An even more blatant glorification of the sex-doll celebrity fad is shown in Jessica Simpson's latest photoshoot, IMO: http://popsugar.com/1533604

I don't particularly care one way or another about Posh. However, I would rather not get a near-gynecological exam view of her. Thanks, but no thanks.

(And it might be that I'm just a fashion moron, but those heels look strange to me.)

Yay... this picture screams both sexism and submission so loud.

The "doll" seems to be naked (is it only me and my cynic mind or does anyone else think it comes handy that her legs are already spread?) and even if it wasn't thrown in that bag, it would not be able to walk anyway. Seen the shoes?

Shoes like these must be made by asshole masochists. High heels make derrieres look "nicer" and women more vulnerable to men. Who could run away or kick some ass if you are barely able to stand?

I'm not sure if more than a little tiptoeing is possible while wearing those ugly pieces.

I hate this ad.

Why do women like her find it so easy to just...become a commidity? When will other options open up that allow women to be more than objects, and still make money and be fulfilled?

Why do women like her find it so easy to just...become a commodity? When will other options open up that allow women to be more than objects, and still make money and be fulfilled?

What on earth is going on with those shoes?

What's weird is that I never felt she had any real style. She looks like she just wears tiny dresses and high heel shoes. I don't get why people would hold her up as a fashion icon because of that.

That image just screams "fashion victim."

Victoria Beckham is so retarded, I think she almost belongs in that shopping bag. I can't think of a person less deserving of the attention she gets. At least Paris Hilton keeps you guessing. I can't figure out what the draw is to Posh these days.

@ FeministMe - I think the reason some women choose to become a commodity is because they gravitate toward whatever gives them the most positive reinforcement. If you don't have a lot of other stuff going on for you but you're nice to look at, people are going to give you makeup and dresses and wish you luck. She's just taken that to an extreme level. In a way she had to if she wanted to prolong her 15 minutes, bc she can't sustain a solo career as a singer and anyone can "do" fashion if they're petite enough.

I do believe that she has a sense of humor about herself and loves her family. I just don't understand people who are SO passionate about fashion. I understand being into it, or seeing it as art. But SO into it that you permanently warp your feet -- I don't get that.

I love shoes, and I would definitely try those on if I saw them in the store. They are very interesting. However, I feel like it would be insanely hard to walk far in those, and since I don't have a limo driving me around everywhere, I need something that I can at least keep a good stride in.

also, my first thought about this picture was that it looked like a rape victim. Like she was naked and unconscious and just thrown in a dumpster. It really creeps me out.

I don't understand the appeal of Posh, either.
Is she considered a style icon because she's so smug and dark-looking? What's so special about her clothing choices?
She is far too thin and just comes off like a real snob who fancies herself more glamorous and influential than she is.

as much as I find it personally really unappealing, people have agency to sell their bodies as products, or to want their bodies to be commodified.

our goal should not be to tell people what they want is wrong, but to say that it is not NECESSARY to sell oneself, and that all ways of orienting sexuality are okay.

I'm sorry; I should not have passed judgement on her figure.

@ MLEmac - You took the words out of my mouth. The position she's in - spread eagle to the camera, to the consumer - it's very sexual but in a disturbing way. I couldn't put my finger on it, but what you said about her looking like a rape victim, that's what was disturbing me.

And, OK, can we stop the ad hominem attacks on Ms. Beckham? We can criticize her choices but she is a product of the patriarchy...can we really blame women for taking the easiest path through the patriarchical jungle?

Hm, my edit didn't work. That last sentence is supposed to be...can we really blame women for what path they choose to take through the patriarchical jungle?

I also agree with MLEmac, I was thinking dead raped girl in dumpster. This is a return to those ads from the 80s, which I have seen other versions of today, where models give rape, abuse, and murder glamor by being shot as acting dead in dumpsters or other places where they are left to rot beautifully. This is the exact same kind of image discussed in the Killing
Us Softly films. What a load of crap. So in a nutshell, this goes beyond women as commodities, but more like the selling of violence against women as an appealing commodity.

My favorite part is in the NY Times article, the caption for that image says "The feet and legs belong to Victoria Beckham." Um, don't they belong to Marc Jacobs, or at least whoever bought her at the Marc Jacobs store, if we take the picture as literally as we're meant to? Plus I like how that caption implies that she can be cut into bits and sold off as parts. Ew, terrible.

