The male oppressor with the vulnerable and scared female.

If it looks like violence against women and it smells like violence against women, is it violence against women? Nope. It could be the anti-animal testing campaign Fighting Animal Cruelty by cosmetics company Lush and About-Face frequent offender PETA. The new campaign by the two companies has become a worldwide phenomenon in a matter of weeks by having a performance artist sit in a Lush store window and undergo cosmetics testing by a male doctor.

PETA’s campaigns are famous for being shockingly sexist by openly comparing women (not all people — women) to animals. At this point, it’s not ignorance that PETA can fall back on: “I didn’t know that putting Pamela Anderson in a bikini on a billboard and comparing her to a cow was objectifying women” doesn’t work as an excuse anymore.

The Lush campaign manager, Tamsin Osmond, has stated in a recent post:

I am very aware and very sad that campaigning groups have capitalized on titillating images of women…on images and storylines that encourage the abuse of women… We felt it was important, strong, well and thoroughly considered that the test subject was a woman… the oppressor was male and the abused was vulnerable and scared.

The "performance" as it took place in London.

I’m going to move past the ironic first sentence there because I think it speaks for itself – perhaps Lush and PETA should look at their own campaigns before being “very sad” that campaigning groups are capitalizing on the abuse of women. The point I would like to focus on is that the woman was chosen as the victim because she is, as all women are taught to be through the media, vulnerable and scared.

This seems to be a self-perpetuating cycle. If campaigns can capitalize on the vulnerability of women as they are portrayed through the media, then these portrayals will continue until someone says “stop.” Fortunately for PETA but not so much for women, 2.5 times more money is put toward preventing animal abuse than toward preventing abuse against women because humans can be easier blamed for their circumstances. There is a belief that battered women are free to leave the situation, whereas animals are not granted the same responsibilities.

Of course, this is not to suggest that PETA should stop raising awareness about animal abuse. But perhaps the organization could try a little less human female battering and a little more puppy eyes in their campaigns.

Emily Heer lives in Squamish, British Columbia, Canada and is pursuing an undergraduate degree in journalism. She loves dance, photography, music, and her inspiration is gender-equality guru Susan Bordo.

Plan UK, a non-profit that brings educational opportunities to children in developing countries, has decided to invest their advertising dollars in facial recognition technology as part of their Because I am a Girl campaign. The 40 second, interactive ad plays on a screen adjacent to a billboard after scanning the faces of its viewers and determining that they are female.

The video shows footage of three 13-year-old girls from the UK, Mali and Thailand talking about their hopes and dreams and the harsh limitations that girls face growing up in developing countries, as well as the drastic lack of resources available to them. The organization cites that 75 million girls around the world are denied access to education every year, with 10 million in developing countries being forced into marriage under the age of 18 and thousands more giving birth to children at very young ages.

Plan UK CEO, Marie Staunton says, “Millions of girls across the globe are being denied the right and choice to have an education. This ad is a deliberate attempt to raise public debate on this issue. Plan’s Because I am a Girl campaign works with women and men, girls and boys, to challenge the discrimination that girls face as a result of their sex. We work to challenge negative stereotypes.”

Gender-targeted advertising promotes educational equality.

The pricey ad (a 2 week run costs around 50k) boasts a 90% accuracy and the organization funding it claims that its aim is to give men “a glimpse of what it’s like to have basic choices taken away.“ When the facial recognition technology determines a male is viewing the ad, they are simply shown a website to visit where they can get more information on Plan UK.

The Because I am a Girl Campaign highlights the ways in which girls in poverty are drastically limited in terms of their educational opportunities in comparison to their male counterparts. Staunton makes a point to say that boys and men do play an essential role in combating this sort of discrimination and invites them to join the cause. The campaign encourages feedback by using the Twitter hashtag #choicesforgirls.

Currently, the screen is only installed at one bus stop, but there are plans to expand this mode of marketing if it proves successful. London is famously known for their extensive, city-wide surveillance system, so having one’s face captured and digitized may not feel as invasive to the citizen already used to the watchful eye of cameras.

