On the Map

Hateraid: International Commercials Edition

Mandy Van Deven — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:10:03 -0400

I read a lot, and in my perusal of the Interweb today I came across several international television commercials that had me wrinkling my nose, furrowing my brow, and rolling my eyes. I’m not easily offended, and really, I’m not sure it’s a feeling of offense that has me writing this post. It is more a response to my disappointment with the lack of creativity on the part of advertisers, feeling of boredom with their attempts at sensationalism, and surprise at the lack of sensitivity regarding a recent act of terrorism that has had global repercussions. None of the first three ads are suitable for work. "Tsunami" has the potential to be a trigger for those directly affected by 9/11. Proceed with caution.

AIDS is a Mass Murderer

I’m not entirely sure of the need for this ad to be so explicit, and maybe I don’t know enough about what is allowed on German television because this is one the places its creators intend the ad to be shown. The music and cinematography indicates something more sinister is at work, and the print ads are just as dark and grimy as the television spot. Despite their aim to lend credibility to the ad by associating it with World Aids Day, the UK nonprofit has condemned the ad saying, “I would be deeply shocked if it was planned by an official HIV organisation. I think the advert is incredibly stigmatising to people living with HIV who already face incredible amounts of stigma and discrimination throughout the world. On top of this it fails to provide any kind of actual prevention message (e.g. use a condom).” Touche!

Tsunami (aka Planes)

Is blaming “inexperienced staff” enough of an apology from DDB Brazil for this heart-stopping commercial, particularly when it attempted to lie, lie, and lie some more when confronted with global condemnation? The print version ran in a small San Paolo newspaper several months ago, and both it and the television spot were entered into the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival in June, so the ad agency must have been somewhat impressed with their underling’s creative abilities. It seems what they weren’t impressed with was the backlash, and now they're attempting to dig themselves out of a very deep and uncomfortable hole. Their client, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), wasn’t impressed either, and has spent several days denouncing the commercial and attempting to get it removed from the Internet sites that feature the spot saying, “The concept was summarily rejected by W.W.F. and should never have seen the light of day. It is an unauthorized use of our logo and we are aggressively pursuing action to have it removed from Web sites where it is being currently featured.” Quite a tsunami of scandal, no? Note to self: Don’t use other people’s trauma for political gain.

Georgia Mae Jagger for Hudson Jeans

My complaint about UK-based Hudson Jeans use of 17-year-old Georgia Mae Jagger in their porn-y Autumn/Winter ad campaign has morphed from disapproval into snark and scoff. As I mentioned in my previous post, Hudson Jeans is taking cues from a similar Calvin Klein campaign that ran in the mid-1990s. Unfortunately, the awkwardly delivered, cliché dialogue alongside terrible music, fast cuts, and dismembered body shots makes this commercial little more than ridiculous. Using one's parents' fame and fortune to make up for a lack of talent is sad. Right Paris?

But There is Hope
You didn’t think I was going to leave you all gloom and doom with no silver lining, did you? Here are a few examples of global ads that get it right.

UNICEF Tap Project’s “Desperate”

Shocking and disturbing yet with a sound message: clean water is a luxury for most of the world.

Breakthrough’s “Bell Bajao!”

Don’t be a bystander. I particularly like that this is aimed at men, and that one is set up to believe the man is going to pummel the domestic violence perpetrator, but that instead of meeting violence with violence, the guy simply interrupts the situation and subtly lets the perpetrator know he’s being monitored by simply asking for a cup of milk.

These two commercials show there’s a better way to convey a message without resorting to tired tropes and shock for shock’s sake. Time to raise the bar.

Woman in Assam Stones Eve Teaser

Mandy Van Deven — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:38:21 -0400

I've written before about women in India who resist eve teasing, but I felt a video from this week's television news warranted delving into the topic again. After being fondled and verbally disrespected by army jawan Gurvinder Singh in her own garment shop, a young woman took matters into her own hands by following the man around the open market while yelling at and stoning him.

“We respect the army, but he came and touched me after asking me to show some innerwear. I just lost my temper and hit him. I was scared. I filed an FIR because I don’t want any other woman to be subjected to this kind of harassment,” Rali Faihriem told Arunachal News.

