That on diaper packages, the photos of mothers and children have been altered to give them darker hair and eyes? I've noticed this for a while. Is it that the manufacturers think that it would be racist to show a white mother and child? Or are they looking for a change, seeing that the white mother and child have been dominant for years? Are they realizing that white people just aren't reproducing as much and that the people having babies are Hispanics, Muslims, Indians, and so are altering their packages to match their market?
Or perhaps it's that brown hair and eyes are predominant in the United States and so they want a picture that won't offend anyone. Though I don't know why people can't buy diapers in a package with a picture that doesn't resemble them. I don't have dark hair and eyes, and yet it doesn't bother me to look at a model who could be either Hispanic or Asian.
These are the things I wonder about.
FROM THE ILLUSTRATED EDITION.
3 hours ago
3 comments:
I haven't looked at diaper packages for a while but it is possible that the color has more to do with the printing process than anything else. Although browns are really hard to get right so it could go either way. I'll have to take a walk down the diaper aisle next time I go to the store and see. It's an interesting observation from both the marketing and the printing perspectives.
Well, MrsDarwin's hair is brown, but it's not 'dark'. Maybe it's having a Mexican extended family (and MrsDarwin is getting used to it) but in my book 'dark' hair means hair indistinguishable from black. Mid-range brown just doesn't cut it.
And generally you have to have brown eyes too.
So although my hair is darker than MrsDarwin's, I'd tend to say that it's brown, not dark.
Or as a philosophy professor of mine used to say: if it looks like you're cornered, make a distinction.
See to Rhonda everything darker than reddish blonde is "dark". And she prides herself on her exquisite green eyes.
Post a Comment