On objectification and hypocrisy

715685483This image is apparently on the front of a Lululemon store – a store where many women go to find workout clothes – in response to the end of the NHL lockout.

Lululemon is a purveyor of women’s workout clothes. They sell men’s clothes, too, but they’ve enjoyed tremendous growth recently and seem to be the go-to spot for women runners and those who practice yoga and need $98 yoga pants.

A quick Google search will bring you all kinds of questions about the company and its former CEO (who’s now chairman), which I didn’t even know when I thought to write this post.

I did want to ruminate about whether the above window display was appropriate. Apparently “hockey butt” is a thing (researching this post was all kinds of educational) and athletic women will use it themselves to describe their physique, which can be hard to clothe and fit.

Regardless, I was just thinking that if a store known for dressing men had said this about women athletes, we’d all be pretty upset.

And I’m aware that this blog spends plenty of time ogling male athletes, so I don’t really have a leg to stand on. And as a whole, I’d say we Ladies… try hard not to force controversy, stir the pot or otherwise look for problems where their aren’t any. But I still thought it was an interesting discussion point to have.

On the completely superficial/semantics side, while hockey player’s behind might like nice in their jeans  – on the ice, in their breezers, I’m pretty sure we’re not getting a good view of that. So whether or not the NHL has games is really irrelevant to my ability to check out pretty glutes, right? If fact, when they were locked out, they likely spent more time in street clothes…. you see where I’m going.

I just think that if I take a hypothetical that has female tennis players locking out and then returning to the job and Athlete’s Foot had a window display celebrating the return of tennis that mentions the short, tight skirts or tight, tennis hiney, a large to-go would ensue.

In the interest of not being hypocritical, I feel like we need to at least talk about whether or not this is a problematic display, right?

So what do you think? Am I stirring up issues that don’t exist? Or should be we be at least a little upset with this public display of objectification?

 

3 thoughts on “On objectification and hypocrisy

  1. I think the reason this rankles is that given the products/lifestyle Lululemon promotes it manages to imply two things: 1) that the hotness of the players is the only reason a woman would be happy to have hockey back (I’m obviously biased but i think we generally make it clear that we’re interested in the games first and the cute players are just a bonus- like someone who watches Mad Men because they love the show but also thinks Jon Hamm is nice to look at.) 2) That now that all these cute players are back, a woman should get herself in shape just in case- because pleasing a man should be the reason a woman does everything.

  2. And the idea of 2) being implied makes me feel bad about my burgeoning collection of lulu running and yoga gear in my closet. But damn, it just fits me so well!

    Yeah, I have to admit this bugged me a little bit. Stick to selling your manifesto to the masses, lulu.

  3. I’ve read that the brand is popular for women for 2 reasons:
    1. Lululemon really accentuate women’s butts, whether its (ur butt) big or small.
    2. Some women are still overly brand/fashion conscious and just need “lululemon” while its the thing to wear.

    …so much for women moving up in a so-called overly male-dominated world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s