Rali's protest is all the more impressive when taking into consideration the enormous army presence in Assam's Halflong hillstation. By attacking one of the military men, Rali put herself at risk, but cultural convention came to her aid as onlookers shamed Gurvinder for his indiscretion and his commanding officer publicly admonished him in order to appease the displeased crowd.

Watch this clip of tiny Rali standing up to the massive (and armed) Gurvinder, a modern day David and Goliath story.

Meanderings on Miss Moral Beauty

Mandy Van Deven — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:58:25 -0400

Fully covered by a full-length black abaya, 18-year-old Aya Ali al-Mulla, a high school graduate with high marks who hopes to go into medicine, beat out 274 other contestants for the title of Saudi Arabia’s Miss Moral Beauty, and received prizes valuing over 5,000 Riyal (or $1,300 USD). But one night of corporeal attractiveness and a brief Q&A does not a moral beauty make; success in this competition is gained by a three-month-long observation and judging of the contestant’s “dutifulness to parents and family,” “service to society,” “psychological state-of-mind,” and “social and cultural awareness.” And there’s no faking that.

Though my kneejerk reaction was something like, “This is bullsh*t!” I decided a look beyond the impulse and meander through the convergence/divergence of feminism and a moral beauty pageant. What struck me was the similarity in sentiment espoused by the spokesperson for Miss Moral Beauty and feminists who protest traditional beauty contests for their objectification of women.

Judging a woman by something other than a pretty, makeup laden face and stick-thin physique is an idea I think most feminists can get down with; in fact, it sounds like something straight out of a pageant protestor’s platform. For the judges of Miss Moral Beauty, beauty is something that is (and should be) located beyond a woman’s physicality, and instead of focusing on a woman’s body, they believe one should determine beauty by a person’s thoughts and actions. Pretty feminist-y, right? But you probably feel like something about this is sticking in your feminist craw—and I think I know what it is.

Who determines what thoughts and actions are beautiful? In the case of the Miss Moral Beauty contest, the rightness of the contestants thoughts and actions are determined by the Islamic standards of Saudi Arabia, which is where some (but not all) would say feminism and Miss Moral Beauty part ways.

Deepak Iyer attempts to clear things up a bit:

The only problem is when men start looking for those exact qualities in their women, forcing a widespread shift towards those qualities…But then that is true of most pageants and the culprit here is the willfulness of women to change for men, not what they change to.

Ah-hah! Is that what is missing from the analysis: Miss Moral Beauty is a construction of men while anti-pageantry feminism is a construction of women? Well, yes and no. Though I wish this post could be that tidily ended, I can’t help but feel that one dogma is as limiting as the next and question the idea that we need to end particular behaviors themselves instead of calling to the mat the values and assumptions behind those behaviors. By and for whom was this anti-pageant version of feminism constructed? What women aren’t represented in that brand of feminist ideology, and why aren’t they represented? Replacing one hierarchy with another isn’t an adequate solution, and I think Miss Moral Beauty makes that clear.

Hijab and Abaya fashion photos from Hijab Style

Radical Muslim feminist photo by Laggard and of Farheen Hakeem

A Hairy Situation for Women's Aid

Mandy Van Deven — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:10:50 -0400

When a group of hairdressers called The Hair Bares phoned the Scottish Women’s Aid (SWA) to inquire about making a £600 donation (that’s nearly $1000 USD), they received something of a shock. The organization refused to take it. SWA Spokeswoman Jacq Kelly explains:

We are a feminist organisation and of course we are happy that these women feel empowered by what they are doing. But, we are opposed to the sex industry and we have an issue with women removing clothes. There are underlying reasons for why a calendar of naked women sells so well and we as an organisation are not comfortable with this.

Okay. Point taken. Except that I can’t help but find the SWA’s rejection slightly hypocritical given their recent awareness campaign advertisement, which features actress Keira Knightley, who has routinely appeared nude in films and media, including the cover of Vanity Fair:

So if a group of domestic violence survivors offer their assistance it’s anti-feminist, but when a world famous actress does the same it’s cool?

