L’Oreal to remove the word “white” and “whitening from product labels.

Quantum Erasure

just googled "L'Oréal whitening products" and got ads from japan and Vietnam, so...

kowloonkev

ronivek wrote: »

I always enjoy these threads where predominately white men complain about things which literally have zero impact on their own lives; whilst simultaneously claiming these changes are only being made because some other people are also complaining about things which literally have zero impact on their own lives.

The important thing to note here is that the entire world doesn't revolve around your white European view of the world; and in fact the vast majority of the world's population are not in fact white or European.

The changes here are not just related to the word white; they're about a worldwide phenomenon where lighter skin is tended to be favoured to differing degrees. They are also removing references to "fair" and "light" along with "white" precisely because they're trying to distance themselves from any implication that lighter skin tones are somehow better than others.

But sure; boycott them for trying to keep up with trends in society and promoting body positivity in their advertising and marketing. How dare they.

Actually it's predominantly white people with nothing else to do who will complain about these products/slogans in the first place. It's ironic that you would say that the world doesn't revolve around the caucasian view of the world but then who is complaining about these products and who is making these progressive decisions on behalf of non-whites?

It's not that people are using such products to look caucasian. They're using them because they don't want to look like farmers/labourers etc. It's about appearing to be in a better social/economic class rather than appearing as a different race.

SlowMotion321

Is this an example of extremism in what should otherwise be a legitimate cause?:(

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

just googled "L'Oréal whitening products" and got ads from japan and Vietnam, so...

I wonder if white people will take it upon themselves to try and ban Asian women driving around in the sun dressed like ninjas.



It must be because they want to look like white westerners. It can be the only reason. And it's wrong.

Quantum Erasure

joeguevara wrote: »

Go for the thread bingo and ask will fake tan be banned.

look up 'blackfishing' ... https://www.theweek.co.uk/98291/what-is-blackfishing

Wanna Thompson posted a tweet last year calling for a thread of all the “white girls cosplaying as black women” on Instagram. “Let’s air them out because this is ALARMING,” she wrote.

In an article for Paper, the 27-year-old says Instagram has become “a breeding ground for white women who wish to capitalise off of impersonating racially ambiguous/Black women for monetary and social gain”.

https://twitter.com/indialexandria/status/1276959382572597249

joeguevara

Interestingly the global lightening cream market is worth about 8.8 billion. Asia Pacific is the leading market share with about 55% of sales. North America is second with about 25%. Europe is third. For some reason they expect the European market to grow by up to 15% and moderate growth in the US.

Now in Asia they couldn’t care less about using the word white. In fact in Thailand they use the same word for white, rice, and a few others i forget.

So then where could there be an issue real or not. The BLM are most active in US and Europe and with considerable growth expected what a coup to make a token gesture while placing themselves in the good graces of the people who would use them. Black and dark women and to some extent men.

People who think that one of the worlds biggest company would make a knee jerk reaction on something without doing a cost benefit analysis should think again.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

People who think that one of the worlds biggest company would make a knee jerk reaction on something without doing a cost benefit analysis should think again.

Gillette put out an ad telling their primary customer base to be better. The company I used for my shaving products assumed I was a sexist piece of shlt because I am a man.

Companies make mistakes all the time.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder if white people will take it upon themselves to try and ban Asian women driving around in the sun dressed like ninjas.



It must be because they want to look like white westerners. It can be the only reason. And it's wrong.

Add a dog and a couple of kids on that and welcome to Asia.

I think people are making an assumption. The reason they cover up is because they don’t want to be dark. They definitely want to be white or at least whiter or lighter. But it has nothing to do with Westerners. Vast majority of Asians that I met through work didn’t find Western women or indeed the vast majority of western men attractive. They would fawn over pictures of Korean Popstars but would never even look at photo of people we would hold as extremely attractive,

White or whiter is considered high society. Always has been in Asia. But to suggest that the only white people they aspire to be is western is just not true,

Quantum Erasure

when i was looking up fake tan, i came across this:

"Ireland is the second most voracious market globally (after Sweden but before the UK) for tanning products."

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Gillette put out an ad telling their primary customer base to be better. The company I used for my shaving products assumed I was a sexist piece of shlt because I am a man.

Companies make mistakes all the time.

