All Entries Tagged With: "Consumerism"
California About to Ban Plastic Bags in Grocery Stores
I have to confess something. My New Year’s resolution was to stop using plastic bags and I have totally failed. The year started off well. I bought cloth bags to take on my weekly grocery store trips and I also purchased bio-degradable cat litter liners. All was well for a couple of weeks then I ran out of the cat liners and couldn’t find the bio-degradable ones in the grocery store that I usually go to. Also, I made other trips to other stores and forgot to bring my cloth bags. The lesson I’ve learned is that getting off the plastic bag teat takes planning and forethought. And for most people it’s hard to find the discipline to do the necessary planning when you don’t really have to.
Well, if you live in California, you may soon have to find the discipline unless you want to pay more at the store. Last Wednesday the California Assembly passed legislation that would ban pharmacies, convenience and grocery stores from giving out plastic bags. The goal is to cut down if not eliminate plastic bags from clogging land fills, rivers, storm drains and ending up in the ocean.
This concept isn’t totally new. San Francisco already demands that retailers give out bags made from recyclable paper, plastic that can be turned into compost, or sturdy cloth or plastic that can be reused. And other countries (South Africa, Ireland, China and Bangladesh) have already actively discouraged bag use through additional fees.
The law in California still needs state approval (if it’s approved the law would go into effect January 1st, 2012) and is getting mixed reviews from consumers and law makers. Some people think that the retailers should have to pick up the tab, especially in these tougher economic times. While others think that individuals need to be more conscious of the way their habits affect the environment. There is some concern that jobs in the plastic industry will be lost.
California is the only state with this law in the planning stages and if it passes, consumers will have to pay at least five cents a bag if they don’t have their own. At the rate most baggers use up bags (who else has had that one item per bag experience?) this could get expensive. With half the year already gone, I’m ready to renew my commitment to a bag free life.
How about you? Did you leave plastic bags in 2009? Visit our Facebook page to vote in our plastic bag poll!
ABC, Fox Refuse to Air Lane Bryant Commercial
When any restaurant seeks to sell food, their advertisements generally involve people eating their main product. Likewise, car companies will typically feature consumers test-driving certain makes and models to attract customers to purchase their own ideal vehicle. So it’s perfectly acceptable for lingerie companies to feature women with busty chests to sell bras, right?
Trick question. The answer is a resounding “Yes!” if the company is Victoria’s Secret, a decisive “No!” if the company is Lane Bryant.
At least, that’s what Lane Bryant, a leading clothing company for women who aren’t anorexic, is asserting. Recently, Lane Bryant created a lingerie advertisement that featured curvy women with large–assumedly, natural–breasts doing rather uneventful things in their bras and panties.
Apparently, in a startling display of censorship, both Fox and ABC refused to air the advertisement. Lane Bryant’s website-hosted blog, Inside Curve, maintains that the two networks presented unrealistic demands for re-edits and prohibited the ad from running during critical air times, including “Dancing with the Stars” and “American Idol.” According to Inside Curve, Fox only relented after Lane Bryant threatened to cancel the ad buy completely, and compromised by running the advertisement in the last 10 minutes of the show.
The reason is shocking: both networks insisted that the advertisement contained “too much cleavage.”
Allow that to sink in for a minute. A lingerie company for curvy and plus-sized women, which primarily features full-sized bras, is showing too much cleavage. Versus, say, Frederick’s of Hollywood or Victoria’s Secret, well-known for creating edgy cuts of lingerie that are roughly the equivalent of two postage stamps held together by a single string. In other words, advertisements featuring large–preferably augmented so as not to be too large–breasts are acceptable; naturally large, full-figured breasts are not. More to the point, naturally large, full-figured breasts are obscene, suggesting that the networks have an awfully thin (and hypocritical) threshold for decency.
“Yes, these are the same networks that have scantily-clad housewives so desperate they seduce every man on the block—and don’t forget Bart Simpson, who has shown us the moon more often than NASA—all in what they call ‘family hour,’” Inside Curve blasts.
Sadly, what’s most interesting about this particular debacle is not the obvious double-standard regarding women’s bodies–that’s been well-established–but that people seem to be genuinely shocked that breasts, particularly large breasts, can be such a controversial issue.
“I just saw a Lane Bryant commercial that was better than any Victoria’s Secret commercial I’ve ever seen,” Tyren Rushing, a student at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, writes on his Facebook wall. “I caught it on YouTube. I don’t see what the big deal is. They need to get with the program–no one wants to see skin and bones. It’s just not sexy.”
