The Lovable/Jen Hawkins/body image issue has now gone well beyond these humble blog pages.
I spent a significant part of yesterday being interviewed on the subject. Susie O’Brien gave it a good run both as a news piece and a comment piece spread across two pages in the Herald Sun. An extract from the first:
Lovable lingerie firm cops a serve over Jennifer Hawkins campaignLOVABLE lingerie company has come under fire for using thin Jennifer Hawkins in a sexy campaign, while professing to help women combat poor body image.
The Australian underwear company says it is “dedicated to changing the culture surrounding eating disorders and body image” and wants to reverse “the influence of celebrity and model culture”.
And yet it is using the former Miss Universe extensively in its advertising.
The company is donating a quarter of online sales profits this month to The Butterfly Foundation, a body image issues and eating disorders support centre.
Women’s issues campaigner Melinda Tankard Reist, who first raised the issue on her website, said the company was hypocritical in its approach.
In a post on the issue she attacks the company for displaying “double standards around claiming to boost self-esteem in women and supporting positive body image, while acting in ways that undermine these messages”.
“It seems to me companies like Lovable are happy to spruik a ‘love your bodies, we’re all beautiful’ positive self-esteem message, while not doing all that much,” she said.
“It has become an empty mantra.” Read the full story here
And the opinion piece:
TAKE a look at this saucy, sexy woman selling Lovable lingerie.
What part of this picture is helping improve young women’s body image, do you think?
In my view, absolutely nothing.
In fact, some women who have low self-esteem will feel worse about themselves when faced with these near-naked pictures of Jennifer Hawkins and her tall, slim, tanned body.
So it’s the height of hypocrisy for Australian lingerie company Lovable to try to buy credibility with female customers by donating 25 per cent of the online sales profits to The Butterfly Foundation.
In fact I think the campaign could be decidedly damaging to the very cause the foundation is committed to – helping women with eating disorders and body image problems.
And, it must be said, what the hell is The Butterfly Foundation doing accepting money from a lingerie company that uses a famously slim, busty model plastered all over its advertising? Read full piece here
NineMSN also picked up the story, in a piece by Ali Best.
The Lovable lingerie brand has been slammed for partnering with an eating disorder organisation to combat unhealthy body images.
The Australian lingerie company has pledged to donate 25 percent of all of their online profits this month to The Butterfly Foundation.
But critics accuse Lovable of hypocrisy for using former Miss Universe Jennifer Hawkins in advertising campaigns while also claiming to help women battle poor body image.
Women’s issues campaigner Melinda Tankard Reist addressed the supposed double standards in a blog post last week entitled ‘Everybody’s Loveable: especially if thin, sexy and covered in ice cream’.
Reist told ninemsn she didn’t mean to “gun” the Butterfly Foundation but rather companies who she claims do little for body image issues despite claiming they do.
“There is a contradiction involved,” Reist said.
“[Lovable] is giving the appearance of social responsibility while not actually doing anything.”
Lovable’s website declares its backing of the Butterfly Foundation “in support of Eating Disorder research, support services, awareness and prevention programs.”
But directly underneath this the homepage reads: “Check out the hot new TV ad featuring Jen Hawkins.”
The ad shows Hawkins modelling a range of underwear while suggestively licking an ice cream, drinking a milkshake and staring alluringly into the camera…
Reist told ninemsn that a number of women have contacted her saying that they feel “unlovable” after seeing the ads.
One woman said she hated the ad more than any other because it “tears at her self-esteem.”
Reist has warned of the dangers for The Butterfly Foundation in accepting high profile corporate sponsorship from a brand that promotes bodily perfection in its advertising.
“They need to have a good, hard think about it,” she said. “It’s undermining their core message…”
Lovable could not be reached for comment. Read the full story here.
These stories and coverage elsewhere outraged Jen Hawkins fans, who accused me – and those who agreed with me- of being fat, lazy, jealous, ugly slobs (among the words which were printable). Jen was hot, hot hot and I needed to get more exercise. Some of my personal faves from the Herald Sun comments section:
“Here we go again, someone who’s years are past them, and gravity has taken over having a good old whinge again”.
”Let me guess…Melinda is fat”
“People like Melinda Tankard are why girls and women now think it is ok to be fat, overweight, and unhealthy”.
“…more complaints from fat and overweight women that would rather die on their sofa eating cheezels and watching reality TV”
These comments brought to mind this piece by Dannielle Miller about how it’s so much easier to insult and ridicule someone you disagree with than to engage the arguments.
But these were more than outweighed by intelligent and thoughtful comments. Like this, also in HS comments:
[Comment From Peter]
My daughter has an eating disorder, and while Jen Hawkins is beautiful, it sends the wrong message to her, to associate Jen Body image with the Butterfly foundation.
