Dove's "Real Beauty" Campaign

I recently read an article called Sorry, Dove: I'm not buying your brand of female empowerment, written by Stassia Edwards for The Week. The article comments on the new Dove video, "Patches", which is part of their Real Beauty campaign.

Dove has been advertising "Real Beauty" since 2004. The idea of the campaign is that women are beautiful the way that they are, and they shouldn't let beauty companies or mass media tell them otherwise. 

While I agree that women (and men!) shouldn't let mass media and advertisements influence their body image, I think that the whole Dove campaign is hypocracy at its finest. Everyone seems to forget that Dove is a beauty company. 

Let's look at the picture to the left, for example. Wow, that heavily airbrushed woman has real curves! Don't let people put insult your body, you're beautiful the way you are! Don't let corporate media bring down your self-esteem! Don't be afraid to show your body, no matter the shape or size! Buy our skin-firming anti-cellulite soaps and lotions! 

Okay, so it's not exactly out of the ordinary for commercials to be misleading or even outright lie. But Dove's ads are outright deceitful. In the words of Edwards, they "foster the belief that its products are more than just cosmetic, that they somehow enhance an inner beauty that exists in a place untouchable by beauty products." 

The big reason that the campaign has been so ridiculously successful is because it makes women think that by buying Dove, they're somehow contributing to feminism, because if I had to pick two words to encompass the entire feminist movement, they'd be 'female empowerment.' And Dove is allllll about money female empowerment.

What do you think about the whole Real Beauty campaign? Is it well meaning or is it a marketing ploy?

Theoretical Equals Factual

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 2 months, you've probably heard about the whole 'Russia Invades Crimea' thing. Dozens of newspaper articles have reported on the numerous deaths resulting from the conflict, and some conservative politicians (coughJOHN MCCAINcough) have seized the opportunity to hold Obama accountable.

The problem is that we don't know as much about the facts as we think we do. According to this article from Newsmax, 

Details of the fighting remain sketchy. A statement from the administration of the eastern Donetsk region indicated the security officer may have been killed between Slaviansk and the nearby town of Artemivsk. Putting the number of wounded at nine, it said "an armed confrontation" was going on in the area.

Reading this, I couldn't help but think of a passage from Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five. Set in WWII, the novel tells the tale of Billy Pilgrim and his experience in the Dresden bombings. At this point in the book, Billy is enlisted as a Chaplain's assistant and playing on his little organ when an umpire appeared to inform the congregation of the war's current status. 

"There were umpires everywhere, men who said who was winning or losing the theoretical battle, who was alive and who was dead. 

The umpire had comical news. The congregation had been theoretically spotted from the air by a theoretical enemy. They were all theoretically dead now. The theoretical corpses laughed and ate a hearty noontime meal."

It seems a bit strange that real life news reports are so similar to a novel that is a satire. Americans have a tendency to jump to conclusions before we have all the facts. The news that a theoretical security officer was theoretically killed is good enough to cement our opinions about the ongoing conflict.

Iron Man and the War on Terror

Since starting my Junior theme, I've put away my customary recreational reading in favor of reading books about superheroes and comic books. The most fascinating of these books, War, Politics, and Superheroes: Ethics and Propaganda in Comics and Film, starts with a statement about the connection between the recent resurgence in the popularity of superheroes and 9/11. Paraphrasing Mark Millar (Kick-Ass creator), author Marc DiPaolo notes that "Superhero stories are at their most popular and evocative when they respond to particularly turbulent political times, especially those marred by war and social unrest" (1).

Ever since 9/11, the United States has been in a terrorist frenzy. Our generation has grown up with increasingly strict TSA guidelines and a deep seated hatred of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. Superheros have responded to these Perilous Times by altering their origin stories and enemies to better fit the current view of the battle between the "good guys" and the "bad guys". 

When Iron Man was first published in 1963, Tony Stark was injured in Vietnam. The 2008 Iron Man movie has changed the setting to Afghanistan, where he is kidnapped by a terrorist group called the Ten Rings. They torture him until he agrees to build them a "weapon of mass destruction".

The Iron Man movie was incredibly successful. Why? The Ten Rings were an obvious reference to the Taliban, against whom Americans wanted revenge justice. Tony Stark's escape and the subsequent killing of his captors satisfied our thirst for blood sense of rightousness. 

Do you think that there is a connection between the current popularity of superheroes and 9/11? I'm interested in your responses. 

Apply to Become a Martian Today!

