Beaut.ie rant on Lush Stunt

Babooshka wrote: »

The writer who did the piece on their site drew comparisons with rape imagery and torture porn which was hotly contested by some. From what I can gather the admins had to go into overdrive protecting the site from what they said were extremely abusive posts from extreme animal rights activists, and I'd say they decided enough was enough. They're not a political debate board and I'd say they're more interested in keeping it all about the cosmetics myself, considering that's what they're about, I don't blame them for that. BUT. Sheesh I dunno, whatever happened to freedom of speech.

Given what actually made it into the comments section (like a lot of animal rights protesters not addressing the actual post, just going on about how "OMG the artist AGREED TO DO IT!!!111!" and how you must be okay with animal testing if you think this ad crossed a line) I'd well believe them if they said they were buried in abusive posts. And you're right they're not really a political debate board. I agree with you, I can understand why they felt it was just getting out of hand and I don't really blame them for taking down the post altogether if there was no way for them to stop accepting comments on the article and just leave it there without the risk of it wrecking the whole site or getting some kind of DDOS attack or whatever.

I don't think the actual comment thread was particularly "out of hand" as far as what actually got onto the site itself i.e. people disagreeing with each other and debating the issues, but God only knows what kind of crap they were actually having to go through and moderate.

Tamsin Omond, who wrote a piece in the Guardian defending the campaign, said 'A blog that upset and patronised everyone involved in our campaign – from the performance artist to the 5,000 staff in 800 shops across 49 countries who continue to push the petition – commented: "Women aren't marketing tools. Rape is not a gimmick."' She was quoting the Beaut.ie post. Tamsin Omond is Lush's campaign manager, by the way. Now, she's not suggesting that all the animal rights folk go and invade Beaut.ie, but clearly she - and therefore other Lush employees - were aware of the post.

Unfortunately the internet is chock full of crazy and the scenario of the whole beaut.ie staff spending the next month doing literally nothing but deleting abusive, threatening posts is actually very plausible. Nobody wants that. And although free speech is a good thing in principle, just look at the comments under any Youtube video to see how quickly free speech and anonymity together can turn into a disaster that makes you question the future of the human race. Posting on a website's comments thread isn't a right that you have to be granted at all costs (like in this case the cost would be punitive for everyone else). It's like being in a pub or cafe or other privately owned business - the management is entitled to set rules.

Still, I'm glad Smokeyeyes started this thread, even if she and I don't specifically agree on the whole "Was Lush going too far" question. Because healthy, respectful debate is good.
I think it was a bit much for L. to complain to her on Twitter about moving the discussion elsewhere, like the whole thing was going to go away just because Beaut.ie took the post down. Not professional! Smokey you don't need to defend this thread. I'm sure someone else would have started it if you hadn't.

I'm a fan of Beaut.ie because I like the writing, and I trust what they say about products they review. I'm content to go elsewhere for political debate especially if it makes other Beaut.ie readers uncomfortable. But I'm sad that what could have been a chance for all of us to really think about certain important issues turned into such a debacle.

Cocolola wrote: »

It just seemed to me that one of the staff came on the next day and posted up something like, and I'm completely paraphrasing here, "Sorry folks, those commenters who don't see the sexual assault in it are just crazy animal rights activists..." Now it's quite possible that I missed some comments that were out of line and that had been deleted before I got there but I'm just going on what I saw.

I don't remember that tbh, though I did see them saying that the comments were being moderated and one had been removed for being rude or something. Like, they weren't being unfair by making the pro-campaign commenters adhere to any special rules or anything, just warning them not to be dickheads about it. They still allowed everyone to have differing opinions, it's not like they were silencing anyone.
I know some of the Beaut staff commented on the thread with their own opinions but I don't remember them being unfair. Hard to reach a consensus on this though without being able to see the thread anymore!

Cocolola wrote: »

That's why I put the smiley :pac: in afterwards, I was sort of making a joke and I did specify pushy! I'm well aware of what a feminist is and of course I am a feminist. Now, while I could have put my statement differently and I probably did provoke your reaction, it's a little bit insulting to be honest that you feel the need to lecture me on the meaning of the word and all that has been achieved because of feminism. But to be fair, maybe I brought that on myself with my comment.

I am extremely grateful for all the women who have and continue to fight tirelessly for women's rights, don't get me wrong. It's just sometimes I feel like some women (I don't mean you here BTW) almost do more harm to the cause than good by inadvertently pissing people off, for lack of a better description. Like this Lush campaign for example.

