Beaut.ie rant on Lush Stunt

Linguo

Linguo wrote: »

This is just healthy debate here and I'm not attacking you personally ok so let's keep it just as chat, that's what Boards is for after all!

starling wrote: »

Seriously I don't want to continue to engage with anyone who thinks I'm being rude because I am trying not to antagonise anyone, this is why I don't want to engage with Linguo. I also think she's actually been a bit rude to me and have asked her to explain but she hasn't so far. I don't want to escalate the situation.:(

I think I've made it pretty clear I'm not being rude and this is just healthy debate. To be honest people have had problems with your posts here not mine.

If you think I've been rude my apologies.

Morag

starling wrote: »

Seriously I don't want to continue to engage with anyone who thinks I'm being rude because I am trying not to antagonise anyone, this is why I don't want to engage with Linguo. I also think she's actually been a bit rude to me and have asked her to explain but she hasn't so far. I don't want to escalate the situation.:(
I can't engage in any meaningful way while everyone's getting at me, I'm off for some coffee.

If you think someone has been rude and it breaking the site rule of attack the content of the post and not the poster then report the posts for the mods to sort out instead of going on the offensive or retreating behind behind offended.

LizT

starling wrote: »

Seriously I don't want to continue to engage with anyone who thinks I'm being rude because I am trying not to antagonise anyone, this is why I don't want to engage with Linguo. I also think she's actually been a bit rude to me and have asked her to explain but she hasn't so far. I don't want to escalate the situation.:(
I can't engage in any meaningful way while everyone's getting at me, I'm off for some coffee.

You shouldn't see it as people getting at you. This is a discussion forum. You have given your opinion and unfortunately the posters at the minute don't agree with you (although I do think you're not alone in your viewpoint on this argument)

For me, some of your comments have been slightly rude but that's what happens when a debate gets heated. It shouldn't but it does. To be fair to linguo, I think she has clearly and consistently addressed any points you have made to her.

starling

Sharrow wrote: »

Are you connected in any way to the beaut.ie site?

[post]78466715[/post]
Seriously this is getting out of hand people who haven't even read my posts are at me now.

LizT

starling wrote: »

Sharrow wrote: »

Are you connected in any way to the beaut.ie site?

[post]78466715[/post]
Seriously this is getting out of hand people who haven't even read my posts are at me now.

? Who hasn't read your posts?

I think if people have a connection to any of the parties in the argument they should declare it.

Morag

starling wrote: »

[post]78466715[/post]
Seriously this is getting out of hand people who haven't even read my posts are at me now.

Thank your linking me back to you post where you had answered that.
I have read all the posts but that fact had slipped my mind, thank you for clarifying.

Oh and I am not "at" you I am debating with you.

ViveLaVie

starling wrote: »

It's really not that much of a leap to see a restrained woman being roughly treated by a man and think "there is a woman being tortured". At one point they use a contraption to prevent the woman from closing her mouth. If that doesn't strike you as having disturbing sexual overtones, google "spider gag". NOTE: Do not actually google this. You don't want to know.    
The issue was never whether it worked or not, although the answer to that question depends on what the intended outcome was. If you mean that they were trying to generate controversy and seem to have succeeded, well, I'm not sure it worked exactly as they were hoping. While controversy certainly ensued, many of the comments in the guardian and on lush's own website demonstrate that they actually angered a lot of people with the tactics they used, thus damaging their reputation and losing customers.
It's not okay to do a demonstration (in the window of a shop in a busy city street in the middle of the day) of a woman being tortured, just to further your own agenda. It's not okay if the woman consents. It's not okay if the woman conceived the whole performance. Lush hoped the campaign would raise awareness of the current state of animal testing legislation and encourage people to buy "cruelty-free" products. Which would mean a real monetary gain for Lush. Therefore they are exploiting violence against women for their own ends. Which is what the beaut article and commenters found unacceptable.


That's precisely what Lush's stunt does, though. For me, the fact that even when abuse survivors spoke up about finding the performance deeply upsetting, lush refused to acknowledge this in any meaningful way shows that they don't really care about them. They only addressed this briefly, by saying 'yeah, some people were upset. Sorry, but this is an important issue!' 
Lush used a performance that involved a woman being tortured, for shock value, and said that they felt justified in doing it because attention needs to be drawn to the current state of animal testing legislation. There are hundreds of other ways they could have publicised the issue. They chose a deeply offensive and intentionally shocking way to make their point, and hurt women in the process. Despite their homey aesthetic, Lush is a multinational retailer, not a grassroots movement; they ought to have used a more grown-up way to raise awareness of the issue.
 

I don't mean to leap on you here but there are a couple of turns of phrase here that just sit very badly with me.
For one thing, women are members of  society. Animals are not.
Also, women are not "the weaker members of society". Though men tend to be on average more physically powerful, women are more vulnerable to physical abuse due to far more complex reasons than simple physical strength. Societal attitudes to women and the normalisation of violence against women are part of the problem, among other things, so portraying violence against a woman without saying 'violence against women should be stopped' is irresponsible.
If a man had been used, I think the stunt would actually have been more shocking, precisely because as you say the sight of a man in the role of victim is so much more rare. But the guardian piece admits that the performance was intended to touch on the systemic abuse of more vulnerable groups eg. women and that for that reason, they couldn't use a man as the 'subject'. So basically they admit that violence against women was something they wanted to bring to people's minds, but only to further their agenda. Lush also insisted that a woman had to be used because women buy cosmetics. Which is actually pretty misogynistic just in itself: they are implying that women are responsible for animal testing (totally untrue) and should be doing something about it by only buying "cruelty-free" cosmetics.
As if the products that men use are not relevant to any discussion of animal testing. Men may not be buying lipstick, but they do use other toiletries which basically have the same ingredients as women's with different perfumes. They buy products from companies with poor records on animal testing - like L'Oreal which you mentioned.

'impact' is a noun btw.

You say that it's not okay if the woman consents. Now I realise this a bit off point but, seeing as you say a woman's consent is irrelevant in a case such as this, I'm going to ask you this anyway as I'm curious. If a woman consents to being in a bdsm relationship with a male, would you still be of the opinion that it's not okay? I don't think you can dismiss the issue of consent so easily. It's a woman's right to make decisions for herself and to have those decisions respected. By saying it doesn't matter that she consented you're belittling her choice and feminism is all about choice.

If the motivation behind doing something is 'bad' but the outcome is 'good' does that negate the good that was done? Of course Lush wants to increase profits. It's a business. Does that make the Lush fight against animal testing invalid and useless? I don't think so. The cause is still a very good one.

I take your point about doing the demonstration in the middle of the day. I realise some abuse survivors were distressed by this.

I also take your point about animals not being members of society. That is true, my statement was badly worded. However, I did not mean that women were the weaker members of society due to physical size and strength, which is what you seem to have taken from my point. Women have always been exploited and even today are not treated equally to men in some respects. This is what I meant.

I stand over my point that the campaign was effective because it used a woman in a vulnerable position as in my opinion the alignment of the exploitation of women with the exploitation of animals highlights how wrong animal testing is. You say it would have been more effective with a man, but isn't this because it would be shocking to see a man in such a vulnerable position? Yet you criticise the campaign for using 'shock tactics'.

Regarding your assertion that 'impact' is a noun...it is. However, the Oxford Dictionary also lists it as a verb. A large number of the verbs we use today were originally formed from nouns. Languages undergo constant renewal and, in the case of English in particular, there are very few hard and fast rules about what is acceptable. This is not a formal piece of writing. It is a post on a website. Shakespeare often played with grammar and that contributed to the evolution of modern English. You used 'btw' in your statement which a lot of other grammar nazis would point out is 'text language' and not proper English. I did feel as though you closed your rebuttal to my comments with a snide correction of my grammar in order to make me feel intimidated. Apologies if this was not the case.

mysteries1984

Wow. I vanished briefly over the weekend and there's been a lot of activity here.

starling, I fully agree with you on the post negating those who are interested in make up...indeed, I commented on it, and quoted it, although the author deigned to respond to a comment posted later than mine and ignored me. That's fine by me as it was in no way constructive or useful to the debate, although I'm not a fan of posting something like that and then not remaining to give a reason. I think it's childish.

Speaking more generally, I think in a way we're going around in circles...allegations are being made about being linked to sites, people 'getting at' them and so on, and that's not really productive. I probably shouldn't have commented on the aforementioned post about people interested in make up being unable to engage in constructive debate, really. I'd like to see more of us actually debating the issue here and not taking things too personally or referring to grammatical mistakes.

A lot of people have seen more in this than I did...torture porn, liquid down the throat akin to semen, etc etc. The differing viewpoints are interesting and I'd like the thread to continue in that vein if possible Maybe it will change opinions, maybe it won't...but it will hopefully help see the other side of the coin.

PrincessLola

I had know idea this thread became so busy.

I will say that I have seen posts throughout this thread (too lazy to go find them and quote them) that praise Lush for being so 'brave'
You guys, controlversial is not the same thing as being brave. I believe that what Lush did was appeal to people's unconscious associations of women and objects/animals. If they wanted to be brave they could have used a man (for once) I also believe that this was slackitism, designed to grab attention (not that thats a bad thing necessarily) at the expense of womens bodys.
I'm sorry if Lush don't like criticism, but I just don't agree with what they did. Deal with it. (I also think Beaut.ie are getting far too easily offended by the criticisms they're receiving).

