I love this series of anti-vivisection ads from the Australian animal rights organization Animal Liberation:

Each photo depicts a cosmetic product – lipstick, mascara and powder foundation (or is that blush?) – designed to resemble various torture devices – a bullet, a syringe and a leghold trap. The text reads, “Every year 6 million animals are killed from cosmetic testing. Please boycott animal-tested products. www.animal-lib.org.au”

I do have one quibble with PSAs that tout cruelty-free cosmetics – not with any one ad, but in a general sense – as they tend to feature images of cosmetics and hygiene products typically used by women: lipstick, eyeshadow, blush, mascara, eye liner, etc., or target women in other ways. (See, for example, here, here and here.) Looking at these ads, you’d think that women alone are responsible for torturing helpless fuzzy-wuzzies in the name of fashion and vanity. And yet, shampoo, conditioner, lotions, deodorant, soap, shaving cream, and other gender-neutral or “male” products are tested on animals as well. I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a dude in a cruelty free cosmetics PSA, however. Guess they’re all booked up with PETA’s manly “Ink, Not Mink” campaign.

Here, a clarification might be helpful. Dictionary.com defines “cosmetics” as

a powder, lotion, lipstick, rouge, or other preparation for beautifying the face, skin, hair, nails, etc.

“Cosmetics,” then, are more than just makeup. Indeed, some of the cruelty free ads also feature items such as lotion, but again, if a human consumer is shown in the advertisement, chances are she’s a woman. Google “cruelty free cosmetics,” and the very first link is to CaringConsumer.com – which allows you to search for cosmetics and hygiene products, including those for men, children, babies and companion animals. “Cosmetics,” then, is a term which seems to encompass cosmetics/makeup as well as other hygiene products, at least when used in this context. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that men be chastised in these ads, too.

Perhaps animal rights groups target women in this arena because women are more likely to be receptive to their anti-vivisection message. (Women are overrepresented in the animal liberation movement, after all.) Or maybe they’re just operating under the outdated assumption that women do all the grocery shopping, and their husbands use whatever crap finds its way to the bathroom vanity. And that all men are involved in heterosexual relationships, natch.

Either way, if you’re XX, XY or none of the above, please buy cruelty-free cosmetics and hygiene products. Go to CaringConsumer.com to search for products that have not been tested on animals (and companies which do not conduct animal tests).

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare animal research animal testing animal experimentation vivisection animal liberation cruelty free cosmetics flickr photos ads advertisements psas ara psas intersections animals and women parallel oppressions beauty makeup

Share and Enjoy

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

This entry was posted on Monday, January 5th, 2009 at 9:54 pm and is filed under Animals & Women, ARA PSAs, Intersections, Marketing, Photo Blogging. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.