My apologies. Unfortunately there's enough people who say stuff like that seriously that I didn't realise you were joking.:( Still though, I'm not sure I'm convinced that women who objected to the campaign did harm to the cause of women's rights as much as the actual campaign did. I do think that talking about it is good, and that everyone's viewpoint is important.

Cocolola wrote: »

Personally, I find it annoying that a really good campaign that highlights the treatment of lab animals was hijacked and turned into an example of society's anti-women attitudes. I didn't see that in it at all. I feel like in this case, some people saw what they wanted to see in order to make it into something that wasn't there. Outcry for the sake of outcry or something. (Sorry, I'm really not articulate in any way and that was confusing to read )

I don't think that was the case; for some people the campaign immediately screams "Violence against women", and although it didn't hit everyone that way, the problem was that it was in a shop window in the middle of the day. There's a comment on the Lush blog saying "I love the animal testing campaign, but yesterday I had to hold a survivor friend as she wept with betrayal and despair after encountering this performance. Please don't do it again." I don't think anyone was just trying to create a fuss just for the sake of it - I think many of us were genuinely horrified that Lush was depicting the torture of a woman in a shop window in the middle of the day. If it had been a film or play, there would have been ratings and PG warnings, but it was just sprung on people, and it really strikes me as shocking for a company that pretends to celebrate women to do something so insensitive. The follow up has been equally insensitive; they basically said "Sorry if anyone who's been abused or assaulted got their feelings hurt but we thought this was really important and it had to be a woman because women buy cosmetics"

Cocolola wrote: »

I don't know, it just seems like women already have enough genuine battles to fight (read the sexual assault thread for some examples of this :mad:) and there was no need to go out of the way to try to find something misogynistic in the Lush campaign.

God knows you're right we already have more than enough to deal with. But the thing is for many of us we didn't have to go out of our way.
I think that the horrifying things that are done to women are often part of a general misogyny. Rape, sexual assault, harassment at work, denial of rights, domestic violence etc etc can all happen in a culture where the disrespect of women is encouraged, whereas if men and women weren't constantly being given terrible messages about each other and were actively encouraged to respect each other maybe there wouldn't be so much violence and abuse directed at women. Then there would be no such thing as torture porn.:D

Linguo wrote: »

I don't think you can justify someone using the word rapey just to fit into a twitter message....

Still not quite clear on what the problem is with the word though. Lots of people are using the term.

Linguo wrote: »

My point is they were very harsh on anyone who didn't agree with the views held by Beaut and were very immature on the whole post IMO.

Like I said I don't know about the Twitter stuff that was going on behind the scenes but I didn't see them being "harsh" on anyone who disagreed with the author's views.
They have mentioned on Twitter though that after Tamsin Omond's guardian piece they crashed the Beaut servers with spam, and as I recall the immature comments were from pro-Lush commenters like lushworker.

Linguo wrote: »

I just think this was overly sensitive, sensationalist stuff that would rile up most people, either in favour of or against. And of course Lush staff would be offended by the post, it was something written in complete anger with little heed or understanding of the cause or the people involved.

Actually that's how I feel about the Lush stunt -little heed and understanding- and especially about their half-assed non-apology. There was nothing to indicate the author or commenters didn't understand the cause; it wasn't a case of "Shut up about animals we don't care" it was clear the objection was to the way Lush had used a misogynistic way to express itself. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Linguo wrote: »

Do you mind me asking if you know the poster or girls in Beaut? Just you haven't posted in a few years and then are suddenly very active on the topic?:) If I'm wrong I apologise!

No I don't mind you asking. When I signed up for boards.ie I had an office job, and time to be on the Internet every day. Then I changed to a different kind of job, no computers involved, and I moved to a flat with no internets so I couldn't surf from home. That's why I was absent so long. After an accident I was disabled and couldn't keep my job (or flat) but now I have more time for Internet stuff. Hadn't actually thought about boards.ie in a while but after the lush post got deleted from beaut.ie I googled it to see what was going on and Smokeyeyes' post here came up.
I definitely have no connection to beaut.ie and don't know any of the writers or commenters.
I'm not some random troll or out to stir up trouble. I'd put a smiley here but my computer's broken so now I'm trying to post on an old 1st gen iPod touch and my fat clumsy thumbs are making it difficult
ETA: Oh look I did manage to make a smiley!

mysteries1984 wrote: »

Starling, there are too many posts of yours to quote My own personal problem with the word 'rapey' is a bit complicated and hard to explain for someone who's not exactly a wordsmith. The fact that it's slang makes it hard to swallow for me. It's almost like it's making light of it. I don't think it has a place in any article with a sensitive subject matter or serious overtone. Nor, for that matter, does the word 'spunk' which someone said was in the post originally.