Mr Teeny

PrincessLola wrote: »

If they wanted to be brave they could have used a man (for once)

Lush have used guys in campaigns before.

From a few pages back:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78454126&postcount=79

Morag

mysteries1984 wrote: »

A lot of people have seen more in this than I did...torture porn, liquid down the throat akin to semen, etc etc.

Yup says more about them then the arists preforming the piece imo.

OakeyDokey

PrincessLola wrote: »

If they wanted to be brave they could have used a man (for once) I also believe that this was slackitism, designed to grab attention (not that thats a bad thing necessarily) at the expense of womens bodys.

LUSH have used men before several times, the women volunteered for the position so they went with her.

From the article: "The bodysuit was not attractive (regardless of how the mainstream media may have presented or written about it). The costume made her an anonymous test subject and stripped her of the accoutrements of sexuality or eroticism."

She wasn't in revealing clothing or dressed in a way that made it more sexual, LUSH's aim was to think of her as a test subject not a women.

I disagree though, I think they were being brave when they did this campaign. LUSH would have thought of the back lash from it and the loss of customers but it didn't stop them from bringing awarness to people about animal testing.

On another note, what would people think if it had of been another women "testing" on a woman in the campaign? Would it have been as serious as this?

starling

Sharrow wrote: »

Thank your linking me back to you post where you had answered that.
I have read all the posts but that fact had slipped my mind, thank you for clarifying.

Oh and I am not "at" you I am debating with you.

That's not debating; you are implying, without any basis, that I have some ulterior motive for my viewpoint besides finding Lush's campaign hideously offensive; you are also implying dishonesty on my part for not disclosing a connection that doesn't exist. Why, specifically, do you think I have some connection to Beaut.ie?

starling

ViveLaVie wrote: »

You say that it's not okay if the woman consents. Now I realise this a bit off point but, seeing as you say a woman's consent is irrelevant in a case such as this, I'm going to ask you this anyway as I'm curious.If a woman consents to being in a bdsm relationship with a male, would you still be of the opinion that it's not okay?

Why do you think I would give a damn how someone else conducts their sex life? I don't know what I might have said that makes you think I would presume to judge some hypothetical woman on her hypothetical relationships. Unless she does it in the street, it's none of my business. If she does do it in the street she'll be arrested.
What I actually said was that the fact that Jacqueline Traide consented to being "tortured" in the Lush campaign does not in any way make that campaign less misogynistic. I said that because some people were offering her consent as a valid reason why the campaign was not misogynistic or exploitative.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I don't think you can dismiss the issue of consent so easily. It's a woman's right to make decisions for herself and to have those decisions respected.

It's a woman's right to make decisions for herself, it's not a multinational company's right to profit by exploiting women.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

By saying it doesn't matter that she consented you're belittling her choice and feminism is all about choice.

Feminism is about giving women equal rights. The fact that women "consent" to work in strip clubs or appear in porn doesn't automatically make their actions, or the businesses they work in, feminist. It doesn't matter that she consented. As Tamsin Ormond has stated, Lush were explicitly trying to represent the systemic abuse of women to draw attention to a completely different issue, and that is unnecessary and offensive.

Sharrow wrote: »

I don't see how respecting a woman's informed choice and her ability to consent is misogynistic, in fact I would say doing that is feminist.

This campaign deliberately exploited the prevalance of violence against women in order to raise awareness of animal testing. That is misogynistic.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

If the motivation behind doing something is 'bad' but the outcome is 'good' does that negate the good that was done?

It's the method I object to. I don't agree that the outcome in this instance was all good, and neither do the commenters on Beaut.ie, the f-word, the Guardian and even Lush's own blog who expressed their distaste for the stunt.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Of course Lush wants to increase profits. It's a business. Does that make the Lush fight against animal testing invalid and useless? I don't think so. The cause is still a very good one.

I know it's a good cause, they still don't have a right to exploit women to get their point across.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Women have always been exploited and even today are not treated equally to men in some respects. This is what I meant.

Quite. Which is why I think it is important to challenge sexism when we see it. Put it this way: in the US a black kid was recently shot by a racist, and racism prevented that murderer from being arrested immediately. Nobody tells black people "Hey never mind the racist joke that guy just told, we have enough to deal with." People generally expose racism when they see it, because not challenging it can be seen as creating an environment in which racism is tolerated. Compare that to women being told "It's not that serious, get a life".

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I stand over my point that the campaign was effective because it used a woman in a vulnerable position as in my opinion the alignment of the exploitation of women with the exploitation of animals highlights how wrong animal testing is. You say it would have been more effective with a man, but isn't this because it would be shocking to see a man in such a vulnerable position? Yet you criticise the campaign for using 'shock tactics'.

I criticise the campaign for deliberately exploiting the prevalance of violence against women in order to raise awareness of animal testing and profit a company whose customers and staff are mainly women, and for implying that animal testing is women's fault, and for putting the responsibility to stop it on women.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Regarding your assertion that 'impact' is a noun...it is. However, the Oxford Dictionary also lists it as a verb. A large number of the verbs we use today were originally formed from nouns. Languages undergo constant renewal and, in the case of English in particular, there are very few hard and fast rules about what is acceptable. This is not a formal piece of writing. It is a post on a website. Shakespeare often played with grammar and that contributed to the evolution of modern English.

This is a good argument. Although I don't believe that "common usage" is always a valid reason for accepting words or phrases (for example, the phrase 'I could care less' which is a result of a misunderstanding as opposed to Shakespearean-type wordplay) in the case of "impact" I'm happy to concede.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

You used 'btw' in your statement which a lot of other grammar nazis would point out is 'text language' and not proper English.

I would consider "btw", "IMHO", "YMMV" and other acronyms used on an internet forum to be different from "l33tspeak" and text language like "l8r"; although acronyms and textspeak both involve shortening "proper" English, the abbreviations in text language came from a need to fit in with the character limits of text messages, while internet/message board acronyms come from people not wanting to have to retype frequently-used phrases so often.
I know that sounds like an arbitrary distinction but I do think that text language and l33t are frowned on because they require more time and effort to decipher and that can become very irritating, while the acronyms are processed more or less as though they were ordinary words, hope that makes sense.
Btw I'd really like it if people didn't throw the word "nazi" around so much.:pac:

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I did feel as though you closed your rebuttal to my comments with a snide correction of my grammar in order to make me feel intimidated. Apologies if this was not the case.

It wasn't, just a compulsion.

Mr Teeny wrote: »

Lush have used guys in campaigns before.

OakeyDokey wrote: »

LUSH have used men before several times, the women volunteered for the position so they went with her.

OakeyDokey wrote: »

LUSH's aim was to think of her as a test subject not a women.

That's not what Tamsin Omond says. She says that using a woman was deliberate, and that "It would have been disingenuous at best to have pretended that a male subject could represent such systemic abuse."

Sharrow wrote: »

Did you not read the whole thread? if you had of you would have seen that they did you men in their stores as displays on this issue.

Yes I did read the whole thread and the fact that they used men in the past doesn't change the fact that they deliberately used a woman this time, then argued that they had to use a woman because a) women are apparently the ones who have a responsibility to stop animal testing and b) they wanted to capitalise on violence against women. They admitted both of these things. Then they insisted that there was nothing wrong with it, ignoring the feelings of the abuse survivors who told them how distressing they found the performance.:eek:

OakeyDokey wrote: »

From the article: "The bodysuit was not attractive (regardless of how the mainstream media may have presented or written about it). The costume made her an anonymous test subject and stripped her of the accoutrements of sexuality or eroticism."

She wasn't in revealing clothing or dressed in a way that made it more sexual,

Sexual sadists get off on torturing people, it's a bit like how power is a larger element of rape than just sex. Despite what Hollywood might have you believe, it is entirely possible to portray the brutality of a rape without the woman needing to be naked. The sexual sadist's victim doesn't need to be naked or dressed in lingerie or whatever in order for the torture or violence to arouse him. The costume intentionally left her gender (and her nipples) clearly discernible.
Incidentally here are some comments from the page on Buzzfeed where this stunt was mentioned:

• That looks like my Saturday night!
• Any adult video stores nearby were probably empty once words got around.
• I have the weirdest boner right now.
• Lush is into some kinky stuff…
• I saw this first on porn hub.
• Her nipples say she liked it.

OakeyDokey wrote: »

I disagree though, I think they were being brave when they did this campaign. LUSH would have thought of the back lash from it and the loss of customers but it didn't stop them from bringing awarness to people about animal testing.

I think it makes it even worse to think that they were fully aware of the implications of this stunt and then went ahead with it anyway. I don't see how they were brave; they are probably hoping that the campaign will strengthen their brand identity and that women will believe their crap so that the net result is a gain.

OakeyDokey wrote: »

On another note, what would people think if it had of been another women "testing" on a woman in the campaign? Would it have been as serious as this?

If they were still using a female "test subject", for the reasons they stated, then yes.

lizt wrote: »

? Who hasn't read your posts?

You?

Sharrow wrote: »

I don't see how respecting a woman's informed choice and her ability to consent is misogynistic, in fact I would say doing that is feminist.

This campaign deliberately exploited the prevalance of violence against women in order to raise awareness of animal testing. That is misogynistic.

