Clean Up Australia Day & McDonald's: An unpalatable alliance

I was quite stunned recently when I discovered that McDonald's has been a long-time sponsor and partner of Clean Up Australia Day. This is an annual event which encourages people to clean up general waste in their local area and waterways. 

I was struck by the incongruity of Clean Up's association with a corporation such as McDonald's, which generates large volumes of waste and which is a key contributor to Australia's rubbish problem. My latest article for Discordia, Clean Up Australia Day and McDonald's: An unpalatable alliance, looks at this issue. 
----------------

Clean Up Australia Day and McDonald's: An unpalatable alliance

March 2013

The man on screen flashed a cheerful smile, and implored fellow Australians to join him in the environmental campaign. Clean Up Australia Day was approaching, and a year’s worth of refuse clogging the streets and waterways was awaiting an army of eager volunteers.

His manner was friendly, his work was admirable… and his shirt was adorned with the unmistakable golden arches logo.

Recovering from my initial shock, I decided the ad was a spoof. What a great satirical clip, I thought. McDonald’s partnering with Clean Up Australia Day – now wouldn’t that be a laugh?!

But then the ad rolled to a finish, with no disclaimer in sight.

After some searching on the Clean Up website, I discovered that McDonald’s has been a sponsor, a “founding partner”, of Clean Up Australia Day since 1989.

Who knew? I certainly didn’t, and thinking myself a bit ignorant, I quizzed a bunch of friends. None of them had known either.

Rubbish

I haven’t frequented a McDonald’s store since resigning as a grossly underpaid teenage “crew member” of the food giant in the mid-90s. As an employee, I was privy – and party to - the sickening scale of food wastage generated by McDonald’s each day. Much of the food that was cooked was destined for the bin from its inception. 

As food such as burgers were generally not made to order, but rather cooked en masse and allotted into a timer system, those which exceeded their (brief) use-by-date in the absence of a purchase were tossed into large bins. I recall carrying out the nightly back-breaking task of emptying the bins - absolutely brimming with wrapped, untouched burgers - into one massive disposal unit.

I still often encounter the junk food corporation’s trash, in the form of its branded packaging, strewn carelessly along streets and gutters. According to a Keep Australia Beautiful study, 10 per cent of all litter in Australia originates from McDonald's. When communities lodge opposition to a proposed McDonald’s store in their area, concern over rubbish is usually a chief point of contention. 

This is despite McDonald’s Australia’s Clean Streets program, where lucky crew members supposedly do regular trash-duty around a store’s surrounding streets. 

Conscious or culpable?

The ubiquitous fast food chain does not enjoy a healthy environmental track record. McDonald’s uses an inordinate amount of packaging, the majority of which is used only fleetingly before being discarded. Also, its ardent agenda to lure children in-store means that plastic “Happy Meal” toys and their accompanying packaging are perpetually on the menu.

Even more alarming are some of the less visible aspects of its operations, such as the impact of the company’s transportation and food refrigeration, and the steep carbon and ecological footprint of their sale of resource-intensive meat and dairy products. 30% of the Earth’s entire land area and 70% of all agricultural land are appropriated for animal agriculture. Animal husbandry is also a primary driver of soil erosion and sedimentation, high levels of pesticide use and freshwater pollution.

It is almost impossible to find reliable figures of annual food wastage generated in Australia by McDonald’s. I’ve been told by a recent Australian customer that McDonald’s now makes a range of its products directly to order, but I’m aware that the timer system is still used for various items, and I can’t comment on the company’s practices overseas. 

However, try as they might, it would be difficult for Clean Up to deny that McDonald’s is synonymous with immense waste, environmental degradation, and a throw-away culture. Yet, Clean Up has counted McDonald’s as a sponsor for more than two decades, and McDonald’s proudly cites its yearly support of the Clean Up Australia Day program.

The chain’s Australian operations also proudly claim to participate in the Sydney Water Every Drop Counts initiative, but it could be argued that this is a convenient diversion from the exorbitant water usage of the animal agriculture industries on which McDonald’s so heavily relies.

Through its association with these “green” initiatives and programs, and its much-publicised (but arguably, inadequate) recycling and packaging changes across some markets, McDonald’s has cunningly cultivated an image as a “green leader”. Its relentless PR machine ensures a wealth of media releases and column inches are devoted to reporting on the company’s latest “eco-friendly” innovations.

