Next show: Fat and Fashion / Fat Acceptance

On Monday July 11th we are discussing the fat acceptance movement and the challenges fat ladies face when shopping for fashionable clothing. Our special guests are Juliet and Britt, creators of this super-awesome fat-positive poster, which you may have seen posted around Calgary.

Tune in from 8 - 8:30 p.m. (MST) @ CJSW 90.9 fm in Calgary, or listen online.

Check out these fat-friendly blogs:

• Riots not diets
• Axis of Fat
• The Fat Nutritionist
• Fat Heffalump
• The embodied

Abercrombie sells push-up bikini tops for kids

Abercrombie Kids is selling push up triangle bikini tops. Let me reiterate that these are for kids. According to Sociological Images (where I first discovered this), Abercrombie Kids markets their products towards 7 - 14 year olds, and the average age of puberty is 12. Don't you think their target audience is a little young to be enhancing their cleavage?

I don't know why any of this shit from Abercrombie surprises me anymore. Here's just a sample of some other offensive and sexist clothing they've produced:

• In 2002 Abercrombie Kids had to remove a line of thong underwear sold for girls in pre-teen children's sizes after parents mounted nationwide storefront protests. The underwear included phrases like "Eye Candy" and "Wink Wink" printed on the front.


• In 2004 they got in trouble for a sexist and offensive tshirt that said "L is for Loser" next to a picture of a male gymnast on the rings.


• In 2005 they came out with tshirts displaying sexist messages such as "Available for parties," "Who needs brains when you have these?" and "I had a nightmare I was a brunette."


• A tshirt controversy arose again over A&F's Back-to-School 2009 collection of "humor tees." One shirt proclaims "Show the twins" above a picture of a young woman with her blouse open to two men. Two other shirts state "Female streaking encouraged" and "Female Students Wanted for Sexual Research."
  Source: Abercrombie & Fitch product criticism - Wikipedia
  
  

It's 2010 and advertisers are STILL using gang rape to sell clothing?

When will designer brands learn that it’s not cool to use gang rape to advertise clothing?

In 2007 Dolce & Gabanna put out this charming ad, which was banned in Italy, Australia and Spain, and caused controversy world-wide.



Now, Calvin Klein has basically done exactly the same thing. This new ad, starring Dutch model Lara Stone, has also been banned in Australia for being “suggestive of violence and rape.” Australia's ad watchdog said the image "was demeaning to women by suggesting that she is a plaything of these men. It also demeans men by implying sexualized violence against women."

I believe these companies know that what they're doing will spark controversy, and they're using the old "any press is good press" motto. So on the one hand I'm reluctant to even mention this because maybe that's exactly what they want... but on the other hand, it's really important that people understand WHY these images are unacceptable: Studies have shown that increased exposure to images of violence against women "normalizes it" and makes it less shocking and seemingly less wrong. If people start to think of rape and sexual assault as something normal, they will have less sympathy for victims, and more offenders will get away with their crimes.

Even skinny girls aren't skinny enough

Actress Carey Mulligan is a tiny lady - as seen in this photo - but apparently not tiny enough for Vogue's high-fashion clothing. According to Mulligan, posing for the cover of Vogue’s October Issue was not as glamorous as it looks.

“All of the clothes that had come in from Paris were sample sizes,” she said. “The cover dress was very pretty but wouldn’t go over my ass. Sample size is very, very tiny. I’m actually wearing a towel around my waist and the bottom is clipped up because I couldn’t fit.”



Great, so now when we see clothing modeled in magazines, we have to account for the fact that (a) the model has probably been Photoshopped from a size 2 down to a negative number, and the model may not actually be wearing the clothes in the first place!

Once you know that the clothing was actually too small for her, it becomes easy to see how ridiculous that dress actually looks on her. Look at the area around her arm pit - it looks stiff and rigid, like the fabric's been pulled too tight across the back.

Jacob no longer photo retouching

Canadian retailer Jacob just announced they will no longer retouch photos to alter the body shapes of their models. Their new policy begins as they launch their fall campaign for both Jacob and Jacob Lingerie brands.

Jacob is claiming to be the first Canadian company to do this. I can't say for sure if that claim is true, but I've never heard of another Canadian company doing this... although we've reported in the past that some European magazines (in Germany and France) have already taken this step.

"Jacob has always made an effort to promote a healthy image of the female body" says spokesperson and Communications Director Cristelle Basmaji. "By adopting an official policy and broadcasting it publicly, we hope to reverse the trend in digital photo manipulation that has become excessive in our industry. Our decision to never reshape the bodies of our models is particularly innovative for our Jacob Lingerie campaigns. The basis of the new "no retouching" policy is to promote an honest and realistic image of the female body."

Although this is an awesome move by Jacob and a huge step in the right direction, it's important to note that Jacob is not completely ditching Photoshop. They will still use it for things like smoothing out skin tone and removing scars or tattoos. Hortense from Jezebel writes, "While it would be nice to have a company embrace tattoos, uneven skin tone, and scars (you know, "imperfections," aka "shit everyone has in real life but are made to feel insecure about because said things are airbrushed away in mass marketed images of beauty"), but it's hard to fault the company's transparency..."

