sigelphoenix

You know Dove's new advertising campaign? The Campaign for Real Beauty? It involves 'models' who are not professional models, whom Dove picked for having more realistic body sizes. They're running an ad with these women pictured in their underwear.

The Chicago Sun-Times ran this editorial about the ads. The first part is written by the woman whose name is on the byline. The second part, though, "Reserve billboards for the unattainable," is by another writer, a man named Lucio Guerrero. Just ... go read it. You'll understand.



Mr. Guerrero,

I'm sure you've had a lot of feedback concerning your article in the Sun-Times
about the new Dove ad campaign. Other people have probably said most of what I
want to say, so I won't repeat it. I just have one question:

The first part of the article states that "... the ads are designed to boost
women's self-images and, as Harousseau says, show that 'real beauty can be
genuinely stunning.'"

You say, "Hopefully, Dove will come back to its senses and make my morning
commute [...] a little more pleasing to the eyes."

Which do you think is more important, honestly? Your ability to go through you
morning commute without being mildly unsettled by seeing real women (whom you
acknowledge as being realistically beautiful), or the chance for women to get a
little variation from the standard images of small-waisted, large-breated
models? As for my answer, as you might guess, it would be the latter. I would
even go further and say that *all* men's aesthetic sensibilities could withstand
a little shake-up, if it meant that maybe, maybe, the women who see this ad
campaign -- women who often turn to anorexia, bulimia, or unnecessary cosmetic
surgery in order to emulate these images of unrealistic beauty which dominate
advertising -- could get a reminder that no, skinny models aren't the only ones
who are beautiful. No, they aren't the only other women who aren't the same size
as what they see on TV. No, they don't have to be afraid that some man will see
*them* in their underwear and tell them, "Yikes." No, they don't have to conform
to what you, or another man, or another woman, tells them is beautiful enough.

Sincerely,
Dora Wang



I'm hoping to get a response, in which case I'd post it.

For further references, go here to see a picture of the ad in question, and here for the post on feminist that I originally saw this story from. The writer's email is lguerrero [at] suntimes [dot] com. And finally, this article is a lovely response to the response.

EDIT: See this for Guerrero's response to one of the emails. And this ... *sigh* This is the supposed 'apology,' or some facsimile thereof.

The problem, as these demonstrate, is that these people (men and women) are taking it as a big joke. They think that those of us who respond to it for what it is -- perpetuating stereotypes of a single universal objective of beauty based on skinny legs and big breasts -- are just crazy, obsessive, too serious. But it *is* a serious issue. I don't think these people understand the rates of eating disorders -- eating disorders which cause serious health problems and death -- that are a result of these standards, the ways in which women sink their money into weight-loss products and plans, the less quantitative but pervasive problem of discouragement that girls and women feel because they are shown these images all the time. Breaking the monotony of beautiful women of a single shape/size is not a joke. Worrying that you look 'wrong,' that you're unattractive, that you need to stop eating; dieting, starving, exercising, getting surgery, and dying; these things are not fucking funny.