But McDonald’s, which serves 69 million customers a day, is NOT an environmental organisation, or a company producing “eco-friendly” products. It is a corporation driven by an insatiable profit motive, which peddles junk food with a colossal environmental, health and ethical toll.

An odd partnership = a confused message

Many undoubtedly believe that the food giant’s involvement in Clean Up Australia Day should be applauded. That at least McDonald’s is taking some steps to clean up the country’s rubbish, of which it’s a significant contributor. But let’s be real here - the motives are not philanthropic.

McDonald’s benefits from the association in more ways than one: it portrays an image of environmental concern and vigilance, while increasing its advertising reach. The arrangement is mutually beneficial, as the sheer monetary power of McDonald’s would equate to healthy sponsorship funds and unparalleled promotion for Clean Up Australia Day.

Maybe Clean Up could not achieve this level of exposure without the backing of such a high profile company. BUT – what is the campaign’s long term message? Shouldn’t it be to reduce waste, the production of unnecessary items, and littering in the first place? Clean Up Australia Day is, after all, a campaign which is ultimately a band-aid measure in the context of the wider problem of over-production, consumerism, and an unsustainable use of resources.

I would like to see Clean Up partner with companies which promote sustainability and environmental protection along their entire supply chain. Clean Up’s association with McDonald’s promotes a message that tokenistic gestures are adequate, thus undermining their credibility as an environmental campaign.

I do believe that Clean Up’s work is commendable. 16,000 tonnes of rubbish was collected during the 2012 event. But the message of reducing and taking responsibility for waste is fundamentally incompatible with the business operations of a company such as McDonald’s. 

The junk food chain may have undertaken some tweaking and tinkering of their operations, but there’s no escaping the fact that they are far from the benchmark of an environmentally-friendly business.

Let’s recognise this partnership for what it is: just another attempt at greenwashing.

Postscript: Obtaining accurate figures about McDonald’s and its waste production proved difficult. Furthermore, many of the web search terms related to the topic led directly back to McDonald’s and its PR apparatus.

Hopeful heart: Contemplating Cambodia’s street kids

[Originally published February 2013 in Discordia online magazine]

I spent six weeks in Phnom Penh in 2006, while I was volunteering at the Free the Bears sanctuary. In the years before this trip, I had travelled to several other developing countries in the Asian region, but I wasn't prepared for the vast poverty of Cambodia. I was struck by the amount of street kids and the hardship of many people's lives. 

In this article, I reflect on my time in Phnom Penh, and the street kids I came into contact with.
---

Suddenly he was standing beside my table at the dingy café on the bustling riverside road. His bare feet and tiny frame had ensured I didn’t detect his approach, and absorbed in my own thoughts over a solitary lunch, his face had initially startled me. But as he peered up at me, I softened.

I surveyed his face, framed by a rumpled mop of black hair which fell unevenly across his forehead. His broad smile gleamed up at me, as his large dark eyes flickered with hope. His beauty caused my heart to flip.

And there, outstretched toward me, was his upturned hand. I grinned down at him, and without hesitation reached for my bag. I presented his delicate hand with a couple of notes, which he swiftly clutched into a fist. 

Delight began to spread across his face, conveying a silent thank you. Then the shoeless little boy in the faded blue t-shirt, the spirited child who had captured my heart, turned his back and skipped out of the café.

A warning

Upon my arrival a week earlier, in preparation for a six-week volunteer stint at Free the Bears Fund’s Cambodian sanctuary, I had grabbed some free magazines from a rack at the airport. Alone at the volunteer quarters in a grand old house in central Phnom Penh, I pored over the reading materials’ contents.

I came across a short article by a Western aid worker which advised tourists to avoid giving money to begging street children. The article claimed that adults often exploited these desperate children, waiting in the wings to seize their earnings.

In theory, I comprehended the integrity of the advice. But on the heaving streets of the city, this turned out to be much easier said than done.

Each day I would travel in a truck with Free the Bears staff to the grounds of the animal sanctuary. During the 50 kilometre journey, my eyes darted furiously in all directions as scene after scene competed for my attention. My mind raced as I digested the chaos of the traffic, observed families of six balancing on speeding motorcycles, cast my eyes over ramshackle slums, watched street vendors jostling for business, and spied skinny children playing in filthy gutters.