The Hair Bares were taking cues from the 2003 film Calendar Girls, in which eleven middle-aged Englishwomen strip down to their birthday suits in order to raise money for a local hospital. The film was based on an actual calendar produced by the Women’s Institute that features each woman demonstrating a skill she’d learned from her participation in the organization. The media caught wind of the story, and the Women’s Institute ultimately raised over $3 million for the hospital, so it’s not difficult to see why The Hair Bares believe this type of fundraising to be effective. Group member Morag Hill is offended by SWA’s comments:

I had eight years of domestic abuse and I have always wanted to do something to raise awareness and funds…I don't see how our calendar has any sort of resemblance whatsoever to something selling in the sex industry…and I am deeply offended by what they have said. This calendar has been very tastefully done and I think that, rather than demeaning women, it empowers them…We will be going ahead with the calendar regardless of what they say as there are lots of women out there who need this help.”

Unfortunately, Hill is right, and I'm sure their funds will find an appreciative home elsewhere.

Is This Feminism at Work?

Mandy Van Deven — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:43:24 -0400

I'm confused, y'all. Normally beauty pageants wouldn't give me pause, but I feel the need to marinate on this year's Miss England contest. See, the winner is twenty-year-old Rachel Christie, a heptathlon competitor who's goal is to win the 2012 Olympic Games in London. She happens to also be the first Black woman to win the competition. While I would normally support the protest of UK feminist group Object, who organized a rally outside of the pageant for all of the reasons you'd expect (it's sexist, it's dehumanizing, it's disempowering), there was one objection I struggled with given the end results: it creates a racist ideal of beauty.

Since a Black woman won, is this claim negated? And if we take into account what Christie said to address this issue after her win ("I don't know why so few black girls enter. I think they think they won't win because beauty queens always have blond hair and blue eyes. I think they need to advertise more to change that."), should her personal success be viewed as a step forward for all women, particularly women of color? Is Object's prioritizing the end of sexist objectification over Christie's attempt to shift the societal standard of beauty away from Whiteness really the best hierarchy of oppressions, or are these two positions reconcilable?

And what about the fact that Christie isn't simply a beauty queen, but an athlete? It seems to me that she's pushing the boundaries of several stereotypes about what makes a woman attractive. In fact, according to The Independent, "she entered the contest in the hope of launching a modeling career that might fund her athletics training." So the lady was just using the contest to meet her "real" desire: to be an Olympian. Nothing wrong with hustling the system, right?

Perhaps this should be viewed as a win for feminism, after all. Let's hear it, folks. Yeah or neh?

Sprite Ad Is Overblown

Mandy Van Deven — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:03:37 -0400

My step-father isn't the kind of guy who typically stays on top of international news, but the story about this ad caught his attention... so much so that he called my mom immediately upon hearing it on the radio to tell her about the scandalous ad. My mom then sent my sisters and I an email with a YouTube link to the television commercial, which is why I'm writing this blog post. This chain of events leads me to ask myself, "Did Sprite really want the ad to air, or is this whole thing a big publicity stunt?" After all, any press is good press when it comes to marketing, right? And the most effective type of marketing is, ahem, oral and viral.

Regardless of the company's PR intentions, one thing is clear: the explicitness of the ad is shocking. Even my pro-sex sensibilities didn't stop my jaw from hitting the floor at the first frame, which shows a young, blonde, White girl on her knees in a kitchen seemingly performing oral sex on a tall, ripped, Black guy whose pleasure is apparent in his facial contortions. When we see the young woman's face, though, her eyes are glazed and distant as she thinks, "I could really go for a Sprite right now." Um, what?

*Pause video* The message conveyed to me at this point is that while the guy is fully enthralled in the sexual moment, the girl is detached and without pleasure. Instead of enjoying herself and being fully present in her intimate physical desires, her mind is wandering to her desire for soda. What does this say about female sexuality? That blow jobs are solely for men's pleasure? That women aren't "all in" when it comes to sex?

*Resume play* The girl pulls back, looks up at the guy, and thinks, "Oh my god." The man's face shows release. She goes in again, and the camera swings out to show the viewer that it wasn't a penis in the girl's mouth, but a phallic Sprite bottle. (Pause: So what the hell was the dude all orgasmic about?) As she pulls back for a second time, the viewer is treated to a slow-motion money shot; the young woman is sprayed in the face as the carbonated beverage bursts from its container. The liquid then dribbles out of her mouth and down her chin, and her grimace turns into a huge grin. One person's response to the ad was to say, "They might as well just show us a porno and put Sprites[sic] logo at the end of it!" And, well, that's kinda what they did since this ad is straight up softcore Porn 101.

