Who’s the fairest of them all?
|
Posted by Guest Blogger February 17th, 2007 |
By Guest Blogger Ann Friedman
Check out this disturbing Indian commercial for Fair & Lovely skin whitener (made by Unilever, which also manufactures Dove’s “real beauty” products… and Axe). Here’s a synopsis:
One TV commercial aired in India (often referred to as the Air Hostess advertisement) “showed a young, dark-skinned girl’s father lamenting he had no son to provide for him, as his daughter’s salary was not high enough – the suggestion being that she could not get a better job or get married because of her dark skin. The girl then uses the cream [Fair & Lovely], becomes fairer, and gets a better-paid job as an air hostess – and makes her father happy”.
Sexism, classism and racism, tied up together in a neat little 60-second spot! A similar ad for a whitener made by Pond’s — also a Unilever brand — drew criticism a few years ago:
“Those ads are incredible,” says Malaysian social activist Cynthia Gabriel, referring to the Unilever ads. “Whitening creams are capitalizing on a market that’s quite racist and biased toward people who are lighter.”
Responded a Unilever rep:
“Our TV commercial was never intended to suggest any correlation between skin color and beauty. We leave that to each individual to interpret according to his or her culture, background and education.”
High-end whiteners are also sold by Chanel and Shiseido in the U.S. But they’re huge in countries like China, India and Malaysia, where they help perpetuate the idea that whiter skin = more respect = success in life. They also pose health risks.
As Salon points out, the popularity of Fair & Lovely (the best-selling whitening cream in the world) provides fodder for a debate about whether marketing to lower-income populations helps or hurts them.
Not surprisingly, [manufacturer] HLL claims Fair & Lovely is doing good by fulfilling a social need. They argue that 90 percent of Indian women want to use whiteners because it is “aspirational…. A fair skin is like education, regarded as a social and economic step up” (Luce and Merchant, 2003).
But Fair & Lovely isn’t a step up or solution; it only enforces the prejudices that contribute to economic and social inequality.
Guest blogger Ann Friedman is an editor of feministing.com, where this post originally appeared, and associate web editor of The American Prospect, where her biweekly column appears on Thursdays.
February 18th, 2007 09:54
The health issues here are appalling (needless to say, the racism and sexism are as well). But whitening creme isn’t the only cosmetic that harms women. Many “beauty” products have carcinogenic ingredients and too many aren’t regulated here in the good old USA by the good old FDA.
Check out this article on the work of environmental epidemiologist Devra Davis:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17177813/site/newsweek/
Also check out the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics:
http://www.safecosmetics.org/
Clearly something similar is needed in Asia.
February 21st, 2007 10:31
It is always disturbing to see a woman’s professional worth based on her beauty alone, but that type of thing happens with cosmetics everywhere. It is sexist and classist for sure, but there may be something to be said for caution on the call of racism. When my family went to Bangladesh for my sister’s wedding, we commented on the billboards for fairness cream we saw there. My brother-in-law, who is from Bangladesh and was raised there (and who is dark-skinned), dismissed our concern about racism and compared the product with western “tanning creams”. In the west, it is thought that a nicely bronzed skin is most beautiful; do we consider that “anti-caucasian”? I’m not sure I’m completely convinced that racism isn’t at play here, but it’s worth considering.
July 29th, 2008 03:35
When a country hasn’t shaken the hold of colonialism (and, sorry to those whose egos can’t bear to think that history might actually have some effect on present day events), then the same patterns of thinking are passed down generation to generation. And, with no serious polictical-social movement of pride (i.e. black pride, black panthers, and “political” hair in the USA) this is what you get. Every colonized people was trained in beauty hierarchies because this was effective social control. African Americans (pre-1970’s) used to be large purchasers of “fair” creams themselves. When people get sick of it, they’ll get some pride, start to look at themselves clearly in the mirror, and realize how beautiful they were in the first place. I personally find it repulsive for any human being with a good understanding of history to willingly accept the chains which bound their ancestors. Something tells me I wouldn’t like spending time with your Brother in Law.