows of any eight year olds with crows feet and even if we did, so what? So, now even female children are herded about in a semi circle, wearing gowns, lead-laden mascara and glittery cone-bras like chattel while creepy 50 something year old dudes can grade them. 

photo found here

As an adult, one has tremendous responsibility to ensure the safety of kids, by you know, not jabbing them with a neurotoxin like Botox. Botox, or Botulinum Toxin is a substance that likely is not healthy for anyone to inject into their face regularly, but specifically for those under 18 years of age. The eight year old brain is a very different brain from that of an 18 year old -  during childhood the brain is constantly creating new neurological pathways and taking in new and unique information. Injecting a child with a neurotoxin on a regular basis (for aesthetic purposes, not for medical treatment) is a form of child abuse. However, there are other abuses of children, mostly girl-children that take place in beauty pageants. During a conversation about this with my partner, he brought up other pageant mothers' and fathers' reaction to the story - would they see the botox as wrong but still happily sanction the parading of their own children in false teeth, hair and nails?  After receiving mental images from past episodes of "Toddlers and Tiaras," I nodded in agreement.


It is true that Botox is more immediately harmful to a child's physical well-being but telling your young child to grind on stage in high heels in order to win a couple thousand dollars is no less detrimental. The beauty pageant's perpetuation of the highest level of sexist social constructs and stereotypes robs kids of their childhood - it forces them into strict sex roles and can be physically and mentally traumatic. For example, children's foot growth could be interrupted by wearing restrictive and high heeled shoes. In addition to restrictive attire, the girl-children are almost always coated in makeup which is packed with toxins like lead and silica. Many makeup contains chemicals that are confirmed neurotoxins, carcinogens and endocrine disruptors 2. Not only are these children painted, waxed and pinched - they are also forced to take in mental cues about their own self-worth and body image. These cues will obviously have lasting effects if they are continuously reinforced in our social landscape. 

Kerry and her Daughter Britney. Photo found here

The toll of beauty pageants are not only physical, they are psychological, too. Britney's mother's fantasy appears to have overshadowed her ability to see her daughter's full humanity.The culture we live in is robbing humans of humanity - the young ones are often treated as mere accessories to be decorated and shown off like a blood diamond on a finger. This culture is turning all people, but particularly and predominately females, into one dimensional commodities. This culture consumes women and girls then spits us us back out, in hopes that we will return as sufficiently subordinate, physically attractive and yet self-loathing. 




Notes
1  P, T. Ting, & A, Freiman (2004) Clostridium botulinum: from food poisoning to Botox. Clinical Medicine, (4) 3


2 http://www.ewg.org/skindeep






*** Update *** May 14, 2011


Several quotes were brought to my attention from Britney and her mother via media interviews. These were far too problematic to ignore:


Kerry (Britney's mother) states the following in an interview with the sun:


“I’m sure people reading this will think I am being irresponsible, but I ensure that I test the Botox and 
fillers I buy online on myself first.” 

"I’m proud Britney is getting to have these beauty treatments at such a young age."

“I wish that I’d had the same advantages when I was younger."

“She is a lucky little girl and is going to be famous because of the benefits I am giving her so early.”

According to the same article, Britney's 83 year old now-deceased father/research scientist supported his daughter's "beauty treatments" regarding waxing and injections as "part of normal life" (qtd in the Sun from here) Kerry also stated that she gets her daughter "virgin waxes" to wax any hair that grows on the child's legs and to "make[s] sure she wont develop pubic hair in the future."

Britney was also quoted, the 8 year old girl told the Sun:

“My friends think it’s cool I have all the treatments and they want to be like me. I check every night for wrinkles, when I see some I want more injections.

“They used to hurt, but now I don’t cry that much."

“I also want a boob and nose job soon, so that I can be a star.”

Her mother claims Britney has been taken out of school once "for a headache," but "apart from that she has had no reaction at all" Kerry is being investigated by child protective services at the current time. 

...absolutely terrifying

The Academy Awards: A Critique

photo found here

It's that time of year again! Well, almost that time of year, where the celebrities in celebrity-land celebrate each other's fame and wealth by handing out golden statues while simultaneously promoting white-supremacist and misogynistic values. The Academy Awards has been and likely will continue to be a patriarchal, racist, sexist and overall ridiculous event.

Before you jump up and down and tell me about how not even a handful of non-white people have won any awards or how a female director won an award last year, so all must be forgiven, let me explain myself.

A woman was awarded the Best Director title last year, the same year that a black woman won for Best Supporting Actress and a black man won for his screenplay for the film "Precious"

Now, this is great, yes? They are "leveling" out the playing field, right?

No, they're not. They simply decided, as far as I have observed, that on one particular show they would ease everyone's criticisms by awarding two women, one of them a black woman and a black man with their well-deserved awards. This way, the Academy can feel better when they continue to over-award white Americans and literally ignore everyone else’s talent and accomplishments.

It is interesting, also, that the year Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won, the Academy decided to make a dedication to Sydney Poitier, the first African American to win an Oscar. Coincidence? But they did not do this on a show where only white performers won, which is almost every show. Of course, this year is no different. There is still the patronizing “Foreign Film” category that lumps all non-Hollywood films into one group that is meant to distinguish films from Western-made films. The category is given a complete lack of care. For example, when the leading awards come out, everyone is excited…but no one even blinks when foreign films are mentioned.

My point is that the gross lack of female and non-white representation in this Award show is astonishing.

Let’s look at the reality, shall we?