How the ad responds to transgender individuals or others who don’t identify with a man/woman gender binary, still remains to be seen, as does its overall effectiveness as a new form of target marketing. But the ability to engage consumers through this type of medium can undoubtedly be powerful if used the right way. Until this technology shows up in an exploitative fashion, it’s comforting to see it used to generate attention toward a good cause that empowers women and promotes equality in exposure to resources. Plan UK deserves major props for a marketing strategy with such strong symbolism.

-Heather

The findings, published in the June 2012 issue, weren’t very surprising to me. Heavier women were often regarded as lazy, slow, undisciplined, and giving, while thin women were perceived as conceited, bitchy, mean, and controlling.

Even the accompanying image depicts the thin woman as mean! She glares, straight-faced, at the heavier woman, while she subtly smiles at the camera.

Your attention may have been drawn to the fact that heavier women were labeled “giving.” What’s the problem with that? You might be wondering. Ann Kearney-Cooke, Ph.D, tells us, “It just fits into the stereotype that thin women are not that way.”

While weight stereotyping is nothing new, I don’t think I’ve seen many mainstream magazines talk about the ways in which women of all sizes are stereotyped and judged. I’m really glad that Glamour has reached out and contributed to this discussion about how heavy and thin women are affected by harmful stereotypes.

I do, however, have to point out something I found a bit problematic. The accompanying image with the article is typical, at best. It features a heavy woman and a thin woman, but of course they both have long, straight, blonde hair, they are both white, and have skin airbrushed to perfection. Just saying.

Glamour’s “overwhelming conclusion” of this poll states, “All women are now judged by their size.” I don’t think this is anything new, or a secret for that matter. During the last few months, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how thin-shaming is just as harmful as fat-shaming. The whole “real women have curves” mantra, for example, suggests that thin women aren’t “real.” What’s up with that?

Another example of this is the internet meme that went around for a while on Facebook and Tumblr (if not other social networking web sites as well), featuring images of very thin Hollywood celebrities, juxtaposed with curvier celebrities of the past. The image featured the text, “When did this become hotter than this?” It asks us when super-thin body types became “hotter” than curvy body types. I knew the image didn’t sit well with me, but didn’t take the time to think about why until I saw the same image at a later date with some editing done on the text part. Someone had crossed out all the text after, “When did” and added, “the shaming of anyone’s body become okay?”

No one should be shamed for their body type, whether it's thin, curvy, anything in between, or anything beyond.

I saw this image and thought, Yes! That’s right! This is exactly why this meme made me cringe every time a friend reposted it. The shaming of anyone for their body type is not okay. Ever. And we have to stop pitting ourselves against one another like this (and letting other people, or internet memes, do it for us). There are as many body types as there are people out there. None should be considered more valuable than others.

This brings us back to the Glamour article. I think it really brings to light, in a more mainstream way, the way that women are constantly judged on their appearances, especially body size, and how it is so frequently done by other women.

I’ll conclude by saying: Stop it. Stop judging other women. I know we’ve all done it before—seriously, no one is innocent—but it has to stop now. You can’t possibly know anything about a woman’s life based on her weight. You can’t know if a heavy woman is healthy, or lazy, or giving, just as you can’t know that a thin woman is superficial, ambitious, or vain.

As the Glamour article concludes, “Hit pause the next time you find yourself sizing someone up. Every time you stop weight-judging in its tracks, you help the world see women for who they really are.” And don’t we all want to be seen for who we really are? Isn’t that, at the very least, what we deserve? I think so.

-Stacey

The more accepting I am of my body, the less likely I am to feel like this!

A few recent studies that have been published in the past few weeks highlight these issues well. One new study out of UCLA has again proven that strong self-perception is key to the prevention of risky behaviors in teen girls.

The results of this study showed that overweight girls who had high body satisfaction and who were happy with their size and shape were less likely to engage in a range of unhealthy and disordered eating behaviors like fasting, skipping meals, and self-induced vomiting. And extra-importantly, the study also showed that these girls had lower rates of anxiety and depression, which are so disturbingly common among girls with developing eating disorders.