And this from Tabitha, in blog comments on my site
OK, having read the comments on this article I feel compelled to add my two and sixpence. I’d like to add that as backup for some of the things I’m about to say – I used to be a personal trainer, and I am currently a doctor.
Firstly I completely agree with the article about the hypocrisy of Lovable sponsoring the Butterfly Foundation. The fact that you can click on the Lovable link on the BF website and be taken to an ad with Jen Hawkins slinking all over the place covered in icecream just absolutely astounds me.
And for those who don’t understand why it’s a problem if the company are providing finance for a good cause, this is why: I’m not talking about people who are carrying a bit of extra weight. I’m talking about eating disorders. People who have eating disorders suffer daily under the feeling that they are not thin enough or attractive enough to be loved or desired. They feel this to such an extent that people throw up or starve themselves until they die over trying to get thin enough. Organisations like the Butterfly Foundation are designed to be a place of safety and support for people who feel this way, one voice telling them that being their own weight is ok and is good enough as long as they are healthy. And that the purpose of their existence is not to be attractive – it’s to enjoy their own life. Lovable is a company which both exploits women as sexual objects to sell products, and represents Jennifer Hawkins as its ideal. Even their “fuller figure DD” bras are sold with pictures of people with JH type of body. For the BF to associate with this company tells people with body image issues (and in fact all of us) that this is what it considers a healthy body, and that it has no problem with the sexualisation of women. This is an enormous betrayal of those the Butterfly Foundation claims to support…
People are tending toward being overweight and if it does harm your health then that’s a problem. But many comments have implied that if we disagree with Jen Hawkins weight, then we are advocating people being overweight. Do you understand the ridiculousness of that statement? JH is 180 cm tall and weighs 57kg. This gives her a BMI of 17.5 which is considered dangerously underweight. Then in addition she is airbrushed for these ads. There are thousands of people in Australia who have perfectly healthy BMIs between 20-25 (myself included – I am 173cm and weigh 63kg who end up feeling like we are actually OVERweight, because of ads like this). And as a personal trainer I happen to know that that weight is, as well as being unhealthy, almost unattainable for most women unless they do indeed begin to stave themselves, or throw up what they do eat. SO are we being encouraged to have poor body image and develop eating disorders? Your call. But in the shouting about whether people should be fat/thin/allowed to advertise how they like etc, try to remember the thousands of people in our society who are literally starving themselves to death because we continue to allow them to be told that they are not fit to be loved.
The critique I and others have made is not about jealousy or personal insecurity. It’s not personal at all. And it’s not that some women need to ‘get over themselves’. It is about analysing harmful messages and shining a light on double standards in current body image campaigns. It’s about deconstructing an ad campaign by a company that wants to be at the forefront of cultural change while running ads featuring (in their words) “hot” pics of an “enviable” supermodel presented as a male porn fantasy stereotype. I just don’t think you can have it both ways. That’s all.
15 Responses
Hear, bloody hear Melinda!
The whole “Oh, you must be jealous, you fat ugly slagheap!” crap is the same silencing technique that has shut any woman with anything intelligent to say that in any way jeopardises the patriarchal, consumerist status quo that holds us all fixed into these narrowly defined gender roles that are just total bullshit.
Please don’t stop getting this out there. I’m sorry you’re at the butt of so much misogyny. Please know you have support, right behind you.
Gotta love the ‘you’re jealous!!!!’ comments eh? It’s a classic way to avoid the issues raised in the article.
Intelligent women of all shapes and sizes can see the hypocrisy in Lovable’s campaign.
Meanwhile, Lovable continues to dig a hole for themselves, check out this response to someone from Collective Shout here
“We agree that a risk factor for eating disorders is the images and messages that are out in the public portraying female body types. (bold is mine)
We believe that a healthy body on the inside is the most important priority for all women. That includes your happiness, your comfort and the pride you take in who you are. We have put this into practice by ensuring that our Lovable range is available in a size range from 8 – 18 and it remains affordable for all Australian women. We have also purposefully chosen a range of women of different sizes to reflect this on our website, including our maternity models (size 14) and DD cup model (size 12). We will take on board your comments to reflect more body shapes in forthcoming online store activities.”
They acknowledge that images and messages contribute, they are sponsoring the Butterfly Foundation and get all of the kudos that goes along with that, but still use Miss Universe? What they are claiming is size 14 and size 12 on their website, looks no different to all of the other images.
Even if they did feature a size 14 woman as the face of their campaign, it still wouldn’t be ok to objectify her as they have done with Hawkins.