However, as Tara Shuai of the Feminist and pro-curvature blog Fatshionista observes, “There is no shortage of slut-bashing in this world.”
And, as Amanda Hess of The Sexist observes, “slut” tends to be the automatic descriptor given to women with naturally large breasts, especially if those naturally large breasts tend to be cloaked in revealing attire (even if it is just a bra because they’re, gee, in a lingerie commercial). In her blog published April 21, Hess charges that “with great cleavage comes great responsibility” imposed by antiquated social norms.
“People who shame women for wearing “too-revealing” clothes like to center their objections on women’s clothing “choices,” but make no mistake—this is not about what we choose. This is about the things we don’t choose—having chests or butts or legs or necks or hair or any other part of our human bodies that others decide to project their particular sexual interests—and their slut-shaming—upon. The man who is horrified at a woman’s “overly exposed” breasts will likely never have to worry about wearing one shirt—one shirt out of a lifetime of shirts—that happens to accidentally set off some random person’s slut meter, because of the way his body just is.”
It’s an issue that becomes amplified when discussing individuals of larger-than-unhealthy proportions. Shuai describes tight clothes on “fat bodies” as inherently political, able to communicate a greater statement than the more socially-acceptable skinny bodies (though it’s worth pointing out that the Lane Bryant model in question, Ashley Graham, just barely qualifies as plus-sized, even by the unrealistic standards of the modeling world).
Also, an issue that’s been little addressed on the blog rolls is whether sexuality ultimately played a role in the decision to censor the advertisement. After all, the advertisement focuses on Graham twirling in her Lane Bryant delicates, clearly enjoying the feel of the material on her body. Then a zinging text message reminds her of a lunch date with “Dan,” and rather than slip into any clothes, Graham shimmies into just a trench coat, suggesting that “Lunch with Dan” is a clever euphemism for sex, or the restaurant in question has an extremely casual dress code.
It also smacks of an incoming sexual episode, which is not something our culture openly encourages larger people to have. In fact, our culture carries a rather strong aversion to larger-sized people, particularly women, demonstrating any kind of a sexual appetite.
“Sexual women — women who have desires and express and act on them — are almost always presented as deviant in some other way. They’re working class, they’re Black or Latina, they’re mentally ill, or… they’re fat,” sociologist Lisa Wade, a co-author at Sociological Images, writes on April 23. “Fat women are often characterized as sexual threats. How many comedies have relied on the scary fat woman (of color) trying to get some? It’s so funny, right? Because she’s gross and aggressive! She wants you and she doesn’t care what you want and so the fact that she’s fat doesn’t stop her. Scary!”
What’s scary is that our culture can still believe true comedy is having a large woman express any sexual desire (here’s looking at you and your fading career, Eddie Murphy) and sacrifice every shred of logic to support a completely unhealthy ideal of what constitutes not only thin, but sexy. In a world where discriminatory policies allow persons of size to be charged for two seats or be booted from an airplane, it’s difficult to ignore the blatant phobia against persons of size. Even organizations like the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals aren’t above exploiting fat-shaming to accomplish a goal.
And advertising has long been one of the greatest offenders. In 2006, Dove launched the “Real Beauty” campaign, which featured several women of varying body sizes clad in only their underwear. While sales of Dove products increased during that time, the company had difficulty locating advertising outlets who would carry the display, suggesting that even if consumers were willing to buy products hawked by plus-sized or full-figured models, advertisers simply weren’t willing to take the risk to be seen as “friendly” to the body-loving movement.
Not that it’s gotten any better. Filippa Hamilton, the model who’s image was so grotesquely altered that her head appeared bigger than her pelvis in a Ralph Lauren advertisement, again came to national attention when she was fired in October for “being too fat.” This, after weeks of lip service from Ralph Lauren honchos, claiming, “After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body.” Even Britney Spears, who tried to showcase the pressure of unrealistic beauty standards by insisting her real photo from a recent Candie’s shoot accompany the airbrushed photo, has fallen prey to the scam of skin deep beauty by allowing an altered photo to be created and distributed, suggesting her body is in need of touching up.
Obviously, the cultural pessimism towards larger, healthy bodies isn’t something that will go away over night. But the first step is accepting that real people have curves and not censoring any displays of satisfaction with one’s size, regardless of where it falls on the measuring tape. Until ABC and Fox are willing to do that, it would be best to tune out to channels that aren’t afraid to show empowered women of all shapes and sizes.
Here’s the commercial that ABC and Fox didn’t want you to see.
Lane Bryant Cleavage Commercial
What do you think? Too much cleavage?