And the best thing about the study’s results was the discussion that these public health experts, dieticians, and professors had, in which they emphasized that for effective, healthy weight-loss interventions for teens who may need to lose weight for real medical reasons (preventing the onset of diabetes or hypertension and increasing cardiovascular health, for example), these programs need to be rooted in positive self-esteem and the enhancement of self-image. When you feel better about yourself, you want to keep taking care of yourself. You are also more likely to want to share yourself with others, and creating positive social networks increases the likelihood that people will have supporters pushing them to stay healthy.

So why do companies, organizations, media outlets, and other vocal critics keep harping on the idea that shame, insults, and bullying will help people lose weight? To me, the root of this problem lies in the thought that anyone else’s weight is anyone else’s business. And another recent study has unfortunately shown something I find really upsetting. Even preschoolers – remember, that’s ages 2 to 5 – show negative perceptions of overweight children.

Body image judgment may already be ingrained in these kids!

The way this study was conducted involved an adult reading four different stories to a group of children, in which one character was “nice” and the other was “mean.” They then showed the children pictures of one overweight figure and one normal weight figure, and asked them to select which one was the “nice” character from the story and which was the “mean” character.

Nearly half of all students said that in all four stories, the overweight figure was selected as the “mean” one. Mind you, these figures had no faces. No physical expressions. One was just bigger than the other. And because of that, the children thought they were meaner.

I mean… whoa. Ages 2–5 are in the early developmental stages, when children are absorbing and processing and incredible amount of information – verbally, visually, and physically. Weight is not a characteristic that is inherent in measures of good versus evil.

What this shows is that children are inundated with messages, both direct and indirect, from so many different sources at such a young age, that the idea of being overweight is coded as bad in so many ways, that it seems nearly inescapable. To me, this means we have to keep making intense efforts to combat these messages, because we are climbing one steep hill.

-Larkin

A "Barbie-fied" Katniss: Progressive or Regressive?

Joining the ever-growing pop culture collection, the Katniss emulation is sold alongside other blockbuster-inspired dolls: classic favorites like the belly-baring I Dream of Jeannie doll, royalty replicas of Wedding Will and Kate, and the ubiquitous Twilight duo. Part of this assortment also surprisingly included female versions of Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley.

So of course the powers that be at mega-toy-giant Mattel know a good business decision when they see one, and The Hunger Games is no exception. To be fair, the actual doll version has Katniss dressed in her Games attire, her braid trailing down her back, and a mini Mockingjay pin affixed to her lapel. She even has her signature bevy of arrows slung across her back, bow and quiver in hand, boot-clad, and poised for action.

With a purchasing limit of five and a price tag of $29.95, the doll isn’t the doe-eyed damsel typically associated with the traditional Barbie. But I am still skeptical as to whether morphing Katniss into a Barbie reduces all the empowerment and aspiration her character represents.

As Larkin so eloquently pointed out in her last piece on Bald Barbie, Barbie dolls historically have symbolized deeply embedded female stereotypes, the pinnacle of femininity, and arguably a historical pop-culture mark of objectification. Not to mention how they model unrealistic body proportions and reinforce specific standards of beauty and attractiveness. While the diversity in terms of race has expanded in years, it is still drastically unequal. The majority of BarbieCollector’s offerings pander to the classic collector and are not sold in stores, which is unfortunate. It is the non-traditional dolls that should be adorning shelves, not the countless carbon copies of the same Malibu crew.

In comparison to the other characters that Mattel has modeled their dolls after, Katniss appears progressive. Sure, she isn’t a twin of Happy Birthday Barbie in a bejeweled ball gown, or her Mermaid cousin clothed in swaths of iridescent shimmer and sporting a frilly fin.

Don't be fooled: beneath the warrior wear is the same manufactured mold.

The aim of the doll isn’t to combat the inherent stereotype deeply embedded into the Barbie identity, but rather, as creating designer Bill Greening told Entertainment Weekly, he “chose to dress her in the outfit she wears during the games, since this is where all the non-stop action takes place and is instantly recognizable by fans.” So, the fact that she is not rivaling her Barbie cohorts in her Reaping dress has less to do with honoring the positive and empowering attributes of her character and more to do with character continuity.

