Determined To Succeed

Do you guys ever watch Fox’s “Family Guy” TV show? Not only is it consistently funny but it has, pound for pound, the most references to pop culture of any show ever. And as its male “lead” Peter Griffin would say – “that’s freakin’ sweet!”

There was an episode a few years back where Peter, fed up with some such thing I can’t remember in my sleepy haze,” gets his own segment of the evening news called “What Grinds My Gears,” a segment where Peter just goes off on his idiotic rants about everything from people in the 19^th century to Lindsay Lohan.

Last night as I watched “Family Guy” I got to thinking about something that really, AND ABSOLUTELY TRUTHFULLY, grinds my gears – prejudice. It comes in all shapes and sizes, figuratively and literally, and is alive and well and living on network television. Yes, you may or may not be aware of this but while sitting and watching some of your favorite shows like “Dancing with the Stars” or “American Idol” you see (or in this case don’t see) the results of prejudice – prejudice against people of size. Yep, what “grinds my gears” are the networks who show my favorite shows (“V,” “Flash Forward” and ironically “Family Guy”) actually turned away a Lane Bryant ad because it was deemed “too racy.”

This past week the Columbus, Ohio-based clothing retailer charged that ABC and FOX rejected a commercial for its new Cacique lingerie line because of a bias against plus-sized women. The ad features size-16 New York fashion model Ashley Graham enjoying feeling sexy inside a hotel room in her Lane Byrant bra and panties, receiving text messages and arranging a “nooner,” a lunchtime naughty “rendezvous” with a lover. The company wanted to place the ad on ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars” and FOX’s “American Idol.”  However, ABC refused to show the commercial during “Dancing with the Stars” without restricting the spot to the final (least-watched) moments of the show,” and Fox demanded excessive re-edits and rebuffed it three times before relenting to air it during the final 10 minutes of “American Idol,” but only after we threatened to pull the ad buy.

As Peter Griffin would say, “Are you freakin’ kidding me?”

According to ABC Vice President Julie Hoover. “We were willing to accommodate them (Lane Bryant), but they chose to seek publicity.” And I am so glad they did.  It’s hard enough in this word to be big as it is. However, without publicity, how can we know how people of size are treated in the consumer world?

Take director Kevin Smith’s recent woes aboard a Southwest Airline plane. Even though Smith acknowledge it was his wanting to take an earlier flight (one on which he purchased two seats) he was booted from a Southwest flight because he was allegedly deemed to large to fly “comfortably” in one seat. The situation may have died down since February but was, until now, the most recent (read, most visible) example of a (no pun intended) growing intolerance against people of size. If it wasn’t for the fact of his celebrity and his widely-read blog this situation would never have been known and brought into the light.

The same thing holds true for the Lane Bryant ad. Why does Lane Bryant have to extensively have to re-edit their ad (which is embedded here for you to see) when Victoria’s Secret runs ads that can be viewed as way racier? After learning about this prejudice I purposely watched spots for both and the Victoria Secret ad shows way more skin on way more women. It just so happens that those women are thin while the beautiful, full-figured model in the Lane Bryant ad is a size 16 – WHICH AIN’T THAT BIG TO BEGIN WITH!!!!!

Graham, in the New York Post, said she was shocked to learn the networks couldn’t and wouldn’t handle her ad. “I was very surprised,” she said. “The first thing I thought of was Victoria’s Secret commercials, and how they’re just as racy, if not more racy, than Lane Bryant.[The models are] just a lot smaller than what I am. They can’t handle bigger on TV, bigger boobs on a normal-sized woman on TV.”

That sucks. Why do I bring this up today? It’s not because I wanted to talk about scantily-clad women prancing around in underwear (well, OK. Maybe a little) It’s because we are heading into the weekend, prime shopping time for most people. It’s on my mind because people of size are beautiful, no matter the package in which they’re wrapped. We shop, we go out to eat, we see movies and we have feelings. We, too, like to see people like us on TV, both in shows and in ads, because we are a part of society. Some of us might be on a weight loss journey, and I fully recognize what got me to be 400 pounds was my own fault – overeating and lack of exercise – but that doesn’t mean we have to be re-edited and shuttled to the “back of the bus” in a TV show’s time slot because some of us are more “real” than the skinny so-and-sos in a Vicky’s Secret ad. Further, why can’t we be “normal characters” in ads or on shows – those who have just as much drama, laughter, sex and life – just like the thinner main characters on shows? We always seem, more times than not, to be the non-sexual, non-threatening comic relief in movies and shows. That sucks, and I, for one, am sick of it.

A Fox representative told AOL’s PopEater blog that the network did “balk at airing the Lane Bryant spot at 8 p.m. without edits,” but will air it uncut during the 9 p.m. hour of “American Idol” next week. Funny how it took some publicity to make them do this. Shame on you, Fox and ABC. That’s why I freaking “flash forward” through your commercials anyway.

We may be big but we sure as hell are beautiful. And good for Lane Bryant for sticking to it’s guns.

And that’s what “grinds my gears.” Back to you in the studio.