The Farrells

wow, just wow. Lovable sent a response to my email of earlier today. It contains what is obviously a recut of stock answers. Frankly, I don't mind getting a stock email - except when it bears little relation to what you actually wrote...

Dear David and Jacqui,

 

Thank you for contacting us at Lovable.

 

In regards to your specific points, 1 and 2:

We take a serious view of the way women are portrayed in the media and in particular in our campaigns. We are very aware of the impact the type of images and messages can have on people. We strive to represent happy, healthy and realistic body images that capture the essence of Lovable’s brand values of being confident and comfortable. We do not deny that the image has been slightly retouched for colour correction purposes, as is done by most advertisers.

We believe that a healthy body on the inside is the most important priority for all women. That includes your wife and daughter’s happiness, their comfort and the pride they take in who they are. We have put this into practice by ensuring that our Lovable range is available in a size range from 8 – 18 and it remains affordable for all Australian women. We have also purposefully chosen a range of women of different sizes to reflect this on our website, including our maternity models (size 14) and DD cup model (size 12). We will take on board your comments to reflect more body shapes in forthcoming online store activities.

 

Point 2

The creative was not developed to offend or to “objectify women’s bodies”, but use Lovable’s cheeky tone of voice to demonstrate the new  Colour names for our advertised product via  fun Props that remind the viewer of Summer, Lemon sorbet, Blueberry milkshake etc.

This was the intention of the creative agency ,  the Lovable team  and our brand ambassador. Lovable sells products to Women only and hence the advertisement has been placed in shows and Magazines targeting women.

The Campaign has been received well in general by our consumers, but we understand that lingerie advertising does indeed cause issues, whether viewed on Billboards or Television. The Rating that Lovable was given by  Commercials Advice Pty Ltd (CAD) commonly used for rating Television commercials was a G Rating.

 

Point 3:

Lovable are proud of The Butterfly Foundation‘s fantastic work in eating disorder research, awareness and prevention programs.

During September, 25% of profits from our online store will be donated directly to The Butterfly Foundation. 

Would you be happy with a letter like that? No, me neither.

Dear Justine,

many thanks for taking the time to respond. I wonder if I might point out to you, however, the worrying nature of what you wrote.

You write that you " strive to represent happy, healthy and realistic body images". Can I ask you, do you honestly think that Jennifer's body is a realistic image for most women?

You write that "[t]he creative was not developed to offend or to “objectify women’s bodies”, but use Lovable’s cheeky tone of voice to demonstrate the new  Colour names for our advertised product via  fun Props...". Can I ask you a serious question - do you actually think I'm stupid? I don't mean this in a confrontational way but I had to ask. I ask because the images, (here they are again),




 are so blatantly sexualised (particularly the first 2, although Jennifer's "come hither" eyes in the 3rd panel leave little to the imagination either) that only a few possible conclusions are open to me:

1. You honestly don't think they are. Now, I seriously doubt this. You work in the field of marketing and public relations. You know very well what these images communicate. Do you need me, for example, to explain the blatant fellatial imagery of the first panel? Surely neither of us is going to continue that pretense? I don't think you can be that bad at your job that you don't get it. On the contrary, we both know that the images were chosen exactly for this reason.
2. You think I'm stupid, or at least terribly naïve. I look at the images. I see that they're highly sexualised. I communicate that to you. But, nevertheless you write your stock answer which only serves to tell me that either you didn't take what I wrote seriously or you ignored it anyway. Either way, your response is communicating to me that you think I'm stupid. Surely you would not treat someone this way?
3. (and I truly hope this is the case) You actually agree with what I'm writing but you're in a terribly difficult position because you realise the obvious fact: there is a gross discongruity between the images and the stated aim of Lovable to "[change] the culture surrounding eating disorders and body image" and the donations made to the Butterfly Foundation. Again, in coming to this preferred conclusion I'm assuming that you're intelligent and, furthermore, you have integrity - both intellectual and moral. If that is the case then can I make a suggestion to you? Resign. A principled resignation by someone responsible for communication at Lovable would be a noble thing to do.  After all, they're asking you to massively compromise your integrity by writing these sorts of emails to people like me. You don't want to pretend that you can't see these images for what they are. You surely don't want to treat me as though I'm stupid. So, Justine, I'm left urging you to resign.

Since Lovable clearly doesn't want to listen to those from the outside, perhaps they'll listen to those on the inside? Seriously, Justine and Dianne - do you look at those images and think "realistic" and "not objectifying"? These people aren't just insulting their customers. They're insulting and demeaning you by making you write this nonsense to me.

Please, for the sake of my wife, my daughter, me, your customers and, not least, yourselves, will you please stop the nonsense and actually do something about this? And please, please, please, don't send me another stock answer. Actually engage with the issues that I and so many others are raising with you.

Yours in all genuine sincerity,

David Ould

Surprised to see that picture at the top of a blog post on this site? Good. It's meant to shock you. Read on...

Melinda Tankard-Reist points us to a real example of terrible double standards...

