Much has been said over the last few days about MAC's latest collaboration with fashion house Rodarte. If your attention has been elsewhere, the crux of the matter is that the collection, said to be "inspired by" a road trip that took in Mexican border towns, uses stark, ghost-like imagery and contains product names such as "Factory", "Bordertown" and "Juarez". The reasoning behind the offence caused lies in the disturbing history of Juarez; a border town with a profusion of factories where the need to produce goods at very low cost means low working wages and poor conditions. Young women are often raped and murdered, with such frequency that the town has become known for "femicide".
The product names, in combination with the ghostly imagery, are indeed in bad taste, given that the collection did not aim to raise awareness or funds for what is undoubtably a very worthy cause. One might wonder how MAC and Rodarte were so short sighted as to not anticipate an outcry. To their credit, MAC's response has been to apologise for any offence caused and to pledge a portion of profits to a Juarez charity. But this, it seems, isn't enough for everyone - the outrage continues, with calls for the collection to be axed entirely.
I take issue with this suggestion. It stands to do damage rather than good for the victims; surely some money for the women of Juarez is better than no money at all. If the collection is indeed pulled, there will be no proportion of proceeds to be donated.
Whilst I understand the drive to get MAC to commit to a higher proportion of proceeds to be donated, the amount of vitriol being directed at MAC and Rodarte seems disproportionate to the crime. Yes, they have named some products and used imagery in bad taste. If this had been a charity collaboration from the start, though, with the same images and names, I suspect there would be far less controversy surrounding it.
There has been talk of MAC "exploiting" women by using Juarez-related names and imagery in this campaign without highlighting the underlying cause more explicitly. Honestly, I feel that the backlash has the wrong companies in its sights: if we want to blame someone for exploiting women, we should blame the companies who operate the factories, blame the governments who don't protect women, blame the corporations who demand margins that make the low pay and poor conditions a reality. MAC and Rodarte might have been insensitive, yes, but they are not exploiting anyone. Conversely, they have inadvertantly highlighted the issue - ultimately, how many of us can honestly say we had heard of Juarez and its mistreated women before all of this kicked off?
Now that we do know about it, our energies would be far better invested in campaigning for organisations who make a positive difference in Mexico than in campaigning against the organisation who accidentally brought it to our attention.
For more information, visit the Wikipedia article, Amnesty's broader page on the Violence Against Women Act, or find out how you can help, visit Amnesty's Take Action pages.
The product names, in combination with the ghostly imagery, are indeed in bad taste, given that the collection did not aim to raise awareness or funds for what is undoubtably a very worthy cause. One might wonder how MAC and Rodarte were so short sighted as to not anticipate an outcry. To their credit, MAC's response has been to apologise for any offence caused and to pledge a portion of profits to a Juarez charity. But this, it seems, isn't enough for everyone - the outrage continues, with calls for the collection to be axed entirely.
I take issue with this suggestion. It stands to do damage rather than good for the victims; surely some money for the women of Juarez is better than no money at all. If the collection is indeed pulled, there will be no proportion of proceeds to be donated.
Whilst I understand the drive to get MAC to commit to a higher proportion of proceeds to be donated, the amount of vitriol being directed at MAC and Rodarte seems disproportionate to the crime. Yes, they have named some products and used imagery in bad taste. If this had been a charity collaboration from the start, though, with the same images and names, I suspect there would be far less controversy surrounding it.
There has been talk of MAC "exploiting" women by using Juarez-related names and imagery in this campaign without highlighting the underlying cause more explicitly. Honestly, I feel that the backlash has the wrong companies in its sights: if we want to blame someone for exploiting women, we should blame the companies who operate the factories, blame the governments who don't protect women, blame the corporations who demand margins that make the low pay and poor conditions a reality. MAC and Rodarte might have been insensitive, yes, but they are not exploiting anyone. Conversely, they have inadvertantly highlighted the issue - ultimately, how many of us can honestly say we had heard of Juarez and its mistreated women before all of this kicked off?
Now that we do know about it, our energies would be far better invested in campaigning for organisations who make a positive difference in Mexico than in campaigning against the organisation who accidentally brought it to our attention.
For more information, visit the Wikipedia article, Amnesty's broader page on the Violence Against Women Act, or find out how you can help, visit Amnesty's Take Action pages.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a comment on: MAC, Rodarte and Juarez: A Different Perspective