Lancome La Vie Est Belle Featuring Julia Roberts

After discussing my ideas for my final piece, my tutor pointed me towards this advertisement below, which I found here: x. I find the concept of the advert really interesting, as it shows that we are all controlled by society - especially the way that we interact with the opposite sex, the advert shows that quite clearly. 

But does it not just reinforce other stereotypes? Julia Roberts is shown wearing a white dress and entering a room where everyone is dressed in black. Does this reinforce the 'whore'/'virgin' polarisation of the female gender? Since all the women in the video are shown to be flirting with men, and Julia Roberts does not at all interact with anyone, it could be. But maybe it is also meant to show how everyone else is corrupted and stained by society, therefore wearing the darkest colour, but she isn't, therefore wearing a 'pure' colour. It seems like a little bit of a cliché, this choice of colour symbolism. What's missing in my opinion is that Julia Roberts is wearing white, being non-corrupted, but is being controlled by strings, and when she breaks the strings, her dress does not change. If the director had chosen to use clothing in such a symbolic way, it would have made sense to change the colour of her dress accordingly to the 'breaking free' of the strings. 

She then looks around at notices how everyone is controlled by strings - rather pretty ones, which look almost like diamonds. This suggests that we as society use our money to buy us just a more comfortable 'prison'. The camera then focuses on two women talking, where one is shown to brush her hair over her shoulder in a sensual way, then two men talking, using big hand gestures. This could be interpreted as our 'strings' by society dictating how we interact with people, and how our interactions differ depending on our gender and the opposite's gender. Next, the camera shows some 'couples' consisting of a man and a woman. Mostly, the man is standing with his back to the camera, and the woman is facing the camera, like below. It kind of seems like her strings are moving her arms, which she uses to draw attention to her body, and positions very carefully in order to achieve a certain look. 

Julia Roberts then realises, that she is also controlled by these strings - but she is the only one aware of it. She breaks the strings, similar to how you'd take off a bracelet, which is fitting because the strings look a lot like jewellery. 

Julia Roberts then leaves the party, and smiles knowingly at the camera. We are being shown the advert for the perfume, and the little animation shows the perfume bottle breaking the strings attached to it - subtext: buy this perfume, and escape society's pressure on you. Buy this beauty product, and you will be free. And since it is directed at women, it sounds a little like what I was looking at in previous posts, that women are shown to decorate their body in order to gain independence or power. A la: become a sex object and you will have power/(only) when you are being a sex object you will have power.

Though I like the initial direction that this advert is going in, it does still carry some of the stereotypes it wants to break free from. This reminds me of some research I did about Beyonce, that only being a sex object will give a woman power, and that this is the only kind of power she is ever able to gain. Women are always 'at risk' of 'loosing' their femininity when they are in powerful positions - look at Angela Merkel, a very powerful woman in control of an economically powerful country in a time of recession, so it seems that she is good at her job. Yet, she is still criticised for not being female enough, not being pretty enough. Interestingly, her nickname in Germany is 'Mutti', a pet name for your own mother, which makes her inherently non-sexual to the entire population. And that might be a good thing, since I doubt people would take her as serious if she happened to be younger and (since everyone's looks deteriorate with age) also more attractive.

I think what this advert is struggling with is the exact same struggle that feminists face today, that sexual 'liberation' or the okay for women to be freely sexual is all that women are allowed to do. Whenever women want to assume a position of power, if in a company or wherever, her surroundings are always very conscious of her sex, and her gender, applying standards that nobody would ever think of applying to a man in the same way. 

Charlie Crxsh

Why do some women and girls not like feminists?

This morning I was talking to my friend (who's female), and we had a little bit of an argument about feminism, in which she said that she doesn't really agree with it and finds feminists annoying. Why is it that some women and girls don't "like" the people campaigning for their equal treatment of society? Because they kind of know but ignore how patriarchy is objectifying them, because it makes your life a whole lot easier, but with the presence of feminists, they can't ignore it as well. Feminists disrupt the cycle of ignoring that so many women engage in.

People aren't going to like it when you tell them they've been brainwashed or are oppressed without their noticing. Inherently, I think humans all have too much of a narcissistic trend in order to just accept if someone tells them they wrong about something.  And we've been conditioning women and girls not to notice or really care about the fact that society treats them very differently to men and boys. Can you force it onto women and girls to realise how the patriarchy is effecting their lives negatively? If you try to convince someone that their opinions are wrong, they're most likely going to harden their views and be more opposed to changing their point of views.

"I mean boys will be boys, but when they really embrace the LAD Culture, that really annoys me" Does that mean she's beginning to realise, but it's only the very extreme of the spectrum of behaviour that she finds irritating? The reason that you only find lad-culture in boys is that it is based on sexual difference, and objectifying females. You don't find it in girls, because "objects" can't objectify.

Alsop, Fitzsimons and Lennon write in Theorizing Gender (2002): "Until we treat men and women the same socially then we have no way of telling what natural differences there may be between them." They found that the impact of cultural conditioning is so great that it can impacts our abilities. Following that, it seems obvious that if you tell a group of people that they should spend a great amount of time and money on trying to make themselves look nice, and that, physically, another group of people will always outperform them (when in fact that depends on training, not sex), well, then OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO START THINKING THAT. If we would start treating sex difference as not important, however, the gender stereotypes employed by out culture would fade and we would see, what we as a human race are truly capable of, not what our men and our women are truly capable of. I hope that the wider acceptance and knowledge of intersex and transgender people will help, because there is (obviously) no fitting stereotype for these people, so people will need to change their ways of thinking.

Society needs to change how we treat women and men, though. At the rate we're currently going, near half of the next generation will believe that dressing up and putting make up on is more important than anything else - with our current issues of for example global warming, with only about half of the scientists that we could have, might not be able to find a solution (but a greater pool of talents has greater chances of success and development).

So, about 30-40 years after Second Wave Feminism, we've arrived at a even more difficult point of view. What does this teach us? Do we need to spread our ideas on how both (or all) genders should be equal more aggressively? I doubt that that would do any good. Instead, we should try to change how we talk about all genders, the kinds of attitudes we express, and the kinds of attitudes that we spread. And if we have an important position in our culture, we should use our ability to reach out to people and just show them a different set of attitudes than the ones that they might currently be applying.

Humanity has such a great variety and diversity in character and thoughts, why do we have to class it by race or gender or sexual orientation? None of these factors detract from our thinking ability. We are able to do so many amazing things, we have built cars that can go up to 300 km/s, triple of the cheetah, the fastest animal. We have left our planet, we can communicate with each other using radio waves. Humanity has such a great potential, well the half that has so far been participating more. Imagine what we could do, if 100% were allowed and able to contribute?

Charlie Crxsh