Is Aamna Aqeel's "Be My Slave" shoot as bad as it looks?

Fashion designer Aamna Aqeel, who is Pakistani, is currently drawing fire for a fashion shoot titled "Be My Slave," in which an imperious and clearly rich white woman is seen being attended by a dark-skinned young boy.

Here are some reactions:

Sadly, this incident will join the list of racially insensitive situations found throughout the fashion industry--from slave-inspired designs, the unapologetic use of Blackface, the whitewashing of runways and the total disregard of diversity. When will these gross attention-seeking antics and blatant displays of racism end?
- Huffpo Canada Black Voices 

In an editorial spread titled “Be My Slave” (literally, we are rage-shaking as we type this), DIVA Magazine showcases Aqeel’s luxuriant garb on a model being served by a dark-skinned child. He holds an umbrella over her. He sleeps on the floor in rags as she idly flips through an issue of Bazaar. He bows his head as she presumably orders him around. How could the designer possibly justify this stinking pile of racist excrement? 
- Stylite

Ms. Aqueel defended her decision to do the shoot as a message about child labour, but Pakistani journalist Salima Feerasta wasn't buying it:

Aqeel’s argument is that she wanted to spark a debate on child labour. She says she is involved with a children’s charity and wanted to highlight how ‘society madams’ employ child labour in their homes. She is educating and supporting the child used in the shoot — it seems the least she can do after exploiting him in this fashion 

It’s facetious of the designer to claim that she was trying to stimulate a debate on child labour. The model wearing her clothes is clearly comfortable with her dominant position. She is not made up in a way that shows her to be the villain of the piece. The use of a dark skinned child in a shoot entitled “Be My Slave” certainly reeks of racism, however much the designer may deny it. And if anything, the shoot seems to condone child labour.

Here's something, however. I kind of do buy it.

Perhaps I'm attributing far too much goodwill to the fashion industry, but when I look at these pictures I really do think of how wealthy westerners enjoy fashionable lifestyles by exploiting the sweat and blood of south Asian workers. The symbolism actually works for me.

The overwhelmingly negative American interpretation of this is guided more by that country's history. To have a dark-skinned person waiting on a light-skinned person, and the word "slave" involved, immediately raises the spectre of hundreds of years of African enslavement and racism in the United States (and elsewhere in the new world).

But in Pakistan has a different history. It was colonized by the British, and endured years of racist social policy that put the indigenous people at the beck and call of powerful Europeans. In that context, the rich woman looks like a symbol of continuing Western economic and social power — now expressed as part of global trade. 

But then you have to ask yourself,  if Salima Feerasta, who lives in the Pakistani context, finds it racist, isn't it universally so?

I still have to wonder if this whole concept have been well-intentioned, but fatally flawed in a global communications environment. It was shot for a Pakistani magazine and shared on Aamna Aqeel's Facebook Page (both sets have been removed online). When you actually look at the little boy, and the way he is dressed, it is clear that he is being represented as a pre-independence Indian servant, with no reference whatsoever to the African-American experience.

The shoot may be tasteless and dehumanizing, depending how you look at it. And it certainly doesn't portray Aamna Aqeel's fashion in a positive light. But it is not the same racism as European designers fetishizing Africans or using blackface. Not by a long shot.

The message to me is clear. I just think it makes better art than advertising.

All photos via Yahoo!

Microsoft shows Chrome as a bouncing ball of privacy invasion

As Adrants' Steve Hall writes, "You've gotta love these corporate videos that 'leak' their way into the pubic." (I think he meant "public", but Steve writes for Playboy too, so he probably hasn't flagged that typo in his spellchecker.)

Anyway, Microsoft would like you to know that there is an evil behind the über-integration that Google has been steering towards, and that is the fact that their platforms and applications conspire to learn everything about you and use it to sell you stuff.



This is hardly a new tactic, though. Remember this?



From the Associated Press last month:

Microsoft developed its anti-Google ad campaign shortly after hiring former political operative Mark Penn in August as a corporate strategist who reports directly to Ballmer. Penn is best known as a former pollster for President Bill Clinton and a campaign strategist for Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful bid for president in 2008. Penn left his job as CEO of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller to help Microsoft generate more usage of its Bing search engine and other online services.

That's a big challenge, right there. (I never touch Bing myself.) But the points about Google's omniscience are valid, even if coming from a company like Microsoft.

I guess it just comes down to what you're willing to put up with to get free stuff. I'm writing this on the free Google blog platform, will be sharing it on G+, and hope that some of you will find me... through Google.

But then again, I'm an adman. We all like to think we're immune to advertising, no matter how targeted.