I decided to dig a bit deeper into the interwebs because something didn't feel right, and it wasn't just my annoyance at the use of gender and sexuality tropes that perpetuate sexual myths. Was this commercial a big hoax? Yes, folks. It was.

The YouTube description of this ad calls it a "spec commercial," which is a demo created by an aspiring director that was not commissioned by the company, and that might have been the first tip to Perez Hilton, who first broke the story, that something was amiss. A spec commercial is a job seeking tool, and in this economy it's no surprise that the creator (Max Isaacson) might try to pass off this ad as real in order to get attention. Well, it seems to be working, except that people don't think this ad is cool. They think it's f*ed up.

The New York Press spoke to John Jones, the 23-year-old Brooklynite actor who received the faux-blow, and he has an interesting take on why the commercial is getting so much attention: "The controversy is the fact that she’s a White girl blowing me and I’m Black. That role reversal freaks people out." Though I do think the ad would have been startling regardless of the race of the actors, I absolutely agree with him. Interracial relationships are still taboo, and this commercial capitalizes on all the taboo it can get.

At the end of the day, I wonder what Coca-Cola will think of this director's 15 minutes of fame. I can't imagine the company--whose wholesome, fun-loving image is being tainted--will be all too pleased about being promoted by tired smut cliches.

Changing Beauty Standards With a Scalpel

Mandy Van Deven — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:20:23 -0400

French feminist carnal artist Orlan is sensational, in both senses of the word. Whether you find her work fascinating or repulsive, you're sure to feel something about Orlan's radical altering of her own body to explore and critique societal standards of beauty. Since 1990, Orlan has had several surgical procedures in order to transform herself into horrifying alternatives to idealized beauty--taking on characteristics of iconic artworks such as Venus and Mona Lisa--in order to point out the ways in which beauty is (literally and metaphorically) man-made. “The body is a sculpture and a pedestal,” she says.

Orlan intends for her work to be arresting: “Art has to shock to justify itself." Some of Orlan's more cringeworthy pieces are the performances that happen during the surgery itself. Holding a cross in each hand, one black and one white, a still-conscious Orlan depicts herself as a Madonna while the surgical staff peel away layers of her skin. Did your stomach just flip flop? Cuz mine did.

Despite its surface level grotesqueness, I find myself compelled by Orlan. My inner inclination is to view her as brave. There is strength in making the choice to be physically repellant, and Orlan lives with the disgusted reactions of others in order to make a larger point: "I am not sure I can change [social ideas of beauty], but I can produce images that are different from those we find in comics, video games, magazines, and TV shows. There are other ways to think about one's body and one's beauty. If you were to describe me without anyone being able to see me, they would think I am a monster, that I am not fuckable. But if they see me, that could perhaps change."

Orlan's commitment to her work and feminist ideology is unwavering and admirable. She takes personal risks and makes sacrifices that are not unlike those of grassroots organizers and other feminist activists whose praxis is commonly considered to be acceptable in the way of creating change.

Orlan's upcoming work featuring genetic DIY technologies will appear at the Casino Luxembourg in the sk-interfaces exhibit.

Ms. Magazine Offends with Summer Cover

Mandy Van Deven — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:00:30 -0400

Heidi Klum did it. The National Review did it. And now Ms. Magazine is doing it too. Apparently appropriating South Asian religion is all the rage this year, folks!

The cover of the upcoming summer issue features a middle class white American woman holding several items that represent work and family life in a multi-armed Hindu deity's pose. I get the juggling metaphor, and the sour look on her face informs that she's not too pleased with her conflicting situation. What I'm conflicted and not pleased about is the frequency with which American media and pop culture icons are co-opting South Asian religion to suit their aesthetic fancy.

The multiple arms on a god or goddess represent their strength and ability to multitask, and the multi-armed representation is not one that is appropriate for a human form, as the pose is intended to convey that these abilities are super-human. Another question that begs to be answered is which god or goddess is this woman supposed to be depicting? The number of arms in this cover (8) is quite uncommon. This seems to demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the part of the cover designer about depictions of and difference among Hindu deities, as well as confirms this use for solely aesthetic purposes.