Sharrow wrote: »

This has always been thier policy, if asked they will do press or give interviews but they don't do paid advertising and endorsements.

I never suggested they needed to advertise their products; Lush is actually an excellent example of how you can be successful in retail without needed to advertise your products all over the place. I said they have the resources to publicise the issue without having to resort to this kind of nasty stunt.

Sharrow wrote: »

I think the term you are reaching for is '"folksy",

Thankyou, "folksy" is a good word for what i was thinking.

Sharrow wrote: »

and you seem to think that the success they have had makes them somehow less true to their mission statement and ethics. Do you have anything to back that up?

I don't think that at all, I never said anything like that.

Sharrow wrote: »

Because I see them as using the position they are in to be even more true to their ethics and enabling them to follow true on their mission statement on a larger scale with out compromise.

I see them using the position they are in to hurt women.

Sharrow wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion, I still think you are trying to force Lush into a certain pigeon hole which they never want to be in, ie you are trying to make them some how 'respectable', which they don't ever wanna be (Mel & Kim ) held to that standard.

I was expecting them to treat human beings with decency and respect, and I was expecting them not to exploit women. I agree it's clear they don't want to be held to that standard, they want to be able to do whatever they want for their own cause.

Sharrow wrote: »

Women spend more on cosmetics and it is still women in most households who will be doing the buying of most of the toiletries for the household including the men in their lives. That is basic market demographics.
I can't see how that fact is sexist or misogynistic.

If it were true that "it is still women in most households who will be doing the buying of most of the toiletries for the household including the men in their lives", why would advertising for things like Lynx or Gillette be targeting men? Not all men have their toiletries bought for them by their mothers/wives/girlfriends and even those who do still get to choose which ones they want. I'm pretty sure most men buy their own contact lenses too.
Men don't get a mention at all in discussion of animal testing for cosmetic purposes and they are specifically not acknowledged as consumers of cosmetics in Tamsin Omond's piece. All of the blame is being put on women. That is sexist.
It's also kind of classist to expect women to always pay extra for so-called cruelty free cosmetics and toiletries, since there is such a large price difference.

Sharrow wrote: »

IF an abuse survivor found that triggering and emotionally upsetting then I would have compassion but point out it's their issue and they need to considered some more counseling.

I know I have things which trigger me, I take responsibly for myself and my own emotional reactions to things, by either not exposing myself or by taking the time to sort out why I was triggered and finding the right place for my anger instead of lashing out at those who may have triggered me.

That's extremely cold. I hope that your indifference to the suffering of other human beings is just some kind of coping mechanism you have developed.
Apparently, around 1 in 3 rape survivors develop PTSD which works out at at least 2 million people in the UK, although it's hard to give accurate statistics given that many rapes are not reported. This is not something they can keep under control with counselling, and like all mental illness, it is not a weakness or a lack of responsibility. Does "not exposing myself" mean "not going to public places" or "not having an email account"? You appear to be blaming those who were upset by this display and implying that they are irresponsible or that it was their fault for being out in public. They have a perfect right to be angry at Lush for putting on a display of torture, without warning, in a shop window in a busy city street in the middle of the day.
In addition you seem to be assuming that "counselling" is accessible to everyone, which is patently untrue. All mental health services are woefully underfunded, both here and in the UK.
If your child had PTSD and found this display shocking would you tell them "That's your issue, get over it"?:eek:

OakeyDokey wrote: »

I am a survior of sexual abuse, I still struggle with it enough to know I still have issues but seeing that didn't trigger anything with me. I think it's a bit annoying for people to assume that everyone with an abusive passed is going to be offended by this campaign!

Nobody is assuming that, many abuse survivors were offended; here are some reactions:
"I'm so disappointed that you would evoke torture porn in order to express your distaste for animal testing. As a rape survivor with PTSD, you have to realise that you have exploited my feelings and experiences to create a stunt".
That's from http://www.fightinganimaltesting.com/our-blog/power-oppression-and-abuse-performing-animal-tests-2/ which is run by Lush.
Here's another comment, this time from the Guardian piece:
"As someone who has been assaulted, this 'performance piece' made me feel very uncomfortable. And then you describe you reaction of women who have been victims of violence as a 'compromise?' When will animal rights activists stop drawing comparisons between two entirely different oppressive systems"

If this stunt didn't trigger you, you are lucky. These people weren't so lucky. Crucially, Lush doesn't really give a damn either way.

Morag

I wasn't implying anything, I flat out and honestly asked the question and it was answered.
Topic done.

Morag

starling wrote: »

If it were true that "it is still women in most households who will be doing the buying of most of the toiletries for the household including the men in their lives", why would advertising for things like Lynx or Gillette be targeting men? Not all men have their toiletries bought for them by their mothers/wives/girlfriends and even those who do still get to choose which ones they want. I'm pretty sure most men buy their own contact lenses too.
Men don't get a mention at all in discussion of animal testing for cosmetic purposes and they are specifically not acknowledged as consumers of cosmetics in Tamsin Omond's piece. All of the blame is being put on women. That is sexist.
It's also kind of classist to expect women to always pay extra for so-called cruelty free cosmetics and toiletries, since there is such a large price difference.

Market forces show that in the majority of house holds it is women who do that type of shopping, this is not sexist, it is a fact.

Women are the dominant market force when it comes to cosmetics, again a fact and not sexist.


Oh I have found that lush's products esp make up, shampoo, moisteriser and perfume to be vastly cheaper, longer lasting and better value then other brands.

starling wrote: »

That's extremely cold. I hope that your indifference to the suffering of other human beings is just some kind of coping mechanism you have developed.

Not cold and stop trying to imply I am somehow damaged.

I have plenty of compassion and have done first contact training for deal with people who have suffered a whole range of abuse and have for years been a supporter and ally and point of information for people who need help.

starling wrote: »

In addition you seem to be assuming that "counselling" is accessible to everyone, which is patently untrue. All mental health services are woefully underfunded, both here and in the UK.

I am away of how strained the system is but if a person really needs such help it is there for them.

starling wrote: »

If your child had PTSD and found this display shocking would you tell them "That's your issue, get over it"?

Actually I have a child who is on the autistic spectrum and who has triggers and we work actively nearly every day to work around them and deal with them and provide coping mechanisms.

OakeyDokey

starling wrote: »

Crucially, Lush doesn't really give a damn either way.

They did give a damn, they gave a damn about the animals that are being grown, tortured and killed daily due to unnecessary testing!

The campaign's aim was clearly displayed on the window over the artists, yes, it might have been a shock but it's not like people were standing wondering what it was about, all they had to do was read the sign. There was also people on the street from LUSH wearing t-shirts and chatting to the onlookers about the cause and to see if they would sign the petition.

starling

OakeyDokey wrote: »

They did give a damn, they gave a damn about the animals that are being grown, tortured and killed daily due to unnecessary testing!

I think it's pretty clear that I was talking about people like the ones I quoted, not the animal testing issue.

starling

Sharrow wrote: »

Market forces show that in the majority of house holds it is women who do that type of shopping, this is not sexist, it is a fact.

Women are the dominant market force when it comes to cosmetics, again a fact and not sexist.

Not all men have their toiletries bought for them by their mothers/wives/girlfriends and even those who do still get to choose which ones they want. I'm pretty sure most men buy their own contact lenses too.
Men don't get a mention at all in discussion of animal testing for cosmetic purposes and they are specifically not acknowledged as consumers of cosmetics in Tamsin Omond's piece. All of the blame is being put on women. As I said, That is sexist.

Sharrow wrote: »

Oh I have found that lush's products esp make up, shampoo, moisteriser and perfume to be vastly cheaper, longer lasting and better value then other brands.

Lidl Shower Gel: €1.69 per litre
Lush "It's Raining Men" shower gel: £4.25 per 100g
It is a fact that thousands of people in this country cannot afford to buy their cosmetics and toiletries in Lush.

Sharrow wrote: »

Not cold and stop trying to imply I am somehow damaged.

Just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as to why you would be so indifferent. You tried to imply I was some kind of undercover Beaut.ie staffer, fair's fair.
Incidentally what exactly did you mean by "lashing out"? They commented on Lush's blog and on the Guardian website, is that what you were talking about?

Sharrow wrote: »

I have plenty of compassion and have done first contact training for deal with people who have suffered a whole range of abuse and have for years been a supporter and ally and point of information for people who need help.

When they need help do you "point out it's their issue and they need to considered some more counseling."? Do you tell them about how you take responsibility for your own emotional reactions by not exposing yourself? I bet they really appreciate that.

Sharrow wrote: »

I am away of how strained the system is but if a person really needs such help it is there for them.

Not always, not for everyone, not consistently.

Sharrow wrote: »

Actually I have a child who is on the autistic spectrum and who has triggers and we work actively nearly every day to work around them and deal with them and provide coping mechanisms.

Does "working around them" mean not going out in public? If one of the rape survivors who inadvertently saw the stunt in Lush and had their PTSD triggered was your child, is that how you would respond to their distress? PTSD!= autism, btw.

OakeyDokey

starling wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear that I was talking about people like the ones I quoted, not the animal testing issue.

Just because people are going to get offended or shocked over something doesn't mean it's wrong to do, the campaign wasn't promoting sexual violence or torture it was trying to bring a message across to people who are non the wiser on what goes on behind making certain cosmetic products etc.