Also what about the anti-corporate beliefs that the character in the film holds and her commitment to rebellion against the Capitol? Barbie is famously a mark of mass merchandising efforts on so many fronts. Surely Katniss would be against becoming a product in the same way she frequently states that doesn’t want to be an object, a pawn in the Games. Isn’t making her character into a doll doing the same thing?

Mattel’s aim is certainly more of a calculated business decision rather than any attempt to offer up a more realistic role model or combat traditional stereotypes about their dolls and what they mean for girls and women.

Sure, Katniss is a welcomed sight among the sparkly swimsuits and glittering garbs that adorn many of the other selections on the site. But Mattel has been complicit with culturally commodifying women for decades. Now when they appear to softly step outside the box to capitalize on Katniss and grab a slice of the prosperous pie that is The Hunger Games, they are to be lauded? I don’t think so.

While the doll’s outfit resembles Katniss’, her proportions still remain ridiculously unrepresentative of reality. Little girls who play with Barbies are still subconsciously receiving the message of an ideal body type and definition of attractiveness. Under those cool clothes, Katniss is still a plastic product of unattainable perfection.

Do you think this doll reinforces stereotypes or combats them? Should we give credit to a company who unintentionally produces products that go against a stereotype they have spent decades creating and reinforcing? To me, this is a zero-sum game; same “Barbie” different “cover.”

-Heather

Get your ordinary Russian girls here!

Oh, I don’t take issue with the fact that the documentary film exists. Nope. My beef is that it verifies just how much our culture still promulgates the notion that for girls, being a model (or in many cases at least looking like one) is the be-all-and-end-all. The top. The best form of existence a woman could hope for. Of course, it’s an age-old myth, but ever since the heyday of the original supermodels of the ’80s and ’90s (Claudia! Christy! Cindy! Naomi! Linda!), it’s been increasingly intense.

It doesn’t matter how many exposés come out, or how many times Tyra cautions her America’s Next Top Model wannabes that modeling is hard work (they have to do bikini shoots in the winter, memorize lines to Cover Girl commercials and “smize” all the damn time, after all).

At this point two generations of women (Gen Xers and Millennials) have been brought up in a world where models are among the most celebrated and most financially well-off women in the world. So is it any wonder that many of them (cue Russian cattle call of skinny, fair teens) want it for themselves?

Man, did I ever want to model. (Yes, that's me.)

The first time I came across this passionate desire to model was with, well, myself actually. Growing up in New York City, just blocks from the Ford Models headquarters (which was home to Christie Brinkley, Carol Alt, Kim Alexis, and Cheryl Tiegs, to name a few), I noticed early that if a girl was able to say she was a model—to advertise that she had earned that cultural stamp of approval that meant she was certifiably beautiful—that she seemed more valuable.

Other girls wanted to be like her (even though they might have hated her) and most guys, of course, wanted to date her. So I set out on that path, too (Luckily, I learned early on in my modeling career that I didn’t like “playing a part,” which is, er, pretty much what models do… so I cut bait).

But when I landed as an editor at YM magazine in the late 1990s, I was shocked to learn (via e-mail and letters sent in that included photos of teen readers in their bathing suits, or even school portraits shot in bad lighting) how many other girls nationwide were dreaming the same dream.

One example still sticks with me today: it came from a reader who wrote in that she was quitting volleyball (her passion!) because she was worried that a ball could hit her face and ruin her chances of being discovered at the mall. She knew, she wrote, that Kate Moss had first been scouted at an airport and was hoping for similar good fortune.

The same sentiment came up time and again when I was talking to teens about modeling while researching my book All Made Up: A Girl’s Guide to Seeing Through Celebrity Hype and Celebrating Real Beauty. In fact, it was in the voice of nearly every teen girl I spoke with. And is it really any surprise when their media diet has included shows like Paper Dolls (a 1984 nighttime soap that introduced Nicolette Sheridan) and Models Inc., the 1994 Melrose Place spin-off where Linda Gray–better known as Sue Ellen from Dallas–played an Eileen Ford-like model matriarch). Or reading books like The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Becoming a Model or The Modeling Life.