In my last post I wrote about The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury, which is a fantastic piece of fiction. So it was a bit of a shock when I saw an article on the NPR website about the hundreds of thousands of people who are applying to live on Mars (202,586 people, to be exact).

Mars One is a Dutch organization which plans to "establish a permanent human settlement on Mars" by 2025. According to the selection criteria on their website, applicants must "see the connection between [their] internal and external self", use humor as a "creative resource, used appropriately as an emerging contextual response", and "have a “Can do!” attitude". 

We Americans are leading the pack: 24% of the applicants hail from the United States. So what exactly is their reasoning for signing up?

Maybe they want to embrace the Good Ol' American Adventurous Spirit. But that's hardly a good enough reason for 48,000 Americans to literally leave the planet with the knowledge that they will never be able to return or see their families again. This is a "permanent commitment," (NPR). 

Are the applicants hoping for a new start? Are they willing to give up their lives to satisfy their curiosity? Curiosity killed the astronauts, after all. But satisfaction won't bring them back because it's a one way ticket to Mars. 

Would you sign up to go to Mars? See the full list of qualifications here if you're interested in applying!

A Martian's View on American Entitlement

I was reading The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury a few days ago and noticed his satire of the American sense of entitlement. The book is a collection of short stories about the human colonization of Mars. In the chapter August 2030: The Earth Men, a rocketship landed on Mars. The American astronaut Captain Williams goes to the first martian house he sees. Mrs. Ttt, the (martian) woman of the house, tells off Captain Williams and his crew for interrupting her baking. They're then sent on a wild goose chase through the Martian town in an attempt to find someone who will care that they came from Earth. They're finally directed to Mr. Iii's house, who opens the door and asks them what they desire. 

"'A little attention,' said the captain, red-eyed and tired. 'We're from Earth, we have a rocket, there are four of us, crew and captain, we're exhausted, we're hungry, we'd like a place to sleep. We'd like someone to give us the key to the city or something like that, and we'd like somebody to shake our hands and say 'Hooray' and say 'Congratulations, old man!' That about sums it up,'" (30).

After my initial chuckling, I was struck by how accurate this portayal of America is. We have a long history of "discovering" new lands, demanding accommodations from the natives, then exterminating them. Columbus killed the Taíno people after he saw their gold earrings. The Pilgrims shoved the Native Americans out of their territory, forcing them to move furthur west. President Jackson signed an act legalizing "enthic-cleansing"(according to Wikipedia).

Americans have always been "astronauts", exploring "uncharted" territory and expanding our control. But we're not content with exploration alone. We want the key to the city and eventually the city itself.

But aren't we heroes for risking our lives for expansion and progress? Bradbury certainly doesn't think so. By the end of the chapter, Captain Williams and his crew think that they are finally being honored, only to discover that they have been placed in an insane asylum on Mars. 

Do you think that Americans have a sense of entitlement? Does it do more harm than good, or is it all worth it in the end?

Is 'Reefer Madness' preferable to Drunken Debauchery?

I hear about how awful marijuana is all the time. In health we're told I'm not telling you not to smoke pot, but you'll die if you do!, and I can't even use the bathroom in peace without being bombarded with biased statistics (I'm looking at you, Tinkle Times). Okay, maybe "80% of NT students didn't smoke pot the last time they hung out with their friends," but what if they were with their friends at the mall and didn't have the opportunity to smoke? 

This Pew Research Survey reveals that every demographic (at least the ones they tested) believes that alcohol is more harmful and dangerous to society than marijuana. 

After the disastrous prohibition era of the 1920's, alcohol has been a cultural staple for American social gatherings. Despite its widespread use, however, majority of Americans consider it to be more harmful than marijuana. Even 45% of those who don't believe in its legalization answered that it is less harmful to a person's health than alcohol. Hell, even Obama agrees!

So why, then, is alcohol legal and weed illegal? Alcohol itself has always been accepted by the general population, but propoganda against the use of marijuana has made people demonize it. Just look at Reefer Madness, for example. The film, released in 1936, is filled with unintentionally hilarious scenes of teenagers commiting manslaughter and descending into madness (and having a nervous breakdown while listening to piano music).

We do have to remember that public opinion isn't always scientifically accurate. At one point in history, the popular opinion was that slavery was just fine.

Knowing this, I still can't help but agree with the results of the survey. There are thousands of deaths due to alcohol poisoning every year, but how many deaths due to marijuana overdose have occured? 

Do you agree with the results of the survey? Which do you believe is more dangerous: weed or alcohol?