Raising the red lantern: Feminism in the new era
- Jun 15, 2017
- 4 min read
It’s the end of an era. The unrepentantly provocative, controversially unapologetically and highly anticipated annual highlight of the Pirelli’s Calendar has come to a natural death. The 2016 Calendar is swapping its sex appeal for solid substance. The showcase of the inspiring women, from athletes to activist, highlighting talents from eighty-two-year-old Yuko Uno to Serena Williams captured by the lens of renowned photographer, Annie Leibovitz. She confessed having “a lot of pressure not to let women down and look at women in a way that has a kind of integrity to it”. Many agree such move is a true culmination and departure from the scantily clad models for more than five decades.
The Pirelli Calendar has been a symbol of stature for the photographed and photographers since 1964. The “exclusivity” of the almanacs means they are restricted as corporate gifts for selected few celebrities and VIP clienteles. At the time, the imagery such as nudity of subversive Kate Moss with a shell necklace draped over her bear chest, photographed by the legendary Herb Ritts, was a celebrated icon that defines “beauty”. In many sense, what was perceived as the expression of femininity, may also be argued as the exploitation of women, even in some degree, to the verge of “pedophilia”.
I never set my eyes on any Pirelli Calendars growing up in Malaysia. This Muslim dominated nation attempts to adapt to a modern knowledge based economy, but struggles with the freedom of political rights and civil liberty. Ranked 146th out of 180 nations in the worldwide press freedom index, the strictness of Malaysian censorship even extends to the translated version of Charles Darwin’s on the Origin of Species. In other books, magazines and prints that have a tinge of nudity of flesh are routinely censored with manual shading of the area with black ink, or even commonly complete removal of entire page for “moral values”. In 2016, the banned Pirelli Calendar was lifted in Malaysia citing the end of exploitation of femininity.
In reality, the shift in attitude towards sex has been undergone a paradigm shift in recent years anyway. For example, even the once mighty Abercrombie and Fitch, whose trademark glorification of the decidedly artful male physique in various state of undressing, has to shy away from the emblem and brand identity of sex symbols after losing a third of its market value in the past year. Another casualty of the perceived brand “sexualization” is American Apparel, before filing for bankruptcy and announced the recasting of the brand to be “In a positive, inclusive, socially conscious light”.
A recent study from the Ohio State University publishing the meta-analysis of 53 experiments spanning 44 years of researches with 8,489 participants. The study demonstrated brand advertised using sexual ads were evaluated less favorably than brand advertised using non-sexual ads. As the intensity of sexual as content increased, memory, attitude and buying intentions decreased. Apparently, men’s brand memory was more impaired than women when watching media content featuring sexual imagery. The researchers Lull and Bushman said “viewers are accustomed to seeing sexual media content that they don't respond as much today to the attention grabbing impact as they did in previous decades”. The research was also in keeping with an earlier University of Wisconsin research that audiences view advertisement 10% less favorably if sex is used to sell unsexy products. This seems counterintuitive considering it is commonly assumed cliché of “sex sells”.
This clear shift in attitude towards sex has prompted many critiques to argue that individualistic Gen Y consumers, with strong sense of obligation, are rejecting the restraints of stereotypes, the traditional notions of gender and speaking out against sexual exploitation. Being a technical millennial, as I was born in year 2000, I am immensely proud of such idiosyncrasy and moral stands I am associated with. Bearing in mind, I am also leading the new trends of Gen Z for the next few decades; I also need to consolidate own stands.
The announcement of the 2017 Pirelli Calendar is in the limelight for deliberation again this year. The evolving theme of Award Winning women such as Nicole Kidman, Kate Winslet and Julian Moore has generated more excitement in how the femininity is portrayed in the lens of the celebrated photographer, Peter Lindbergh. In fact, the political correctness of the Almanac also extended to the inclusiveness of an Asian Actress Zhang Ziyi.
As the year is drawing to a close, the new era of women in the society surely is unquestionable. The new British Prime Minister alongside the Chancellor of Germany, with the potential of a historical US female President ruling the three great nations on earth, surely the impotence and stands of women is impossible to dispute or denied. My questions are: In the West, do we still need the risqué of the Pirelli’s Calendar to define the expression or exploitation of femininity in 2017? And more importantly in the East, is it still justifiable for authority to continue with censorship in the name of the protection of women?
Comments