And let’s not forget to mention newer iterations like America’s Next Top Model (now in Cycle 18, people, if you can believe it) and its copycat spawn, like Bravo’s Make Me a Supermodel, TLC’s A Model Life, Oxygen’s The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency, and VH1’s The Agency. Because the thing about all of these examples is that while they may purport to lay bare the ugliness that can exist in the industry, they still make us want it for ourselves, and want it bad.

It’s not rocket science to conclude that as long as the Gold Ring of being catapulted out of obscurity onto the global stage to enjoy all the money and affirmation one world can throw at you still exists, girls like Nadya (and their decision-making parents) will be willing to roll the dice in the hope of winning big. And should they actually make it, it’s probably a wild ride that most of us can’t fathom.

But what about the girls who don’t? Those who leave school at thirteen to try to make it big in Japan, or who quit volleyball and the other activities they love. What about all of us who live in a culture still brimming with messages about how valuable it is to look like, be like, or be a model? Sure, most of us end up escaping that desire, pursuing other goals and considering other women role models. But apparently a significant number still don’t—which is why there are enough girls to make a documentary about, and why Girl Model is garnering so much buzz.

Audrey D. Brashich is the author of All Made Up: A Girl’s Guide to Seeing Through Celebrity Hype and Celebrating Real Beauty.

When I looked like this, it was my cold attitude people made fun of...

Some of the actual posts I saw included: “Wow, Betty, you’ve…changed,” and “Betty, you appear to have grown a lot since last year!” and “Now I know what Betty was doing for the past two years – eating!” These were spoilers for me, so when I eventually did see that week’s episode, I wasn’t as shocked by her changed physical appearance as other viewers were.

Betty’s character on this popular series has always largely revolved around her preoccupation with her appearance, which was built upon her experience as a fashion model and a mother who she admits controlled her food intake as a child. It was also predicated on the time period in which she was living: Although women were gaining professional experience and garnering the benefits of newly emerging feminism, their value was still very much judged by their appearance.

So is it any surprise that Betty views her weight gain with not only such disdain, but also with such vocal derision?

When she finds out that her weight gain is not the result of a thyroid condition or tumor, she says, “Nothing like being put through the ringer to find out you’re just fat.”

And it appears that although Betty Francis lives in the 1960s, people living in 2012 agree with her (shocking, I know). So I can’t say I was shocked to come across an entire Twitter account devoted to Betty’s weight gain, with the name “Fat Betty Francis”.

... but now that I look like this, you can just attack me for my weight!

The background of the page is images of ice cream cones, donuts, and cupcakes. The tweets are full of quips about Betty’s supposed new obsession with food – “Ahh what-a-week, people can be cruel. I’m taking a nap on the daybed, while Carla prepares a tray of Beef Stroganoff Burritos for Linner,” and one I think sums up a lot of Betty’s real issues, “I hate this place, I hate our friends, I hate this town, but I do LOVE garlic butter dipping sauce with my cheesy breads.”

Many women gain weight in middle age, particularly after having children, particularly if – and this is at the root of Betty’s problem, I believe – they are struggling with real depression. Betty so clearly, in all her appearances on screen, is deeply unhappy – restless, bored, and obviously full of self-loathing, and spent years dealing with an alcoholic, philandering husband (in Don Draper) whom everyone else fawned all over.

This Twitter account hasn’t even been around for a month and it already has over 5,000 followers, who find these little self-medicating-with-food jabs pretty funny. One blogger claimed that if “Betty didn’t mind her weight, I wouldn’t either.” Really? If someone is distressed by their weight, it makes it OK for others to pile on the insults? But if she were totally accepting of her weight gain, people would back off? Somehow I doubt that.

Not only is this an outright slam against overweight people, offering an endless array of one-liners to shame food choices, but this has eclipsed her entire character. She is now being written about as nothing but a “fat housewife” who should be mocked for finishing her daughter’s sundaes and not wanting her husband to see her naked, but she is far more complex than most give her credit for. I really hope that her internal life is explored in more detail.