Jacob will be releasing three versions of some of their Fall campaign photos: the raw image, the photo as seen in their advertising campaign and one that has been retouched as would have been done in the past. It will be interesting to see how the three photos differ - I'll try and post them on the blog when they come out!

For more information: CBC.ca, JACOB

New Diesel ad looks an awful lot like American Apparel

Is this supposed to be, "if I wear hot jeans to the office my boss will sleep with me?" And what's up with the fact that their tag line is now "Be Stupid?" (bottom right). WTF.

Top 7 reasons why American Apparel sucks

1. Internal documents reveal that ugly people shouldn’t bother applying at AA.

2. The company's Guide to Grooming describes in detail how staff should look. No bangs! No gauge earrings! No liquid foundation! No goatees or mustaches! No Uggs, flip flogs, gladiator sandals, vans, converse or winter boots! (Oh, no, we’re not a dictatorship. Whatever would make you think that?)

3. AA won’t make some of their women’s clothing above a size 6.

4. They doesn’t want any of those “trashy Black girls” to work there. Only the ones with the nice hair.

5. Current employees must submit photos to be promoted or receive a raise. Cos, you know, we don't want any uglies being promoted.

6. AA has a Best Bottom Contest to find the sexiest ass. Well, I don’t know about the sexiest ass, but I know who the biggest ass is… Don Charney (CEO of American Apparel).

7. They pretend that they're really progressive cos they don't photoshop their ads and they use "real women" to model their clothes. I guess "real women" only come in a size 4 or smaller and look about 16. And guess what? Sleazy porno-style ads aren't progressive and edgy. It's the same old shit that Calvin Klein has been doing since the 80's. Just admit that your ads are as sleazy as every other shitty clothing company and stop trying to pretend that you're so original and cutting edge.

Well, there is a light at the end of the tunnel... apparently AA is in pretty serious financial trouble.

Hot! HOT! HOT!

I am totally loving this. For its June 2010 issue, French Marie Claire has gone curvy with editorials featuring plus-size models in lingerie and swimsuits! And just two months ago the magazine printed a totally non-airbrushed issue. I have a new found love for the French.

Aren't these pictures absolutely smokin' hot? The models look so healthy and beautiful!



Check out more hot pics from French Marie Claire here!

I would way rather see clothing, swim wear and lingerie modeled by the women above than this anorexic stick that's pictured below. (Image below is 19-year-old model Inna Pilipenko in clothing from Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen's brand The Row. This image is extra-disturbing considering that Mary-Kate Olsen struggled with anorexia herself).

Little [Photo]Shop of Horrors

Ok, so this is not current news by any means... but I just had to post this because it's really been bothering me.

A few months ago I discovered this Photoshop disaster from Ralph Lauren. This image, which I believe was only used in a store in Japan, exploded into the blog-o-sphere in October 2009. The image has been so horrifically distorted that the model's head is larger than her waist and pelvis. Her arms are freakishly thin and her hips are... well... there aren't any.

Shortly after this image gained so much attention on the net, Ralph Lauren was forced to apologize and admit that "we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body."

But wait! The drama doesn't end there. Next, the model who was so distorted in this ad - Filippa Hamilton - was fired from Ralph Lauren for apparently being too fat.

Check out the video.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Excuse my language, but that is some fucked up shit. I may have just lost my faith in humanity.

Fashion & Feminism: Will They Be Friends?

This article on feminism and fashion is a bit old but very relevant for me these days. It briefly discusses Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism, a book by University of Illinois professor Linda M. Scott. A woman's interest in the way she looks and the possibility that this interest can be used to question her integrity as a feminist is a fascinating investigation, I find. I've been musing over this subject a lot and I want to know what other women's thoughts are. In a previous post observing riot grrl Tobi Vail's thoughts on the matter, I alluded to my personal battles with fashion and feminism wondering, at points, if the battle was fictitious; forged within myself in order to convince my inner monologue that I was indeed only a real feminist if I neglected the oppressive culture purportedly established by the fashion industry.
However, I still don't really think I've talked that much about it with other women, nor have I heard many firsthand opinions on the matter being voiced by my fellow feminists. I adore dressing up. I have time and time again come to realizations on how what we wear speaks wild volumes about our identities... sexually, intellectually, and influencially. I can't help but see "fashion" as a mysterious and very beautiful artform - a documentation of human history as with body modification, paintings and photographs. Are these not things that feminists have the freedom to enjoy and acknowledge unforgivingly? Where do we stand in this whole thing?

Riot Grrrl Tobi Vail on Fashion and Feminism

The ideas and activities surrounding fashion have always played a very important role in my own personal journey as a feminist. I was obviously, therefore, intrigued when I came across a blog entry about fashion and feminism by one of my favorite women, legend of the Olympia Riot Grrrl scene, Tobi Vail on her blog Jigsaw Underground.

