Lucid Waking

Archive for October 15th, 2009

Newsflash: What Are We Teaching Our Girls?

I was perusing Yahoo!’s home page when two articles that caught my eye. The first said: “Is that pink ribbon doing what you think?” Naturally I was curious; I thought I was spending my money wisely by getting things I needed and being philanthropic. Well, it turns out that Lucy van Pelt was right when she exclaimed that “this sort of thing always has a loophole.” It turns out that many companies are using the pink ribbon-which is an unlicensed, unregulated image-on packaging so that people are more willing to buy it thinking that they are helping out Breast cancer.

Take Proctor & Gamble’s pink ribbon-bedecked Swiffer mop. Daily Finance’s Aimee Picchi reports that although the words “early detection saves” accompany the Swiffer’s pink ribbon, simply purchasing the mop will not help fundraising efforts.

Has marketing really stooped so low as to use a universal symbol to help their own gains? On principle, I’m not always against marketers and business. Knowing how hard it is to self advertise I can sympathize with businesses trying to make a profit. The money they make then goes to workers which in turn feeds families and, in a perfect world, will also go towards helping others. But I’m not naïve. I’m aware there is greed in the world, but why should we lump honest entrepreneurs who got lucky with their businesses and became big businesses with those trying to swindle people out of money? But obviously, trust only goes so far. Quite frankly, I’m disgusted that companies would claim to help out a cause while really filling their pockets because they are not legally bound to their claim. Well, I hope all those college students studying law are happy because the world is getting more and more corrupt and they have job security knowing that every single advantage taken is another law suit to follow through on. I’m just sad no one knows what ethics are anymore. What ever happened to class?

So after deciding I was just going to donate money direction to the Susan G. Koman foundation (which I know also uses a lot of the donations they get towards advertising and not free mammogram services), I return to the front page and am drawn by “Digitally altered model speaks on firing.” Being curious, I naturally click on the link and am confronted with a picture of the front page of a Ralph Lauren catalog. I’ve taken many art classes before and I know, at first glance, something is seriously wrong with the proportions in the photo. Not only is she too skinny, but her bone structure would be impossibly flat (even the ribcage to spinal column would create a curve) and her head was much too large. After skimming the article, I was even more horrified. Apparently, Ralph Lauren was called out for obviously photo shopping the picture and for making the model even skinnier than she really is. To remedy the situation they fired the poor girl claiming that she was “too fat to model for them.” She was 5′1″ and 120 lbs; if you ask me she’s slim. In fact anyone who weighs 120 pounds (unless its a small child) is perfectly healthy. I’ve always had issues with what passes as attractive in magazines (thanks a lot, Twiggy), but this made things worse. I just don’t understand how morals are the first thing to go out the window.

Since October is breast cancer awareness month, go here to contribute to the cause. And if you know anyone (male or female) who is struggling with their self image, don’t be afraid to give them a hug and tell them that they’re beautiful. That’s all I ask.