Domestic Violence: Still not chic

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Catchfire Catchfire's picture
Domestic Violence: Still not chic

...or artistic, or cutting edge

Quote:
The image pictured above is an ad for a hair salon.

It depicts a woman with a black eye sitting on a couch in a dress with her hair done up, and her apparent abuser standing behind her, holding out a piece of jewelry (presumably to make up for inflicting the black eye).

The implication of this ad is that, as a woman, your desire to be beautiful should extend to any situation, even when you’re being beaten by your partner.

It’s tired, offensive, and disgusting, and it’s rightly inspired a number of people to speak out (see comments here).

When I come across such glibly sexist and unambiguously violence-apologist media, I’m often left with frustration that my feeling of rage and indignance aren’t enough. Why do people continue to make light of a topic that has brought about so much violence, pain, and death? Why don’t they understand how they are contributing to the problem?

Instead of asking “Is an ad featuring a battered woman offensive or artistic?”, as this article does, we should ask “is an ad depicting a woman’s black eye as a glamorous accessory and her violent perpetrator as a jewelry-bearing lover creepy, disgusting, offensive, or all three?”

 

 

milo204

that ad makes me want to barf.  Sure your rich powerful asshole of a "partner" is beating the crap out of you, but forget about that!  you need to get your hair done and be beautiful so he will buy you expensive things to make up for the fact he is a total asshole!

then again, for the fashion industry this isn't that surprising, since all they care about is what you look like.  

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Saw this yesterday - horrifying.

It even goes beyond the obvious, the black eye - look at the framing, the man at a remove, standing over the woman, dominating the upper space in the frame, the woman's position with the leg arched on one side, precariously perched with the other leg akimbo, elbows in and forearms out - both an infantile and vulnerable pose.  Even without the black eye, the set-up would creep me out.

Lefauve

Sue the announcer, promothing violence is a criminal act. I'm sick that they use art to justified the unjustifiable. Sprada did also something extremely stupid by taking a 13 year old girl and dress her like a slut and ask her to behave like a slut, dam it! this is pedophellia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_3SDmz0Atw

In the end i suggest, complet boycote of sprada product. Promoting sick beavior is not acceptable, end of line. Sorry Catchfire, i think this thread will be much larger that you were thinking and might goes beyong feminism. I sugest as a new topic title: libertarian excess through art.

milo204

maybe not a good idea to refer to women as "sluts" in the feminist forum?  

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Lefauvre, two things, and both have to do with recognizing that you're in the feminism forum. First: "slut" is an anti-feminist and offensive term. Don't use it anywhere on babble, least of all in th feminism forum. Second, the frame you want to take is not really the frame I had in mind for this thread. You're welcome to start any thread you wish, but this thread is looking at this issue specifically from a feminist perspective. That means the systemic banalization and minimalization of violence against women, and the pathological obsession of our culture to desire to see women beaten, if not dead. I'm thinking of an America's Next Top Model photo shoot which put all the participating women in scenarios in which they played dead, even murdered women. You might find that listening in the feminism forum will serve you better than declaring, at least until you figure out the nature of this space. First and foremost, you need to remember that this space takes women, women's rights, and women's desires above anything else.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Not just the salon ad, either:

http://www.tylershields.com/2011/09/01/heather-morris/

http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvmusic/news/glees-heather-morris-sports...

 

Apparently sporting a black eye is all about being liberated.

WilderMore

Catchfire wrote:

Lefauvre, two things, and both have to do with recognizing that you're in the feminism forum. First: "slut" is an anti-feminist and offensive term. Don't use it anywhere on babble, least of all in th feminism forum. 

 

Slutwalk is OK though.

 

http://rabble.ca/toolkit/rabblepedia/slutwalk

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

WilderMore, why are you here? Do you have anything to contribute to this thread, or any?

"Slutwalk" (not "slut") is, in point of fact, a contested action among feminists. I refer you to ex-rabble intern Meghan Murphy's excellent blog post on the issue to get you started. I'm not sure what your point is, although I suspect I know your motive.

Timebandit wrote:
Apparently sporting a black eye is all about being liberated.

I don't know which is more troubling: that we are expected to swallow that logic, or that so many actually do...

WilderMore

Catchfire wrote:

WilderMore, why are you here? Do you have anything to contribute to this thread, or any?

"Slutwalk" (not "slut") is, in point of fact, a contested action among feminists. I refer you to ex-rabble intern Meghan Murphy's excellent blog post on the issue to get you started. I'm not sure what your point is, although I suspect I know your motive.

 

My point is that you get all worked up over "slut", but yet allow "slutwalk" (i.e. a slut walking) without complaint. Either slut, and all its derivatives, is wrong or it (and they) aren't. And I could go on about how words can be claimed ("nigger" and "queer" for example) by oppressed groups, thereby destroying the power of the word to do harm. Could "slut" not someday have the same fate? It seems it's on the way to achieving some level of respectability. But then, that wouldn't fit into your well-set, dinosaur world view. And knowing how upset you get when you lose an argument, I wouldn't be surprised if you suspend me (although, heh heh, I suspect you'll say it's for something else entirely).

MegB

WilderMore wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Lefauvre, two things, and both have to do with recognizing that you're in the feminism forum. First: "slut" is an anti-feminist and offensive term. Don't use it anywhere on babble, least of all in th feminism forum. 

 

Slutwalk is OK though.

 

http://rabble.ca/toolkit/rabblepedia/slutwalk

I'm not going to explain how Slutwalk is different, but before you post in the feminist forum again, you need to do some reading about feminism before you barge in here displaying your complete ignorance on the subject (not to mention derailing the thread).

pookie

Lefauve wrote:

 In the end i suggest, complet boycote of sprada product.

First,  the photo from the OP is digusting.

The average Prada handbag starts at four-figures (a keychain is a bargain at $300) so I don't know that it's the kind of company that can be successfully boycotted.  I guess you could boycott the knock-offs.

I dunno, I saw the video quite differently. The model did not look especially child-like.  I did not think she was underage. There is a bit of a school-girl vibe with the socks and maryjanes, but Prada's clothes are not sexy and that is not what it is selling.  It is selling extreme exclusivity. 

 

Lefauve

I'm sorry for shocking with the term slut, i was trying to point out the degradation and the way the girl was turn into an sexual object. And my second point i was making a link between the exploitation. so i will come back with the topic later on a dedigated post.

Now for the beat up women picture, i wonder if the case as been declare to a procecutor. I think that picture can be intepreted as an hate crime, which is register in the criminal code as 318.2b:promothing the submission of a person or a group to a treatment that will end up with a physical destruction.

If not i think that will be a good idea to post a complaint to the police.

Red Tory Tea Girl

For those of who who missed it, a similar DV ad came up shortly after this disaster, though in this case the victim is presented as male.