Then all of a sudden the bedlam would slide behind us, its crude features shrinking in the rear view mirror as our wheels devoured the road ahead. The scenery would transform into luscious green fields, showcasing flourishing plant life and the occasional ornate temple.

But the poverty still stalked us: when our vehicle slowed to enter the sanctuary’s gates, toothless elderly women appeared at the car door, pleading for coins under the oppressive sun.

Back in the heart of Phnom Penh, the legacy of decades of war still shrouds the city. Many try to eke out a living on the streets, and land mine-injured amputees, often treated as pariahs, beg at tourist hot spots. Savvy street kids sidle up to travellers, aiming to impress with their limited knowledge of English and fast facts about the visitor’s home country. “You’re from Australia? Kangaroos and koalas!”, they shriek.

On the streets by the river, raggedly dressed kids shadow me along the path, displaying the same glint of hope in their eyes as the barefoot boy. They charm me with their sweet faces and street smart banter, and hawk their wares - postcards, books and jewellery - to passersby. An ever-smiling shoeshiner, a handsome deaf and mute teenage boy who offers to clean my sandals, approaches me most days.

I didn’t often spot adults lingering around, though I don’t know if they materialised once money was in the children’s possession.

Right or wrong

As a visitor to Cambodia who was devastated by the glaring poverty and sheer numbers of street kids, I found it difficult to set firm rules governing my response to beggars. This is a country where over one third of people live under the poverty line, forced evictions and dispossession of entire communities are commonplace, and child homelessness is escalating. 

The problem of child prostitution is also rife, with pimps soliciting both locals and tourists to bankroll this heartbreaking trade. Street children are particularly vulnerable to being caught in the clutches of this industry.

The claims in the article I read on my first night in Cambodia are well supported: buying trinkets from children and giving them money can put them at risk and trap them in a cycle of poverty on the streets. And I am under no illusions regarding the existence of exploitation by adults.

But the issue is complex, and with charities stretched thin some children are left with little option but to beg to survive from day to day.

Also, I know first-hand that the situation is not always black and white…

As the little barefoot boy exited the café, money in hand, my eyes followed his petite frame outside. There, I spotted him approaching a street vendor selling nuts from the back of a truck. The little boy handed the vendor the crumpled notes, and received a bulging bag of nuts in return. The boy then sat down on the side of the road and gleefully ate the contents of the bag, the whole time with a shining smile on his beautiful face.


Originally published February 2013 in Discordia online magazine]

Lamenting the normalisation of Botox

My January piece for Discordia, Lamenting the normalisation of Botox, was written in frustration after I noted that positive stories on Botox were increasing in incidence in the mainstream media.
------------

Lamenting the normalisation of Botox

January 2013

Of late, I’ve noticed that Botox has become heavily embedded into the cultural consciousness. So much so, that mention of it in print and online publications is not only prolific, but very often casual in tone.

Articles about Botox are stunningly prevalent, with beauty editors fawning over its apparent age-reversing properties, and even health publications devoting many inches of copy to extolling its “miracle” effects. The web is brimming with personal experience stories on blogs and big title women’s magazines, lauding the substance’s apparent benefits for restoring youth.

Worryingly, it appears to me that the use of Botox for “age management” has become normalised. Evidently, there is now little stigma attached to admitting that you have had it done. But, frighteningly, there is a stigma attached to ageing - particularly for women - and a sinister stigma associated with not “managing” it.

I recently came across a short round-up of 2012’s notable beauty trends in SMH. Although the title, “A year of beauty: best and worst of 2012”, promised a fairly mundane piece of writing, I was absolutely struck by one of its paragraphs:

“More women are acknowledging that they have had Botox treatment outside sitcom world, albeit strictly to one another. But, it's a start when you consider that any woman over 30 worth her hard-earned disposable income has had it done” (my emphasis).

The paragraph sits incongruously in a section of the list labelled “Sisterhood”. Here, the “sisterhood” refers to a peculiar concept – the apparent solidarity signified by women’s admission to each other of having Botox done. I have to confess that when I think of the term sisterhood, and what it represents for me, cosmetic surgery revelations don’t immediately spring to mind.

Happily, the author was lambasted for her statement in the comments section. The responses reflected many of my own thoughts – I am over 30 and am not considering Botox, I have more pressing things to spend my “hard-earned” income on, and I don’t view Botox as a necessity, as the article seems to imply it is.

