From the Girl Scouts USA Blog:


'As GS wrote
here, Girl Scouts supports the Healthy Media for Youth Act (H.R. 4925), a bipartisan bill that promotes healthy media messages about girls and women for the benefit of all youth. This week, Girl Scouts has focused on gaining more attention for this bill.

On Wednesday, eighteen high school Girl Scouts from Girl Scout Council of the Nation’s Capital participated in Girl Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill to encourage Congressional support for the Healthy Media for Youth Act.
'

~ GSUSA (http://blog.girlscouts.org)


To read this article in its entirety, follow this link -> CLICK HERE

[GSUSA]

©2010 REVOLUTION OF REAL WOMEN, LLC. All rights reserved.


(See bottom right hand corner)


Seventeen Magazine (rightfully) gets heat for its June/July '10 cover and headline:

'THE PARTY DRUG THAT CAN MAKE YOU FAT & UGLY'

I'm just wondering why this was even a story in Seventeen Magazine?! First of all, it's targeting a young crowd re: party drugs and discussing them as if they aren't a big deal (girls start reading Seventeen waaaay younger than 17), and second, 'fat and ugly'??!! It's embarrassingly insulting for them to have published that and only adds to the pressures these poor girls face from every direction and every media source.

Sorry, Seventeen... This was a #FAIL...

[HuffingtonPost.com]

©2010 REVOLUTION OF REAL WOMEN, LLC. All rights reserved.

**WARNING: Many of these images are suggestive and sexually explicit in nature. Please view at your own discretion**

Ah, yes... the long awaited explanation as to why RRW™ felt the tutu dancing promotional event outside an American Apparel store in the Los Angeles area on June 13, 2010 was inappropriate.


Most of you seem to have taken this photo literally, but I can’t say that I blame you. Upon looking at the picture, without taking into account ANY background information on American Apparel’s business and marketing practices, I probably would have said that same thing. There was no particular lewd act that I was trying to catch on camera. No. It was the principle.

Let me be clear… little girls dressed in ANYTHING outside of an American Apparel store is wrong. They could be wearing long pants and turtlenecks and it would still be deemed inappropriate. Here’s why…


American Apparel is known for it’s ‘edgy’ approach to marketing. It’s not as if they hide it either… Right on their website, they freely post nearly all ads and photos they’ve shot of their models and ask for people to comment.

Under ‘Advertising’ on the website, they state:

Take a look at the unique images and ads that define us.


And…

Under ‘Models of American Apparel’ they state:

American Apparel is known for comfortable clothing as well as provocative photography. Here you can see some of the best and most evocative images captured by our staff.


Well, they’re really not lying there. They state what they are. Provocative. Comfortable (well, maybe there’s the partial lie).

Along with ‘edgy,’ their photos are a spitting image of amateur, do-it-yourself, soft-core pornography. Some of them feature images of girls that just screams 'barely legal', and MANY of their models look like they could be victims of online sexual predators… innocently posing sexually in photos and awkwardly trying to be ‘sexy’ in their prepubescent bodies.


I was a dancer when I was a young girl. I wore leotards, tutus, bodysuits and spandex. Some of the poses are creative and sort of fit in with the clothing their trying to sell…

Like this one:


But then the photoshoot shifts to this:


Many of us in body image work, eating disorder advocacy, women’s rights, girl empowerment and media literacy have been posting blogs, links and images in an effort to educate the public on the various ways American Apparel has proven itself an RRW ADversary™. We’ll post more pictures, but here are some more things to consider:

Most recently, AA made news for offering both a skirt and a pair of shorts no higher than a size 4-6. Not only do their models solely display a thin figure (only natural to a rare portion of the population), but AA practices blatant size discrimination by cutting off the sizes they offer at size 6. (See: http://bit.ly/ca1iU3).