Oh I think I see what you mean, like it sounds almost too casual. The other blogs where I've seen it used have been feminist -leaning and in those contexts you can tell the people using it are totally not making light of rape; I can see how just seeing it in a tweet wouldn't give a clear indication of the author's intent.

mysteries1984 wrote: »

I'm glad you posted though, like you say you have differing views from Smokey but still appreciate the debate. I do too. It makes for interesting reading and it's what a mature discussion should be like. I still disagree with the way beaut.ie handled it and think they should have come here and said their piece if they were aware of the article, which twitter proved they were. But vive la difference

Thanks! I don't really get why they have a problem with the whole event being discussed here. Maybe it's just that they're worried about more hassle from the Lush people.
I know I did do quite a few posts in quick succession earlier today, kind of like just walking into a crowd of people and talking non-stop...It was because I got possession of the house computer for a while. Long story but basically I have to take advantage of computer time when I can get it. I'd be reading a whole bunch of stuff on boards just now but my sad old iPod touch battery is running low. Needs an hour or two to charge up. I actually end up charging this thing 3 times a day cause I use it so much!!

starling wrote: »

All I did was point out that it is a commonly used word, and suggest one reason why it might have been used on Twitter. Don't see why you're getting so upset about what I said, just because you have a problem with the article. You assert that the word was used to get a reaction, but you don't know that and neither do I. You'd have to take that up with the author.

It is not in any way similar to using the N-word. Not interested in your unnecessary, childish, insulting and completely inaccurate and illogical example of unjustified use of a completely different word with a different meaning, history and implication.

You also seem to think the beaut.ie blog needs attention so badly they'll resort to sensationalism just to get it. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make based on the popularity of the site; it's a make-up blog which accepts paid advertising so one would imagine that being edgy and controversial is not one of their goals.

I already wrote about why I think they pulled the article; I can't help bit think, given the faulty logic you are displaying and the fact that you are clearly very emotional, that you are calling the article drivel just because you disagree with it.

I don't think that's a fair post I actually thought the same thing when you made that silly (imo) statement about it being ok to use the word rapey. I don't think the poster meant that word was ok (as I don't) but it was such a strange statement it made me think of other silly words that people could try and justify for other stupid reasons. I'm assuming that's all that was meant there.

I love the site but thought the post was drivel too, it wouldn't stop me agreeing with the thoughts behind it but I thought the whole thing was crazy and very badly handled. It's put me off the site to be honest.

starling wrote: »

All I did was point out that it is a commonly used word, and suggest one reason why it might have been used on Twitter. Don't see why you're getting so upset about what I said, just because you have a problem with the article.

I’m not getting upset at you Starling, apologies if my post has come across as overly confrontational towards you specifically. Not my intention at all. My problem is that the article (in my opinion) has absolutely nothing to do with the sexual exploitation of women and I take a lot of offence to them using the term ‘rapey’. It has no place in the article and yes, I see it as a very sensationalist and unnecessary term.

starling wrote: »

You assert that the word was used to get a reaction, but you don't know that and neither do I. You'd have to take that up with the author.

Again, my opinion… and I would love to take it up with the author but can no longer comment on the article via their site and I doubt she’ll want to openly come on here to talk based on the general reaction. To me, that’s not a word people will use in a blasé way, and certainly not if they are a defender of women’s rights (as the author clearly seems to be).

starling wrote: »

It is not in any way similar to using the N-word. Not interested in your unnecessary, childish, insulting and completely inaccurate and illogical example of unjustified use of a completely different word with a different meaning, history and implication.

Reread what I said. I never said it was similar. I said that if the space restriction on twitter was a genuine reason for using that specific word, why stop there. At no point did I compare the two words, their history or implication. I was simply trying to show that there are a whole host of words that have no place being used in media such as this. I’m not comparing the words, but neither have a place in such media. I was not being illogical, I was not being childish and I was not being inaccurate. Apologies if you misinterpreted my initial post but I hope that you can understand that point now.

starling wrote: »

You also seem to think the beaut.ie blog needs attention so badly they'll resort to sensationalism just to get it. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make based on the popularity of the site; it's a make-up blog which accepts paid advertising so one would imagine that being edgy and controversial is not one of their goals.