According to its website, Australian underwear brand Lovable says it is

“dedicated to changing the culture surrounding eating disorders and body image”. It does this “by using happy, healthy models in our campaigns and promotional activities and by continuing to design intimates that are not created to objectify women’s bodies…”

I’m sorry, but I’m a bit confused.

Because I don’t understand how you change the culture with advertising like this.

Like Girlfriend misusing the word ‘revolution’ in its alleged new approach to body image (Girlfriend: we’re still waiting for the beauty revolution), Lovable is abusing the term ‘cultural change’.

You can read the full article on Melinda’s blog where she encourages us to write to Loveable. So that's just what I did. I think it's important that men write in about these issues too. Here's my email to them:

Dear Lovable,

I'm a married man (almost 10 years)  and father of 3 children (including a 6 year old girl who takes in everything she sees around her). I wanted to write to you today about your current advertising campaign featuring Jennifer Hawkins which, I would strongly suggest to you, runs entirely contrary to your stated claim on your website (http://www.lovable.com.au/we-love/w1/i1568119/) that you are “dedicated to changing the culture surrounding eating disorders and body image ... by using happy, healthy models in our campaigns and promotional activities and by continuing to design intimates that are not created to objectify women’s bodies…”

I've got to be honest with you. I perceive a complete disconnect between those stated claims and the images of Hawkins that you are using. Specifically you should be aware that use of such images, which portray an almost impossibly "perfect" paradigm of the female body, do damage to three things that I, and I think many other men, hold very dear.

 

1. They communicate to my wife that her body is not good enough. By plastering Jennifer's (no-doubt airbrushed) figure in front of her you're not giving her something to aspire to but, rather, are telling her with almost sledgehammer subtlety that her body is not what it should be. Let's be honest, she's never going to look like Jennifer (which is ok in my book) but does terrible damage to her self-esteem and to that of countless women like her. The irony, of course, is that my wife is actually a beautiful women - its just that the brand values embedded in your images communicate the exact opposite. They hardly "support ... the emotional needs of women" - quite the contrary.
2. They communicate to my daughter the very same message. But more than that, they are very overt in sexualising the issue of underwear. Now, I appreciate that some lingerie is intended for exactly this purpose but that's not what you yourselves claim for this product line, is it? Rather, you state that you do not intend to "objectify women's bodies". Frankly, I have to ask, how does a picture of Jennifer with ice-cream or watermelon juice dripping down her (airbrushed) torso do anything but objectify her? And yet this is the message that you are sending to my daughter and countless other girls growing up in our culture: underwear = sex.
3. You are communicating to me, and so many other men like me, a completely unrealistic view of women. The images that you use set up a completely false expectation for us and, as a result, do great damage not only to ourselves but also to the women that we love. Sexual intimacy in such relationships is, all the psychologists will tell you, a key component of health and stability and is grounded, not least, in acceptance of one another as we are. But your images drive a wedge right in the middle of such relationships. They make women doubt themselves and, even worse, make men expect something that looks more like Barbie than any real woman. How can this possibly be a positive step towards good body image and related mental wellbeing for either party?

I trust you will take these comments on board as you review your current campaign. I look forward to your response to my specific points.

with kind regards

David Ould

Now, it's not hard to set aside the time to think about these issues and do something about it. Can I encourage you, no matter who you are, to do the same?

No sooner had I finished my last post on this subject then another poem arrived in my inbox. Same author, this time concerning the funeral of Pope John Paul II.

John Paul the Second,
The great survivor
Of Nazi invasion and
Communist constriction.
The poet and playwright,
Priest and professor:
Polish Pope.

In theology:
Restressing of tradition,
Regression of liberation,
Redressing of primacy.

In politics:
Solidity of Petrine rock,
Solidarity of Polish stock,
Stumbling of Soviet bloc.

Karol Wojtyla,
More alive than ever,
Witness to the watching world.

You know it's coming. I've written my own poem. A Haiku entitled "Foolishly Misguided Loyalty".

Your coffin embossed

"totus tuus" was your cry

shame you meant Mary

Am I out of order here? Don't think so...

TOTUS TUUS

 

Here you see a coin commemorating the pontificate of John Paul II. The front of the coin declares him to be the Pontifex Maximus. On the reverse side is his papal heraldic shield. The large letter M on the shield stands for Mary, the mother of God. The words at the bottom "TOTUS TUUS" are transposed and excerpted from a latin prayer composed by Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort: tuus totus ego sum, et omnia mea tua sunt, O Virgo super omnia benedicta, which in English reads "I belong to you entirely, and all that I possess is yours, Virgin blessed above all."

Quoting Pope John Paul II, he proclaimed on the feast day of the Immaculate Conception in 1978-

"The Pope, at the beginning of his episcopal service in St. Peter's Chair in Rome, wishes to entrust the Church particularly to her in whom there was accomplished the stupendous and complete victory of good over evil, of love over hatred, of grace over sin; to her of whom Paul VI said that she is ' the beginning of the better world;' to the Blessed Virgin. He entrusts to her himself, as the servant of servants, and all those whom he serves, all those who serve with him. He entrusts to her the Roman Church, as token and principle of all the churches in the world, in their universal unity. He entrusts it to her and offers it to her as her property." -- Insegnamenti Giovanni Paolo II (1978), (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 313)

Source: TOTUS TUUS, by Arthur Burton Calkins, pages 21 and 27, Academy of the Immaculate, New Bedford, Massachusetts, ISBN 0-9635345-0-5, bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Catholic Church.