-Larkin

Ireland’s small size and historical lack of political and economic power, as well as its location between the United States and Britain (two dominant, wealthy, image-driven cultures) necessitated that it fall more in step with westernized-secularized ideals. Its other option would have been to take the lead with Catholic values, as the Church and Vatican originally hoped.

Our familiar world…

The Church still possesses the power to shield young Irish people from matters of sex: from its limiting of health education in schools to the enduring impression it has left on older generations who continue to reinforce its position.

Nonetheless, mainstream media continues to challenge this. In the U.S. and U.K., media pervades all aspects of Irish public and private life. The power and influence it has on younger generations of Irish people mirrors the power and influence that the Church once had in previous times. Recurrent media messages and imagery have become the basis for a universal language that is now so widely familiar, and so much a part of everyday life, that it is taken for granted.

Lucena Clinic, University College Dublin, and Crumlin Childrens Hospital (three prominent Irish institutions) conducted a body-image survey involving 3,000 Irish adolescents. The results are unsurprising. 71% reported that they were negatively affected by body-focused imagery and messages promoted by the media. However, the extent of young girls’ (Irish ones included) direct media exposure on a regular basis is becoming less of an indicator of just how media-influenced they can be. People on the ground, in everyday life, have become the great disseminators of popular media. We are bombarded by it, so naturally we are going to invest in it, process it, take it in as our own, and pass it on.

The logic we devise from this process shapes our world outlook and motivates us along various paths. Nonetheless, the body has become fodder for the media and this clearly has an impact. Everywhere we turn there is some reference to sex and bodies, mostly women’s bodies. Developing a sense of self and the body at an early stage has become entangled with how we view the world.

...and the other familiar, perhaps more alluring, world of Irish girls.

Imagine being a young girl growing up in Ireland, a culture that openly discourages sex education but allows such things as under-16 discos, where dressing like soft-porn stars is the norm. Additionally, such factors as changes to traditional family structure and the increasing importance of high social status achieved through having expensive things — compounded by the ever-enduring pressure to fit in and be liked — are real issues that teenagers continue to contend with within a local and global context. This, of course, is exacerbated by the broader forces of modern capitalist values and the drive of consumerism, all out of our control and all becoming more prevalent in modern Ireland.

We know that young girls the world over are disproportionately affected. The Church’s tight-lipped approach to sex and the ethos and shame about the body that continues to line Irish discourse means that Irish girls are left on their own to negotiate ideas about sexuality and the body. Well not entirely, because they always have TV, magazines, and the Internet — all global guardians of our youth.

Media is a marvel, and it has proven to be a wonderful thing in a lot of ways, but its fascination with sex and the female body — which has become our fascination — has transformed the collective consciousness in societies like Ireland. As in the early days, there are two voices in Ireland: the voice of the Church and the voice of media. It doesn’t take a genius to know which one is louder and more powerful. As long as Irish girls are out there, exposed to it, without proper support and education, having all the cop-on in the world won’t matter.

-Tara

Cleverly unclear cover art: Tender touch or simulated strangulation?

Lana Del Rey’s recent video release for “Blue Jeans” is deeply disturbing on so many levels. The cover art preceding the video’s debut channeled a messed-up Little Mermaid meme where an inert Lana lies in a questionable stage of consciousness as a disembodied, tattooed hand stretches for her jugular.

I guess I was hoping the video would prove my suspicions wrong and showcase this individual tilting her head back tenderly, priming to caress her face. Unfortunately, this was not the case and the release of the video provides minimal clarification on the cover art.

Shot in black and white with a poolside setting, a retro one-piece-swimsuit-clad Lana watches the heavily inked object of her desire strip down to his skivvies from a voyeuristic corner.

It’s hard to say exactly what the aim of the video is, besides the fact that it is clearly evocative and creepy. There is a lot of kissing and cavorting in the pool, underwater body shots and a duo of alligators thrown in for good measure. A strange scene starts with a clip of the love interest reaching for her throat, but a beat later cuts to him sticking his fingers into her mouth in an eroticized fashion.

The video itself is highly sexualized, which makes the closing shots troubling — her suspected beau is shown pushing her head underwater. She registers a startled expression for a millisecond and the next clip is of her limp body in his arms. Finally, with his hands around her throat, he pulls them both under, Lana’s lifeless face drifting away from the surface. What started off within the context of a consensual sexual encounter seemingly turns ugly.