Lovable have said that ‘a healthy body on the inside..’ is important. They acknowledge that these images contribute to harming ‘health on the inside’ yet they continue to use them as their only method of promotion. Lovable, your credibility is shot.
Seeing the ‘you’re jealous….leeeeeave Jenn Aloooone!’ comments made me think of this,
Anti – Feminist Bingo!
I followed the link given above to the Collective Shout website and read through some of the answers Lovable have given to concerned people. I was shocked.
Heres an example:
” ……Lovable’s cheeky tone of voice to demonstrate the new Colour names for our advertised product via fun Props that remind the viewer of Summer, Lemon sorbet, Blueberry milkshake etc. This was the intention of the creative agency , the Lovable team and our brand ambassador. Lovable sell’s products to Women only and hence the advertisement has been placed in shows and magazines targeting women…..’
May I point out a few things here.
Firstly, Lovable sell products to women only and hence the advertisement has been placed in shows and magazines targeting women – well I saw that FHM had done a pretty big number on Ms Hawkins in her lovable get up in the new October edition. http://www.fhm.com.au
For those who have been living in a shed with no access to print media, FHM is a mens entertainment magazine aka porn-in-the-supermarket-type-lads-mag
Question: Were these images used without permission of PR department of Lovable knowing? Or is this a blatant lie to get concerned people off their back?
Secondly and equally surprising is this statement ‘Props that remind the viewer of Summer, Lemon sorbet, Blueberry milkshake etc’
Oh pllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease, stop stop, this is too laughable Lovable!!
A granny may look at these props and think ‘oh summer is nearly here, Hawkins has her underwear on and is chomping on a watermelon. yum’.
But the average person would surely equate these props, and how they are being used to the ever growing issues of sexualisation, porn industry practice’s and the objectification of women.
Look at how she is standing, look at the props, look at the poses…LOOK at the whole campaign!!!!
What man is going to look at those shots and think’ summer is here??’
I am floored by Lovables responses and equally shocked to think they still believe this is all okay and won’t cause harm.
Shocked.
I’m young, slim, and fit the normative “ideal”, but I find the hypocrisy of this campaign disgusting. You can be of any shape or size to recognize the detrimental effect of the beauty myth upon women. Go hard Melinda, you are an inspiration. I have emailed Lovable to express my disgust. If I ever use my body and looks, it will be to send positive, affirming messages to women.
Cheers.
Hang in there. Those personal comments can get to you if you let them. Know that you have so many supporters and we admire the heck out of you for bringing this hypocrisy to light. You go!
With an ad campaign like this, Lovable donating 25 per cent of the online sales profits to The Butterfly Foundation is a bit like Philip Morris donating a percentage of their profits to Quit. Did they really think nobody would call them on it?
Ah, gotta love it.
No, truly – it’s enough to make all us fat, hairy, ugly, saggy feminists quiver in our busted up grey old granny knickers, n’est-ce pas?
I’m talking about the mental minimalists who enter discussions on fora such as this as soon as the subject turns to advertising/body image/beauty and women’s self esteem – especially if the debate involves icons of female *hawtness*, like good ol’ Hawko.
Bursting onto the scene to come to Jen’s aid like white knights with their trusty keyboards and broadband connections but sadly, no cognitive agency behind the wheel, they make quite a sight.
With flimsy logic, expletives and ad hominem attacks, they issue forth arguments that reduce even the most neophyte philosopher to displays of vigorous facepalming. You know what I’m talking about. I’m talking about such gems as:
– only fat women should have a problem with Hawko or Lovable. And only then, it’s because they’re jealous. Women who aren’t fat and ugly should have NO issues with it whatsoever – because it’s ALL about jealousy and personal insecurity, people
– women NEED to be told to get over themselves if they have a body image problem – because clearly it’s a personal issue – not a societal or cultural one. Kinda like telling the subject of racial discrimination to Stop Being So Bloody Sensitive
– women who have a problem with Hawko just want the WHOLE WORLD to be fat and ugly so we don’t feel bad about ourselves. And how selfish/recklessly irresponsible/mean to all the pretty ladies is that?
– maybe telling us how HAWT Hawko is will help. Because fat old feminists clearly haven’t noticed how eerily closely she resembles the male porn fantasy woman stereotype. And HAWTNESS is the issue here, right? Did they even *read* the article?
– looking hawt = healthy. That’s right, because clearly people who look after their bodies just naturally end up looking like Hawko. And you can tell just by looking at people whether they’re healthy or not. GPs spend years of study doing just this.