Every single year the Academy, who is apparently some divine and awe-invoking group of white, upperclass cinephiles that make it their life work to award other upper class white people with fancy awards that cost ridiculous sums of money. The academy is praised and respected amongst Hollywood elites while crowds of non-celebrities huddle around their television sets and ooh and awe at the hungry starlets in their designer dresses. The whole event illustrates to the world that it is indeed stratified, horribly so by class, race and sex. The women are told to lose as much weight possible to fit into their small, custom-made designer dresses while the men stand idolly by looking stoic in their full-body suits. Clearly, a lady must dress accordingly while she watches her male counterparts steal most of the nominations, particularly for directing and writing.

The whole event is as traditionally gendered and classed as you can possibly imagine. Yet, the public gravitates towards this yearly spectacle as if it is the coming of Christ. They weep when their favourite elite celebrities weep during their acceptance speech. They cheer when their chosen white male director wins, or their favourite white female actress takes home a hunk of gold phallus. Magazines rush to publish photos of female attendees. The so-called fashion critics rush to call them fat, make fun of their choice of dress or mock them for their choice of date or lack thereof. A woman is to be escorted to the event, as she is unable to get there by herself. She is also unable to come up with her own dress -if she does then she’s ridiculed for weeks in the media. We are told prior to the show, on the so-called “red-carpet”, who designed what dress and why it matters so much. Shameless marketing ploys are big money on the red-carpet.  

Why does it matter? Why does any of this matter?

Why are we so horribly consumed with celebrities and their obscene lifestyles? Why do we praise and cheer the white supremacist hollywood cliques that perpetuate gender myths, gender roles, beauty standards, racism, sexism and classism? Why do we gather around and cry with our beloved hollywood stars? It is so horribly pathetic.

The whole show is one big pat on the back. The stars tell other stars how amazing their performances were, all the while ignoring important cinema by seperating non-hollywood film into “foreign film”, because clearly, the films aren’t acceptable enough compete directly with the Hollywood films. This is problematic in itself, not to mention the lack of recognition the category holds. The celebrities don’t care and neither does the academy. One would rather clap for the Black Swan or True Grit then give two shits about a film made in Sudan or Japan for example.

The exclusion does not stop there.

In the 81 years that the Academy Awards has existed, according to filmsite.org, only  18 African-American nominations have been given for Best Actor between 12 different actors. The only African-American actors that have been nominated more than once are Poitier, Freeman, Washington and Smith.  Overall, there has been only 20 different African-American actors and actresses nimnated for a top award. Only 13 awards have actually been WON by African-American actors and actresses in both leading and supporting roles and a mere 5 African-American performers have won an Oscar in a leading category. Only 4 have won best actor.

For 81 years, this is bloody pathetic.

To add to this, we often see non-white filmmakers and non-white films being ignored completely by the Academy.

For example, according to the same site:

There have been only a few Best Actor Oscar wins by ethnic/other minority (or non-English) performers:

Italian actor Roberto Benigni won the Best Actor Oscar for Life is Beautiful (1998) - he was the first male actor to win an Oscar for a foreign-language film (his Best Actor Oscar win was only the second time a nominee won an acting Oscar for a foreign language film role - the earlier winner was Sophia Loren)

Ben Kingsley, with half-Indian (birth name Krishna Bhanji) and half-English descent, won the Best Actor Oscar for Gandhi (1982) - he became the firstSouth Asian performer to achieve such a feat

Puerto Rican-born Jose Ferrer won the Best Actor Oscar for his role in Cyrano de Bergerac (1950)

Anyone else noticing a pattern? Why is this being ignored by these so-called well intentioned Oscar-addicts?

Another obvious occurrence with these awards is giving out nominations for roles that include rich white historical figures. Think “The Kings Speech”, a story about a Monarch and his speech impediment. It is rich with wealthy white actors who are, without surprise, up for a bunch of awards this year. I am not debating that the film is not worthy of awards, I am merely stating that there is a disctinct pattern.

Women are also horribly misrepresented at these Awards. Rarely do we see a woman of colour take an award or even a nomination, instead, youthful, traditionally beautiful white women take home all the goods. Not only are many women ignored at these awards, but all of the women are poked, prodded at and judged because of how they present themselves at these award shows. They are pushed to lose even more weight and maintain a level of “class” at the show while the men dress alike and chat with their fellow performers. The women are always the main attraction for gossip hungry celebrity programs and media outlets. It’s really a shame. Only one woman of colour has taken home a lead actress award and that was Halle Berry. The rest of the best actress awards are dolled out to white women. No surprise.

It appears the majority of Oscar lovers are unwilling to challenge the realities of this award show. They are unwilling to challenge the cultural product that is the Academy Awards. It is a cultural product – it is part of the mass media, yet it often goes uncritiqued and unexamined. We tend to view the celebrities as separate from ourselves. We give them god-like status in society and weep when they do. It is all rather unfortunate that we can’t see through this façade and realize the sheer bigotry and subjectivity that goes into the “decision making” of the Academy.

Finally, a question - Is this show even about film? Is it really about creativity, or is it about a bunch of rich people getting together, congratulating each other and making some money? It’s hard not to be cynical when the whole thing is so bloody laughable. If anything were to encompass issues of sexism, racism, classism, ageism and the like, this event has it all. 

So, grab your popcorn kids because Febuary 27^th is the Academy Awards and there’s a whole lot of bullshit waiting to be watched and a whole lot of misgonazis waiting to dissect the women at the award shows and make everyone who isn’t white nearly invisible.