Affordable Fashion Often Comes With a Heavy Price
The fashion industry has never really been known for being eco-friendly, however it appears that some major stores are taking the first steps towards a greener future. Whether that’s truly the case is yet to be seen. With a large scale production of any clothing item there are always concerns regarding chemicals, dyes, waste water and, of course, worker safety. How this affects the chain of commerce is usually kept well hidden from the customer.
Usually, the company’s press release is what makes it into the news roll. Announcements like the one I read recently regarding H&M. It stated that H&M is working towards using more organic cotton and recycled polyester in their clothes. I’ll occasionally shop at H&M if I can get past all the scratchy polyester and unreliable sizing charts; I’ve bought some cute stuff there. It doesn’t hang together longer than a season, but usually it’s out of style by then anyway. I’m all for them using more organic fabric, if it’s going to landfill it would be nice if my fifteen dollar blouse doesn’t hang around for the next 200 years.
However, even this seemingly positive step became controversial. Apparently, the cotton H&M is using and calling organic was tested by an uninvolved third party and it was discovered that the cotton was a mix of organic and genetically engineered cotton. Actually it was about 30% genetically engineered. Apparently, if you want the organic label in Europe you can only have .9% of a fabric be genetically engineered and in the U.S. you can’t have any.
For a long time I thought the organic cotton craze was just a yuppie fetish. But the problem with non organic fabrics being used on a large scale is less a problem for the consumer than it is for the creators. Non organic cotton farming uses a lot of pesticides and chemicals that are harmful to workers and the land.
There’s also the dirty, little secret of garment destruction. Rather than donating unsold clothes, many retailers hack them up with scissors or put them in bags with broken glass to insure they won’t be resold or fraudulently returned for exchange. The downside is the obvious, unnecessary waste it creates. Recently, it was reported that H&M tore up a bunch of winter coats and left them in a dumpster outside their Midtown Manhattan store. This is in a city where 1/3 of the people live in poverty, in the middle of a cold winter. Way to back up that sustainability statement on the H&M website. Yikes.
It sounds like I’m picking on H&M and I’m repeatedly mentioning them only because they seem to get busted more than anyone else. Apparently, Urban Outfitters, Wal-Mart, and Victoria’s Secret destroy clothing too. The main reason behind the slaughter of innocent clothes is brand protection. Why should you buy the latest dress from Urban Outfitters when you can get it used if you wait three months?
Actually, you can do that anyway thanks to stores like Buffalo Exchange and Aardvarks. They sell gently used clothes (often designer labels) for a fraction of the price you would pay for new. And it’s even a better deal if you take some of your stuff in for trade. On Earth Day (Saturday April 24th) all Buffalo Exchange locations will have a dollar sale where all the proceeds go to three wildlife care centers in Florida, Massachusetts and California. These centers treat animals injured by trash. You can read more about it here and you can find a Buffalo Exchange near you, here.
It seems that every year that passes it gets more difficult to be a conscious and informed consumer. When I heard H&M is going organic, I felt better about supporting them. But usually (and in this case) that’s only part of the story. It just seems cheaper, smarter, more environmentally conscious and just plain easier, to buy used as much as possible.
Sources:
Five Environmental Essentials Students Can’t Live Without
Being green is certainly a priority to the majority of American college students. Many exchanged green gifts for the holidays and others resolved to be more environmentally-conscientious in the new year. In order to help students with this goal, GlobalShift is proud to present the top five green products students shouldn’t live without.
1. Reusable bags
Unica's tote is environmentally friendly and adorable
Since their introduction by green chains like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods several years ago, reusable bags have cut the annual production of six billion plastic bags in half, greatly reducing waste. Now retailers, including IKEA and Toys ‘R’ Us, are offering their own reusable bags, sparking a fashion craze that ranks right up there with Crocs. Beware, anti-establishment types; states are taking a hardline stance about non-reusable bags. So start toting those heavy textbooks around in Unica’s picnica tote, which folds up into a cute bunny.
Reebok EasyTone Shoes Represent Dishonest, Shaming Advertising
Get fit, get fab, get fat-shamed!
Advertising is a favored target for the modern feminist, fond of critiquing the use of sex to sell non-sexual ideas (see: PETA) and creating an exploitative industry that thinks the hidden meaning of double entendres will be lost on viewers (see: Toyota). While sexism in TV and print advertisement is nothing new, one can’t help but wonder what’s with the influx of completely tasteless (and, indeed, inaccurate) ads.