Sometimes we make stupid choices when we're flattered and influenced, and maybe feeling out of our element. That article made me wonder. I'm not exactly a Posh fan, but I respect her, she seems to have gotten exactly what she wanted out of life. A rich, gorgeous husband (damn, Beckham is hot!), three little boys, fame & respect as a fashionita, and she even just had a successful reunion with her old band. So, I wonder why she did this fashion shoot. She doesn't strike me as a stupid woman, and she has those three young boys. I wonder if she looked at those photos afterward and thought about how they would affect them, and any other boys who might see them. (I haven't actually seen these ads anywhere, but they could be coming to billboards and bus shelters for all I know.) I think there are things you might do before you have children that you'd think twice about afterward. And allowing yourself to be photographed as a naked, broken doll is one of them in my opinion.

Or, maybe she just thinks that it's art and therefore doesn't count.

Victoria Beckham is so retarded, I think she almost belongs in that shopping bag.

I know it's a really popular term, and that we're conditioned to use it at a pretty young age, but can we please try not to use "retarded" as an insult like that? It's hurtful and disrespectful to people who have friends or loved ones with mental disabilities.

Re: the ad.

Yeah, I'm not really clear what kind of mentality it takes to go from "so, you're treated like a product" to "it's good to reinforce that."

Also... those shoes are weird. How would they even work with no heel? I assume that the weight must be supported by that extended piece, but it seems like that'd be an awkward design. Weird.

I think that ad is kind of a fascinating commentary on what women in particular are looking to achieve from buying fashion. Plus something vague about Barbie and Real Dolls and all that. But Marc Jacobs can't do much wrong in my eyes, so I'm biased.

And I'm dying to try on those shoes - there's a chance they're comfortable like wedge heels, because you've got more support at the base of your foot? They're fun to look at, anyway.

@ roymacIII - just so you know, "idiot", "dumb", "imbecile", "moron", "fool", "lame" and so on were all originally diognostic terms for people with deficient IQs or disabilities. It may not be PC, but language has always evolved in a way that extracts secondary or slang definitions from original words.

And regarding the ad being a "rape" image -- I think there's a case for that, sure, but if you look at some of the other pictures from the shoot, you can see the concept was clearly meant to be playful and childish. Basically Posh taking the piss out of herself. So I'm more apt to see this as Posh romping around with such love for Marc Jacobs that she belly-flops into one of his bags. Still a silly concept, but at least not promoting the sexy-rape-victim image.

Does anyone else think that it looks like she was cut off at the waist before being thrown into the bag? There doesn't seem to be enough depth in the photograph to encompass her whole torso. I know a few of you have mentioned that she looks like she was thrown in a dumpster, but no one has mentioned what I see as dismemberment as well...

I'm torn about this picture. In a way, I feel like it almost crosses the line into satirical. Like, "Look at how ridiculous these shoes are! Look at how silly my legs look! And I'm in a freaking bag! What woman does any of this?!" But I've been learning about Cindy Sherman and Barbara Kruger a lot in the past couple days, so maybe I'm just in that mindset.

We can criticize her choices but she is a product of the patriarchy...can we really blame women for taking the easiest path through the patriarchical jungle?

Well she surely shouldn't get the bulk of the blame, but yes, we can. To say that we can't, at least to me, is to say that women are incapable of making their own choices, being strong, and being different. There is a reason why we all have person feminist heros, and why certain women's accomplishments should be praised. The same for those who take the "easy" path despite economic and social advantages. Clearly everyone's experiences are different and contribute differently, but still! I have to believe in the power of women to overcome.

Clearly patriarchy is deeply rooted and ridiculously hard to overcome, but I don't like the idea that no woman is responsible for anything about herself or her personal choices.

roymacIII - just so you know, "idiot", "dumb", "imbecile", "moron", "fool", "lame" and so on were all originally diognostic terms for people with deficient IQs or disabilities. It may not be PC, but language has always evolved in a way that extracts secondary or slang definitions from original words.

Be that as it may, it doesn't change my request or my opinion. That schoolkids continue to use "gay" or "sissy" or "faggot" as insults and think of them as being unrelated to homophobia and misogyny doesn't mean that we, as adults, shouldn't be taking steps to recognize when our words can be hurtful or reinforce harmful stereotypes.

After reading that NYT article, I think the point of this ad seems to be more about showing that Posh is something of a product and not a commentary on all women. I think if it had been anyone else but a Posh-like celebrity that it would send a message that would make me really uncomfortable, but this to me seems more specific to Posh herself. Am i missing something?

Look, she's doing it for the money. And recognition and fame, whatever pitiful fleeting amount of it there is. I'm sorry, but if you'll read any interview with her, or seen her talking on TV, you will realise that she is a smug, self interested narcissistic personality. An anti-intellectual, an anti-real person. Real live people who are mentally retarded probably have for the most part better life skills than she does, who has spent most of her life getting free clothing, makeup, etc., every single part of her life provided for and taken care of. When was the last time this woman ever did a normal human thing like clean a toilet or make her own bed? Plus, if none of these reasons make you upchuck, consider this: she has bragged several times in interviews that she has NEVER READ A BOOK, and never intends to. Even if it's not true, it's still really disgusting.