At its core, the comment is simultaneously ageist and elitist. There is the disturbing inference that Botox is not negotiable for women over 30 (that magic age where we are subjected to age-related fear-mongering, and told we’ll be rendered invisible to the male gaze unless we take measures to restore our youth).

It also smacks of privilege: we are told that Botox is the domain of an exclusive bunch.  Although it is clear that Botox isn’t a cheap habit to maintain, the author’s implication is an unsettling one indeed. Apparently, those women on the more comfortable side of the economic spectrum are obliged to get it done, and those without a disposable income to play with are presumably not “worth” it.

Botox is relentlessly touted as a miracle “cure” for wrinkles, one of the physical signs of ageing. Rather than simply a natural consequence of life, ageing is increasingly being presented as a medical affliction which needs to be managed. The popular discourse currently surrounding women and ageing suggests that we need to be vigilant and pull out all stops to slow the process down.

I almost couldn’t conceal my shock when I recently overheard part of a conversation in a shopping centre. One young woman (mid to late 20s, at a guess) announced to her friend, “Well, as soon as I get some Botox injected into this face, I’ll be happy”.

The comment was quite disturbing in its nonchalance. But her comment undoubtedly echoes thousands that occur each day between women, who feel constant pressure to look like their youthful former selves.

I am concerned about the insidious nature with which Botox has infiltrated the cultural consciousness. I’ve noticed that articles frequently emphasise the apparent benefits of the injections, while side effects or potential risks are often sidelined. A nuanced social and cultural analysis of the issue is even rarer – at least in the mainstream media.

Don’t get me wrong: I do not begrudge individual women who have made a decision to have Botox. Rather, I resent the culture which positions Botox as a necessity for women of a certain age, and where - correspondingly - the notion of “choice” is distorted.

I can understand why women opt to have Botox. I am definitely not immune to the pressures to maintain a youthful aesthetic: it permeates our society in many forms and can be difficult to elude. It is likely that to an extent, aside from these immense external pressures, humans have a natural fear of ageing and looking older. But my issue is with a system which sanctions and profits from this fear.

She said what?! Why feminism is still relevant

My December piece for Discordia, She said what?! Why feminism is still relevant, was written in response to comments by Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, who had claimed "In my generation we don't need to be feminist".
-----

She said what?! Why feminism is still relevant

December 2012

A collective gasp resounded across social media last week, after former French “first lady” Carla Bruni-Sarkozy was quoted as saying "In my generation we don't need to be feminist".

A torrent of witty and impassioned comments descended. French senator Laurence Rossignol added her voice, tweeting: "For as long as I get asked if I am the senator's assistant, the coming generation will need feminism".

While Bruni-Sarkozy’s remark may be viewed as ill-advised and clumsily delivered, it wasn’t so easy for women to merely brush it aside. On an international scale, Bruni-Sarkozy is a prominent woman of influence. What many no doubt found problematic was that this person 

of wealth and advantage was attempting to speak for them – an entire generation of women.

While Bruni-Sarkozy herself concedes (on her website) that “I was fortunate to be born into a privileged family”, the 44-year-old seems somewhat blind to her privilege, if not a little conflicted by it. In her recent remarks to Vogue which ignited the Twittersphere, she also claimed “I am a true bourgeoise”. But regarding life as the president’s wife and her husband’s exit from office, she said "It was a beautiful adventure, but today I just want to go back to being a citizen like any other".

Bruni-Sarkozy isn’t a typical French citizen, or woman. Born into an affluent family in Italy, she was heiress to her grandfather’s tyre empire and her family lived in a state of luxury. Bruni-Sarkozy was given access to the best schools in Europe, attending boarding school in Switzerland and university in Paris. The wife of former French president Nicholas Sarkozy, Bruni-Sarkozy is a white woman of high social standing.

In the 1990s, Bruni-Sarkozy was a high-fashion model, walking for many of the top couture houses. She was listed among the 20 highest paid models in 1998. Catapulted to a lucrative international modelling career in her late teens, Bruni-Sarkozy has never known the pain of student loans, the week to week struggle of paying rent on a meagre income, nor the challenges of raising and feeding a family on an average wage.  

  

Additionally, her husband has a significant personal fortune, and was also born into vast wealth.

