"Do You Want to Choose the Gender of Your Next Baby?"

Apparently in vitro clinics in the US have started advertising something new: gender selection. Now, I don't know very much about the process behind it, but no matter how it's performed, I have definite issues with the concept.
First of all, this could create gender ratio inequalities like what we're seeing in India (see http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/gender_india.html for some more information on this). Which obviously in turn causes all kinds of other issues.

But even more, unconditional love, acceptance,and affection are crucial in a child's development. Would it really be unconditional love if it's basically a mail-order baby? Having kids is not about satisfying parental desires; if you are fit to be a parent then you will care for any child you have regardless of gender or other physical aspects. And what about sexism? There is already a definite preference for boys requested through this gender selection.

At least one clinic is even offering selection of hair colour, eye colour, and even skin colour (Is this ringing the racism bell, anyone? The sexism bell should already be pounding loud).

Why are we accepting this? Check out this excerpt from http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/17-1darnovsky.html :

"Recent trends in consumer culture may warm prospective parents to such offers. We have become increasingly accepting of — if not enthusiastic about — “enhancements” of appearance (think face-lifts, collagen and Botox injections, and surgery to reshape women’s feet for stiletto heels) and adjustments of behavior (anti-depressants, Viagra, and the like). These drugs and procedures were initially developed for therapeutic uses, but are now being marketed and normalized in disturbing ways."

We have been lulled into accepting this kind of thinking, placing conditional value on human beings. It's a scary place to be, ladies and gentlemen.

The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty... RIGHT.

When I first heard of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty, I thought it was a great idea. Why should we let the media control our standards for beauty? Sure, models are great. I have friends who are models. Photoshop is pretty cool. I wish I could use it better.

But these things aren't an accurate representation of real people. Last I checked, there is another approximately 99.99% of people who aren't models. And girls are heavily targeted by this kind of advertising. So Dove decided to use regular women in their marketing. Way to go, Dove, lead the moral way in advertising.

But wait just a second. Look at your bottle of Dove lotion/deodorant/shampoo/anti-cellulite cream or what have you. I'd like you to notice the little Unilever logo on it. Unilever is the company that owns Dove.

Now go find a can of Axe.
What can you find?

That's right. Axe is also owned by Unilever. I'm certain you've seen at least one Axe commercial. You know, the ones where some guy sprays the product liberally and skinny, scantily clad young women flock to him.

These ads are nothing but degrading. Towards both women and men, actually. Women are portrayed as objects, and the men are controlled by their hormones. What happened to Real Beauty? What happened to the noble cause?

Well, sadly, I think the hypocrisy of Unilever was there all along. Even looking solely at Dove; they sell BEAUTY PRODUCTS. As in, things you use to be more beautiful. How is this promoting the idea of being happy with your body?

Add in to all this that Unilever is also responsible for giving the world Slimfast... It's always about the money, isn't it?


For more on the topic, visit this site as a starting point:
http://www.cbc.ca/streetcents/guide/2005/02/s07_01.html