This isn't just "having a go at Roman Catholicism". The issues behind this are immense. Pope John Paul II advocated to all those under his care a policy of entrusting themselves utterly and totally to Mary. It makes me shudder.

Acts 4:11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone. ¹² And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.

I've spent a fair bit of the first half of this week pushing through Jude, the penultimate book in the New Testament in preparation for Sunday's sermon. It's a slightly obscure little letter dealing with a fairly simple subject (God's wrath against false teachers) but using a number of challenging and confusing images. For example, there is the enigmatic v9,

Jude 1:9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

What's going on there?! Nowhere else do the Scriptures speak of such an event and yet Jude uses it as an illustration of "straight talking" ie not speaking wrongly of someone, even if they are evil. Some suggest that it alludes to an episode recounted in the inter-testamental apocryphal work "Testament of Moses" (also known as "Ascension of Moses" or "Assumption of Moses") but there's no real evidence of it when you work through that text. Similar claims of a source in the Midrash Rabboth don't yield anything firm either.

There is, however, a more reasonable solution to this problem and its provided for us by Peter Leithart,

Perhaps some progress might be made toward a solution to this puzzle by tracing the origin of the quotation at the end of Jude 9: “The Lord rebuke you.” It is a quotation from Zechariah 3:1-2:

Then he [the man with the measuring line, 2:1] showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

At first glance this hint does not look very promising. It seems that the only parallel between Zechariah 3:2 and Jude 9 is the quotation. But a closer look will reveal other parallels as well. First, apart from Jude 9, Michael, whose name means “who is like God?” (cf. Ex. 15:11) is mentioned only in Daniel (10:13, 21; 12:1) and Revelation (12:7). Daniel characterizes Michael as “one of the chief princes” (10:13), “your prince” (10:21), and “the great prince” (12:1). Michael is the only one who stands firmly against the princes of Persia and Greece (10:20-21). He is the one who stands as protector over the Lord’s people (12:1). Elsewhere, Daniel refers to a “Prince” that is identified with the Messiah (9:25). In Revelation 12:7, Michael leads the angels in the war against the dragon. All of these passages suggest the probability that Michael is Christ.

Moreover, as David Chilton points out in his commentary on Revelation 12:7, the word “archangel” means simply the “chief angel” (cf. 1 Thess.4:16), a title that applies abundantly well to the “angel of the Lord” or the “Captain of the Lord of Hosts” (cf. Joshua 5:13-15; Ex. 23:20-23). Most commentators agree that the Angel of the Lord often is a pre-incarnate appearance of the Son. Thus, we may conclude that the archangel Michael is the Angel of the Lord is Christ.

And, of course, he goes on to exegete further.

It's interesting, at least to me, that once again we see the New Testament affirming or alluding to the divine character, the Angel of the Lord. I'm planning on writing more on Him in the weeks to come (as motivation carries me along) but, for now, I'll quote Martin Downes at Against Heresies,

Is the Angel of the LORD a mere siphon, the conveyer of a tape recorded message, or is he what he appears to be, the covenant promise-maker as well as the sacrifice-receiver?  It would be very easy to approach these texts in a wooden way that, in effect, flattens out the contours of God's revelation of himself.

Lest you think that this is some quirky theory that I have dreamed up consider the words of the great Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) on Exodus 3:

 

This redemption was by Jesus Christ, as is evident from this, that it was wrought by him that appeared to Moses in the bush; for that was the person that sent Moses to redeem the people.  But that was Christ, as is evident, because he is called 'the angel of the LORD' (Exodus 3:2).

Jonathan Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption, (Banner of Truth, 2003), p. 72

The one who appears and speaks to Moses, whose presence makes the ground holy, is the Angel of the LORD.  When he speaks he says that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the covenant promise-maker and sacrifice-receiver. 

Exodus 3:2 reads, "And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush."  In Deuteronomy 33:13 ff. Moses invokes the blessing of the LORD upon Joseph and "the favour of him who dwells in the bush." 

Often, when this theory gets broached some will push back. I'll let Downes answer them,

It is somewhat ironic that the championing of progressive revelation has gone hand in hand with a diminished confidence in the revelation of Christ in the Old Testament.  Historically it is as if the church has regressed and not progressed in her confidence that it was "Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt" (Jude 5, ESV).

Indeed. And so we arrive back at Jude. According to Jude it is He who is our "only sovereign and Lord" (v4) and He who rescued a people from Egypt, punished angels, poured out destruction upon Sodom and, in Zechariah 3, stood in front of Satan and rebuked him. He is Lord of both Old and New Testaments, Jude reminds us and He will protect His church.

see Recursion