Was it a mistake? Did people try harder because of that incorrect assumption? Maybe a lot were sexist and it helped. Yes companies decisions don’t always work but that doesn’t mean they woke up and said let’s do this after breakfast.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

Add a dog and a couple of kids on that and welcome to Asia.

I think people are making an assumption. The reason they cover up is because they don’t want to be dark. They definitely want to be white or at least whiter or lighter. But it has nothing to do with Westerners. Vast majority of Asians that I met through work didn’t find Western women or indeed the vast majority of western men attractive. They would fawn over pictures of Korean Popstars but would never even look at photo of people we would hold as extremely attractive,

White or whiter is considered high society. Always has been in Asia. But to suggest that the only white people they aspire to be is western is just not true,

Yep. Not a single person I know in Vietnam wants white skin to look Caucasian. It always takes new westerners here a while to realise that Vietnamese people idolise other Asians.

joeguevara

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

when i was looking up fake tan, i came across this:

"Ireland is the second most voracious market globally (after Sweden but before the UK) for tanning products."

Makes sense. Most other EU countries would have sallow or olive skin and wouldn’t need it. Russians seem to favour doll like complexion. Australia has lots of sun. US must have a decent market share. One thing though you never see girls in US TV saying they are going to do their tan. Well not often. The only reference to it that I remember is Ross on Friends and it did t end well.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

Was it a mistake? Did people try harder because of that incorrect assumption? Maybe a lot were sexist and it helped. Yes companies decisions don’t always work but that doesn’t mean they woke up and said let’s do this after breakfast.

I think there's more going on in these companies than one might think. It could be job-threatening to stand up to this stuff. I remember a Google employee was fired for pointing out some of these things.

It is more than plausible that this stuff gets through a company without much objection because objecting would be deemed whatever -ist is relevant.

The l'Oreal thing is just a cynical attempt at virtue signalling. They know it has nothing to do with anything. It's just people in the company looking at what's going on wondering how to capitalise on it.

SlowMotion321

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

look up 'blackfishing' ... https://www.theweek.co.uk/98291/what-is-blackfishing

Wanna Thompson posted a tweet last year calling for a thread of all the “white girls cosplaying as black women” on Instagram. “Let’s air them out because this is ALARMING,” she wrote.

In an article for Paper, the 27-year-old says Instagram has become “a breeding ground for white women who wish to capitalise off of impersonating racially ambiguous/Black women for monetary and social gain”.

Make sure you don't transpose the H with a T you will not get the results you are expecting!
Also it's cosplay FFS aren't they suppose to dress as their favourite characters? I dare anyone to go to a startrek convention and accuse a bunch of Klingons of blackfacing!

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep. Not a single person I know in Vietnam wants white skin to look Caucasian. It always takes new westerners here a while to realise that Vietnamese people idolise other Asians.

Indeed. If anything they consider the vast majority of western women quite ugly in what they wear, their size how they do their make up, their hairstyles, and how they act. Every major beauty ad campaign will without fail use Asians. If westerners were what was aspired to they would be used.

joeguevara

Just remembered one of my favourite pictures ever. A kid whose parents dressed him up as Les Ferdinand for Halloween. What a cracker

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's only a matter of time before they redesign their money. The notes are plastered with pictures of racists and slave owners.

Well, they could do with doing that anyway to help the partially sighted distinguish all their green notes.

kowloonkev

joeguevara wrote: »

Interestingly the global lightening cream market is worth about 8.8 billion. Asia Pacific is the leading market share with about 55% of sales. North America is second with about 25%. Europe is third. For some reason they expect the European market to grow by up to 15% and moderate growth in the US.

Now in Asia they couldn’t care less about using the word white. In fact in Thailand they use the same word for white, rice, and a few others i forget.

So then where could there be an issue real or not. The BLM are most active in US and Europe and with considerable growth expected what a coup to make a token gesture while placing themselves in the good graces of the people who would use them. Black and dark women and to some extent men.

People who think that one of the worlds biggest company would make a knee jerk reaction on something without doing a cost benefit analysis should think again.

