RickyRetardo
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • RickyRetardo

      Hi there spica22. I like your points. But I think there are some problems:  1) I know this is according to the women themselves. The women being the women interviewed specifically, not all the women in the world. There’s a problem when Dove generalizes these findings to all women. It might be more accurate, then, to say “these women, who Dove selected to take part in this experiment, perceive themselves as x, y, or z” as opposed to this “We decided to conduct a compelling social experiment that proves to women something very important: You are more beautiful than you think.” That phrase “proves to women” is problematic, is it not?

      2) Maybe it is based on real research. Maybe there’s research that says women, on average, do not like the way they look. Maybe there’s research that compares the way specific women perceive themselves to the way specific strangers perceive them. Maybe, mehbeh, mebbe so. But, I think THIS IS the research. It’s basically a series of specific case studies that Dove conducted. And then they applied their results to an entire population. So it’s bad research.  Anyway, it’s problematic for Dove to say that women categorically perceive themselves as one way or another. And Ellie may have brought the word uglier into the conversation explicitly, but Dove implies it by saying that they are “more beautiful than they think.” Dove implies that women think they are to some degree the opposite of “more beautiful,” which is uglier (or plainer, more homely, less attractive, whatever, the point is basically the same.) Anyway, Ellie labels the left-sided portraits “uglier” because Dove implies that they are… And the success of Dove’s “social experiment” depends on readers/viewers to agree.

      3) No. Disfigurements do not necessarily make a person ugly. They may, however, be focal points for the strangers to describe to the sketch artist, which would complicate our perception of that person’s looks and our understanding of what “beautiful” is. Also, you make a good point. Why does Dove want us to focus on what we are on the surface instead of what we are deep inside ourselves!? (CUZ THEY WANT TO SELL US SOAP AND OTHER BATH PRODUCTS. DUH-VE.)

      4) Yes, the dove has symbolic value, and that point was more just for fun. But let me disagree with you about Angelina: it’s because she pees, poops, farts, etc, just like erredamnone of us, that makes her special. Everybody poops, even Angelina. Humanity united in purpin’.

      5) Lulz.

      Never been much of a joiner, and I still believe this is TOTAL bullshit. But, hey, that’s me, and I would rather rub a dirty pigeon all up on this beautiful face than any Dove products. Anyway, nice talking with you! :-D

    • RickyRetardo

      I am going to askacouple of obvious questions and make some obvious points: 1) Why is Dove asking us to agree that the rendering of the stranger’s descriptions are “more” beautiful than the subject’s description of herself? They are more beautiful according to whom?
      2) Why does Dove assume that women categorically perceive themselves as “uglier” than they are?
      3) It seems that the women picked by Dove for this “social experiment” are all free of growths, scars, extra heads, etc, and are all more or less attractive by traditional standards. Why not pick someone with some kind of disfigurement, or someone who kind of pees in the pool, toots in the water, or just ROCKS the boat, and see how wrongheaded this experiment is? Challenge yourself, Dove, you jerk.
      4) Doves are basically just pretty pigeons. They may have acquired some additional symbolic value that elevates them above their more common relatives, but they are still dirty as hell.Alittle awkward forasoap company, IMHO.
      5) What about the bros? Are we to assume that bros naturally perceive themselves as more beautiful than they are? IS THIS WHY BROS WERE EXCLUDED?  Anyway, this is total bullshit. Thank you.