American Apparel Now Accessorizing Mannequins With Full Bush (feminist discussion)

[redqueen]

This may be the most stereotypically American Apparel thing that American Apparel has ever done. A downtown Manhattan outpost now has a trio of mannequins in its window, clad in just translucent white underwear—all of them with a substantial thatch of pubic hair.

Just FYI in case you take your grooming cues from Dov Charney.

...

http://jezebel.com/american-apparel-now-accessorizing-mannequins-with-full-1502658610

So this is all over the net.

Some are hopeful that a normalizing of female bodies in their natural form is nascent.

Given AA's history, I agree with those who think it's ironic, and intended to reinforce patriarchal beauty norms.

Thoughts?

[redqueen]

2. You're in a feminist group.

[geek tragedy]

3. Given the sleazoid company displaying these mannequins, no doubt

it's some form of crude "look at the bush on her" joke along with standard objectification by making sure everyone focuses on the sexual organs of the female mannequin--just like they objectify flesh and blood women in their marketing.

[redqueen]

5. Yep.

That's how I see it as well.

[geek tragedy]

6. about as authentic as AA's commitment to fair labor practices. nt

[CrispyQ]

14. That's how I see it.

Plus they kept the titillating tit.


on edit: It might work (as a statement about body hair on women) if the models had their arms overhead & had underarm hair too.

[Dr. Strange]

4. I don't believe for a second that there's any intention of normalizing.

But it's a perfect set-up for them: if it raises enough of a stink, they can fall back on the line that they just wanted to encourage discussion. Wink, wink.

[redqueen]

7. I can't help feeling a little sad

that so many women seem to find this stunt inspiring any hope for change re: the politics of body hair.

It's so easy to dismiss it is a nonsense, throwaway, non-issue. It's certainly very personal. But women's bodies are so policed for conformity... it ties into all the rest of it.

[ismnotwasm]

8. I saw that

I seems like mockery to me. I don't shop there anyway. How about the male mannequins?

Besides their clothes are shit

[geek tragedy]

9. the GD comments were pretty typical

"nobody wants a wookie on that cookie" etc.

[ismnotwasm]

10. Seriously?

Last edited Fri Jan 17, 2014, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Oh what am I thinking, of course they did

[redqueen]

11. LOL, no shit. If that ignorant dumbassery was missing from the discussion, though,

now THAT would have been surprising.

[Texasgal]

12. I'm not sure how

I feel about it.

I'm conflicted. Maybe if the mannequins shown were not so skinny and "fabulous" looking I would understand it more.

When I think of a natural Woman, pubic hair does not come to my mind at all.

[CrispyQ]

15. This:

When I think of a natural Woman, pubic hair does not come to my mind at all.

I never buy their stuff, but I'm gonna write to the company anyway.

[BainsBane]

21. I saw that someone is putting back fat on mannequins

I read that yesterday. I don't recall which retailer it was.

[Jamastiene]

13. On the one hand, I want to think it is a good idea to

depict women with pubic hair. There certainly are a lot of women with pubic hair, who do not shave or wax. Why not be inclusive of them at least some of the time when depicting women? So, that side of it, I see and understand.

On the other hand, I have read about how one of the leaders of this company has some serious issues when it comes to women's rights. So, coming from the right company or organization, this idea could be good. Coming from that company though, I am suspicious about it and not the least bit impressed with their idea.

[redqueen]

18. And then there's the cartoonish depiction.

Sticking a toupee in their underpants isn't exactly fitting with the overall presentation of mannequins.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. I thought they were advertising merkins. (haha) That was my first thought.

I really don't have much more thought on this. sort of a meh. Irony, yeah I can see that. I think it might be a generational thing. To me it did not look gross but, maybe the younger generation thinks it does, which is sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin

[redqueen]

19. I think many younger people do indeed see it as gross.

And yeah, I agree that it's sad.

[MadrasT]

17. I am having trouble caring much about this.

In general AA's ads sexualize the hell out of women and given that, I think they believe they are doing something clever... yet I don't care enough to figure out what that is or if I care.

I am not upset, disgusted, or feeling positive about it.

I frankly cannot find a single fuck to give about this.

[BainsBane]

22. I feel the same.

[jakeXT]

20. more articles

The one-size-fits-all mannequin is getting a much-needed makeover.

Wings Beachwear's mannequins in Miami sport flower tattoos like some of the women who shop there. The mannequins at American Apparel's downtown New York City store have pubic hair peeking through their lingerie. And at David's Bridal, mannequins soon will get thicker waists, saggier breasts and back fat to mimic a more realistic shape.

"This will give (a shopper) a better idea of what the dress will look like on her," says Michele Von Plato, a vice president at the nation's largest bridal chain.

Stores are using more realistic versions of the usually tall, svelte, faceless mannequins in windows and aisles. It's part of retailers' efforts to make them look more like the women who wear their clothes. That means not only adding fat and hair, but also experimenting with makeup, wigs and even poses.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/mannequins-makeover-real-22265201

Bye bye, Brazilian: Backlash to the bare bikini line has begun

If you've flipped through any celebrity or fashion magazine — or, for a clearer picture, a copy of Playboy — over the past 10 years or so, you've seen the growing (or rather diminishing) trend in hair down there. Bikini areas have gone bald, if you're to draw conclusions from what you can't see on the ladies in the sheer dresses.

But recently celebrities such as Cameron Diaz, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jenny McCarthy have let on that they prefer a more natural look. Kathie Lee Gifford made her feelings about female grooming uncomfortably clear a while back on TODAY. Add to the celeb praise of the "'70s vibe" the addition of merkins to American Apparel mannequins and the appearance of a character in “Girls" flashing abundant foliage, and it seems like a backlash might be in the works.

Gwen Flamberg, Beauty Director at Us Weekly, says that while the "the hairless style" may still be predominant, "for better or worse" American Apparel has set beauty trends, and "with Cameron Diaz speaking out about going natural, we may see the pendulum swinging in the other direction."

But before we get into the backlash, let's take a look at when and why it all seems to have disappeared. Of course, artwork back to antiquity depicts smooth nether regions, while online chatter credits, or blames, '80s pornographic movies and magazines for the most recent extreme trimming fad.

http://www.today.com/health/bye-bye-brazilian-backlash-bare-bikini-line-has-begun-2D11988259?lite&lite=obinsite