Whenever I discuss the issues of beauty, self image and the media – in a critical way – people instantly mention the Dove campaign for “Real Beauty,” invariably saying, “Wasn’t that wonderful, for a change?” Yes. And no. Because (a) it was heavily retouched in Photoshop by Pascal Dangin (b) Dove is owned by Unilever, which sells Slim Fast and the #1 skin whitening cream brand in Asia (c) the ultimate purpose of the ad is to sell a product – and smartly so, by differentiating the brand with the illusion that what they care about is real beauty (their sales shot up 700% in the UK with the – albeit retouched – Pro Age campaign showing older women). For more on Dove’s corporate hypocrisy, check out this earlier post: “An Egregious Example of Corporate Hypocrisy: Dove’s “Real Beauty” Campaign.”
Indeed, if you examine it closely, a Chomsky quote would be really appropriate regarding Dove’s “Real Beauty” (Photoshopped) campaign:
One of the ways you control what people think is by creating the illusion that there’s a debate going on, but making sure that that debate stays within very narrow margins.
Now, criticism aside, once every blue moon a campaign comes out carrying a positive, empowering message to womenwith no strings attached. No products to sell. No corporate image to make-over. Just pure, undiluted positivity. It’s the case of the award winning PSAs by the wonderful organization Girls Inc.
Their YouTube page does not allow embedding the video on external sites, so click on the link below to open up the video in a new window:
Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, said the Bush administration had “finally made the device approval process so meaningless that it’s intolerable to the scientists who work there.” Ms. Zucker, a longtime critic of the agency’s device approval process, particularly as it relates to breast implants, added, “Virtually everything gets approved, no matter what.”
The F.D.A. has a three-tiered approval process for medical devices that, depending on their newness or complexity, requires varying amounts of proof.
A growing chorus of critics contends that the agency requires few devices to complete the most rigorous of these reviews and instead allows most devices to be cleared with minimal oversight. In 2007, 41 devices went through the most rigorous process, compared with 3,052 that had abbreviated reviews.
To learn more about the downsides of breast implants – and their potentially disastrous consequences for women’s health – check out Kacey’s site: Implants Out. Essential read.
