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

Links - August 3, 2011

Links - August 3, 2011


Sociological Images:
Gendered Kids Stuff


1. Kid's Luggage Normalizes Gendered Occupations

2. More Gendering of Kids' Stuff

My two cents:


I have to add some commentary to this photograph as it is so biologically deterministic and reflective of our larger cultural values regarding the two sex-classes. First we can see the text claiming how "different" boys and girls really are. This seems to be intended to allow us to digest the text that appears next to each advertised photo. Next to the ad featuring the girl-child we read, "Pretty and Playful." This illustrates female's  perceived role and purpose as an object to be looked at and played with rather than respected. This girl is posed to look passive and playful as she has her hand on her head and she is smiling. However, look over to the boys and we see that they are described as "rugged and ready". Boys are brave, courageous and ready to take on the world, unlike the girls who are asked to merely smile and giggle. They are with a dog, too, to signify their bravery and so-called "boyishness." The posing is interesting, also as one of the boys has his knee raised to signify his "natural" bravery. His pose garners respect whereas the picture of the little girl is meant to garner "aww, how cute!" 


This is exactly what we're talking about when we say feminism has a LONG way to go...


and finally from the same Sociological Images post

Two Cents: 


Again, this photo illustrates roles based on biological deterministic beliefs about boys and girls. Boys like to learn and create and discover shit - girls like to take care of babies and change diapers full of shit. It's just the way it is.


A Place for Everywomon and her series on Radical Feminist Seminar 

1. Radical Feminist Seminar: Sheila Jeffrey’s Speech on Trafficking

Excerpt:

"Sheila Jeffreys gave a lecture related to her book, The Industrial Vagina. I had recently read through this entire book, a book so painful to read that I had to put it down every few minutes of reading, just to remind myself that, yes, I am safe, but this is why I am a radical feminist. One point Jeffreys hammered home, is that the idea of individual agency is fundamentally a conservative idea. At what other job do we claim workers are expressing their “agency”?  It is really Milton Friedman’s politics of super, super individualism that are being put forth by “pro-sex work” lobbyists."

2. Radical Feminist Seminar: Professor Dines Brings It On

Excerpt: 

"Another reason a switch to a pornography with a “feminist conscious” is not likely to happen is a reason rather hard to face: Men actually like getting off to women in pain. For example, Dines quotes a porn producer as saying, “Nobody wants to watch a girl enjoying anal.” Dines also mentioned that condoms are typically not used in heterosexual porn. According to her, this is because condoms show at least a minimum level of care about the women’s health. If porn showed men wearing condoms, that would be a reminder that women are human beings, who are capable of being hurt."

3. Radical Feminist Seminar: Sheila Jeffreys on Trans Politics

Excerpt: 

"Groups such as GenderPAC, a U.S. organization that ran from 1999-2009, are “gender protection rackets,” Jeffreys asserted, since GenderPAC thinks we all have a “right to our gender.”
A point I was not aware of–and quite horrified by–was that gender identity laws are not meant to protect born women. This is because there are apparently too many of us."



Sub-Human by Rmott62


Excerpt: 

"Sub-human that is an uncomfortable word, a word that you would do anything to avoid.

Sub-human is what the vast majority of the prostituted class are made. That sounds harsh, that is harsh.

The invention of the prostituted class was not a flux, was no mistake. It was invention that used slavery, capture of women and girls in times of disasters or wars, used that women are kept poor, used racism, used any and all oppression to create the prostituted class."

Silence Means Dissent - Andrea Dworkin from Anti-Porn Men Project


Excerpt: 

"We know that men like hurting us. We know it because they do it and we watch them doing it. We know that men like dominating us because they do it and we watch them doing it. We know men like using us because they do it, and they do it, and they do it, and they do it, and they do it. And men don’t do things that don’t like, generally speaking. They like doing it and they like watching it and they like watching other men do it and it is entertainment and pay money to see it and that one of the reasons that men make pornography. It’s fun."

Photograph of Andrea Dworkin found here