The post was about being an anti-fashion feminist. When I first discovered feminism, I felt the somewhat natural urge to ditch the kind of fashion sensibility I had been raised on. The transition from being way-too-made-up and wearing shoes-too-tall-for-comfort to eventually basing the majority of my wardrobe on elements of practicality was a steady one although very complex. I have been the kind of person who has drooled over art and all things visual from a very young age. Expression through personal style has always been important to me and I wondered if becoming a feminist meant that I would be stripped of my right to care about being fashionable. I do accept that there is a point where fashion becomes anti-feminist but I don’t think that being a feminist means any person should disregard fashion as a form of personal expression.

Tobi mentions in her blog post that women are still generally way more concerned with the way we dress than men are. I ask the question, should we or should we not be more concerned than men? In many ways, women have an advantage when it comes to personal style; somehow, we have been given a lot more to work with than men when it comes to apparel and we are often encouraged to make bold statements through the clothes we wear. I think that this can be a positive and healthy practice! On the other hand, I fear that men have been conditioned to observe the opposite. Even though we see more men taking interest in personal style than ever before, there is still quite an undeniable double standard. The problem seems to lie mostly in fashion advertising where women are often portrayed in submissive stances. Of course, the images are largely influential in young womens adaptations of what is trendy. What should be vulgar and degrading is taught to be accepted as sexy. I wonder, if we buy into these images genuinely believing that we are doing so in appreciation of someone’s creative expertise, are we simply being naive?


Anyway, Tobi's post was interesting and got me thinking very deeply about my constantly evolving relationship with fashion. Give it a read.

Michelle Obama Turns Up the Heat!

During a recent family vacation to the Grand Canyon, Michelle Obama was photographed wearing – gasp! – hiking shorts. Ever since Barack Obama took office, the First Lady has been taking heat for her sleeveless dresses, sexy attire, and now it seems she’s showing too much leg in too casual shorts.

The shorts are so scandalous that the Washington Post felt the need to run an opinion piece about them. Journalist Robin Givhan writes that the shorts are noteworthy because “first ladies have rarely dressed so informally in public.” Although Givhan notes that her thigh-skimming shorts allude to self confidence and athleticism – two things that American women could use in a role model – she essentially concludes that the shorts were inappropriate.

“Ultimately, the first lady can't be -- nor should she be -- just like everyone else… She has to dress for the ride… it does American culture no favors if a first lady tries so hard to be average that she winds up looking common.”

If a man in a similar position to Michelle were photographed on a family vacation in hiking shorts, would it require an editorial piece? Would he be shamed for “looking common?” (whatever the fuck that means). Would anyone care? Women are always highly scrutinized for their clothing choices (remember the hullabaloo over Hillary Clinton’s pant suits, and that one time when her cleavage was slightly visible?) while men’s clothing choices don’t get a second glance.

I think Michelle looks great in her shorts. She was hiking, and therefore wearing hiking attire - duh. And as I mentioned above, Michelle is a role model for American women, and at a time when obesity is a national problem, I think images of her being fit and fabulous are fantastic.

Tonight's Show: Pure Fashion

Tonight on the show we discuss "Pure Fashion" - a new craze from the religious right. It's a faith-based model training program that teaches young women how to become "pure and dignified" - both in the way they dress and their personality.

Undoubtably one of the most interesting aspects of Pure Fashion is their "modesty guidelines" for how a dignified and pure young woman should dress. A few examples:

• When going upstairs at work or school, a short skirt will show the upper thigh to those below you. This is not a body part for a dignified woman to openly expose in public.
• Tank tops should be worn only with a shirt, jacket, or sweater over them.
• Dresses should have sleeves or be worn with a shrug.

Fashion and Jesus together at last. Oh lordy, we're gonna have some fun with this one. Tune in from 8:30 to 9:00pm tonight on 90.9 FM or cjsw.com.

The Vagina Dress

Feminist blog Jezebel has a great post about this hilarious "vagina dress." Apparently the blog-o-sphere has been buzzing about this unfortunately-designed gown that was intended to look like a heart, but looks a lot more like a giant vulva.

As Jezebel says, " Whether you think you're wearing your heart or your vagina on your dress, ladies, wear it proudly."

KMStitchery! Sweet Feminist Threads!

Check this out! Etsy is a fabulous on-line community for arts & crafts nerds, but just as fabulous is the Esty shop for KMSticthery's Eco-Friendly Feminist threads! All materials used are recycled. The pieces feature stencils of your favorite revolutionaries so you can rock the likes of Gloria Steinem, Audre Lorde and Susan B. Anthony on your sleeve (or chest, or back, or hood...). You can purchase most of these goodies from the KMStitchery shop at Etsy.com, and if you're in the Vancouver area, you can visit Planet Claire , for a little bit of touch and maybe even some feel. We love Etsy! And KMStitchery too!

Maybe women have come to their senses?

Have women come to their senses and stopped reading rubbish "women's magazines"? You know, the ones that claim to empower and educate us, but really just make us feel shitty about ourselves.

The following magazines reported double-digit declines in the second half of 2008. Which ones will survive 2009?

• O, the Oprah Magazine
• Redbook
• Teen Vogue
• Glamour
• Harper's Bazaar
• W
• Marie Claire
• Allure
  

*PS - if you're looking for a rad feminist-minded magazine to subscribe to, check out Bust and Bitch.