This might sound bad but it's not LUSH's fault that people got the wrong idea! It's clearly displayed everywhere across the window and from the LUSH workers walking around explaining. I am in no way blaming people for feeling a certain way but you can't blame LUSH either because they did have it clearly displayed.

It might be horrific and upsetting but this is happening to innocent animals!

ViveLaVie

starling wrote: »

Why do you think I would give a damn how someone else conducts their sex life? I don't know what I might have said that makes you think I would presume to judge some hypothetical woman on her hypothetical relationships. Unless she does it in the street, it's none of my business. If she does do it in the street she'll be arrested.
What I actually said was that the fact that Jacqueline Traide consented to being "tortured" in the Lush campaign does not in any way make that campaign less misogynistic. I said that because some people were offering her consent as a valid reason why the campaign was not misogynistic or exploitative. Feminism is about giving women equal rights. The fact that women "consent" to work in strip clubs or appear in porn doesn't automatically make their actions, or the businesses they work in, feminist. It doesn't matter that she consented.

I realise my question was a bit off topic, but I acknowledged that. I asked anyway because you specifically said that her consent didn't matter, that the act was still exploitative. Now, if a woman consents to engage in a bdsm relationship with a male, then she is agreeing to be treated in a sexually aggressive, and a potentially violent, manner. You say that the display was exploitative precisely because it imitated sexual torture. If a woman in a bdsm relationship is being treated the same way in private, is it ok? There is no difference in the treatment of the woman in either scenario except that the Lush display occurred in public. Is the problem then the fact that a graphic display occurred in public without an adequate warning? Is it in fact the thought that some people who were distressed by this display could have had the choice not to view it? In this case, the graphic nature of the display itself is not to be condemned, but rather the decision to perform this at a questionable hour in a questionable location.


The consent issue is an important one. You said that if a woman consents to be in porn that doesn't make it feminist. Agreed. However, the campaign cannot be classified under the same criteria. It is not porn. The primary intent of the campaign was to raise awareness, not to sexually arouse anybody or to provoke any kind of derogatory thinking through the objectification of women. So while you say that it is similar to porn in nature, I strongly disagree. Not everybody who viewed it saw it in this light. Sooo, to cut a long story short here, what I'm saying is that while Lush should have notified people of the sensitive nature of the scene before coming upon it, I don't agree that the scene is misogynistic. Honestly, it really did look to me like she was a test subject. I realise an awful lot of people read more into it, but I believe my interpretation is equally valid.

starling wrote: »

It's a woman's right to make decisions for herself, it's not a multinational company's right to profit by exploiting women.
As Tamsin Ormond has stated, Lush were explicitly trying to represent the systemic abuse of women to draw attention to a completely different issue, and that is unnecessary and offensive. This campaign deliberately exploited the prevalance of violence against women in order to raise awareness of animal testing. That is misogynistic.It's the method I object to.

If the campaign used a woman deliberately in order to draw associations with the exploitation of women, I don't see how that makes Lush guilty of perpetuating the exploitation any further. It was a performance. Performances aren't real. Often, performances imitate reality in order to criticise it. This is what I believe was happening here. As I already said, I think that using a woman is more effective as it deliberately draws a comparison between the exploitation of women and the exploitation of animals. Therefore, the campaign is condemnatory of violence against women. Lush does not support the exploitation of women. I don't see how utilising it in performance makes it wrong. I concede that it should have carried a warning. However, if it had, then I don't see any ethical problem with the nature of the display. Lush is not perpetuating the exploitation of women. Lush is criticising this very concept.

starling wrote: »

I don't agree that the outcome in this instance was all good, and neither do the commenters on Beaut.ie, the f-word, the Guardian and even Lush's own blog who expressed their distaste for the stunt. I know it's a good cause, they still don't have a right to exploit women to get their point across.

I wasn't saying that the outcome of the campaign was positive. I think it's pretty clear that it generated a lot of anger. In your earlier post, you implied that Lush's interest in this issue is problematised because if their campaign were successful, they would increase their profits. I was arguing that the cause is still a good one and that the Lush activism against animal testing is a good outcome in this situation regardless of their vested interest in increasing profits.

starling wrote: »

Quite. Which is why I think it is important to challenge sexism when we see it. Put it this way: in the US a black kid was recently shot by a racist, and racism prevented that murderer from being arrested immediately. Nobody tells black people "Hey never mind the racist joke that guy just told, we have enough to deal with." People generally expose racism when they see it, because not challenging it can be seen as creating an environment in which racism is tolerated. Compare that to women being told "It's not that serious, get a life".

I don't see it as sexist to utilise a sexist ideology in performance in order to criticise it. The woman's safety was obviously a priority and her consent was given. It's not like Lush is saying it's ok to treat women in this way. They're highlighting the problem with animal testing by comparing it to the exploitation of women and saying "Look, it's wrong to exploit women - well, exploiting animals is just as bad". It's the same as depicting racist behaviour in a film. That does not make the film racist. The only difference I see is that a film carries a warning, but I've already said that I think Lush should have warned people of the graphic nature of the display. Here, you've used a real-life example of a racially motivated murder. In this case, a person died due to racism and the murderer was not arrested immediately, presumably due to more racism on the part of law enforcement. That is perverting the course of justice and has very serious legal implications. That is unacceptable. A performance is totally different. I do not think it is ok to tell women "Yeah, big deal, get over it" regarding sexism. I am a woman. I am a feminist. However, I do not think that this display was sexist in nature.

starling wrote: »

I criticise the campaign for deliberately exploiting the prevalance of violence against women in order to raise awareness of animal testing and profit a company whose customers and staff are mainly women, and for implying that animal testing is women's fault, and for putting the responsibility to stop it on women.

I'm sorry but I fail to see where Lush are implying that animal testing is all women's fault. The tester in the display is a man. A man is carrying out the tests. Where did they state that is solely the responsibility of women to stop/prevent animal testing? In my opinion, they targeted women with this campaign because the largest consumer group of cosmetics is women. This is factual. Marketers and advertisers will always target the largest market for their goods.

starling wrote: »

This is a good argument. Although I don't believe that "common usage" is always a valid reason for accepting words or phrases (for example, the phrase 'I could care less' which is a result of a misunderstanding as opposed to Shakespearean-type wordplay) in the case of "impact" I'm happy to concede.


I would consider "btw", "IMHO", "YMMV" and other acronyms used on an internet forum to be different from "l33tspeak" and text language like "l8r"; although acronyms and textspeak both involve shortening "proper" English, the abbreviations in text language came from a need to fit in with the character limits of text messages, while internet/message board acronyms come from people not wanting to have to retype frequently-used phrases so often.
I know that sounds like an arbitrary distinction but I do think that text language and l33t are frowned on because they require more time and effort to decipher and that can become very irritating, while the acronyms are processed more or less as though they were ordinary words, hope that makes sense.
Btw I'd really like it if people didn't throw the word "nazi" around so much.:pac: It wasn't, just a compulsion

I am a believer that common usage is a valid reason for accepting new words, spellings etc. This is how all languages evolve. Languages would stagnate otherwise. Therefore, I think the use of 'btw' is perfectly fine. However, it does not appear in the Oxford Dictionary and I would contend your assertion that it's an acronym, as acronyms are pronounced as words e.g. NATO. If a word is listed in the dictionary as a verb, and 'impact' is, then I think that makes a definitive enough case for using it as one. All this debate over minor grammatical details is silly anyway. I only countered your criticism because I felt it was a bit petty. You knew exactly what I meant when I used it. Anyway, we've cleared it all up now, so let's all be friends

Linguo

Just went on Beaut today and it's really changed a lot lately, don't really like it anymore, it's all random posts that are a bit boring, the only interesting one was on that new Face Atelier Zero Plus foundation but I'd already read about it on another Irish blog a week beforehand.

Anyone else think it's gone a big mad lately?

NicsM

Linguo wrote: »

Just went on Beaut today and it's really changed a lot lately, don't really like it anymore, it's all random posts that are a bit boring, the only interesting one was on that new Face Atelier Zero Plus foundation but I'd already read about it on another Irish blog a week beforehand.

Anyone else think it's gone a big mad lately?

The tone has totally changed since Kirstie's departure, it has always been a daily must read for me over the last few years but there has been a noticable change in the content in the last few weeks.

I'm reluctant to say a decline in quality but there have been a few posts I've read going 'wtf?' at.

Twee.

Linguo wrote: »

Just went on Beaut today and it's really changed a lot lately, don't really like it anymore, it's all random posts that are a bit boring, the only interesting one was on that new Face Atelier Zero Plus foundation but I'd already read about it on another Irish blog a week beforehand.

Anyone else think it's gone a big mad lately?

"Blather" threads, colour swatches on the backs of hands, other random opinion posts, not what I'm looking for in a beauty blog

Gauge

I gave up on them when they switched their RSS feed to summary only- you need to click through to get to the post content. No thanks, if I can't get it in my RSS reader I'm not reading.

Always found them hypocritical in some respects anyway and never seemed able to keep their opinions straight or support/defend them well, which was proved by the Lush post. It had gone downhill long before I unsubscribed altogether so I really don't feel like I'm missing anything.

Morag

starling wrote: »

Not all men have their toiletries bought for them by their mothers/wives/girlfriends and even those who do still get to choose which ones they want. I'm pretty sure most men buy their own contact lenses too.