In Bruni-Sarkozy’s adopted country of France, poverty is on the rise. In 2011 it was reported that 13.5% of the population live under the poverty threshold.

A recent report by charity Secours Catholique revealed that women and immigrants were the hardest hit groups in France in the wake of the financial crisis. Women comprise 57% of those seeking assistance from the charity, up 10% from a decade ago.  

Approximately 17% of women in the 27 EU countries are living in poverty. European women earn, on average, 14-17% less than men. The European Social Watch Report 2010 claimed that “across a range of indicators in the labour market and in social protection, the structural causes of poverty have a disproportionate impact on women”.

Globally, women constitute 70% of the world’s poorest people. They hold only 10% of the world’s wealth and own 1% of the world’s land. 

To her credit, Bruni-Sarkozy does undertake some philanthropic work and she also supports gay marriage, along with several other socially progressive issues.  

However, in the stately lunch meetings with high profile figures, to discuss issues such as literacy, poverty and female mortality, she can maintain a detachment from the reality of the issues tabled. These talks are usually hosted in luxury locations. Arriving well fed and immaculately dressed, Bruni-Sarkozy can slip back into her extravagant lifestyle at the conclusion of the event.

It can be easy to see why Bruni-Sarkozy has been able to overlook feminism. She was born into wealth; consequently she has not confronted the challenges that many other women of her generation have, in their pursuit of education and raising a family in a tough economic climate. It is hard to overstate the level of freedom that financial independence can afford.

For many years Bruni-Sarkozy worked in an industry which paid her exorbitant sums of money for her physical appearance. At its very core, the fashion industry is anti-feminist. Models are prized for their (apparently fleeting) youthful beauty, and are forced to adhere to near impossible standards in order to be successful. This industry, which relentlessly manufactures the rigorous incarnation of the “ideal woman”, bankrolled Bruni-Sarkozy’s lavish lifestyle for years.   

Bruni-Sarkozy is not an ideal spokesperson for her generation of women, as it appears that the complexities of their lives have soared high above her head. Globally, she is one of a select few that revels in the top income bracket, while many women of her generation languish firmly at subsistence level.  

If she is truly to comprehend poverty, a cause for which she campaigns, then she must understand how structural economic conditions and traditions often serve to disadvantage women – whether in Europe or poverty-plagued developing countries.  

Maybe then she will realise that feminism is still germane for the women of her generation, and also for the girls and young women of today.

Postscript: Carla Bruni-Sarkozy issued an apology for her recent remarks on feminism, claiming that the statement “poorly translates my thoughts”, and saying of feminists "I admire their bravery a lot, but I have chosen to commit myself elsewhere".

Pets with Profiles

My most recent article for Living+Lifestyle magazine, "Pets with profiles".

Pets with profiles

Companion animals have become a ubiquitous presence in the digital environment, writes Susannah Waters.

The appeal of six-year-old Pomeranian, Boo, is plain to see: the tiny orange dog exudes buckets of cuteness. His endearing looks have attracted a legion of eager fans who hang on his every move via his Facebook profile page. 

Widely lauded as “the world’s cutest dog”, Boo’s popularity has reached feverish proportions. Updates and photos posted from his page attract hundreds of thousands of “likes”, and he has several million followers. And Boo’s star is still rising – he has inspired a photo book and even a soft toy in his likeness. 

Boo is a social media superstar. 

But while Boo may be an extreme example of the reach a pet’s social media profile can achieve, he doesn’t traverse the digital space alone. Companion animals are cropping up online with an ever-increasing frequency. 

Petworking

As social media becomes more heavily integrated into our lives, it’s only logical that the conversation often revolves around family members such as companion animals. But in recent years, the phenomenon of pets with their own profiles has been growing.

A 2011 study revealed that one in 10 British pets have their own social networking profile, while statistics in Australia show that one in 20 have a dedicated Facebook page. 

Reasons people set up profiles for their pets include ease of sharing images and videos with loved ones, having a central forum to diarise and discuss a pet’s daily adventures, to connect with other pet owners, and to share an animal’s unique personality as it is experienced by the pet owner. 

Melbourne resident Kealey Nutt set up profiles for her nine-week-old puppy, Zee, to share updates of her progress with friends. “I didn’t want to bombard everyone with a constant stream of dog-related things, so I decided to make profiles for Zee so that those who were actually interested could follow them”, she says.

