Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Beaut.ie rant on Lush Stunt
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Wow. I vanished briefly over the weekend and there's been a lot of activity here.
starling, I fully agree with you on the post negating those who are interested in make up...indeed, I commented on it, and quoted it, although the author deigned to respond to a comment posted later than mine and ignored me. That's fine by me as it was in no way constructive or useful to the debate, although I'm not a fan of posting something like that and then not remaining to give a reason. I think it's childish.
Speaking more generally, I think in a way we're going around in circles...allegations are being made about being linked to sites, people 'getting at' them and so on, and that's not really productive. I probably shouldn't have commented on the aforementioned post about people interested in make up being unable to engage in constructive debate, really. I'd like to see more of us actually debating the issue here and not taking things too personally or referring to grammatical mistakes.
A lot of people have seen more in this than I did...torture porn, liquid down the throat akin to semen, etc etc. The differing viewpoints are interesting and I'd like the thread to continue in that vein if possible
Maybe it will change opinions, maybe it won't...but it will hopefully help see the other side of the coin. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Crucially, Lush doesn't really give a damn either way.
They did give a damn, they gave a damn about the animals that are being grown, tortured and killed daily due to unnecessary testing!
The campaign's aim was clearly displayed on the window over the artists, yes, it might have been a shock but it's not like people were standing wondering what it was about, all they had to do was read the sign. There was also people on the street from LUSH wearing t-shirts and chatting to the onlookers about the cause and to see if they would sign the petition.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Why do you think I would give a damn how someone else conducts their sex life? I don't know what I might have said that makes you think I would presume to judge some hypothetical woman on her hypothetical relationships. Unless she does it in the street, it's none of my business. If she does do it in the street she'll be arrested.
What I actually said was that the fact that Jacqueline Traide consented to being "tortured" in the Lush campaign does not in any way make that campaign less misogynistic. I said that because some people were offering her consent as a valid reason why the campaign was not misogynistic or exploitative. Feminism is about giving women equal rights. The fact that women "consent" to work in strip clubs or appear in porn doesn't automatically make their actions, or the businesses they work in, feminist. It doesn't matter that she consented.
I realise my question was a bit off topic, but I acknowledged that. I asked anyway because you specifically said that her consent didn't matter, that the act was still exploitative. Now, if a woman consents to engage in a bdsm relationship with a male, then she is agreeing to be treated in a sexually aggressive, and a potentially violent, manner. You say that the display was exploitative precisely because it imitated sexual torture. If a woman in a bdsm relationship is being treated the same way in private, is it ok? There is no difference in the treatment of the woman in either scenario except that the Lush display occurred in public. Is the problem then the fact that a graphic display occurred in public without an adequate warning? Is it in fact the thought that some people who were distressed by this display could have had the choice not to view it? In this case, the graphic nature of the display itself is not to be condemned, but rather the decision to perform this at a questionable hour in a questionable location.
The consent issue is an important one. You said that if a woman consents to be in porn that doesn't make it feminist. Agreed. However, the campaign cannot be classified under the same criteria. It is not porn. The primary intent of the campaign was to raise awareness, not to sexually arouse anybody or to provoke any kind of derogatory thinking through the objectification of women. So while you say that it is similar to porn in nature, I strongly disagree. Not everybody who viewed it saw it in this light. Sooo, to cut a long story short here, what I'm saying is that while Lush should have notified people of the sensitive nature of the scene before coming upon it, I don't agree that the scene is misogynistic. Honestly, it really did look to me like she was a test subject. I realise an awful lot of people read more into it, but I believe my interpretation is equally valid.It's a woman's right to make decisions for herself, it's not a multinational company's right to profit by exploiting women.
As Tamsin Ormond has stated, Lush were explicitly trying to represent the systemic abuse of women to draw attention to a completely different issue, and that is unnecessary and offensive. This campaign deliberately exploited the prevalance of violence against women in order to raise awareness of animal testing. That is misogynistic.It's the method I object to.
If the campaign used a woman deliberately in order to draw associations with the exploitation of women, I don't see how that makes Lush guilty of perpetuating the exploitation any further. It was a performance. Performances aren't real. Often, performances imitate reality in order to criticise it. This is what I believe was happening here. As I already said, I think that using a woman is more effective as it deliberately draws a comparison between the exploitation of women and the exploitation of animals. Therefore, the campaign is condemnatory of violence against women. Lush does not support the exploitation of women. I don't see how utilising it in performance makes it wrong. I concede that it should have carried a warning. However, if it had, then I don't see any ethical problem with the nature of the display. Lush is not perpetuating the exploitation of women. Lush is criticising this very concept.I don't agree that the outcome in this instance was all good, and neither do the commenters on Beaut.ie, the f-word, the Guardian and even Lush's own blog who expressed their distaste for the stunt. I know it's a good cause, they still don't have a right to exploit women to get their point across.