I never said all men.

starling wrote: »

Men don't get a mention at all in discussion of animal testing for cosmetic purposes and they are specifically not acknowledged as consumers of cosmetics in Tamsin Omond's piece. All of the blame is being put on women. As I said, That is sexist.

All of the blame oh I don't think so, not when you consider the men who work in the animal testing labs, and who are the ceos of the companies who use animal testing and the lobbiest who have delayed the changes in EU law which were made in 1993.
Give it up, that dog won't hunt.

starling wrote: »

Lidl Shower Gel: €1.69 per litre
Lush "It's Raining Men" shower gel: £4.25 per 100g
It is a fact that thousands of people in this country cannot afford to buy their cosmetics and toiletries in Lush.

Yes thousands of people are on social welfare in this country, so what.

It is also a fact that there are people who can afford to spend what I consider daft money on cosmetics and yes the majority of them are women and who have no idea how much they are being ripped off and funding needless animal testing.

starling wrote: »

Just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as to why you would be so indifferent. You tried to imply I was some kind of undercover Beaut.ie staffer, fair's fair.

No it's not.

starling wrote: »

When they need help do you "point out it's their issue and they need to considered some more counseling."? Do you tell them about how you take responsibility for your own emotional reactions by not exposing yourself? I bet they really appreciate that.

You are getting needlessly personal and I refuse to get into and allow it to take the discussion off topic.

starling wrote: »

Not always, not for everyone, not consistently.

IF you want to start a thread about the issues surrounding people who need counseling in this country I will be happy to do so, but I won't derail this one.

starling wrote: »

Does "working around them" mean not going out in public?

No, it means preparing for when you run into things and behaviors which trigger you and being aware of what may do that and having a plan which can include and exit strategy. In an ideal world no one would have to live with that, but the world is less then ideal and we do our best.

starling wrote: »

If one of the rape survivors who inadvertently saw the stunt in Lush and had their PTSD triggered was your child, is that how you would respond to their distress?

That is a simplified hypothetical and I am not doing to derail the thread with it.

starling wrote: »

PTSD!= autism, btw.

Yup but both conditions can result in the person having triggers, emotional out bursts, seemingly irrational beahviour and panic attacks.

MJOR

I thought it was awful and quite disgusting.I think that they have got the reaction they wanted. I do avoid companies that test on animals and will now after what was a total publicity stunt avoid lush and their over perfumed CRAP

Jess16

Huge cosmetic companies commit crimes against animals, Lush highlight this -and they're condemned?! Classic case of shooting the messenger whilst the perpetrators go unscathed

Sittingpretty

Linguo wrote: »

Just went on Beaut today and it's really changed a lot lately, don't really like it anymore, it's all random posts that are a bit boring, the only interesting one was on that new Face Atelier Zero Plus foundation but I'd already read about it on another Irish blog a week beforehand.

Anyone else think it's gone a big mad lately?

This morning's "fanny face wash" was a new low for me

tiny_penguin

I think the campaign was inappropriate for the middle of the day in a busy street. Images like this would not be allowed on television pre watershed and there probably were children who were exposed to these images without warning. Regardless of what they were trying to portray images like this could be hugely distressing to children.

I do agree with Starling there they cannot ignore that it does have some parallels with torture porn whether everyone read that into them or not. And that the images could have been construed as distressing for some people who have been sexually assaulted in the past. This is not something you expect to come across when walking down a busy shopping street and would be very hard to prepare for if you are in any way vulnerable. There was no warning that there were distressing images on display, if you walked passed it would have seemed it would have been hard not to see this. Not everyone would be distressed by these images, but the fact that that they were on display with no warning means that those who were distressed by them were not given the option to not see them.

I agree that the issue is one that needs light being shed on - but there are better ways than this of doing it than using shock tactics like this.

I personally think extreme campaign and shock tactics are not the best way to shed light on an issue - as now people are too busy arguing the right and wrong of what they did to really focus on why they did.

ViveLaVie

Ninaluna wrote: »

The tone has totally changed since Kirstie's departure, it has always been a daily must read for me over the last few years but there has been a noticable change in the content in the last few weeks.

I'm reluctant to say a decline in quality but there have been a few posts I've read going 'wtf?' at.

I had noticed it was a bit 'off' lately but I couldn't put my finger on what was wrong. It must be the influx of new writers as well as Kirstie's departure. I didn't know she had left. Does anyone know why, out of curiosity?

Jess16

tiny_penguin wrote: »

I personally think extreme campaign and shock tactics are not the best way to shed light on an issue - as now people are too busy arguing the right and wrong of what they did to really focus on why they did.

I think the very fact that this campaign has generated such discussion is testimony to the effectiveness of it -if Lush had tread the already well-worn path of conservatism, nobody would have batted a well-groomed eyelid. They didn't and the subsequent discussion literally speaks for itself -there's no such thing as bad publicity!

RDM_83 again

Jess16 wrote: »

I think the very fact that this campaign has generated such discussion is testimony to the effectiveness of it -if Lush had tread the already well-worn path of conservatism, nobody would have batted a well-groomed eyelid. They didn't and the subsequent discussion literally speaks for itself -there's no such thing as bad publicity!

Honestly the this style of campaign (and the controversies surrounding it) is so well-worn too The Onion even parodied it 3 years ago!

http://www.theonion.com/video/advocacy-group-decries-petas-inhumane-treatment-of,14359/

mysteries1984

Sittingpretty wrote: »

This morning's "fanny face wash" was a new low for me

I've stopped reading it altogether, so I missed that...but is that using 'feminine' wash on your face? I did hear about someone doing that before. Sounds like it'd upset the pH balance...

Twee. wrote: »

"Blather" threads, colour swatches on the backs of hands, other random opinion posts, not what I'm looking for in a beauty blog

Me neither, although I find swatches can be helpful sometimes.

Ninaluna wrote: »

The tone has totally changed since Kirstie's departure, it has always been a daily must read for me over the last few years but there has been a noticable change in the content in the last few weeks.

I'm reluctant to say a decline in quality but there have been a few posts I've read going 'wtf?' at.

Was she the one that always came up as 'Admin' when commenting on posts?

tiny_penguin wrote: »

I agree that the issue is one that needs light being shed on - but there are better ways than this of doing it than using shock tactics like this.

I personally think extreme campaign and shock tactics are not the best way to shed light on an issue - as now people are too busy arguing the right and wrong of what they did to really focus on why they did.

Shock tactics are proven to work, and that's probably why they used them. Some people might be arguing the right and wrong but it's probably what Lush wanted. I said much earlier on in the thread that it's successful as an advertisement because people are talking about it. Win all round for Lush as far as they're concerned, I'd imagine.

OakeyDokey

Beaut.ie wrote: »

The fact that it’s a fanny cleanser is a bit off-putting, isn’t it?

Why? I would think that it would be more appealing to use, there's so much crap put into general face washes these days, I would assume a wash for that area of your body would cut out all the crap making it better and safer to use for the more intimate areas.

Beaut.ie wrote: »

it doesn’t contain essence of muff, va-jay-jay extract

I actually cringed reading the above sentence from the post! I'm not saying that beauty blogs have to be professional, I know my own one is far from it but this just screams out "Seriously" It was the same as using the word "rapey" when posting the other post.

Beaut.ie wrote: »

Going to do a fanny facial again? Nope. I think there are too many other ways of scrubbing up without removing every ounce of dignity at the same time.

I have Avon's Simply Delicate Feminine Wash at home that I use in the shower, there has been times when I have left my face wash on the sink and forgot to bring it with me into the shower with me, I've often used the feminine wash on my face to avoid having to jump out and get the the face wash and it hasn't removed my dignity yet.

Okay fair enough if you used the feminine wash on your face and you didn't like it but, saying that it did the job (even better than a lot of face washes) but you'd be too embarressed to use it because it's made for that region of the body

This is what turns me off Beaut!

Saying that I have to say I do really enjoy Emma's posts, they are uplifting, interesting and useful, exactly the right information I'm looking for.

Sorry for the rant

Sittingpretty

I didn't have any issue with the facewash experiment at all. I just find the author's writing style very crass and I'm no shrinking violet.
However I seem to be in a minority as she always receives compliments on her writing. Which is fair enough, to each their own but personally when Beaut.ie stoops to polls on whether or not you pee in the shower and fanny facewash experiments it puts me off reading, which is a pity as it used to be a daily go to for me.

KamiKazeKitten

I haven't visited Beaut in months! It seems to have gone a bit downhill.
Just went to have a look at that article and while it was awfully cringy, I got a good laugh out of this sentence in particular:

It’s upsetting the natural order of things, for god sake.

....which she typed on a computer. :pac:

starling

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I realise my question was a bit off topic, but I acknowledged that. I asked anyway because you specifically said that her consent didn't matter, that the act was still exploitative. Now, if a woman consents to engage in a bdsm relationship with a male, then she is agreeing to be treated in a sexually aggressive, and a potentially violent, manner. You say that the display was exploitative precisely because it imitated sexual torture. If a woman in a bdsm relationship is being treated the same way in private, is it ok? There is no difference in the treatment of the woman in either scenario except that the Lush display occurred in public.