While Zee has not attained a cult following to rival Boo’s, her social media presence is prolific. The Boxer/Staffy cross has inspired a blog, Facebook fan page and Twitter account. Nutt’s updates are crafted using Zee’s “voice”. For Nutt, this allows her to explore the world through Zee’s eyes and “wonder what she would say about things”. Nutt clearly enjoys Zee’s digital escapades, and concedes that it’s all in good humour. 

Sydneysider Joanne Ryan also communicates from her dog’s perspective via a Twitter account. Having joked about her Whippet’s funny mannerisms, and what words he may utter if could speak, she thought it would be “a bit of fun” to tweet what Wil might be thinking. 

Ryan aims to connect with other dog owners through Wil’s profile. He is currently followed by other socially-connected Whippets and Ryan’s family and friends. 

Web Dogs

Blogs dedicated to companion animals are also flourishing. Anne Frazer of Adelaide is currently undertaking a 365-day photo project: the ambitious task of documenting her canine companion Yogi every day for a year. Blog entries comprise snapshots of the fluffy Cavachon and a written chronicle of the day’s events. 

Frazer believes the blog gives insight into Yogi’s outlook on life. “I often keep up a running commentary for Yogi at home, so the blog just feels like an extension of that”. The blog’s current audience is fellow dog bloggers and Frazer’s friends, and is “aimed at anyone who can appreciate just how adorable and funny Yogi can be”, Frazer says.  

Many pet-related businesses are also utilising their own pets’ image and “personality” in the digital sphere to become more accessible to clients. 

Donna Cameron-Prosser’s Sunshine Coast business, Just Dogs Photography, has incorporated her two Golden Retrievers into its social media strategy. Stunning images of the dogs pepper the Facebook page and are showcased on the company’s website. 

“People who like dogs generally love theirs like their children, so they can relate to our two gorgeous fur-babies”, she explains. Cameron-Prosser says that client feedback is very interactive, with many sharing stories about their own dogs.   

Alice Needham of Melbourne’s Diamond Dog Food & Bakery can identify. As the company’s ambassador, her Golden Retriever frequently features on the shop’s Facebook page. The client response is overwhelmingly positive. 

“Being a dog-specific business, it seemed obvious to base the social marketing around Monty”, she says. “We get the highest response to posts that include a photo of Monty”.

Connected companions

While masquerading as, and posting about, companion animals on the internet can be viewed as frivolous, this is precisely the point. The tone is often light-hearted, and people generally don’t take themselves too seriously. 

For many, it’s another outlet to express affection for their pets. As social media is an interactive forum, it can also build a sense of community among those with companion animals. 

Ryan is set to continue Wil’s social media ventures, declaring that a Facebook page may be on the cards next. For Frazer, Yogi’s “triumphs and tribulations” are an endless source of inspiration, and at nearly half way with the blog, there’s definitely no risk of her throwing in the towel early. 

Nutt reveals a virtuous long-term goal for Zee’s profiles: to introduce content with “more depth” to raise awareness of animal welfare. Socially connected and socially conscious? What’s not to “like” about that?!

My first article for Discordia - "War (between women): What is it good for?"

I've just started writing for exciting new women's zine, Discordia. This is an alternative women's zine which aims to "disrupt the system (just a little) by providing an alternative thought arena with intelligent, honest commentary, creativity and investigation". 

My first piece for the zine is War (between women): What is it good for?  I was inspired to write this piece after seeing an advertisement by skin care brand Trilogy, which aims to whip up a competitive edge among women in order to sell their rosehip oil product. I look at why this ad is offensive to women, and why this kind of marketing strategy is counterproductive. 

I found out yesterday that Living+Lifestyle magazine, for which I have been writing the monthly pet section for almost a year, will cease publishing in February. While it is a disappointment, it has freed up some time for me and I look forward to using that time to resume writing about animal protection issues, which I am very passionate about.
-------


War (between women): What is it good for?

October 2012

I was perplexed a few months ago when New Zealand skincare brand, Trilogy, resorted to dirty tactics to advertise a new product. I shouldn’t have been surprised – the beauty industry is synonymous with a particular brand of advertising that can provoke a spectrum of negative reactions in women, from discomfort to outrage.

Maybe my surprise stemmed from the subject of the ad: rosehip oil. Basking in the yellow glow of a spotlight, the bottle of rosehip oil stands on a stage below the words “New weapons in the war against other women”, with two crossed swords providing some unambiguous shorthand.