This is how you do sex in advertising

It can be done. Just watch:



I was a little worried at first, with the lesbian fetish cliché of the two women kissing, but when bethonged spokesman Brandon Allen gets in bed with the threesome, the ad achieves a kind of self-deprecating charm and irony.

The point is that sex in advertising isn't bad by itself. The problem is when the sex is all about objectifying women's bodies and sexuality for men's viewing pleasure. Sexual humour that treats everyone equally isn't a problem when the context and the audience are appropriate.

There are two other ads in the series. One deals with BDSM:



The other, dope:



These ads are all about brand over product. It's the sort of unpretentious marketing that goes over well with the growing numbers of undemanding new wine drinkers.

Tip via AdFreak

What's the most offensive thing about this Cougar Life billboard?

Via Copyranter

Is it the sexualization of breastfeeding? The sleazification of motherhood?

Me, I'm offended most by the censorship. It's part of a much bigger problem.

Update: The billboard is being taken down, and for all the wrong reasons.

2013: The Year of The Bystander

Via North Dakota Council on Abused Women's Services

We're hearing the term more and more, and especially in context of rape and sexual harassment.

Via Osocio

"Bystander" is the target audience for an increasing number of social marketing campaigns that attempt to change people's sense of responsibility for friends, neighbours, and even strangers.

I've been working on bystander-focussed campaigns for years, on topics such as elder abuse,  drunk driving and rider harassment on public transit. But I think this year is going to be all about what bystanders can do to stop sexual assault.

It shouldn't be any surprise. In several recent (and very disturbing) high-profile sexual abuse cases, bystanders acceptance and participation made otherwise ordinary people complicit in horrible crimes.

In Steubenville, Ohio, a young woman was sexually abused by members of a celebrated local high school football team. Classmates documented, shared, and joked about the incident. They even threatened the victim for daring to seek justice.

In Coal Harbour, Nova Scotia, another young woman was photographed having public sex while too drunk to consent (otherwise known as rape). The picture and the story were spread around the small town, and she was targeted on social media. Rehtaeh Parsons killed herself.

In Port Coquitlam, B.C., yet another young woman moved to a new school to try to escape the infamy of a topless picture she had shared with a stranger when she was in Grade 7. Schoolmates harassed her constantly about that, her depression, and a failed suicide attempt. After making a video cry for help that went viral, Amanda Todd also killed herself.

In Pitt Meadows, B.C., a young woman was gang-raped in the middle of a rave. Partygoers not only failed to intervene, they took photos and videos with their smartphones to share online.

Heard enough? One more.

In Saratoga, California, a young woman passed out at a party. She woke up to find she had been raped by up to three classmates, who had bragged of their assault by writing on her body with a Sharpie and taking and sharing pictures of the rape. Audrie Pott killed herself.

There are more. What they have in common is that these are not the actions of some individual predator acting in secret. They are a product of a culture in which rape is acceptable, under certain circumstances, and one person's humiliation is everyone else's entertainment.

It occurs to me that what's missing is empathy. Bystander empathy. But how do we increase that?

There is a role for social marketing here. And it's not just telling people not to "cyberbully" peers at risk. Instead, the greater social network needs to be connected more meaningfully to the lives and feelings of others. While the Internet is really great at turning people into harassers and trolls, it can also broaden their circle of empathy if they let it.

Via Osocio

A good example of this is the Draw The Line campaign, which I recently profiled on Osocio. It treats rape culture as a spectrum, starting with the apathetic acceptance of "distant" cases of assault and sexism in the media, and working closer to the audience's innermost circle:

The message is simple: It is all part of the same problem, and you are responsible for stopping it.

This year, will you be a bystander who makes a difference? Or will you be an accomplice?

You can start by evaluating your online behaviour.

Author Geoff Livingston, in his marketing blog, puts it like this:

So what can bystanders do? Well, they have several different options to choose from: 

1. Observe but refrain from getting involved
2. Publicly support the attacker
3. Privately support the attacker
4. Publicly support the target or victim
5. Privately support the target or victim
6. Become participants that attempt to deescalate the situation 

The vast majority of bystanders decide not to participate, and the reasons for doing so can range from feeling they don’t care enough about the problem to speak up, thinking their individual voice won’t steer the situation in a different direction, or wanting to avoid the risk of becoming a target themselves if they lend their support to either side. 

Bystanders who decide to publicly support one side or the other carry the risk, as noted, that they’ll become possible targets of furious opponents. However, by taking a stand they also have the opportunity to publicly speak out against unfair or untruthful statements and behavior. The challenge is to do so in a fact-based, rational and persuasive way, without getting sucked into the blind emotional intensity frequently seen in online exchanges and without taking cheap shots at the other side or trying to incite others into an online frenzy.

Be nice out there.