Your hypothetical woman is doing it for her own benefit, while Lush is doing it for profit and to draw attention to an unrelated issue. What I actually said was that the fact that Jacqueline Traide consented to being "tortured" in the Lush campaign does not in any way make that campaign less misogynistic. I said that because some people were offering her consent as a valid reason why the campaign was not misogynistic or exploitative.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Is the problem then the fact that a graphic display occurred in public without an adequate warning? Is it in fact the thought that some people who were distressed by this display could have had the choice not to view it? In this case, the graphic nature of the display itself is not to be condemned, but rather the decision to perform this at a questionable hour in a questionable location.

That's certainly one of the problems; in my opinion, it speaks to a certain insensitivity on Lush's part, and a willingness to deliberately upset people for their own ends, when it was not necessary to do so. Their "apology" where they say they're sorry if abuse survivors were hurt but then claim that it was necessary to do so (a lie) compounds this insensitivity, and "Sorry if you felt that way" is a very poor and insincere way to apologise, particularly when they've already said that their actions were deliberate and thoroughly thought-out.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

The consent issue is an important one. You said that if a woman consents to be in porn that doesn't make it feminist. Agreed. However, the campaign cannot be classified under the same criteria. It is not porn. The primary intent of the campaign was to raise awareness, not to sexually arouse anybody or to provoke any kind of derogatory thinking through the objectification of women. So while you say that it is similar to porn in nature, I strongly disagree. Not everybody who viewed it saw it in this light.

No, I say that the campaign used a woman deliberately in order to draw associations with the exploitation of women when the issue of animal testing is not actually related to exploiting women - and is not even a single-sex issue.
Men are at least as complicit.
I agree that not everybody saw a sexual or 'traditionally' pornographic element in the performance, but a lot of people have been saying that "I didn't see that, therefore everyone who did is wrong", and I wanted to challenge that, because to an abuser, the act of asserting power over a woman is sexually arousing. Tamsin Omond said that it wasn't pornographic because "The bodysuit was not attractive (however the mainstream media may have presented or written about it). The costume made her an anonymous test subject and stripped her of the accoutrements of sexuality or eroticism."
My issues with this line of argument are: the bodysuit still made it easily discernible that she was a female test subject; it doesn't have to be "traditionally" sexy for there to be a sexual element; it did not, therefore, "strip her of the acoutrements of sexuality". Even if it had, well, ojectification is part of abuse.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

If the campaign used a woman deliberately in order to draw associations with the exploitation of women, I don't see how that makes Lush guilty of perpetuating the exploitation any further. It was a performance. Performances aren't real. Often, performances imitate reality in order to criticise it. This is what I believe was happening here. As I already said, I think that using a woman is more effective as it deliberately draws a comparison between the exploitation of women and the exploitation of animals. Therefore, the campaign is condemnatory of violence against women. Lush does not support the exploitation of women. I don't see how utilising it in performance makes it wrong. I concede that it should have carried a warning. However, if it had, then I don't see any ethical problem with the nature of the display. Lush is not perpetuating the exploitation of women. Lush is criticising this very concept.

I think that you were able to see the performance in that light because when you look at it, it taps into the belief you already have that violence against women is wrong. Unfortunately not everyone has that belief.
I don't think criticism of violence against women really comes across in the piece. It illustrates the cruelty of animal testing by using a human stand-in for an animal, but not all depictions of violence against women are automatically critical of that violence. This campaign, according to Tamsin Omond, did use a woman deliberately in order to draw associations with the exploitation of women, but for the purpose of publicising an entirely unrelated issue, not for the purpose of criticising violence against women. Rather, it plays into a larger cultural narrative about violence perpetrated by men upon women.
Tamsin Omond's piece is actually quite self-contradictory on this point.
"It was a performance of violence (not violence against women) where – unsurprisingly – the oppressor was male and the abused was vulnerable and scared."
"We felt it was important, strong, well and thoroughly considered that the test subject was a woman....in the context [of] Jacqui’s performance practice: a public art intervention about the nature of power and abuse. It would have been disingenuous at best to have pretended that a male subject could represent such systemic abuse."
So it's not about violence against women, just violence by men, in general, but it had to be a woman..It's really very poorly explained.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

If the campaign used a woman deliberately in order to draw associations with the exploitation of women, I don't see how that makes Lush guilty of perpetuating the exploitation any further. It was a performance. Performances aren't real. Often, performances imitate reality in order to criticise it. This is what I believe was happening here. As I already said, I think that using a woman is more effective as it deliberately draws a comparison between the exploitation of women and the exploitation of animals. Therefore, the campaign is condemnatory of violence against women. Lush does not support the exploitation of women. I don't see how utilising it in performance makes it wrong. I concede that it should have carried a warning. However, if it had, then I don't see any ethical problem with the nature of the display. Lush is not perpetuating the exploitation of women. Lush is criticising this very concept.

I don't see it as sexist to utilise a sexist ideology in performance in order to criticise it. The woman's safety was obviously a priority and her consent was given. It's not like Lush is saying it's ok to treat women in this way. They're highlighting the problem with animal testing by comparing it to the exploitation of women and saying "Look, it's wrong to exploit women - well, exploiting animals is just as bad". It's the same as depicting racist behaviour in a film. That does not make the film racist.

I think that "Enigmatic Anon" said this better than I can:
"All art....contains multiple layers of meaning; if the scene presented, as it is here, shows a man enacting violence on a women, regardless of Lush's intent there are certain cultural messages tied up with that - obviously their intention is that the woman represents an animal, but *she is still visibly female* and therefore still visibly belongs to a class of people who are frequently the subject of abuse *enacted by men*. It doesn't matter whether Lush intended to draw parallels to the oppression of women, the point is that if you show male violence against a woman in a public space, one of the ways people will interpret that violence is as *violence against a woman*, not just a 'symbolic animal'. You can't tell people not to interpret it that way because it's too ingrained culturally speaking - they'll read it that way whether you like it or not, and part of planning any marketing stunt (including not-for-profit ones like this) involves trying to figure out how people might interpret it other than in the way you intended. That's how culture works."
Lush were fully aware of all of this when they planned this stunt.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I wasn't saying that the outcome of the campaign was positive. I think it's pretty clear that it generated a lot of anger. In your earlier post, you implied that Lush's interest in this issue is problematised because if their campaign were successful, they would increase their profits. I was arguing that the cause is still a good one and that the Lush activism against animal testing is a good outcome in this situation regardless of their vested interest in increasing profits.

I know it's a good cause, they still don't have a right to exploit women to get their point across.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I am a believer that common usage is a valid reason for accepting new words, spellings etc. This is how all languages evolve. Languages would stagnate otherwise. Therefore, I think the use of 'btw' is perfectly fine. However, it does not appear in the Oxford Dictionary and I would contend your assertion that it's an acronym, as acronyms are pronounced as words e.g. NATO. If a word is listed in the dictionary as a verb, and 'impact' is, then I think that makes a definitive enough case for using it as one. All this debate over minor grammatical details is silly anyway. I only countered your criticism because I felt it was a bit petty. You knew exactly what I meant when I used it. Anyway, we've cleared it all up now, so let's all be friends

This is actually pretty interesting, that's a good point you make about acronyms. Perhaps I should have differentiated by calling them abbreviations or initialisms, I'm not sure the correct name, but I still see them as being significantly different from text speak or l33t. Also I think you're right in that the OED is a pretty authoritative source when it comes to what is and isn't a word, etc. Anyway, a discussion for another time.:)

Sharrow wrote: »

Yes thousands of people are on social welfare in this country, so what.

So cost is an important factor in people's decisions about what toiletries and cosmetics they buy, for many people "Do I have enough money to buy this?" is the first question they ask and it is disingenuous of Lush to ignore that factor when dicussing why people should choose "cruelty-free" products. It's nice how you dismiss all the people who don't work outside the home, but they are far from being the only ones who can't afford to shop in Lush.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I'm sorry but I fail to see where Lush are implying that animal testing is all women's fault. The tester in the display is a man. A man is carrying out the tests. Where did they state that is solely the responsibility of women to stop/prevent animal testing?

Sharrow wrote: »

All of the blame oh I don't think so, not when you consider the men who work in the animal testing labs, and who are the ceos of the companies who use animal testing and the lobbiest who have delayed the changes in EU law which were made in 1993.

Sharrow wrote: »

It is also a fact that there are people who can afford to spend what I consider daft money on cosmetics and yes the majority of them are women and who have no idea how much they are being ripped off and funding needless animal testing.

"[Using a woman in the piece] is important within the context of Lush's wider Fighting Animal Testing campaign, which challenges consumers of cosmetics (a female market) to feel, to think and to demand that the cosmetics industry is animal-cruelty free."

The majority is not all. Lush didn't say "a mainly female market", they said "a female market". They said this as a justification for why the "test subject" had to be a woman. I was pointing out that this is a false premise, because as you yourself pointed out, women are not entiely to blame for animal testing. Men don't get a mention at all in discussion of animal testing for cosmetic purposes and they are specifically not acknowledged as consumers of cosmetics in Tamsin Omond's piece. All of the blame is being put on women. That is sexist.
They could have used a man and written something like "CEO, Big Cosmetics Inc" on him.
Interestingly, when the piece was published on Lush's own blog, Ms. Omond removed the phrase "a female market" entirely.

Sharrow wrote: »

You are getting needlessly personal and I refuse to get into and allow it to take the discussion off topic.
IF you want to start a thread about the issues surrounding people who need counseling in this country I will be happy to do so, but I won't derail this one.