The European and American markets are probably mostly rich Asian tourists who can get these products much cheaper outside of Asia. They also don't give a flying fiddlers about BLM or any of that and are probably more entrenched in their race opinions if anything as a result of the riots. The companies are probably acting now so that they can continue selling in America/Europe without distraction, but it wouldn't effect their customers either way.

ronivek

kowloonkev wrote: »

Actually it's predominantly white people with nothing else to do who will complain about these products/slogans in the first place. It's ironic that you would say that the world doesn't revolve around the caucasian view of the world but then who is complaining about these products and who is making these progressive decisions on behalf of non-whites?

Interesting you should say that: because Unilever were the first brand to make this change; and it was Hindustan Unilever who made this decision which was then taken up by Unilever International and others. Of which the vast majority of its leadership are naturally of Indian descent and made the decision in respect of their own region; not yours.

It's not that people are using such products to look caucasian. They're using them because they don't want to look like farmers/labourers etc. It's about appearing to be in a better social/economic class rather than appearing as a different race.

Did anyone in this thread claim that anyone was using lightening products to look more Caucasian? Again; there are other countries and regions in the world apart from the USA and Europe and not every decision has to be about you and your whiteness.

ronivek

ronivek wrote: »

Did anyone in this thread claim that anyone was using lightening products to look more Caucasian? Again; there are other countries and regions in the world apart from the USA and Europe and not every decision has to be about you and your whiteness.

Then it doesn't make much sense to remove the word whitening from the labels. It isn't wrong to have white skin. It isn't wrong to call it that.

ronivek

Deleted User wrote: »

Then it doesn't make much sense to remove the word whitening from the labels. It isn't wrong to have white skin. It isn't wrong to call it that.

They're removing wording and branding such as: ‘fair/fairness’, ‘white/whitening’, and ‘light/lightening’.

It has very little if anything to do with white people; that's the fundamental point here. This is about people of colour and their own issues with skin tone and standards of beauty.

ronivek

ronivek wrote: »

They're removing wording and branding such as: ‘fair/fairness’, ‘white/whitening’, and ‘light/lightening’.

It has very little if anything to do with white people; that's the fundamental point here. This is about people of colour and their own issues with skin tone and standards of beauty.

What on Earth are you on about? They're doing this as a response to all this racism stuff. Why are you trying to say it has nothing to do with white people?

joeguevara

kowloonkev wrote: »

The European and American markets are probably mostly rich Asian tourists who can get these products much cheaper outside of Asia. They also don't give a flying fiddlers about BLM or any of that and are probably more entrenched in their race opinions if anything as a result of the riots. The companies are probably acting now so that they can continue selling in America/Europe without distraction, but it wouldn't effect their customers either way.

You would think (As i would have) but would be incorrect. Firstly as with everything, it’s always cheaper to buy in Asia than the US. So the US market is not based on Asian Tourists. The second factor is that the most common user would be from the poorer socio economic sections of the countries. Mainly because the Hi-So would never have worked outside or maybe worked at all. Would travel by car as opposed to motorbike and would have inherited paler skin because of just that. The main users in US are Nigerian and Afro Carribean. So key demographic for BLM.

In Europe the main users are Nigerian, Afro Carribean as well as Arrabian and Indian. My favourite statistic is that Turkey use 0%. So demographic for Europe again BLM.

I literally found 100s of articles and countless books on the topic of skin lightening and racism and these were written over the last 5-7 years so it’s not as if its just come up no. There are major health concerns in cheaper brands because of use of Mercury.

Biggest Market Share manufacturer is surprise surprise L’Oreal. Even more interesting and something I don’t think has Ben raised is that Johnson and Johnson Neutrogena have decided to stop manufacturing and shipping the products all together.

But skin whitening is probably the least used name when selling it. Firstly it is the most severe of the products as completely strips the melanin from the skin while lightening inhibits production. Whitening is more commonly is skin depigmentation. There are lists of other alternatives but can’t link or copy. So it’s not really removing the whitening it’s just using a common parlance.

A lot of Nations have banned these products because of the severe side effects from the mercury and Cortezoids as well as the environmental impact from the side products from production and then the huge amounts of single use foil packaging that’s dumped. It’s a fallacy then that a company is appearing to be progressive by using a different moniker when the real issue and the harm is from the product itself irrespective of how desirable the name is.

I think because of such high usage by the people BLM aspires to represent the chances of it being targeted are small. They usually target brands and products used by Caucasians but with black characters, monikers or caricatures of slaves. For some reason mars is changing its design.