Sadly, this attempt at edgy eroticism is not a new aim. Many a designer label has utilized the same brand of vile advertising in which violence towards women is implied, and often sexualized, usually in an effort to toe the line of controversy without making a blanket statement. This video appears to join that category as a misguided attempt at being edgy and instead becomes distasteful.

The viewer is to understand Lana’s longing for the lankly Lothario, and the lyrics of “loving until the end of time” further affirm this. So the message becomes “I want you so badly that I am willing to allow you to do with me what you want, including potentially drown me or at best leave me semi-conscious and comatose.” For most of the video, she is passive to this man’s embrace. Her album is titled Born to Die. Enough said.

Given the staggering statistics of violence against women, continued portrayals of these eroticized images feed the notion that such behavior is acceptable, even sexy.

Because the intention of the encounter and context of the video is cleverly vague, it is hard to say with certainty what its true meaning is. But, in pop culture portrayals of women, when controversy is sought out to make a splash, it is hard to give this video the benefit of the doubt.

Showing a passive woman submissive to a man’s desires lends itself to objectification. This video is an excellent example of conveying a woman much like an inanimate play toy, save for her ability to participate in sexual acts. This makes her easily dismissed, devalued, often disrespected, and, in this case, dispensable. It is hard to imagine this video being innocent and not alluding to any anything vicious. It‘s relative ambiguity and covert connotation seems to be the aim. It calls forth an assortment of offensive and odious interpretations, one of which encourages and sexualizes violence. At the very least it is a careless depiction that normalizes female passivity in sexual encounters.

-Heather

Hi, I'm Barbie. As usual, I remain the pinnacle of beauty that everyone wants to emulate.

In recent years, Mattel has tried to tackle the claim that Barbie isn’t a particularly great role model by giving the doll a series of “careers” that are fairly diverse – engineer, teacher, architect, news anchor, dentist, vet – but of course, Barbie always remains looking very much same. Extremely skinny, with long flowing blonde locks, huge blue eyes decorated with sparkly makeup, and a plethora of fashions to help – of course – make her over! (Warning – I like the color pink, but the Barbie.com web site is… overwhelmingly, dauntingly pink.)

But apparently, one thing – just one, mind you – about Barbie is going to change. After a campaign launched on Facebook to make a bald Barbie received over 150,000 “likes,” Mattel agreed to make a bald Barbie. The description of the group says that the goal of a bald Barbie is to “help young girls who suffer from hair loss due to cancer treatments, alopecia, or trichotillomania,” as well as “for young girls who are having trouble coping with their mothers’ hair loss from chemo.”

I'm only normal in a hospital?

So, this is cool idea, right? Overall, I think it’s great – making a bald version of the iconic American doll to help normalize an element of cancer or other illnesses that can be really scary for little kids. Of course, it won’t be called Barbie… it will be a friend of Barbie’s.

OK, I can concede to that, I suppose. But the Facebook campaign was pushing to make bald Barbie available in stores, so anyone can buy them – something I think is a great idea, as it can be a great way to discuss with children the side effects of some illnesses in a less threatening way.

But when Mattel announced that they would be making the doll last week, they said that they would not be distributing them to toy store – they would be “selectively” distributing them through children’s hospitals. It feels a little bit like they’re trying to keep it a bit secret. One 15-year-old girl who suffers from alopecia said exactly what I was thinking – “If you’re wanting to make a Barbie doll that’s different, and you’re wanting to show kids who are different that they can be different, why not show it to normal kids so that they can accept the different kids?”

Precisely. Distributing the bald Barbies directly to children’s hospitals is a good way to get them directly and quickly to the kids that are being immediately impacted by hair loss. But it also serves to underscore the separation of these kids from children who have not lost their hair, treating them as something different, existing in a different world, instead of showing that just because you lost your hair doesn’t mean you are any less normal. I do applaud Mattel’s decision to make the doll, but I’d love it even more if anyone who wanted to could easily pick one up!

-Larkin