Anyway, I read a few feminist, web-based publications who have recently been up in arms about Levi's Curve ID jeans. Basically, what Levi's did was do a sample of the female population, assessed that there were three main body "shapes" that women had, and made three distinct jeans fitted in the crotch/rear/hip/thigh area to suit each. They titled the three classes "slight curve, demi curve, and bold curve" (and I'm surprised Blackberry isn't suing them for the last one). OK. So women spoke and Levi's listened. Sounds good to me, so far.
The jeans themselves are not the problem, though. Most are offended with the choice in models/wording for the advertisements. One of the major ads in North America is one whose text states, "All Asses Were Not Created Equal". The accompanying graphics include three women, supposedly of the three "types". Only the "slight" curve is in profile, the other's backs are facing the camera, so the actual "ass" size/shape is hard to determine. All of the models are white. Here's the ad:
Most people's arguments against this campaign can be summarized as this: 1. "All asses were not created equal" implies that some asses are lesser than others, 2. There is no ethnic diversity in the models chosen 3. All of the models are, well, model thin and they do not properly represent the "average American" but since I'm writing this, we'll use "average North American".
So here are my thoughts on this. I'll preface by saying I'm a "white" female, who is currently "over-weight" but hasn't always been, and has virtually NO ASS (yeah, fuck off, anyone reading this already knows that—WHATEVER!), so as far as desirable asses go, I'm kind of the bottom of the totem pole here (which is a really stupid comparison because the bottom of the totem pole is the most important animal/being because it's what holds the rest up, but that's not my point here).
Here are my points:
1. "All asses were not created equal" states exactly what it .. well, states. Not all asses are the same. This is not a statement of merit or one implying self worth in relation to one's ass. Connotatively, to some degree, the phrase "all [plural nouns] were not created equal" indicates some measure of worth, yes. But when you look at an ad, you have to remember, that unless it's a public service announcement, it's point isn't to make you feel better about yourself or actually aid you in some way. It's to get you intrigued, make you understand what the product is, and to demonstrate why you might need (this is crucial, but may be becoming less crucial with generation WANT on the rise) or want the product—how you would benefit from it in some way. I would argue that the sense of worth is supposed to imply that trying to find a pair of jeans with no luck is what the phrase in question refers to. The rest of the ad then demonstrates that they have three distinct varieties of fit to cater to your asses' needs, unlike other clothing manufacturers who don't see different shapes as worth merit, hence the problem most women have when finding jeans. Not some batcrap repressed self-worth issues y'all are projecting onto this ad.
2. This point relates to the crucible phrase in question. Ok. So. Imagine this ad with some skinny white broad as the slight, an athletic yet curvy person with olive skin as the demi, and someone with black skin as the bold. Can you FATHOM the PR shitstorm that would have ensued if Levis has used the word "equal" and then demonstrated ethnic diversity with the women in the ad? I can see how they could have had a slender darker skinned person as the slight, and a pasty, white, glow-in-the-dark type with child bearing hips as the bold (and that would have subverted pop-culture's racist assumptions about who falls into each category), but I still maintain that the same people who assume the word equal connotes value would in some way find fault with the ethnic markers of the person selected to portray each shape. For a company, it's a lot easier to just show a middle ground. And honestly, we have no idea what ethnic background each of those models has. Maybe demi curve is First Nations, and Bold is from the Middle East. We (well, you, but since there's no I in team, we) are assuming that palour indicates culture, which it does not always. Plus, Levi's have always had a lot of ethnic diversity, in the sense that their models look like they are from visible minorities. Nit picking this ONE ad is... well, nit picking.
3. I agree that the women in that ad are all pretty thin. Probably more thin thin is healthy, but I'm not a doctor, nor am I about to find out who they in order to find out their BMI and ask them to take a fitness exam on an elliptical trainer. Quite frankly I don't care that much. These women don't represent the average North American. But guess what? At this point, the average North American is best demonstrated by the before picture on a Jenny Craig ad. And that's not fucking healthy, either. I will concede that in their mass marketing campaigns, Levi's has done a pretty shitty job at showing "real people of real shapes and sizes" wearing their clothing, aside from the fact that these people are not mannequins, like the ones in this B-roll ad:
Shitty ad. Sweet song. Worth the listen. Anyway, my point is that for "the average person" who IS a healthy weight, and who exercises regularly, and has a functioning self esteem and some self worth, these models aren't people they need to become like, they're just people wearing pants. Pants that they, as slightly different looking people who also wear pants, might like to wear. For fuck sake, I don't see a black woman in an ad and think "Fuck. I love those pants, but I can't buy them. They're for black people only." So why would a fat/bigger/curvier/heavier-set/however-you-want-to-word-it-person look at this ad and think , "Well, me, I like those pants, but a skinny person is wearing them in the ad. I live under a rock and assume everything is marked O/S, so I guess those just aren't the ones." I mean, I currently think, "I wonder if they make them in my size?" and then I go online and see if they do. And if they do (and they do, for the record), I subsequently think "SWEET!" and if they don't, I blog about what a bunch of fucks they are. Kidding! I think "fuck you" and move on.
Anyway, I decided to do some investigating last night, and what I discovered on the Levi's site was pretty cool. You can search a section by size/style/curve ID and see REAL WOMEN wearing YOUR SIZE in whatever style of jeans YOU (assuming you're a person who wears "women's" jeans) usually wear. Here's the link: http://store.levi.com/gallery/default.htm?curve=slight It's preset to go to pictures of assless wonders such as myself, but you can change the parameters to see others. These women are real, with arms that flap, back rolls, squat legs and skins of all colours. Just like me and you and other people too. It's interesting. It's worth checking out. And you know what? I think it's less condescending than other ad campaigns that have reached out to women of all shapes and sizes. Why? It doesn't tell me I need new soap to be beautiful. It just says "Hey, your ass might not be the standard unit of jean measurement. Ours are different. Give us a try."
They don't promise a firmer, tighter ass in just fourteen days. Just something to cover it with.
0 comments:
Post a Comment