coolrulespronto.wordpress.com — L.A. Teen Takes on Unilever?s Bigotry... Check out this nauseating spot for Unilever?s Fair & Lovely brand, where a dark-skinned girl enjoys career success and scores a white man only after she bleaches her skin (it?s in Hindi, but it?s pretty easy to understand.)
Jul 13, 2008 View in Crawl 4
bixby1Jul 13, 2008
So that's a little disturbing. It's important not to be yourself I guess.
bizdoggieJul 13, 2008
Dude, you're missing the point completely. This article isn't about how a woman wants to look. It's about a corporation telling her that her dark skin is a liability and she'll be miserable unless she alters her natural look. It's also about the fact that this same corporation is telling other women to ignore stereotypes and revel in their natural beauty. The corporation is being unethical and hypocritical. Get it????
seldon2639Jul 13, 2008
I do understand the concept, but it's based on the assumption that corporations *create*, rather than *respond to*, cultural trends. You assume that the corporation is (out of the blue) telling her that she needs lighter skin. If that's true, and corporations have that power, how do you account for different things being attractive in different countries? It'd be cheaper for a corporation to simply "force" women in different countries to believe the same thing.More likely is that the company is responding to what women in different countries want. In America, the concept of internal beauty, and denying "socially enforced" standards for attractiveness are popular ones. In most of Asia, the idea of looking whiter than they already are is popular. Why would any sane corporation not want to advertise one line of product to one group, and another to the second.Corporations tell American women (of all skin tones) that they need smoother skin, taller heels, longer nails, all kinds of makeup, any number of things meant to conceal their "natural look". The fact that the societal standards of beauty in America are different from those in India (especially with regards to skin tone) should come as no shock to anyone.So, go with the idea of selling the same product to everyone, making only one line of products, and using the same advertising scheme for everyone. See how long that company survives
Closed AccountJul 14, 2008
Similar content with relation to African-American self-image:<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17fEy0q6yqc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17fEy0q6yqc</a>
bobbi21Aug 11, 2008
It's really a cycle. society demands a certain image, companies see this so they provide products to try and create that image, to ensure more sales they reinforce that image, society therefore reinforces that image, which increases the companies sale of products that promote that image, which increase their dependence on that image so they reinforce that image etc etc.And it's pretty rare (well impossible) for 1 company to have a monopoly on every single culture, society, and country in the world at the same time. Different companies start out in different countries and are even when they spread outside their own country, they're the outsiders and have to compete for popularity. So why would they make a totally different image than what's already set up? Assuming they could control what a society wants, they'd have to put more marketing into their product than every company in that country. Pretty hard to do when you can just decide to copy the image native to that country. It's not like it's that hard to have different products when u're in a totally different country. Oh and selling the same product to everyone making 1 line of products and using the same advertising scheme for everyone. Diamond companies. They made it so diamonds are the cultural norm for weddings. Didn't use to be that way. In general you're right though. it's a very lucky company that can force society to keep with 1 product with no variation. (also microsoft. They'll eventually go down but they still made billions with fairly limited product variation)