I absolutely love rosehip oil. It’s awesome stuff, honestly. But although it’s a permanent fixture in my bathroom cabinet, I don’t use it to get an “edge” over other women, or to prevail in any complexion competitions (if that was the case, I probably wouldn’t be revealing how wonderful I think it is on any kind of public platform!).

Incidentally, my reliance on rosehip oil took hold after brain surgery for an aneurysm ten years ago. I used it more casually before then as a moisturiser – its natural formulation and lack of animal ingredients initially attracting me – and I’d heard of its efficacy in diminishing scars. So as soon as the bandages came off, I applied it to my surgical scar religiously. It had quite dramatic – and fast – results, and my dedication to daily use was sealed.

Despite my disappointment over Trilogy’s recent ad, I knew that they were merely employing an age-old formula; one that is central to beauty advertising. They were playing into the tired notion that women must be in a perpetual state of competition with each other, an idea played out endlessly on billboards, in magazines, and online.

This type of advertising is certainly not unfamiliar to women. But it seemed quite incongruous, coming from a company which professes to value social responsibility as one of its central tenets, and which makes so-called “eco-friendly”, natural products. I actually expect these kinds of tactics from the larger, ubiquitous cosmetic and skincare brands, who load their products with chemicals, test on animals, and Photoshop their ads with the vigour of an extreme sport. But Trilogy claims to pride itself on ethics.

Social responsibility should undoubtedly extend to the way a company “speaks” to their target market (in this case, adult women). Openly demeaning your target market – pigeon-holing them, characterising them as trivial – is not an effective, or sustainable, marketing strategy. Trilogy learnt this, when a social media storm erupted over its ad and they were compelled to pull it.

The concept of eternal female competition, and the corresponding hyper-focus on looks, presents us with a sinister message which trumpets the aesthetic – and of course, youth – as supreme. The spoils of the “war”, ostensibly available to those purchasing Trilogy’s product, was presumably a youthful, enviable, wrinkle-free complexion.

The message that beauty is, and should be, women’s ultimate aspiration is pervasive and entrenched. In her penetrating 1990 book, The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women, Naomi Wolf claimed that images of female beauty were used as a political weapon against women’s advancement, and that female competition was intrinsically intertwined. She argued that the “beauty myth” had deep roots in Western society.

So it’s not news that the beauty industry’s reliance on spawning inadequacy among women keeps the wheels of its multi-billion dollar machine well-oiled. Profits hinge on inducing a competitive edge in women.

It’s also not news that this can have an insidious effect on a woman’s consciousness. Looks hyper-awareness and obsession can be an all-encompassing cloak over a woman’s psyche.

Strangely, although I can see through the manipulative profit motive of the beauty industry’s use of synthetic and airbrushed images of women, it can sometimes be hard to rise above it. The images can still serve to demoralise and engender feelings of inferiority within me, and I know many other women feel similarly.

Therefore, it can be overly simplistic to suggest that women should merely “rise above” these images and messages, and embrace “body confidence” (which itself has become a beauty industry buzz term). The only truly liberating path is for an unequivocal rejection of advertising and images which seek to suppress women’s confidence, and which pit us against each other – and against the “beauty ideal” - for the purposes of propping up beauty industry profits.

The fact that the Trilogy ad was toppled by a decisive public backlash is a strong sign that this kind of advertising has more than had its day. It is positive that social media can be harnessed to express objection to unethical advertising, and a company would ignore such an outpouring of public outrage at its own peril.

I am heartened by the fact that this ad prompted such criticism. And I am hopeful that women will continue to defend and support each other against ads and companies that aim to trivialise us.

A second chance

My article for the July issue of Living+Lifestyle, Another's Treasure, explores why animals from shelters make fantastic companions, and addresses some of the myths surrounding these animals. I interviewed several people who found their companion animals at a shelter, plus Tim Vasudeva, CEO of the Animal Welfare League NSW, and Christine Cole, CEO and Shelter Vet at the Sydney Dogs and Cats Home.
---------

Another's Treasure

July 2012

Those looking for a new pet needn’t look further than an animal shelter to find the perfect companion, writes Susannah Waters.

“You can’t get a rescue dog - you don’t know what they’ve got”, Brisbane teacher Danielle Milne was warned numerous times.