Look, she's doing it for the money. And recognition and fame, whatever pitiful fleeting amount of it there is. I'm sorry, but if you'll read any interview with her, or seen her talking on TV, you will realise that she is a smug, self interested narcissistic personality. An anti-intellectual, an anti-real person. Real live people who are mentally retarded probably have for the most part better life skills than she does, who has spent most of her life getting free clothing, makeup, etc., every single part of her life provided for and taken care of. When was the last time this woman ever did a normal human thing like clean a toilet or make her own bed? Plus, if none of these reasons make you upchuck, consider this: she has bragged several times in interviews that she has NEVER READ A BOOK, and never intends to. Even if it's not true, it's still really disgusting.

I don't like the ad either, but I do like him as a designer.

This seems like such a big step away from his campaigns with M.I.A. in them.
http://flickr.com/photos/justinmather/2136372360/

But MJ usually does not objectify women in his ads at all... maybe this was a bad decision, but I'm not sure if a boycott, rather than writing about it, is really necessary?

@ roymacIII:

That schoolkids continue to use "gay" or "sissy" or "faggot" as insults and think of them as being unrelated to homophobia and misogyny doesn't mean that we, as adults, shouldn't be taking steps to recognize when our words can be hurtful or reinforce harmful stereotypes.

That comparison hardly holds up because calling someone 'gay' or a 'faggot' as a substitute for 'stupid' is, obviously, a judgment of homosexuality, because it equates them.

Calling someone retarded, though rude, is essentially calling them mentally deficient with a synonym FOR mentally deficient. It doesn't cite a lifestyle, preference, or identity outside of being slow (literally – from the Latin ‘tardus’ meaning ‘slow’).

And I'm not advocating the use of the word that way, it's just hypocritical to ask the world to abstain from what offends you personally unless you are going to apply the same sensitivity to every other group ("dumb" people who literally can't speak), a list that quickly grows beyond practical management. So the solution might be to be a little less judgey of others' casual comments, to save your reprimands for people who are insulting actual mentally challenged people, and to choose your OWN words according to your own philosophy.

You know, I have to say that I actually LIKE Victoria Beckham. I could never be as pin-thin as she, and I probably couldn't do the fake'n'bake tan, but really... the woman is truthful. She admits that she can't sing. She admits that she can't dance, that she's not an entertainer. She admits, too, that her PASSION is clothing, designing, and anything involving fashion. Sure, she thinks smiling makes her ugly, so she tries not to in public... but she's got a good sense of humor. She isn't stupid. She knows what people say about her, and she signs up with Marc Jacobs to make fun of that. It's nice to see that she's not taking herself too seriously.

Where was the bitching when Marc Jacobs took a 13 year old Dakota Fanning, and made her the object of his ads a few years back? She was so small that he had to have clothes especially made CHILD SIZE for her. That, to me, is worse than Beckham's legs sticking out of a bag.

lizadilly- I've been a long time reader of this blog but I wasn't motivated to register till now thanks to your comments.

I'm mentally disabled, and I do find you referring to people as "retarded" to insult them offensive, and your defense even more odious. I don't think you realize it, but you are insulting people who are mentally disabled/challenged when you terms to describe people who are mentally challenged as an insult. It implies that our existence and condition are insulting or offensive to you.

@ NotYourKitty - remove the shoe and use it as a weapon. This especially applies in the case of stiletto heels.

I don't really mind this ad. I feel like it's more about Posh than women in general, at least she can have a laugh at her own expense. If it was an unnamed woman, I would feel differently, but as it is her, I find it pretty funny. Simultaneously, it manages to be very un-Posh-like, yet very honest about her status; the pose is so not something that is associated with her, but the image of her as a commodity is very true.
It is a weird ad though - it doesn't make me want to buy Marc Jacobs, it just makes me want to laugh about what a cartoon Posh is.

I cannot believe anyone's actually defending the use of the word "retarded" (especially by comparing it to "dumb", WTF?)

I use the word a lot. And I wince internally every bloody time - I'm trying not to but it's hard.

The insults stupid, thick, idiotic and foolish are not even remotely comparable. And saying that it's a "personal" issue is bullshit. Even if you're not personally offended by a word you can choose not to use it out of respect for the other person.

Thanks, roymacIII. Since we're talking about it, I also strongly object to the use of "retarded." I really don't feel like it's an overreaction to point out that calling something "retarded" (or someone a "retard") is hurtful. Words matter.