I am absolutely flabergqsted that there is such a huge industry, with such far reaching usage that is connected directly to the self esteem and morale of so many vulnerable men and women but is virtually unknown to us.

One final thing before someone mentions fake tan again. Not only is tan not a defined skin colour or attributable to any race, it simply puts a light dye on the skin. As opposed to a skin lightening cream that pretty much dissolves the colour making melanin of the skin. Repeated use and ingestion of mercury through facial and hand absorption is extremely high. But it’s all fine because they changed the name.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

What on Earth are you on about? They're doing this as a response to all this racism stuff. Why are you trying to say it has nothing to do with white people?

I think he is saying that the reason it is used has no link to white people. But the name of it does have white connotations.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

Firstly as with everything, it’s always cheaper to buy in Asia than the US.

Well that's certainly not true for Vietnam. Loads of things are way more expensive to the point where I just don't buy much stuff. People pay $20k+ to get jobs as air hostesses so they can bring back phones and perfume etc. on every flight and sell them here.

ronivek

Deleted User wrote: »

What on Earth are you on about? They're doing this as a response to all this racism stuff. Why are you trying to say it has nothing to do with white people?

They did this in 2019.

What they announced was in addition to the removal of 'whitening'; they're now renaming the entire product line referenced.

This is not an issue which was "made up" in response to the Black Lives Matter protests; but it has certainly given them added impetus to continue along the path they already embarked on.

To once again illustrate that not everything revolves entirely around the USA and Europe: here's an example from 2018 of colourism in India:

My father declined and I heard the relative tell him: "How can you decline? What does your daughter possess that makes you think she could get a better proposal? Have you not seen her? She is dark!"

joeguevara

ronivek wrote: »

They did this in 2019.

What they announced was in addition to the removal of 'whitening'; they're now renaming the entire product line referenced.

This is not an issue which was "made up" in response to the Black Lives Matter protests; but it has certainly given them added impetus to continue along the path they already embarked on.

To once again illustrate that not everything revolves entirely around the USA and Europe: here's an example from 2018 of colourism in India:

I am actually fascinated with this. While you are correct with regards to not being made up and pre existed the current BLM uprising it is definitely true that there was report after report on the topic for years which made recommendations. It is only very recently that they pulled the trigger on it,

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Well that's certainly not true for Vietnam. Loads of things are way more expensive to the point where I just don't buy much stuff. People pay $20k+ to get jobs as air hostesses so they can bring back phones and perfume etc. on every flight and sell them here.

Imported goods or products manufactured outside Asia will be subject to crazy import taxes. French perfume, luxury whiskey, watches etc are crazily expensive. Bottle of french champagne is 3 times the price. A Mercedes will be double the price purchased to get past customs with a very real risk of being confiscated. But products manufactured in Asia will be markably cheaper than in the US. The fact that Asia Pacific is 55% of world market share means that the biggest manufacturing facilities are located there.

LiquidZeb

ronivek wrote: »

I always enjoy these threads where predominately white men complain about things which literally have zero impact on their own lives; whilst simultaneously claiming these changes are only being made because some other people are also complaining about things which literally have zero impact on their own lives.

The important thing to note here is that the entire world doesn't revolve around your white European view of the world; and in fact the vast majority of the world's population are not in fact white or European.

The changes here are not just related to the word white; they're about a worldwide phenomenon where lighter skin is tended to be favoured to differing degrees. They are also removing references to "fair" and "light" along with "white" precisely because they're trying to distance themselves from any implication that lighter skin tones are somehow better than others.

But sure; boycott them for trying to keep up with trends in society and promoting body positivity in their advertising and marketing. How dare they.

But don't you understand loreal literally committed genocide on white people by changing the lable on a bottle. The lads here should talk to kids starving in Yemen about their struggles it's heartbreaking stuff.

joeguevara

LiquidZeb wrote: »

But don't you understand loreal literally committed genocide on white people by changing the lable on a bottle. The lads here should talk to kids starving in Yemen about their struggles it's heartbreaking stuff.

Isn’t Yemen a ficticious country made up by Chandler on Friends to fool his annoying girlfriend Janice into thinking he had left the country. They will probably ban Friends now for fictitious starving kids in Yemen. When will it end. It’s PC gone mad that such important icons to us such as a US TV series may be gone. What next ban milk because it’s white.