Upon deciding to get a canine companion, Milne researched her options thoroughly. But she found herself having to contend with stern warnings from people who insisted getting a pet from a shelter was a gamble.

“Initially, I was definitely steered away from rescue animals”, reveals Milne.

However, she became increasingly drawn to the idea of finding her new pet at a shelter. “Something resonated within my soul that I must get a rescue dog”, she says.

Since adopting a young dog she fell in love with at a rural animal shelter, Milne hasn’t looked back. Five years on, her Pomeranian cross Honey is a pivotal part of her life.

Victims of circumstance

Some people fear that animals in shelters are second-rate, inferior behaviourally and health-wise, and even constitute “damaged goods”. 

Tim Vasudeva, CEO of the Animal Welfare League NSW (AWL), challenges this view.  

“There can be a perception among people that there is something wrong with them. Invariably, that’s not the case”, Vasudeva says. “The vast majority are just happy animals. They just didn’t have the right home the first time around, through no fault of their own”.

Animal shelters across Australia take in hundreds of thousands of surrendered and abandoned pets each year. Many arrive in shelters due to a change in their owner’s circumstances, including rental housing issues, the loss of a job, relationship breakdowns, or even death of the owner. Vasudeva also says that some people buy a puppy without first considering the work required to keep them happy and healthy.

There are several benefits to adopting a pet from an animal shelter.

“You take a lot of the guesswork out of it”, Vasudeva explains. “With a mature animal six months of age plus, you’re dealing with a known temperament and personality, with established likes and dislikes”.

Dr Christine Cole, Shelter Veterinarian and CEO of the Sydney Dogs and Cats Home (SDCH), agrees.

“It is an advantage because you know what you are getting behaviourally”. She adds that purchasing a purebred animal from a pet shop does not necessarily guarantee a healthy pet.

“If you adopt from a reputable shelter, the animals will have been health checked by a vet and temperament assessed”, Dr Cole says. “This is not the case from a pet shop”.

She points out that many purebred dogs available from pet shops come via “puppy farms”.

These are intensive breeding facilities where dogs are housed in overcrowded conditions, with little regard for their psychological and social wellbeing. They also often lack adequate veterinary care. Unsurprisingly, puppy farms have recently come under intense scrutiny.  

A honey to love  

Milne speaks of Honey’s protective behaviour towards her infant son Henry with pride. She also loves that Honey is unique: one part Pomeranian, one part “her little secret”, she stands out in a crowd.

Sydneysider Adrian Hayward also has a “honey” of his own. He found his tortoiseshell domestic shorthair Honey Bunny at the Cat Protection Society NSW eight years ago.

Honey Bunny has become a close companion for Hayward. He refers to the 11-year-old feline as his “little mate”, and reveals a host of other affectionate nicknames he has bestowed on her. 

The motivation to adopt from an animal shelter stemmed from Hayward’s wish to give a cat “another chance”.

“The thought of all those animals without a home is sad”, he says. “I don’t like the idea that animals get destroyed as they can’t find a new home, because for some reason the original owner can no longer have them”.

Hayward was pleased that Honey Bunny was well-mannered and house-trained.

Jemmah Latham can also attest to the quality of animals from shelters. The veterinary receptionist has been a regular foster carer of kittens from the AWL and SDCH for two years.

“I love watching them grow and develop, and then go on to become beautiful pets”, says Latham, whose dog Zac also loves fussing over the kittens. “All the kittens I’ve fostered have been happy, healthy pets and very well adjusted in their new homes”.  

Latham’s first dog came from a shelter, and she has vowed that all future pets will too. “In my experience, you can’t get a better pet than a rescued pet”, Latham declares.

Compatible companions

For those concerned that finding a pet to suit their lifestyle may be a challenge, Vasudeva lays fears to rest. 

“We match pets up well. We are able to find a pet to fit in with people’s circumstances”, he claims. “If you’re looking for a dog that’s good with young children, we can introduce you to those dogs”.

Searching for a pet need not be exhausting, as people can simply go online and see for themselves the range of animals awaiting re-homing. AWL, SDCH and PetRescue all have good websites with profiles for animals currently available for adoption.  

For Milne, there is no doubt that Honey was a match made in heaven. “I think she knows that I rescued her. She walks the Earth with a sense of appreciation; a silent thank you for having given her a second chance”.