My brother has autism. In my family, we consider "retard" a slur. Should I explain why? (HINT: It's not because it's a "synonym for 'mentally deficient.'")

I really don't feel like it's an overreaction to point out that calling something "retarded" (or someone a "retard") is hurtful.

That is kinda the point with insults though. What would be the point of using an insult that has no negative connotations? An insult that wasn't insulting?

That comparison hardly holds up because calling someone 'gay' or a 'faggot' as a substitute for 'stupid' is, obviously, a judgment of homosexuality, because it equates them.

Calling someone retarded, though rude, is essentially calling them mentally deficient with a synonym FOR mentally deficient. It doesn't cite a lifestyle, preference, or identity outside of being slow (literally – from the Latin ‘tardus’ meaning ‘slow’).

Excepting that it's not that different. When kids call other kids homophobic slurs, they're not calling the other stupid, they're deriding their masculinity. The problem isn't with equating homosexuality to stupidity, although that'd be a problem, too- it's with equating it as something to be abhored. It's with equating it as a negative thing to be ashamed of or to be destroyed. By the same token, "retarded" when used in an insulting fashion devalues the lives and experiences of people with various mental disabilities.

It sends a very clear message: You have less value than people without your disability.

@ roymacIII
@ R.T.
@ Fenriswolf
@ Alison

I never used the word "retarded" to insult anyone, nor did I advocate it. All I did was defend cheekykitten when roymacIII reprimanded her, pointing out that we all use splintered and potentially offensive versions of technical words. It was a point about etymology and hyperbole, and you can be aghast at that if you want but what I said is still factual. The truth is every insult we have derives from some kind of slur – that’s what makes it an insult – and I’m not a champion of that, I just made the observation because I felt cheekykitten meant no harm and shouldn’t be singled out.

And as I said, I don't think people should use that word that way. I have two retarded people in my family (twins) that I have taken care of all my life. BECAUSE I have that empathy, I know there are certain things worth getting upset about and confronting people over (the actual abuse, libel or degradation of challenged people and their rights), and other crosses that you just shouldn't hang on the cheekykittens of the world (talking shit about Victoria Beckham in a blog comment).

Maybe I’m just sick of the way people filter themselves around my family or maybe it’s gotten too frustrating to read the endless holier-than-thou comments here that derail thread topics and knit-pick anyone who dares to omit the requisite disclaimers. It gets really out of hand sometime. I was told once not to use the word “adopted� to describe my pet cause because it’s belittling and confusing to adopted children. WTF? No it’s not, that’s what that word MEANS. And the same with “retarded� – it means someone who’s slow in the head, so I can see how someone would choose that word, even if I wouldn’t.

Well, that's a difference in our perspectives. I think that our choices of words matter and that they have an overall impact on the ways that society views and sees fit to treat people. When people use slurs as insults, it normalizes the marginalization of the groups that the slurs represent. Like I said, it sends a very clear message that the group the slur describes are something bad or something to be looked down upon.

I also think it's mischaractorization to say that I was "upset" about it. I think I was actually very polite in my request. It was a two-sentence request that even acknowledged that it's a word we're taught to use from a very young age. I requested that we avoid it and explained why. Your defense of the word/criticism of my request did a lot more to derail the topic than my simple request seems to have.
*shrug*

For fuck's sake, Skinny Bitch is not about anorexia. It's promoting veganism. Veganism isn't anorexia. It's about doing one's best to not use animals for food or clothes an other things (simply because animals are NOT things; they are alive).

Calling the authors of that book out for the title and cover illustrations and some of the language is legitimte. Saying they are promoting anorexia just isn't true. When are y'all gonna get this?

I actually love this ad. It's a perfect commentary on celebrity, branding, and fashion in the US today. Many celebrites, male or female, make themselves products. They sell parts of themselves as ideals (beauty, charm, etc) to sell things like movies or clothes. The unstated assumption is that by wearing what they wear and buying what they buy, you can be like them. I see this ad as taking that premise to the extreme. It may be a disqueting idea, but not neccesarily an anti-feminist one. I'm not sure her femaleness has anything to do with the premise of the ad.

Reading this post made me think of a project that we did recently in my Women's Studies class. We had to find ads, just like the one above, and reverse the gender imagery. I was amazed when I began looking for an ad to use because I never really paid much attention to sexist ads. After doing this project I became much more aware of the normality of using women's body parts to sell products. I think that this is disgusting and I will be sure to pay attention to the kinds of ads used to advertise the products that I buy and I will stay away from products that use women as objects, and I hope that you do the same.