Because You’re Not Worth It

You’re worth it – if white. L’Oréal guilty of racism

· Cosmetic giant fined for recruitment campaign
· First big French firm to be convicted of racial bias

Angelique Chrisafis in Paris
Saturday July 7, 2007
The Guardian

Part of the cosmetics giant L’Oréal was yesterday found guilty of racial discrimination after it sought to exclude non-white women from promoting its shampoo.

In a landmark case, the Garnier division of the beauty empire, along with a recruitment agency it employed, were fined €30,000 (£20,300) each after they recruited women on the basis of race. The historic ruling – the first time a major company has been found guilty of systematic race discrimination in France – saw a senior figure at the agency given a three-month suspended prison sentence.

[…]

In July 2000, a fax detailing the profile of hostesses sought by L’Oréal stipulated women should be 18 to 22, size 38-42 (UK size 10-14) and “BBR”, the initials for bleu, blanc, rouge, the colours of the French flag. Prosecutors argued that BBR, a shorthand used by the far right, was also a well-known code among employers to mean “white” French people and not those of north African, African and Asian backgrounds.

Christine Cassan, a former employee at Districom, a communications firm acting for Garnier, told the court her clients demanded white hostesses. She said that when she had gone ahead and presented candidates “of colour” a superior in her own company had said she had “had enough of Christine and her Arabs”.

L’Oreal has not been immune to charges of racism in the past:

n the 90s L’Oréal was hit by claims over past links to fascism, anti-semitism and the giving of jobs to Nazi collaborators after the second world war. It went some way to satisfy its critics with a boardroom change and other measures. Liliane Bettencourt, L’Oréal’s major shareholder, is the wealthiest woman in France. Two years ago L’Oréal’s slogan was softened from “Because I’m worth it” to “Because you’re worth it” after concerns in France that the original appeared too money-oriented.

More….

I wonder what Beyonce and the other women of colour who promote L’Oreal in the US have to say about this? She doesn’t seem to mind being changed with a weave and airbrushing and contact lenses into a perfect, albeit darker skinned, simulacrum of the stereotypical US blonde advertising bimbo.

L’Oreal recently bought the Body Shop, which then suddenly popped up with a ‘skin-whitening’ range. I myself have a L’Oreal compact I bought in a ‘grey market’ cosmetic shop – ‘Deep- Whitening’ foundation, labeled as such. It wasn’t meant to be sold in Europe but in Indonesia – because everuone knows or at least the major cosmetic companies would like to make people think that any woman with anything other than perfect alabaster-white skin must want to bleach it.

L’Oreal’s implict and explicit racism is a can of worms Liliane Bettancourt doesn’t want opened, but it’s going to be opened anyway, whether she likes it or not – and the connections with the Nazi collaborationist past: will be brought up again:

A Paris stage designer is suing French cosmetics giant L’Oreal for UKpound 20 million over her Jewish family’s home stolen in Nazi Germany in the Thirties. Most of Monica Waitzfelder’s family were killed by the Nazis in the Second World War. France’s Supreme Court will rule next week on whether L’Oreal, headed by British chief executive Lindsay Owen-Jones, is guilty of acquiring stolen goods by refusing to compensate Waitzfelder, 50, and her mother, Edith Rosenfelder, 81. The case is embarrassing for L’Oreal, maker of Garnier shampoo and Lancome cosmetics, and its biggest shareholder, Liliane Bettencourt. With an UKpound 8 billion stake in the cosmetics giant, she is the wealthiest woman in France. Her husband, Andre, had to step down as head of L’Oreal in 1994 when his pro-Nazi past in France was revealed.

[…]

L’Oreal was founded by Liliane Bettencourt’s father, Eugene Schuller, a French chemist who invented modern hair dye in 1907. Before the Second World War, he financed a fascist movement called La Cagoule (the Hood), which carried out a wave of terrorist attacks on Jews and synagogues in Paris.

Men may think cosmetics aren’t political, just trivial, silly women’s stuff they don’t have to bother with – but cosmetic companies ar giant multinatinals too, and they have an enormous amount of effect on womens’ lives.

Choice of cosmetic company isn’t just about what eyeshadow to use, it’s a political decision too.

Shorter Dutch Liberals: Starve ’em Out Of The Burqa!

More liberal, tolerant Dutch news – don’t you just love the VVD?

“Cut benefits to burqa wearers”
27 June 2007

THE HAGUE – A majority in Parliament wants the government to allow municipalities to cut benefits if the recipients are unable to find a job because they wear a burqa.

A motion to this effect from Liberal VVD MP Atzo Nicolaï and Labour PvdA MP Hans Spekman was passed on Tuesday.

Coalition party PvdA and opposition party VVD are concerned about a verdict from the court in Amsterdam earlier this month. The court found in preliminary proceedings that the municipality Diemen had unlawfully docked the benefits of a Muslim woman who wears a burqa because she had been unable to find a job after four job applications.

