I have sad news. Maybe you’ve already heard (I don’t have cable), Skechers has butt-toning Shape-ups for young girls…
When questioned about the implications of their product, President of Skechers Leonard Armato responded by comparing the product to the First Lady’s Let’s Move campaign (which is gender-neutral and doesn’t suggest children buy anything).
As Amy Robertson commented on Augusta Christenson’s article about the shoes:
01:12 PM on 5/13/2011I sell shoes in retail, and have young ladies come in and try on different types of toning shoes constantly. The majority of them are overweight and think that these shoes are going to help them lose weight. In reality, these ladies could spend the same amount or less on a running shoe that is going to give them support rather than instability (the premise behind shape-ups and all the work out shoes) and just EXERCISE! These shoes are NO replacement for exercising. The girls in the ads and videos look better because they worked out, not because they wore the toning shoes! Its false advertising.
I don’t really have anything to say. I’m just bitter about the whole thing. Alas, with the financial success of women’s butt-toning shoes which capitalize on women’s lack of self-esteem and our culture’s sexualization of women, why wouldn’t they create similar products for young girls?
Erin Ryan from Jezebel states:
…people will buy anything that offers the faint promise of the appearance of physical fitness without the actual doing of physical work. They’ll also buy anything that promises to help parents live vicariously through their children, and what America’s parents want are hot daughters.
Breaking news from my head: Little girls should not worry about toning their thighs and butts. They have decades of adulthood to develop a fucked up enmity with their bodies; why can’t we give them their first decade of life free from the “You’re Fat, Ergo Buy This Product” cacophony.
Ms. Magazine’s “No Comment” and Jean Kielborne’s “Killing Us Softly”
Every year since Ms. Magazine hit newsstands as part of the roaring Women’s Liberation Movement in 1972, the magazine has always included a “No Comment” section on its last page. This page featured advertisements, submitted by readers, that were insulting or degrading to women, but always in the vein of political or social action. Ms. Magazine: “Some make us roll our eyes. Others inspire us to write letters or to boycott products.”
And you know what? Ads over the past forty years haven’t gotten all that better. For example, here’s a classy product for suitcase stickers from July 2010:
Here’s what Stephanie Hallett from the Ms. Magazine blog had to say about this:
Jean Kielborne in her film series “Killing Us Softly” (now in it’s fourth edition) provides an in-depth examination of the sexual objectification and degradation of women in advertisements. Watch a snippet from her latest, “Killing Us Softly 4” below:
So what do we do with this? Get involved! One privilege of living in a capitalistic consumer-driven country is the power to put our money where our mouth is. You can submit your images to Ms. Magazine via letterstotheeditor@msmagazine.com, join this Flickr “No Comment” group or start one in another online community. Check out some of the “No Comment” archives for inspiration here.
I’ll begin with Urban Outfitters. Can their models get any younger or any skinnier? Or paler?
Leave a comment
Filed under Uncategorized
Tagged as advertisements, consumerism, feminism, gender, Jean Kielborne, Killing us Softly, media, Ms., No Comment, sexism, Urban Outfitters, women's rights