It's completely inappropriate to utilize Hindu iconography in this context, mocks the religion, and diffuses the imagery of its "true" meaning. When a cultural or religious symbol is used for marketing purposes by cultural or religious outsiders that fail to convey respect for and understanding of the intricacies of that culture or religion, it is offensive. Westerners have a history of seeking to eradicate "Other" cultures and religions in favor of their own, and Ms. Magazine's perpetuation of this ethnocentric process is shameful.

Update: I ran across a few posts that mention this one, so I wanted to share them with you. Feel free to add your own blog responses in the Comments.

Keep Your Hands to Yourself - Taz @ Sepia Mutiny

Ms. Magazine's Cover Appropriates Hindu Imagery - RMJ @ Womanist Musings/Deeply Problematic

Ms. Magazine Appropriates South Asian Culture - Nina Jacinto @ WireTap

The Power and Protest of Public Sexuality in India

Mandy Van Deven — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:33:14 -0400

Before I moved to India, I was warned by many about the different cultural norms for public displays of affection among members of the opposite sex. Once I got there, though, I discovered that cultural norms are not so simple, and require one to consider questions like who had/has the right to determine what the norm has been/is currently, and how does one negotiate assimilating to a norm that is fluid and dynamic? After a year of being shocked and amused and confused and educated, I wrote an article that is way too long to be a blog post, but I'll give you one of the highlights, and if your fancy is sufficiently suited, you can read the entire article on SeXis.

Open displays of affection are prohibited in India, even among those who are married, and the mostly seemingly benign infraction may attract unwanted legal consequences. Rule of thumb: if it doesn’t pass the film censor board, don’t do it on the sidewalk. A married couple in Delhi learned that lesson the hard way in September when they were arrested for public pecking while parting ways one afternoon. Although the high court judge dismissed the case, fear of being arrested on charges of obscenity or forced to pay a bribe to escape police harassment keeps most couples from crossing this boundary. So ask yourself ladies, what would Preity Zinta do?
Yet where there are raging hormones, there are places to satisfy one’s urge for bodily contact. Similar to the retro overlooks where 1950s American teens discovered baseball metaphors, the youth of India have laid claim to scenic spaces of their own that facilitate an interesting type of public canoodling. After months of deftly avoiding the touch of men (my partner included) while navigating Kolkata’s crowded streets, I had to pick up my jaw from the dusty footpath when I stumbled upon one of the city’s not-so-secret places where teenagers publicly pronounce their private feelings.
There was scarcely a free bench around the lake at Rabindra Sarobar. Each one was occupied by couples who were tightly intertwined in love grips that would make a boa constrictor jealous. The participants warily eyed me while scanning in each direction for parents, aunties, or other possible known witnesses to their debaucherous bear hugs that lasted for hours. Finding that spot made me giggle for days before I started asking people if this place was an anomaly; it, of course, was not.

Time(s) to Focus on Women in the Developing World

Mandy Van Deven — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:48:45 -0400

So, I'm reading the New York Times online yesterday and come across an op-ed piece by Nicholas D. Kristof about this "special issue" of the Sunday Magazine that will be released in August covering women in the developing world. And I immediately feel conflicted. On the one hand, I think its enormously exciting that the NYT is dedicating an entire issue to global women's issues. On the other, I'm skeptical of what that coverage may be since the Times hasn't been fairing well with feminists these days. Will the issue be more paternalism and neo-liberalism? Or will it feature a more indigenous, grassroots perspective to issues women face? The good news is that you can comment on Kristof's op-ed to tell the NYT what you'd like to see in the issue.

No doubt the art work will be amazing, and Kristof does say that two photographers were bankrolled to run around from country to country snappin' pictures to their hearts' content. (I am soooo green with envy!!) He also discloses that an excerpt from his and his wife Sheryl WuDunn's upcoming book, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, will be featured, along with a mystery contest. In their book, the Pulitzer Prize winning couple argue "that the dominant moral challenge we face in the 21st century is to address gender inequality in the developing world, and that as a practical matter you can’t address poverty unless you empower women and girls." Not exactly a new idea, but it's one that hasn't entirely taken hold, and so is worth repeating.

I'm hesitantly excited to see what this issue may entail. Um, can a girl get a copy sent to India?

Photo credit: Yours Truly