I'm not getting personal, I'm simply trying to explain why I think this

Sharrow wrote: »

IF an abuse survivor found that triggering and emotionally upsetting then I would have compassion but point out it's their issue and they need to considered some more counseling.

I know I have things which trigger me, I take responsibly for myself and my own emotional reactions to things, by either not exposing myself or by taking the time to sort out why I was triggered and finding the right place for my anger instead of lashing out at those who may have triggered me.

is very cold and not particularly helpful;I'm asking you to look at that from another angle by asking you to imagine actually saying that to someone with PTSD. Would you say that to people's faces? Would you say it to your own child? Your comment seemed to imply that the people who were genuinely deeply upset when they came across this stunt were somehow at fault, that they did not have a right to be angry about it, which is unfair. Are you going to explain what you meant by "lashing out"?

Sharrow wrote: »

No, it means preparing for when you run into things and behaviors which trigger you and being aware of what may do that and having a plan which can include and exit strategy. In an ideal world no one would have to live with that, but the world is less then ideal and we do our best.

Honestly, in an ideal world, when people see a performance that simulates a woman being tortured, would it not be natural to find that upsetting? The world is less than ideal in that women get abused every day, and that people are so desensitised to that.

Sharrow wrote: »

That is a simplified hypothetical and I am not doing to derail the thread with it.

It's just a response to your comment, asking you to explain it isn't a derail.

Gauge wrote: »

I gave up on them when they switched their RSS feed to summary only- you need to click through to get to the post content. No thanks, if I can't get it in my RSS reader I'm not reading.

I hate that too, Lifehacker does it and it really annoys me. I find FulltextRss helpful; it has the odd issue (My lifehacker feed sometimes gets cluttered up with celebrity bull**** from Gawker) but on the other hand, it's free:)

Jess16 wrote: »

there's no such thing as bad publicity!

I'm not sure BP would agree with you.

Morag

starling wrote: »

It's nice how you dismiss all the people who don't work outside the home, but they are far from being the only ones who can't afford to shop in Lush.

I didn't.

and this is the 3rd time you have tried to put words in my mouth and besmirch me, there is no point trying to continue a reasonable discussion with you when you keep throwing in so many wild and unsubstantiated accusations.

starling

Sharrow wrote: »

Yes thousands of people are on social welfare in this country, so what.

"So what" sounds pretty dismissive to me, and it was quite clear that I brought up the issue of cost in order to support my point that Lush were being classist. I didn't say anything about social welfare; I said that not everyone can afford to shop in Lush, and that a discussion of whether people should or should not buy "cruelty-free" needs to acknowledge that fact. You assumed I was only talking about people on social welfare, but there was no basis for that assumption in anything I said.

Sharrow wrote: »

I have plenty of compassion and have done first contact training for deal with people who have suffered a whole range of abuse and have for years been a supporter and ally and point of information for people who need help.

IF an abuse survivor found that triggering and emotionally upsetting then I would have compassion but point out it's their issue and they need to considered some more counseling.

I know I have things which trigger me, I take responsibly for myself and my own emotional reactions to things, by either not exposing myself or by taking the time to sort out why I was triggered and finding the right place for my anger instead of lashing out at those who may have triggered me.

These statements are contradictory. Do you really not see a discrepancy there? I am simply asking you to explain. I've also asked you numerous times to clarify what you meant, but you seem to be reluctant to do so. What does "not exposing myself" mean? What do you mean by "lashing out"? Do you think that "it's their issue" is a supportive thing to say? Would you say it to someone's face? You appear to be blaming those who were upset by this display and implying that they are somehow to blame for not "taking responsibilty" for their own emotions or that it was their fault for being out in public. If this is not the meaning you intended to convey then please go ahead and correct me. 
All I have done is respond to your comments. If you don't want anyone to challenge what you say, don't say it in a debate. How is that not reasonable? I'm willing to stand by what I've said, and I've happily conceded in the cases where I think those things have been successfully challenged with logic and/or facts.
I think you got personal by implying, without any basis, that I have some ulterior motive for my viewpoint besides finding Lush's campaign hideously offensive; you are also implying dishonesty on my part for not disclosing a connection that doesn't exist. Why, specifically, do you think I have some connection to Beaut.ie?
You still haven't answered that. If you think it is an unreasonable question I would be interested to hear why. What are these "wild accusations" I am "throwing around?"

Sharrow wrote: »

If you think someone has been rude and it breaking the site rule of attack the content of the post and not the poster then report the posts for the mods to sort out instead of going on the offensive or retreating behind behind offended.

Morag

I am done responding to you starling.
I am not interested in any further interaction with you.

MJOR

Sittingpretty wrote: »

This morning's "fanny face wash" was a new low for me

hmmmm yeah i think since Kirstie has gone the others are trying to be funny like her but it ends up being cringy

ViveLaVie

starling wrote: »

Your hypothetical woman is doing it for her own benefit, while Lush is doing it for profit and to draw attention to an unrelated issue. What I actually said was that the fact that Jacqueline Traide consented to being "tortured" in the Lush campaign does not in any way make that campaign less misogynistic. I said that because some people were offering her consent as a valid reason why the campaign was not misogynistic or exploitative.

But since when does the intention behind doing it affect how misogynistic the behaviour/act is? You state here that the difference between the two scenarios is that the woman is doing it for her own benefit, but Lush is doing it to advertise an unrelated issue and to make profits. That doesn't change in any way the act that is taking place.

Maybe I'm not being clear here. I am asking you to ignore anything external to the actual display window here for a moment: ignore that Lush is involved, ignore that the campaign is for animal testing. Is the actual behaviour in the piece misogynistic? Why? I think consent is absolutely crucial in this situation.

You say that Traide's consent doesn't make the campaign less misogynistic. However, intention behind the act aside, I do not see the actual act itself as misogynistic. My example with the hypothetical woman was to show you what I mean. The act itself is not misogynistic - it seems to me that your problem stems from the fact that the intention was not to highlight cruelty to women but rather cruelty to animals. This is very different from finding the actual behaviour in the display misogynistic. If it is the behaviour that you find offensive, then you should find the behaviour in the bdsm relationship offensive and misogynistic too. After all, the hypothetical woman's consent shouldn't matter if Traide's doesn't? The treatment of the woman is the same.

starling wrote: »

That's certainly one of the problems; in my opinion, it speaks to a certain insensitivity on Lush's part, and a willingness to deliberately upset people for their own ends, when it was not necessary to do so. Their "apology" where they say they're sorry if abuse survivors were hurt but then claim that it was necessary to do so (a lie) compounds this insensitivity, and "Sorry if you felt that way" is a very poor and insincere way to apologise, particularly when they've already said that their actions were deliberate and thoroughly thought-out.

I agree that there should have been a warning in place and they should have apologised for not using one.

starling wrote: »

No, I say that the campaign used a woman deliberately in order to draw associations with the exploitation of women when the issue of animal testing is not actually related to exploiting women - and is not even a single-sex issue.
Men are at least as complicit.
I agree that not everybody saw a sexual or 'traditionally' pornographic element in the performance, but a lot of people have been saying that "I didn't see that, therefore everyone who did is wrong", and I wanted to challenge that, because to an abuser, the act of asserting power over a woman is sexually arousing. Tamsin Omond said that it wasn't pornographic because "The bodysuit was not attractive (however the mainstream media may have presented or written about it). The costume made her an anonymous test subject and stripped her of the accoutrements of sexuality or eroticism."
My issues with this line of argument are: the bodysuit still made it easily discernible that she was a female test subject; it doesn't have to be "traditionally" sexy for there to be a sexual element; it did not, therefore, "strip her of the acoutrements of sexuality". Even if it had, well, ojectification is part of abuse.

I still don't see how only women are being blamed for animal testing. Making the tester a man and the victim a woman seems a very logical choice to me. To reverse the roles would be strange as Lush stated that they were deliberately trying to show the dynamics of an unequal power balance. Traditionally, males have dominated women and therefore positioning the woman as the vulnerable test subject makes these parallels much clearer and more significant.

In fairness, it would be fairly difficult to strip either gender of the accoutrements of their sexuality. The act of asserting power should not always be viewed in terms of a sexual dynamic. Yes, some abusers find power over a female sexually arousing. However, not all abusers do. And the male in the picture is not a sexual abuser. He is a scientist carrying out unfair tests on a test subject. To see him as a sexual abuser is wrong in my opinion. In this case, any unfair assertion of power by a man over a woman can then be considered sexual abuse i.e. a woman who is hit by a man could contend he was sexually abusing her. That is ridiculous. If it were a male tester and a male subject, the act would not be sexualised. I think this sexualisation of the display is quite unfair considering that there is no sexual act taking place and the assertion of power by the male is non-sexual; he is not subjugating the female for the purpose of sexual arousal, but rather for scientific advancement.

starling wrote: »

I think that you were able to see the performance in that light because when you look at it, it taps into the belief you already have that violence against women is wrong. Unfortunately not everyone has that belief.
I don't think criticism of violence against women really comes across in the piece. It illustrates the cruelty of animal testing by using a human stand-in for an animal, but not all depictions of violence against women are automatically critical of that violence. This campaign, according to Tamsin Omond, did use a woman deliberately in order to draw associations with the exploitation of women, but for the purpose of publicising an entirely unrelated issue, not for the purpose of criticising violence against women. Rather, it plays into a larger cultural narrative about violence perpetrated by men upon women.
Tamsin Omond's piece is actually quite self-contradictory on this point.
"It was a performance of violence (not violence against women) where – unsurprisingly – the oppressor was male and the abused was vulnerable and scared."
"We felt it was important, strong, well and thoroughly considered that the test subject was a woman....in the context [of] Jacqui’s performance practice: a public art intervention about the nature of power and abuse. It would have been disingenuous at best to have pretended that a male subject could represent such systemic abuse."
So it's not about violence against women, just violence by men, in general, but it had to be a woman..It's really very poorly explained.