AA’s ‘Best Bottom’ contest earlier this year had people outraged. In an effort to find the next ‘face’ of AA, they held a contest for (at-first) women and girls to post pictures of their behinds for all to judge and rate. Only later, after much criticism, did they set up another site including males as well. See Hardy Girls, Healthy Women’s blog post on this: http://hghw.blogspot.com/2010/03/american-apparels-best-bottom-contest.html

As so many of our RRW ALLIES™ have stated time and time again (Pigtail Pals, Shaping Youth and Hardy Girls, Healthy Women to name a few), the sexualization of children and adolescents is not OK. Because this is a company that has based its entire identity around such advertising tactics, it isn’t hard to see why a store’s promotional event where young employees were dancing next to a 4 or 5 year old girl in order to ‘attract attention’ to the store was inappropriate. The fact that these girls were in ballerina costumes only ads to the creepiness factor. It emphasizes a carefree, innocence – naïve purity – meant to lure in customers and onlookers.

Finally, their kid line has recently expanded. One would hope that there was a big difference between their kid photoshoots and the ‘young adult’ shoots, but they are teetering on a line of impropriety. Teetering. One back-bend away from being downright illegal.

But hey, if you’re not offended or creeped out by all of this, then you too can support a company that put this notice up on their site -- They’re hiring! Uhhh... little girls...?


LET AMERICAN APPAREL KNOW WHAT YOU THINK:
http://americanapparel.net/AboutUs/Contact.html


If you need any further convincing, here's your evidence:




© 2010 REVOLUTION OF REAL WOMEN, LLC. All rights reserved.



RRW™ Original Post: You’re beautiful! Now change! SELF ‘Standardizes’ Kelly Clarkson

You're beautiful! Now change! What's lost in translation here?

When Kelly Clarkson’s image splashed onto the cover of SELF Magazine's upcoming September '09 issue, we couldn’t help but notice how different she looked from her natural self. This morning, The Today Show and Good Morning America dedicated time to this very issue, and we were thrilled that it put some of RRW’s biggest topics under a spotlight.

How does the media's portrayal of women really come across? Are we getting clear and unmixed messages when it comes to standards of beauty? In a word… no.

When women, beauty and self-esteem are forced into the headlines, crucial conversations are sparked across the globe. Even if we don’t agree with everything being said, at least the public is talking about it.

While RRW acknowledges that SELF has striven to include some positive and encouraging articles for women, (REVOLUTION OF REAL WOMEN™ having been a part of one of those features - Feb. 2008), we cannot help but notice that this support from the magazine does not come in the clearest of packages.

Lucy Danziger, editor-in-chief of SELF Magazine has tried to defend the company’s obvious airbrushing of Kelly Clarkson on their latest cover, but we must point out that what she is saying and what SELF is actually doing are, indeed, two different things.

Instead of providing women with information on becoming more confident, loving their authentic selves AND simultaneously including photos, ads and other materials that back up that message, SELF, much like every other publication, faces the pressure to conform to standards and sell magazines. They want their covers to be eye-catching, enticing and a ‘must-read’.

Sadly, this need to sell magazines and compete with others has, so far, held companies back from fully embracing and publicizing the message that we are beautiful AS WE ARE. Sure, some of us could be healthier, but FIRST, we need to come to a place, individually and as a society, where we realize that happiness and beauty come from within. A woman must first accept her authentic self before seeking to change her physical appearance in order to feel more beautiful and accepted.

How are we supposed to feel when a magazine tells us to be confident in our own skin, just to turn the page and see yet another article or ad telling us how to look sexier, skinnier or younger? Mixed messages make any strides forward less effective, thus absolute praise cannot be awarded when hypocrisy is the final product.

When will magazines publish material that harmonizes with ALL of its content? Taking one step forward and ten steps back is going to get us nowhere fast.

Watch the Good Morning America segment and the Today Show segment.

 

©2009 REVOLUTION OF REAL WOMEN, LLC. All rights reserved.



Has
Miley Cyrus pushed it too far? We were shocked to hear about this. She may not have been FULL-ON pole dancing, but this was undoubtedly inappropriate for the TEEN Choice Awards. And that's not even going into her 'Bratz' Doll-like attire. Not a good moment for Miley and definitely not a good moment for young girls.

“Miley Cyrus’ pole dancing: Fox opts for a close-up:
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/celebrities/index.ssf/2009/08/miley_cyrus_pole_dancing_momen.html

©2009 REVOLUTION OF REAL WOMEN, LLC. All rights reserved.

Banner