I’m well aware of beauts popularity, that was never in question. I was actually quite shocked that they chose to run an article like this. And I have already stated that I think beaut should stick to what they’re good at. This was an article that would’ve been better published via the authors personal blog because it was a very subjective piece that felt very out of place with the rest of their content.

starling wrote: »

I already wrote about why I think they pulled the article; I can't help bit think, given the faulty logic you are displaying and the fact that you are clearly very emotional, that you are calling the article drivel just because you disagree with it.

I am calling it drivel because Lush’s campaign was all about animal rights, not about the sexual exploitation of woman. Yes I disagree with the post, but my main argument is that the author completely missed the point of the campaign or chose to ignore it.

Again, apologies if you felt I was making a personal attack aimed at you. I probably read too much into your twitter comment, hence my abruptness earlier.

Ok ignore my earlier rant and let me start again… The word ‘Rapey’ has no place in this article. I happen to feel very strongly about Lush’s campaign and animal rights and feel both were grossly misrepresented by the article.

panda100 wrote: »

If we are desensitised to human suffering then surely there was no point doing this stun'. If people don't care when they see real images of people being torured, then why on earth would they be 'shocked' when they see a peformance artist pretending to be tortured. It jsut doesn't make sense to me.

I think people are well aware that animals are treated horrifically in the name of beauty.Just like people are aware that many of the clothes and devices they buy are made from slave and child labour. It doesn't stop people from consuming unfortunately.

I'd agree with you post generally panda, but would argue that people really don't know the full extent of animal testing. The general perception of animal testing and the reality are two very different things sadly.

It's true that we are now far more desensitised to human suffering than ever before. As a result, I don't for one second think that Lush's campaign will instantly shock all the cosmetic buying public into buying animal testing free products. But if it makes people think twice about the topic and even if a handful of people decide to research more into the topic, then I think it was a success. It's got people talking after all, so I think it's mission accomplished as far a Lush are concerned. Sadly, because of the fact that we are so desensitised it takes more and more to simply draw attention to an issue.

panda100 wrote: »

Hmm I find these posts slightly contradictory. If we are desensitised to human suffering then surely there was no point doing this stun'. If people don't care when they see real images of people being torured, then why on earth would they be 'shocked' when they see a peformance artist pretending to be tortured. It jsut doesn't make sense to me.

I think people are well aware that animals are treated horrifically in the name of beauty. Just like people are aware that many of the clothes and devices they buy are made from slave and child labour. It doesn't stop people from consuming unfortunately.

They're not written by the same person...so they might seem contradictory. People care because this wasn't just a human, it was a human pretending to be an animal and it was doing so in a busy street in a shop window. It's much more difficult to avoid.

Compare it to smoking. We all know smoking is bad...but seeing cancer-diseased lungs on a pack of cigarettes is more hard-hitting. Shock advertising is generally considered to be more effective. And as shown by a poster on this thread itself, people don't always know the extent to which the animals suffer.

SmokeyEyes wrote: »

Listen we all have strong opinions here. I've got in trouble for even posting up here and blocked from the authors twitter and beaut.ie's twitter even though I didn't mean any harm and explained that, so obviously emotions are running high with this one:(

I'm really disappointed that they did that, I did nothing wrong:(

Let's just all agree animal testing is bad, boards is good:)

Wow! It actually says a lot more about the author and Beaut than it does about you Smokey Eyes so I wouldn’t worry about it.

Pathetic stuff on their part.

That is such a spiteful move! I don't see why it was necessary to block Smokey.

Just for having a different opinion and wanting to discuss it here, it seems really sad to me, it's not like she was abusing them or anything

I know that they are probably keeping an eye on this post so I will say this to them.. Please come and chat here, mainly to the author who does have a Boards account and join in on the discussion. No abusing will be done here!

I'm curious to see what thoughts they have on it.

Yes she does because that's how I was first introduced to her beauty blog through Boards. I have a feeling she's keeping track of the forum especially from the tweet she posted to Smokey so it would be great for her to join in the discussion.

I thought the original blog was off the wall & couldn't understand where the author was coming from. I also think the way they handled the debate which ensued was ridiculous - you can't write a controversial blog like that & expect everyone to agree with you. The tweets were distasteful too - making fun of anyone who dared to disagree & using the word 'rapey'. Then blocking SmokeyEyes for starting this thread - childish.

I've never been a fan of their blog to begin with but they've certainly made a show of themselves this time.

Let me get this straight, a community of people who regard make-up as a major passion in life are unable to engage in constructive debate -hardly surprising really