Obviously not all depictions of violence against women are critical of it. I never said that. I believe that this display is critical of it. To me, it seems glaringly obvious that the power dynamic is shown as corrupt. It wouldn't make sense to parallel the abuse of women with the abuse of animals and say, "Well, obviously abuse against animals is wrong but we see abuse against women as totally fine". That wouldn't be effective in communicating the point that animal testing is wrong. If female exploitation were supported in the display then the comparison wouldn't be drawn that animal testing is wrong. This seems incredibly clear to me.

I actually think Tamsin Omond's statement is quite clear. She is not saying that all violence is perpetrated by men, which you seem to think she is. She is saying that they wanted to show the corruption of the power dynamic in animal testing and that the logical way to do this was to compare it to the abuse and subjugation of women. Traditionally, this abuse and subjugation was perpetrated by men. This doesn't mean only men are responsible today for animal abuse. The abuse of women and the abuse of animals are not exactly the same thing. But the power dynamics are similar. It is just a good way of highlighting how wrong these dynamics are. Also, your statement seems to contradict itself. You say here that you gather from her statement that she is saying that the violence is by men in general. However, you've stated elsewhere that Lush is blaming only women for animal testing. That doesn't quite equate.

starling wrote: »

I think that "Enigmatic Anon" said this better than I can:
"All art....contains multiple layers of meaning; if the scene presented, as it is here, shows a man enacting violence on a women, regardless of Lush's intent there are certain cultural messages tied up with that - obviously their intention is that the woman represents an animal, but *she is still visibly female* and therefore still visibly belongs to a class of people who are frequently the subject of abuse *enacted by men*. It doesn't matter whether Lush intended to draw parallels to the oppression of women, the point is that if you show male violence against a woman in a public space, one of the ways people will interpret that violence is as *violence against a woman*, not just a 'symbolic animal'. You can't tell people not to interpret it that way because it's too ingrained culturally speaking - they'll read it that way whether you like it or not, and part of planning any marketing stunt (including not-for-profit ones like this) involves trying to figure out how people might interpret it other than in the way you intended. That's how culture works."
Lush were fully aware of all of this when they planned this stunt.

This is the point. You are meant to interpret it as violence against women. In contemporary society, violence against any person is wrong. This includes women. Men who beat, torture and/or sexually abuse women are breaking the law. There is a large majority of people who find abuse against women inherently wrong, both ethically and legally. Lush deliberately used a woman in a subservient role to a man for precisely this reaction. Lush wanted people to see the display in terms of male violence against women. This was all intentional and deliberate. It was deliberate because when it is interpreted this way, but they then say that actually the piece is about animal abuse, the spectator will consciously associate the violence against the woman in the display with the violence against animals in animal testing. This makes the display condemnatory of violence against women. They are saying that violence against animals is wrong, but they exchange an animal for a woman in the display to reinforce how wrong it is. The display therefore is highly critical of violence against women. There would be no point in comparing the violence of a man to a woman to animal testing if there weren't saying that female exploitation is wrong. So Enigmatic Anon can say that the campaign will bring thoughts of abuse to women to the fore, but that is exactly the point.

starling wrote: »

I know it's a good cause, they still don't have a right to exploit women to get their point across.

I know you think it's a good cause, but earlier you criticised Lush for drawing attention to the cause because it will increase their profits. I don't think that's a legitimate criticism. My point had nothing to do with Lush exploiting women or not.

starling wrote: »

"[Using a woman in the piece] is important within the context of Lush's wider Fighting Animal Testing campaign, which challenges consumers of cosmetics (a female market) to feel, to think and to demand that the cosmetics industry is animal-cruelty free."

You've highlighted the important part here yourself. Consumers of cosmetics are women. Yes, some men buy cosmetics too. However, Lush chose to target women in the campaign as women would make a much bigger difference than men would if they chose not to buy cosmetics tested on animals.

starling wrote: »

The majority is not all. Lush didn't say "a mainly female market", they said "a female market". They said this as a justification for why the "test subject" had to be a woman. I was pointing out that this is a false premise, because as you yourself pointed out, women are not entiely to blame for animal testing. Men don't get a mention at all in discussion of animal testing for cosmetic purposes and they are specifically not acknowledged as consumers of cosmetics in Tamsin Omond's piece. All of the blame is being put on women. That is sexist.

The quibble over the lack of the word 'mainly' here is a bit pedantic. It is very obvious that Lush are not blaming women for animal testing. They obviously mean that the market for cosmetics is mainly made up of women. You seem to think that in making the point that women buy cosmetics that Lush are saying that makes women solely responsible for animal testing. That's not true. Obviously, men are responsible too. There are men who carry out these tests. Lush even used a male tester in the display. They targeted women because if women stop buying animal tested cosmetics, it will kill the sale of them. Not enough men buy cosmetics to make up the slack in loss of sales for the big corporations. The fact is that women are the largest market demographic for cosmetics.


Actually, their justification for using a woman was in order to better represent the nature of power and its potential for abuse and corruption:

"We felt it was important, strong, well and thoroughly considered that the test subject was a woman....in the context [of] Jacqui’s performance practice: a public art intervention about the nature of power and abuse. It would have been disingenuous at best to have pretended that a male subject could represent such systemic abuse."

This was highlighted in your own post above.

starling wrote: »

They could have used a man and written something like "CEO, Big Cosmetics Inc" on him.

They did use a man as the tester, which I think is quite enough. I don't see the need for a poster saying "CEO". The conclusion is easily drawn. You are drawing enough conclusions from the display already to indicate that you are very capable of reading between the lines.

celtic-chick

Sittingpretty wrote: »

This morning's "fanny face wash" was a new low for me

Just had a look at this article.Truly awful

Linguo

celtic-chick wrote: »

Just had a look at this article.Truly awful

There's another similar one today. I've no problem if people want to write these posts, just Beaut seem obsessed with bloomin' knickers and smells lately. I wished they'd stuck to the formula that made them popular in the first place, makes the blog seem less professional now and has changed the whole site a lot.

If they'd always presented the site this way don't think I'd notice, just wouldn't visit as often, it's more that they used to be very beauty orientated and while they were always poor for product reviews, they were good for showing when new collections were hitting Ireland and were consistent with it. The whole site has just gone a bit mad now!

Sittingpretty

Linguo wrote: »

celtic-chick wrote: »

Just had a look at this article.Truly awful

There's another similar one today. I've no problem if people want to write these posts, just Beaut seem obsessed with bloomin' knickers and smells lately. I wished they'd stuck to the formula that made them popular in the first place, makes the blog seem less professional now and has changed the whole site a lot.

If they'd always presented the site this way don't think I'd notice, just wouldn't visit as often, it's more that they used to be very beauty orientated and while they were always poor for product reviews, they were good for showing when new collections were hitting Ireland and were consistent with it. The whole site has just gone a bit mad now!

Another post in last few days has bitten the dust. Some contributors complained and seems they have been ignored.

Beaut.ie is barely recognisable from what it once was.

Linguo

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Another post in last few days has bitten the dust. Some contributors complained and seems they have been ignored.

Beaut.ie is barely recognisable from what it once was.

What happened??

Sittingpretty

Linguo wrote: »

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Another post in last few days has bitten the dust. Some contributors complained and seems they have been ignored.

Beaut.ie is barely recognisable from what it once was.

What happened??

Thread on the Time Magazine breastfeeding cover. Got a bit personal someone said that they should stick to lipstick shades, comment was deleted all seemed ok, thread was moderated then all of a sudden comments disabled so people couldn't reply anymore, post is still there though.

ms cloggs

Hi all.

I wanted to give an example of the bitching on twitter:

Rosemary Mac Cabe‏@RosemaryMacCabe

@beautie @lorrrrrrrrraine also yer wan Candi is a bint. Also I left a comment but it's a bit late. Best comment ever, I think you'll agree.


25 Apr Lorraine Haigney‏@Lorrrrrrrrraine

@RosemaryMacCabe @beautie Saw your comment! Perfection. I'm amazed at how many didn't read what I wrote :

Candi had just raised an objection to the 'smelly knicker' type posts.

I just looked at the breastfeeding post there, the criticisms were directed to the tone of the post, no response from the writer when this was queried on the blather. A lot of regular readers seem to have disappeared, I've a feeling a lot more will follow.

panda100

Seriously,what is going on with beaut these days? It's become the new The Anti Room but with poorer writers. While I think the odd opinion piece is okay, I think they should stick with what made them popular which is the beauty products reviews and news.

There are lots of decent Irish fashion/beauty bloggers that I'm sure would jump at the chance to write for such a popular blog. I wonder why beaut.ie didn't approach these people to write instead of new writers, which are ok, but seem to have zero interest in writing about beauty products.