Following the most recent lecture, ‘Gazing at Identity’, I
found the discussion of the H&M advert especially intriguing, so I decided to
look further into the matter.
Whilst the advert does celebrate controversial themes such
as female body hair, as well as emphasising that women don’t have to look a
particular way in order to feel feminine (e.g. Thai boxer Fatima Pinto wearing
a short black dress), the advert is still flawed.
Firstly, H&M’s core motivation for this advert was to
sell – to make women feel empowered and good about themselves when they buy the
clothes. Whilst there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit, the
advert does not match with H&M’s real practices. According to interviews
with garment workers, a report claimed that 11/12 Cambodian employees were
fired during pregnancy, and that sexual harassment was extremely common.
Moreover, even though the advert featured plus-size women,
most H&M stores don’t even stock a plus-size range, making their advert quite
hypocritical. Perhaps the plus-size women in the advert were only wearing
underwear because H&M had no clothes in their size.
Although it did create a feminist discussion, H&M should not have exploited feminism in order to make
a profit. Feminism is not a trend they can hijack to improve their identity.
Your critical stance can only be applauded. Well done, however make sure you include the sources that point to the 'reality' and conditions of the women who work for H&M. What you are suggesting is quite interesting, that there is a veneer of feminism by a company that doesn't practice equal rights. Well done, but make sure you 'evidence' arguments and take a more 'balanced' view - the positive and critical points must be considered. Great post well done.
ReplyDelete