I wasn't saying that the outcome of the campaign was positive. I think it's pretty clear that it generated a lot of anger. In your earlier post, you implied that Lush's interest in this issue is problematised because if their campaign were successful, they would increase their profits. I was arguing that the cause is still a good one and that the Lush activism against animal testing is a good outcome in this situation regardless of their vested interest in increasing profits.Quite. Which is why I think it is important to challenge sexism when we see it. Put it this way: in the US a black kid was recently shot by a racist, and racism prevented that murderer from being arrested immediately. Nobody tells black people "Hey never mind the racist joke that guy just told, we have enough to deal with." People generally expose racism when they see it, because not challenging it can be seen as creating an environment in which racism is tolerated. Compare that to women being told "It's not that serious, get a life".
I don't see it as sexist to utilise a sexist ideology in performance in order to criticise it. The woman's safety was obviously a priority and her consent was given. It's not like Lush is saying it's ok to treat women in this way. They're highlighting the problem with animal testing by comparing it to the exploitation of women and saying "Look, it's wrong to exploit women - well, exploiting animals is just as bad". It's the same as depicting racist behaviour in a film. That does not make the film racist. The only difference I see is that a film carries a warning, but I've already said that I think Lush should have warned people of the graphic nature of the display. Here, you've used a real-life example of a racially motivated murder. In this case, a person died due to racism and the murderer was not arrested immediately, presumably due to more racism on the part of law enforcement. That is perverting the course of justice and has very serious legal implications. That is unacceptable. A performance is totally different. I do not think it is ok to tell women "Yeah, big deal, get over it" regarding sexism. I am a woman. I am a feminist. However, I do not think that this display was sexist in nature.I criticise the campaign for deliberately exploiting the prevalance of violence against women in order to raise awareness of animal testing and profit a company whose customers and staff are mainly women, and for implying that animal testing is women's fault, and for putting the responsibility to stop it on women.
I'm sorry but I fail to see where Lush are implying that animal testing is all women's fault. The tester in the display is a man. A man is carrying out the tests. Where did they state that is solely the responsibility of women to stop/prevent animal testing? In my opinion, they targeted women with this campaign because the largest consumer group of cosmetics is women. This is factual. Marketers and advertisers will always target the largest market for their goods.This is a good argument. Although I don't believe that "common usage" is always a valid reason for accepting words or phrases (for example, the phrase 'I could care less' which is a result of a misunderstanding as opposed to Shakespearean-type wordplay) in the case of "impact" I'm happy to concede.
I would consider "btw", "IMHO", "YMMV" and other acronyms used on an internet forum to be different from "l33tspeak" and text language like "l8r"; although acronyms and textspeak both involve shortening "proper" English, the abbreviations in text language came from a need to fit in with the character limits of text messages, while internet/message board acronyms come from people not wanting to have to retype frequently-used phrases so often.
I know that sounds like an arbitrary distinction but I do think that text language and l33t are frowned on because they require more time and effort to decipher and that can become very irritating, while the acronyms are processed more or less as though they were ordinary words, hope that makes sense.
Btw I'd really like it if people didn't throw the word "nazi" around so much.:pac: It wasn't, just a compulsion
I am a believer that common usage is a valid reason for accepting new words, spellings etc. This is how all languages evolve. Languages would stagnate otherwise. Therefore, I think the use of 'btw' is perfectly fine.
However, it does not appear in the Oxford Dictionary and I would contend your assertion that it's an acronym, as acronyms are pronounced as words e.g. NATO. If a word is listed in the dictionary as a verb, and 'impact' is, then I think that makes a definitive enough case for using it as one. 
All this debate over minor grammatical details is silly anyway. I only countered your criticism because I felt it was a bit petty. You knew exactly what I meant when I used it. Anyway, we've cleared it all up now, so let's all be friends 0 -
-
-
Just went on Beaut today and it's really changed a lot lately, don't really like it anymore, it's all random posts that are a bit boring, the only interesting one was on that new Face Atelier Zero Plus foundation but I'd already read about it on another Irish blog a week beforehand.
Anyone else think it's gone a big mad lately?
"Blather" threads, colour swatches on the backs of hands, other random opinion posts, not what I'm looking for in a beauty blog 0 -
-
-
-
-
Just went on Beaut today and it's really changed a lot lately, don't really like it anymore, it's all random posts that are a bit boring, the only interesting one was on that new Face Atelier Zero Plus foundation but I'd already read about it on another Irish blog a week beforehand.
Anyone else think it's gone a big mad lately?
This morning's "fanny face wash" was a new low for me
0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement