Sali Hughes #16 The sell-out who couldn't sell out, and that is a legal fact.

[cholulamare]

It’s worth reading some of Susie’s tweets and having a look at the thread here.

Robyn may be a good person who writes well and was treated badly by The Pool when they went under. But I don’t understand why she is not calling Susie out for the things she has said. It’s not just vile stuff about POC, but also the disabled and fat women.

To be clear, I wasn't saying her writing etc is relevant to this situation - I was responding to the person who thought she was a "wine o-clock" annoying parenting "expert", which I don't think she is.

I had a quick look and search on the thread but unfortunately can't see Robyn's actual comments posted anywhere, just some posts saying she's "defended" this Susie, so without knowing exactly what she's said, I'll stick to not questioning a POC's response to this. The original tweets are vile though, and her excuses almost as bad - you don't get to claim you were young and dumb when you were a 26 year old adult, witch.

ETA: I haven't seen the tweets about disabled and fat women, it's a long thread and haven't got time to read it all now - I just saw the original ones about black/Indian people at the end of her first thread.

 

[Tesla's Ghost]

Yes, please, let's not take a company accountable, especially this mastodon that owns every other beauty brand out there. Imagine how inconvenient it is for everyone that has to push L'Oreal products. Ignore what, e.g. Munroe Bergdorf say and post, just be kind. #landfill
How the F is any company going to change unless they are scared of losing serious money!? Ask them nicely?

 

[SqualorVictoria]

View attachment 146463
Yes, please, let's not take a company accountable, especially this mastodon that owns every other beauty brand out there. Imagine how inconvenient it is for everyone that has to push L'Oreal products. Ignore what, e.g. Munroe Bergdorf say and post, just be kind. #landfill
How the F is any company going to change unless they are scared of losing serious money!? Ask them nicely?

Yes, let's be all touchy feely with a multi billion dollar conglomerate, those poor sensitive misunderstood souls

 

[GoLando]

To be clear, I wasn't saying her writing etc is relevant to this situation - I was responding to the person who thought she was a "wine o-clock" annoying parenting "expert", which I don't think she is.

I had a quick look and search on the thread but unfortunately can't see Robyn's actual comments posted anywhere, just some posts saying she's "defended" this Susie, so without knowing exactly what she's said, I'll stick to not questioning a POC's response to this. The original tweets are vile though, and her excuses almost as bad - you don't get to claim you were young and dumb when you were a 26 year old adult, witch.

ETA: I haven't seen the tweets about disabled and fat women, it's a long thread and haven't got time to read it all now - I just saw the original ones about black/Indian people at the end of her first thread.

Happy to stand corrected on Robyn. I just have parent blogger fatigue.

 

[cholulamare]

Happy to stand corrected on Robyn. I just have parent blogger fatigue.

Oh yeah totally - I was just trying to make the point she wasn't the stereotype you imagine when you hear "parenting blogger"

View attachment 146463
Yes, please, let's not take a company accountable, especially this mastodon that owns every other beauty brand out there. Imagine how inconvenient it is for everyone that has to push L'Oreal products. Ignore what, e.g. Munroe Bergdorf say and post, just be kind. #landfill
How the F is any company going to change unless they are scared of losing serious money!? Ask them nicely?

Oh she can absolutely duck off with this. This really crosses a line. Who the duck is she to decide what a meaningful contribution is?? I think that might be for black people to decide Sal, and true allies to follow! This has made me furious, more so because she claims to be so progressive in this area. Get to duck you racist-condoning, corporate bleep.

 

[zcfthc5]

View attachment 146463
Yes, please, let's not take a company accountable, especially this mastodon that owns every other beauty brand out there. Imagine how inconvenient it is for everyone that has to push L'Oreal products. Ignore what, e.g. Munroe Bergdorf say and post, just be kind. #landfill
How the F is any company going to change unless they are scared of losing serious money!? Ask them nicely?

Sali's late to the bandwagon and knows it.
Hard for her to avoid l'oreal with them owning so many derm approved brands from the french pharmacy to cerave and skinceuticals. Next column to be 'black owned brands to support'? Who uses up products at the rate of support worthy issues? Extra capitalism wont help the issues of capitalism

Was Munroe right - yes. Yet the way Munroe spoke on the issue back then didnt explain structural racism or have any nuance to make the topic accessible to anyone who didnt already share her views or understood theories of structural prejudice.

 

[ProudNose]

Protect Loreal at all costs.

 

[Tesla's Ghost]

The saddest and the most disgusting part is that for most people it is a lot easier to turn their heads than to make their life the slightest bit more inconvenient. And that's basically that. Myself included. Nothing heroic, nothing adrenaline charged, no one will clap for you at the supermarket or like your post.

 

[cholulamare]

Sali's late to the bandwagon and knows it.
Hard for her to avoid l'oreal with them owning so many derm approved brands from the french pharmacy to cerave and skinceuticals. Next column to be 'black owned brands to support'? How uses up products at the rate of support worthy issues?

Noooooo tell me they don't own CeraVe? I saved a list of all the brands they owned so I could avoid, and they weren't on there. Gutted if so, that's practically everything I use and keeps my eczema under control. Back to the drawing board...

ETA: I just checked and they're on there. No idea how I missed it first time round: https://www.loreal.com/brand

 

[Tesla's Ghost]

They really own everything, duck! Which is why it's even more important to call them out every time. Between them and Ron Lauder* donating money to Trump, who is left?

*Will she be dressing for Ron too?

 

[Wolf359]

I would have been more sympathetic. But the problem is that when Bergdorf was briefly an ambassador for the NSPCC, (before being sacked from that role too), Bergdorf repeatedly went against online safeguarding protocols and encouraged vulnerable children and teens looking to use the NSPCC's services to make contact via DMs on Twitter. At best; a total ignorance of and failure to grasp the responsibilities incumbent on NSPCC ambassadors. At worst; very creepy and inappropriate.

So Bergdorf has form for either not fully understanding, or not respecting, the responsibilities and obligations of the roles they undertake.

Rightly or wrongly, a brand like L'Oreal is all about surface appearances and looking good. They're not a political brand. They wanted Munroe Bergdorf to shut up and look pretty. They didn't want the bad optics of Bergdorf going off on a racial rant on facebook. It's not 'on brand'. Sure, it doesn't say great things about L'Oreal, but the reason Bergdorf got sacked was for not understanding that.

 

[cholulamare]

They really own everything, duck! Which is why it's even more important to call them out every time. Between them and Ron Lauder* donating money to Trump, who is left?

*Will she be dressing for Ron too?

Oh god. I mean you just can't trust rich people to be ethical, can you?

Shall we go full guardian-comments-section, I just-splash-my-face-with-cold-water-and-make-my-own-moisurister-from-honey, head?

 

[Disillusioned]

Totally support Bergdorf’s statements on race, but their repeated encouragement for children to contact them privately online re gender issues was totally wrong. But the latter is not why L’Oreal sacked Bergdorf.

 

[zcfthc5]

Noooooo tell me they don't own CeraVe? I saved a list of all the brands they owned so I could avoid, and they weren't on there. Gutted if so, that's practically everything I use and keeps my eczema under control. Back to the drawing board...

Yeah. :/
I don't know anything as good value for money as it.

I feel bad for saying it, but a badly handled PR issue isnt enough for me to go full boycott. It's not like Loreal were 'ethical' when Munroe signed up to be one of their faces.

On Dr Sam's page people complained she hadn't made a BLM statement, so her team did the black square thing. Only for her to be derided for not donating money, and then it was a mess of deleting comments in her fb group.

It’s all kicking off on the grlpwrgang feed. Apparently she didn’t pay a number of women of colour and threatened the lawyers on one of them!

Is 'she' Sali or Munroe?

 

[AmberSpyglass]

It’s all kicking off on the grlpwrgang feed. Apparently she didn’t pay a number of women of colour and threatened the lawyers on one of them!

Where, what!! Tell us more, stat!

 

[cholulamare]

I would have been more sympathetic. But the problem is that when Bergdorf was briefly an ambassador for the NSPCC, (before being sacked from that role too), Bergdorf repeatedly went against online safeguarding protocols and encouraged vulnerable children and teens looking to use the NSPCC's services to make contact via DMs on Twitter. At best; a total ignorance of and failure to grasp the responsibilities incumbent on NSPCC ambassadors. At worst; very creepy and inappropriate.

So Bergdorf has form for either not fully understanding, or not respecting, the responsibilities and obligations of the roles they undertake.

Rightly or wrongly, a brand like L'Oreal is all about surface appearances and looking good. They're not a political brand. They wanted Munroe Bergdorf to shut up and look pretty. They didn't want the bad optics of Bergdorf going off on a racial rant on facebook. It's not 'on brand'. Sure, it doesn't say great things about L'Oreal, but the reason Bergdorf got sacked was for not understanding that.

I don't think this is a particularly fair or relevant comparison, and I think we can still choose who deserves our money and L'Oreal do not (in my opinion)!

 

[Tesla's Ghost]

Rightly or wrongly, a brand like L'Oreal is all about surface appearances and looking good. They're not a political brand.

I understand that a conglomerate is not political, as their only policy is money, but if we don't set some standards (which are political, whether it's regarding race, workers' rights, how they get their ingredients etc.), they certainly won't.

NSPCC

I have to admit I know nothing regarding this, had to google it now. I thought L'Oreal fired her because of Charlottesville.

 

[cholulamare]

I understand that a conglomerate is not political, as their only policy is money, but if we don't set some standards (which are political, whether it's regarding race, workers' rights, how they get their ingredients etc.), they certainly won't.

Yes yes YES. 100% this.

I have to admit I know nothing regarding this, had to google it now. I thought L'Oreal fired her because of Charlottesville.

I didn't either. L'Oreal definitely fired her because of her Charlottesville.

 

[Wolf359]

I understand that a conglomerate is not political, as their only policy is money, but if we don't set some standards (which are political, whether it's regarding race, workers' rights, how they get their ingredients etc.), they certainly won't.

I have to admit I know nothing regarding this, had to google it now. I thought L'Oreal fired her because of Charlottesville.

L'Oreal fired Bergdorf because of the FB comments about Charlottesville.

The NSPCC ambassadorship came later, but that also resulted in Bergdorf being fired for being inappropriate with minors on social media.

 

[skronkywildcat]

Where, what!! Tell us more, stat!

Go check out the grlpwrgang insta and the most recent post and story by Ellesschar - also this post by her from a while back