Consider the launch of the new “Easy Tone” sneakers by Reebok. Piggybacking off the success of Avon and Curves’ joint venture, other shoe retailers, including Skechers, are catching on and offering their own brand of the funky-soled shoe, bragging that it burns more calories and tones while the wearer merely walks in them. Though these claims were debunked by the New York Times earlier this month, the companies are launching an ad blitz in the upcoming weeks, planning around 3,000 cable slots prior to the Christmas holiday alone.
The question remains as to how companies can continue to make incredibly bogus claims about products that don’t live up to the hype. Reebok, the worst offender, relies on sexism and insecurity to hook the female demographic. Each commercial is seemingly directed by a hormonal 15-year-old, with lots of panning on the attractive (and thin) female spokesperson’s presumably well-toned butt, thighs and breasts. There’s also lots of promotion of the bare female form, woman-on-woman violence (“78 percent of women will be jealous!” one ad brags) and the groovy notes of a pornographic-sounding saxophone that would be more fitting in a lingerie commercial.
Best Green Holiday Gifts Under $50
Tis the Season to be Green
It’s less than two weeks before the biggest retail holiday of the year, and all kinds of publications are abuzz with the hottest gift items, This year, with more individuals committed to being environmentally conscientious than ever before, the color of the holiday season is definitely green. Even though the recession is over, most Americans can’t afford to return to their pre-recession holiday spending habits, so why not be economical, as well as environmentally-friendly? Below, the five best green gifts under $50 for 2009.
1. iGo Power Smart Wall ($30 at IGo)
Among the other annoyances of living independently, college students often have to play the guessing game with how much their utilities will cost them in any given month. With the iGo Power Smart Wall, students can have more control over the consumption of their energy. The patented, integrated technology of iGo Green automatically reduces wasted standby power by up to 85 percent. Lazier gadgeteers can simply avoid energy vampirism by plugging their electronics directly into any one of the four outlets.
Black Friday and a Greener Future
Mountain Dew Christmas Tree
The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word ‘crisis.’ One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger – but recognize the opportunity.
-John F. Kennedy
Am I the only one rolling my eyes at the constant barrage of news stories about all the holiday shopping we are supposed to be doing? During this economic crisis that we are still weathering, I have been feeling simultaneously guilty and irritated at these stories. Guilty, because I know that in order to stimulate the economy, holiday retail sales are an important factor in how well the recovery is going. I’m irritated because I can’t afford to buy all the items I normally would this year.
One good bi-product of buying less is that it gives us an opportunity to have a lower carbon footprint. All it takes is a little creativity. For instance, make your own wrapping paper. According to the Sierra Club, if every family wrapped three gifts with paper bags, old maps, phone book pages, or kid’s drawings, we would save enough paper to cover 45,000 football fields. I have never understood the point of buying wrapping paper to just throw it away. This year I’m just saying no.
I have also been putting more thought into the gifts that I am going to buy. I am trying to buy something for each person that is small and that they will have for many years. This has led me to vintage, thrift, and antique stores in search of items that are well made and unique.
All of this has got me to thinking about the bigger picture. The one story I’m not hearing much about. If this economic meltdown has taught us anything, we have to create another market besides the current one of cheaply creating disposable objects and then basing how well society is doing by how quickly we consume said objects. This philosophy that has been picking up speed since the industrial revolution is no longer sustainable; environmentally or financially. It’s just not. So, what are we going to replace this insatiable consumerism with? My answer would be ideas and action. Create a society that buys and sells education, research, and achievement. Thankfully, I’m not in charge so I don’t have to work out the details of that plan. Do you have any ideas for a new, sustainable marketplace, detailed or otherwise?
Buyer Be Aware
Back in the days of yore, in order to be a good consumer all you had to do was find something you liked and make sure you could somehow pay for it. Today, like most things, it’s more complicated. We have to ask a lot of questions in order to be responsible consumers. Is the company you are purchasing from respectful of their workers, animals, and the earth? Although they might say they are, it doesn’t mean that they indeed are. So how do we find out the truth about the things we buy?
Recently, a friend of mine and I were out shopping and she mentioned that she was no longer going to purchase clothing that was synthetic. For instance, instead of buying cheap plastic purses she had opted for a durable, leather purse. Leather, of course is made from animals and some people consider that cruel. Also making leather is also not a particularly green process. Her argument was that she would only need a new purse after several years, thus not filling up landfills with worn out Ross Dress for Less knock-offs. I guess the proper solution would be to buy an organic cotton purse that you reuse as a rag or sew into a quilt when it’s worn out. Let’s face it most people aren’t going to do that.