– women should really just get off their fat behinds, stop stuffing down dem Twinkies and spend ALL DAY at the gym. And that’s *not* for cardiovascular health or strength, let’s be clear, so that we can do neat things like chase after our kids or chainsaw up that fallen tree across the driveway or bench more than the guy next to us – no, we should spend all day at the gym because it’s all about The Look. Problem is, there’s no recognition that a) it’s actually not possible for 97 percent of women to attain that kind of body shape, or b) that (shock!) women might actually want to do OTHER things with our lives/energy than strive tirelessly to organise ourselves around men’s hard-ons.
Mental minimalists with keyboards. Having missed Google Techniques 101, they fail to extend themselves to a simple search on academic research around such things as ‘body image’.
I know. It’s a difficult thing, using your keyboard to engage intelligently with an argument instead of spewing forth your own ignorance and prejudices that *really do* seem to be Good Old Fashioned Common Sense Because It Fits My Worldview. And no, don’t worry your pretty heads about reading the insights of academics who dedicate entire careers to investigating the complex relationships between idealised media representations of women, body image, eating disorders and self esteem.
Nah. Too hard, mate. And what’s an academic, anyway?
What is scary are the relentless attempts to silence differing opinions on these issues.
But why the attacks on people who dare to challenge the media status quo? What’s at stake? What could possibly change if we took women’s health and media images seriously for a change?
Who would then grace the covers of these asinine publications? Would asinine publications even exist anymore?
And who’d be the cover girl for ‘healthy body-image embracing’-type lingerie advertising campaigns? Would they even *have* lingerie models anymore?
And what about the watermelon? Would they still use ice cream?
Ah. It’s an existential nightmare.
Enough to make a mental minimalist quiver in their jocks, indeed.
I’m so impressed with you amazing voices here in this site!
And for those who may not know Melinda (and clearly many of the nasty negative commenters haven’t bothered to) she’s one physically disciplined woman.
I certainly couldn’t keep up with her on our run here in Brisbane at 6am recently!
I know that she and all the sensational team at Collective Shout are among the most fit, healthy and beautiful women I have the pleasure of knowing (and these words come from an ex-model … an industry that ruins women’s sense of correct healthy habits and sense of self worth.)
Keep up the great work!
Thanks for your great work on this issue Melinda. Except that I was about to buy some new bras and Lovable had some cute affordable ones which I now have to boycott… no thanks for that !!;)
Having read a few of the comments on the news websites, one thing which has really surprised me (although it probably shouldn’t have) is how quickly the debate managed to turn to judgment and value statements about Jennifer Hawkins’ body. Your point could not have been better proven Melinda – these images and the machines which have normalised them have badly damaged our ability to see beyond, or care about much other than, the aesthetic and sexual functions of women. Shame on Lovable for perpetuating these attitudes in the name of empowerment, and kudos to all who are working so hard to call them out on it.
yay for Melinda’s work – so great that Lovable is being held accountable for its campaign. And it’s so encouraging to see everyone here rising up against the people who call Melinda and her crowd “fat and ugly”.
I sent Lovable my letter of protest. It contained words similar to the following: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Jennifer Hawkins being beautiful. And I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with using her in an underwear campaign. But why photoshop her? And why the pornographic poses? Lovable’s website claims that they don’t create underwear that sexually objecifies women. The advertising campaigns obviously aren’t held to the same standards. This is hypocritical.
Anyway, I didn’t even get a response from Lovable.
When people say things like ‘there’s nothing wrong with healthy and beautiful people being role models’, I don’t think they realise that Jennifer Hawkins is a) usually photoshopped so that she has the figure of a stereotypical pornography star, and b) is genetically blessed to look pretty good (as per Western patriarchal beauty standards). Yes, I’m sure she exercises a lot and eats very well, but I imagine that she has also very good genes….It is cruel and ignorant to argue that women can ‘look good’ by exercising and eating well. We are all born with a certain set of genes that pretty much dictate our body shape.
You have revealed the falsity of this corporate “cause marketing” campaign. Whatever pittance they donate is designed to boost sales, as is the mainstream ad of the woman in the bikini. These corporations don’t want sexism to end. If it did, they’d lose one of their great tactics for pushing people’s buttons.
Good work!
The imbecility of some of the negative comments against women such as Melinda who speak out on women’s issues is really frightening. I thought the level of public discourse in Australia was pretty low and so it would seem if these sorts of unjustified and totally irrelevant to the issue at hand remarks keep on being wheeled out. And even if a woman is elderly, overweight, out of shape and ‘unpretty’, so what? Does this mean her opinion on these issues shouldn’t be heard?
Thank you Melinda keep up the good work, the producers of this rubbish need to think again. You are helping us all to truly value ourselves and each other.