It seems that the Skechers Shape-Ups for Girls petition that I started on Change.org has made its way through different channels of the blogosphere, and stirred up quite a bit of controversy. In the last few days, my petition has been featured on Yahoo!, the Daily Mail, HuffPost, and has since elicited a response from Leonard Armato, the president of the Skechers Fitness Group here on the Huffington Post. As the instigator of this mini media frenzy, I'd like to personally respond to his remarks.
Mr. Armato first makes the point that petition was not started by a parenting group, but "a student at Swarthmore College" on a website that "lets anybody start a petition on anything". And of course, all this is true. However, I do not think the fact that I am a student (technically a recent graduate) of Swarthmore College detracts at all from the aspects of this product and marketing campaign that are highly problematic, especially when a quick glance at the comments page of my petition show quite a few parents throwing their hat in the ring. In case this does somehow discredit me, allow me to take a moment to introduce myself to Mr. Armato's satisfaction.
My name is Augusta, and I'm a 21-year-old feminist blogger with a BA in Political Science from Swarthmore College. Perhaps more relevant, however, I am a former 7-year-old girl. A former horrifically awkward 7-year-old girl who, despite being witty and having gushing parents, had awful self-esteem and was susceptible to many marketing ploys that preyed on on my insecurities.
Coming at this issue from this perspective, I wholly disagree with Mr. Armato that my conflation with Shape-ups for Girls with the booming dieting industry of false promises and low self-esteem is in anyway unfair or inaccurate. Should there be NutriSystem for Young Girls ads on Nickelodeon? Or Zantrex 3- for 8-year-olds advertised on Cartoon Network?
Furthermore, Mr. Armato's attempts to equate the Shape-ups for Girls product with the First Lady's Let's Move campaign are both insulting and ill-fitting. Michelle Obama's predominant focus is on educating children about nutrition and promoting exercise, whereas the Skechers Shape-ups for Girls neither promote exercise, burn extra calories, or educate children on the necessity of proper nutrition. Even more disturbing is that Shape-ups for Girls are not marketed as Shape-ups for Children, but only for girls. The Let's Move campaign does not solely target girls. And unless Skechers has new information that suggests young boys are immune to obesity, this product and marketing campaign are simply the latest and youngest in an age-old technique of building an industry off of insecurity and exaggerated claims to endow the consumer with conventional beauty and acceptance. I have yet to see a statement from Mr. Armato or Skechers at large confronting why these shoes only exist for little girls, and not for little boys.
As for Skechers' message for girls to "get people moving, exercising, and getting fit", I am inclined to disagree. Take, for instance, the Kim Kardashian Shape-ups commercial that ran during the Super Bowl, in which Ms. Kardashian "breaks up" with her trainer, suggesting that just wearing these shoes are a legitimate substitute for an exercise regimen. Contrary to Mr. Armato's campaign, there is no evidence to suggest that Shape-ups or other toning sneakers actually work. The shoes are designed to affect the wearer's balance in a way that throws off the natural gait, and could be potentially dangerous to young wearers.
So let's quickly review. Skechers is marketing a "get thin quick" product that has no proven benefits to the health or fitness to girls as young at seven (pre-school age according to the now removed page on the Skechers website that sold the shoes), and not boys of the same age. That doesn't sound like the Let's Move campaign to me, Mr. Armato. Perhaps you should ask Mrs. Obama how she feels about your product, since you already know how I (and roughly 1,400 others) feel about it.
Augusta Christensen is a feminist blogger, musician, and columnist for Lawsonry Online Journal for Social Progress. She holds a B.A. in Political Science from Swarthmore College, and runs the micro-blog STFU Sexists.
Yoni Freedhoff M.D. : Thanks Skechers, But No, My Little Girls Don't Need Butt Shaping Shoes
But now there is children Girls shape ups. Just like how the Adult Men and Adult Women shape ups aren't advertized as the same thing, the kid’s girls shape ups shouldn't be looked at in the same way as the adult women ones are.
They were also planning on having a Children's Boys Shape Ups as well... Would that stir up the same controversy that this did? I highly doubt it. First of all, people don't care about how male body image is treated in advertizing so people won’t stir up petitions and waste news segments on it making it way more than it is like they do with the Girls Shape Up (Were there isn't a body image issue), and they still wouldn't IF there was a real body image issue there.
All I'm saying is you are all looking at the Girls Shape ups and forcing the Women's Shape Ups marketing on them. If that was true, then people should've done the same thing with the Men's Shape Up and they shouldn't ignore the fact that they are making a Boy's Shape up during this "controversy".
Went into the Abercrombie store to buy something for my 10 year old niece. I saw the signage and rear shot of tight sweatpants with the "Cute Butt" label. Since I always mix up the stores, I asked the salesperson, "I did come into the store that sells clothes for little girls, correct?" I asked her if she thought it was appropriate and she not only stumbled in her response but indicated that no one else had mentioned it prior. I told her I wouldn't spend a dime in such a store and left.
Until parents become more aware, speak out, and withhold their spending power, retailers will continue this trend of sexualizing children. It's incredible to see how many parents are ill informed/oblivious.
They decided it wouldn't be as profitable. Every little girl and boy already knew that the whole point of Shape-Ups was to tone asses and legs, and that's not macho enough to fit established marketing profiles for young boys. If it makes you feel any better about the whole thing (it doesn't help me, but I guess you never know), I'm absolutely certain (100%, not a doubt) that they would make boys' Shape-Ups if they thought marketing them would be as easy as the girls' version.
I'll agree wholeheartedly that it's terrible for them to be capitalizing on the carefully fostered insecurities of young girls like this, but I also don't think they mean to do so. They also don't mean to encourage fitness, however. They mean to make money. Folks give the tobacco industry a hard time, saying "they don't care about your life, just your money" but the only thing more dangerous about the tobacco industry (as opposed to any other for-profit entity acting in a market economy) is the product.
Also, have there been any studies on these shoes and how they may affect growth and development?
These shoes are a lie. Spokes-people for toning shoes (such as Kim Kardashian) are frequently photographed working out and going to gyms because they have to actually exercise in order to be in advertisements for shoes that falsely promise fitness benefits. These shoes do nothing to teach girls about being healthy and active, just how to be ignorant consumers.
Welcome to America, ladies and gentlemen: consumerism = extortion of self-esteem.