If this verdict becomes a precedent, Spekman and Nicolaï want to know what state secretary for social affairs Ahmed Aboutaleb plans to do to ensure that municipalities will be able dock benefits in cases like this.

The state secretary first wants to wait for the final outcome of the court case before drawing conclusions. But he will “of course” inform Parliament of any steps he plans to take.

Aboutaleb has said in earlier debates with Parliament that the case in Diemen should be put in perspective. He says it is just “one case,” while there have also been court verdicts that have found in favour of municipalities in cases where the behaviour of the job seeker prevented him or her from finding a job. One of these cases also concerned the wearing of a burqa.

[My emphasis]

I expect a Moslem woman could wear a bloody bikini and they still wouldn’t give her the job. Discrinmination is inherent in Dutch society, as we see from these following two reports:

AMSTERDAM, 03/07/07 – Primary schools in Amsterdam will no longer accept enrolments of children under two years of age. The measure is intended to prevent ethnic segregation in education.

White parents often enrol their child for a school without immigrant pupils straight after birth. In doing so, they ensure that the child does not end up on a waiting list. Immigrants, who are often unaware of the waiting lists, usually enrol their child once it has reached school-going age and can then only find a place at ‘black’ schools.

The current situation contributes to schools increasingly becoming one-sidedly black or white, considers the Amsterdam local council. Most of Amsterdam’s primary schools have now signed a covenant with the municipality in which they pledge to reject enrolments of children under two years of age.

Universities draw few minorities
28 June 2007

AMSTERDAM – Universities are still not managing to attract more students of ethnic background. This has emerged from a study commissioned by the Association of Universities in the Netherlands

More...

Discrimination against non-whites and non-Christians is built in to the fabric, the normen and waarden of Dutch society, but the Dutch themselves can’t bear to be accused of prejudice or direct discrimination – it might hurt their smug self-images.

Rather than ban the burqa outright, which is what much of the white majority want, the VVD and their supporters prefer to use nasty, underhand tactics like docking the already meagre unemployment benefit, directly affecting women and children.

The men who are imposing (in some cases) the burqa on women? Not so much.

I’ve been living in Amsterdam for several years – I’m here by necessity rather than choice, so perhaps this affects my objectivity, but I feel can say with some confidence that, from my own observations, despite its much-vaunted liberal and feminist image, that the Netherlands is deeply mysogynistic, racist and paternal.

The concepts of normen en waarden’ or cultural norms and values by which all must abide, are embeddded in all public discourse. To overstep the bounds, especially as a woman, is to attract negative attention and open criticism. To be a woman here, and a foreign woman at that, is to be invisible in political terms and subject to whatever the white male majority decide.

Most schools are religious, many political parties are religiously based, as are tv stations and broadcasting companies, and all are overwhelmingly, horribly white. Without the embedded white patriarchy the country would collapse.

So it’s women bearing the brunt, both of Dutch Islamophobia and of the religious and cultural misogyny within their own cultural and ethnic communities.

Lidewijde Ongering, Deputy National Coordinator for Counterterrorism has been in Congress this past month briefing Joe Leiberman and his committee about the ‘unique’ way the Netherlands deals with radicalisation and potential terrorism.

Yup, that’s the way to do it alright, starve those pesky Moslem women out. That’ll really work.

Life During Wartime

Ladies Day at Ascot:

[Click for gallery]

More than 4,000 casual staff, 146 managers and 170 chefs, led by Steve Golding, will prepare up to 11,500 hospitality covers per day at Royal Ascot this year, working from 36 satellite kitchens.
At Royal Ascot 2006, the following quantities were consumed:

185,000 bottles of Champagne
176,000 pints of beer
15,000 bottles of wine
11,000 lobsters
4.5 tonnes of beef
100,000 scones

58,050 people used our hospitality facilities at Royal Ascot in 2006.
This was made up from the following:

Hospitality Packages had 21,500 covers
Clubs including Whites, Turf and the Royal Ascot Racing Club had 3,910 covers
Private Dining facilities had 1,870 covers
Our seven main restaurants serviced 12,650 covers
Boxes contained 18,120 covers

Ladies Day in Kabul:

Afghan deportees continue to flow into Afghanistan. Since 21 April nearly 100,000 deportees have entered the country. The United Nations has launched a joint CERF Appeal of US$5.9 million to cover the needs of deportee families for an initial period of three months (June to August 2007).

As a part of this appeal, WFP has requested US$1.5 million to cover food needs of about 20,000 people so far, with an average of 80 new families expected each day in the coming months.

Meanwhile, WFP continues to provide an emergency food relief to deportee families in Farah province and in the transit centre in Herat with its stocks available in the country.

WFP has also planned to provide cooked food for two days to an average of 50 deportees entering through Islam Qala.

Support during insecurity

WFP met with local authorities including the Governor and district members of parliament in Ghazni province to request their support for moving to targeted districts the 860mt of food held up for the last three weeks in Ghazni centre because of insecurity.

UK mission in Afghanistan to last decades, says ambassador
Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday June 21, 2007
The Guardian

A British presence in Afghanistan will continue for decades, the UK’s new ambassador to Kabul warned yesterday, adding that it would take that long to establish a sustainable government in the country.

“We are going to win this, but it’s going to take time,” said Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles. “It’s not a three year sprint, it’s a 30 year marathon – we should be thinking in terms of decades.”

Still, it’s nice to know that despite the suffering of civilians and troops in the forever wars of Iraq & Afghanistan, that the rich are still having fun.

Keeping Abreast or Missing The Point?

The Times reports on an interesting psychology experiment about breasts and work whose results seem to confirm received wisdom: that men focus on women’s sexual characteristics, not their abilities. Well, duh.

But that’s not the conclusion the writer draws – no, she implies that lack of career success is our fault for not having perfect tits.

Participants were shown one of four videotapes featuring the same actress giving a speech on careers.

Men and women were asked to rank her performance based on positive and negative characteristics. In fact the only difference between each film was the size of the presenter’s bra, representing an A, B, C or D cup.

While no bias was found among the female viewers, the men ranked the actress significantly higher on all levels when her breasts were represented as “just right”, that is, medium sized. Men evaluated the same woman less positively when she projected too much or too little mammary mass.

It is not clear whether men are aware of this bias. Other studies suggest that men prefer no particular breast size, but are primarily attracted to proportionality in women, with a specific hip to bust to waist ratio.

Women, on the other hand, tend to overestimate the size of breasts that men prefer, ranking the size they believe men desire as higher than the one that men choose.

[…]

Another interesting highlight of the Central Florida study was the actress’s own reaction to her growing bosom. As she moved up the alphabet in terms of cup size, she felt more self-conscious about her breasts and more worried about her performance.

I most certainly don’t agree with the tack the Times writer, Elizabeth Squires, takes on the study: that this means women should learn to hide their breasts if they want to get on.

Nobody wants to talk about breast etiquette at work, but everyone has an opinion. Some workers find breast displays so unsettling that one female boss was warned that her cleavage could constitute sexual harassment of her male colleagues.

The Florida research shows that in order to rise up the career ladder it is probably best not to draw attention to your chest.

Now as a matter of everyday etiquette in a globalised world where you can’t take anyone’s cultural norms for granted, then not sticking your tits in someone’s face, or your asscrack or your thong, or your stinking male atmpits, seems only sensible and courteous.

But this article’s subtext – be modest, camouflage yourself. pretend you’re not female – applies only to women and not only that women whose present breast size is over or under the optimum. Forget success, freaks of nature, or get a burka. But if you have perfect, pert, medium sized breasts, then it’s wahay! and up the career ladder for you.

Not a word in the article about why it is that men are socialised to treat simple secondary sexual charactistics as more indicative of character, intellect and competence than actual character, intellect or competence, oh no – once again, it’s all women’s own fault, for not being perfect. Again.

Which is odd, coming from a woman with a breast-positive book to promote.

Did she really not see what that experiment was also saying, or is it possible, giving her the benefit of the doubt, that her words were truncated by an overzealous editor and there’s a missing paragraph? If it’s the former, I don’t hold out much hope for the book.

If You’re At All Sensitive About Your Masculinity, Look Away Now

Proof that parties, intoxicants, temper and vulnerable external genitals don’t mix: I don’t even have balls, except in the purely metaphorical sense, yet I’m wincing at this BBC Merseyside story:


Yes, this is a real product.

Woman jailed for testicle attack
A woman who ripped off her ex-boyfriend’s testicle with her bare hands has been sent to prison.

Amanda Monti, 24, flew into a rage when Geoffrey Jones, 37, rejected her advances at the end of a house party, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

She pulled off his left testicle and tried to swallow it, before spitting it out. A friend handed it back to Mr Jones saying: “That’s yours.”

Monti admitted wounding and was jailed for two-and-a-half years.

‘Pulled hard’

Sentencing Monti, Judge Charles James said it was “a very serious injury” and that Monti was not acting in self defence.

The court heard that Mr Jones had ended his long-term but “open relationship” with Monti towards the end of May last year.

The pair remained on good terms and on 30 May she picked him up from a party in Crosby and went back for drinks with friends at Mr Jones’s house.

An argument ensued and Mr Jones said there was a struggle between them.

In his statement, Mr Jones said she grabbed his genitals and “pulled hard”.

He added: “That caused my underpants to come off and I found I was completely naked and in excruciating pain.”

The court heard that a friend saw Monti put Mr Jones’s testicle into her mouth and try to swallow it.

She choked and spat it back into her hand before the friend grabbed it and gave it back to Mr Jones. Doctors were unable to re-attach the organ.

More…