The controversy centers on an image featuring K-pop singer Karina, a member of aespa and a Converse global ambassador, promoting the Chuck 70 X sneaker.

In the photograph, Karina wears a long white skirt and holds a pair of black high-top Converse shoes beneath a star-shaped spotlight. Critics said the lighting and composition created the appearance of a pointed white hood, while the shoes appeared to hang beside her in a way that evoked the feet of a lynching victim.

The image was posted on Converse’s social-media channels earlier in September. After criticism spread online, the company removed it and issued an apology.

The unresolved question is not whether the image caused offense. Converse itself acknowledged that it had “got this wrong.”

The unanswered question is how the image reached publication in the first place.

What the advertisement showed

The campaign was created to promote the Chuck 70 X, a newer version of Converse’s classic Chuck silhouette.

Converse’s own current product pages identify Karina as a brand ambassador and describe the Chuck 70 X as a collaboration involving her. The company markets the shoe as a reinterpretation of its classic design.

The disputed photograph used a tightly controlled visual composition.

Karina’s lower body is largely framed by white fabric. A star-shaped light creates a bright triangular form across the skirt, while the black shoes hang from her hands at either side.

Critics interpreted those elements together as resembling a hooded Ku Klux Klan figure alongside the apparent feet of a hanging person. The interpretation spread rapidly across social-media platforms and prompted questions about the company’s creative and approval process.

The historical associations are particularly serious in the United States.

The Ku Klux Klan has a long history of racial terrorism against Black Americans, including violence and lynching. Images associated with its white robes and pointed hoods therefore carry meanings far beyond ordinary fashion imagery.

That history is why the criticism focused not simply on an awkward advertisement, but on what viewers believed the composition evoked.

Converse acknowledged the problem

Converse responded with an apology after the backlash.

The company said it understood why the image was deeply upsetting, acknowledged that it had “got this wrong,” and said it had removed the image from its channels while working to remove it from other locations where it appeared.

The company also said the incident “should not have happened.”

That language is significant because Converse did not defend the image as being misunderstood or argue that the criticism was unjustified.

Instead, it accepted responsibility for publishing the material and promised to do better.

But the statement stopped there.

Converse did not publicly identify the people or agency responsible for the creative work. It did not explain which internal teams reviewed the image. And it did not describe what changes it would make to its approval procedures.

The approval process remains unclear

Questions about approval became a central part of the backlash.

Commercial advertising typically involves multiple stages of creative development, production, review and publication. Depending on the campaign, photographs can pass through photographers, creative teams, brand teams, marketing executives, agencies, legal reviewers and regional or global approval structures.

The public record in this case does not establish which of those stages the Converse image passed through.

When asked specifically how the company screens advertising before publication and how this particular advertisement was approved, Converse declined to provide additional information.

That leaves an important distinction.

There is evidence that the advertisement was produced, published and later removed.

There is not public evidence establishing who specifically approved the final image or whether anyone inside the company raised concerns before publication.

Claims that a particular employee, agency or executive approved the image would therefore go beyond the available evidence.

Why the composition drew such a strong reaction

The criticism was based on the combination of several visual elements rather than on the Converse shoes themselves.

The pointed white shape came from the lighting and the skirt. The black shoes created the second visual element that critics associated with hanging footwear. Together, critics said the composition resembled imagery connected to racial violence.

Some commentators argued that the resemblance was too visually specific to have passed unnoticed.

Photographer Stephanie Schwartz, for example, argued publicly that lighting, shadow and composition are deliberate decisions in photography. Other commentators similarly questioned how multiple people involved in producing the advertisement could have failed to recognize the association.

Those are interpretations of the creative process, however, not evidence of intent.

There is currently no public evidence establishing that Converse deliberately intended to reference the Klan or lynching.

That distinction matters because the company’s apology establishes that it recognized the effect of the image, but does not establish why the image was designed that way or what its creators intended.

A second image intensified the controversy

The backlash also expanded beyond the Karina photograph.

Another Converse campaign image, associated with a collaboration with Danish lifestyle brand Palmes, showed people using a ladder to reach shoes positioned on a tree branch.

Some social-media users interpreted that image as another reference to lynching because of the combination of the tree, hanging shoes and people below it.

The second image was part of a separate campaign and should not automatically be treated as evidence that the two concepts were deliberately connected.

But its circulation during the controversy intensified questions about the brand’s visual review process.

Converse has not publicly said whether the two campaigns were reviewed by the same creative teams or whether the imagery was developed under a common concept.

Karina’s role is also separate from the approval question

Karina’s participation has drawn attention because she is the featured talent in the Chuck 70 X campaign.

Converse’s product pages currently promote the Chuck 70 X with Karina and identify her as a global brand ambassador.

There is no public evidence establishing that Karina designed, selected or approved the disputed image.

Her appearance in the photograph therefore should not be treated as evidence of responsibility for the campaign’s creative decisions.

Her management company, SM Entertainment, had not publicly responded to requests for comment in the reporting reviewed.

The controversy exposes a difficult problem for global brands

The episode illustrates a recurring problem in international advertising: a visual concept created for fashion or product marketing can acquire very different meanings depending on the audience and historical context.

But this is not simply a question of cultural interpretation.

The photograph was published by a major American brand with a global audience. That means its creative review process has to account for historically sensitive imagery, especially when the visual language can reasonably evoke racial violence.

The public evidence does not establish whether Converse lacked such a review, whether a review occurred and missed the association, or whether concerns were raised but the campaign was nevertheless approved.

Those are materially different possibilities.

Only the company can establish which one occurred.

What the company has not disclosed

As of September 21, Converse has not publicly answered several basic questions surrounding the campaign:

• Who created the disputed photograph?
• Which agency, photographer or creative team produced it?
• Who gave final approval?
• Was the image reviewed by Converse’s global marketing leadership?
• Was it reviewed for cultural or racial sensitivity?
• Did anyone object before publication?
• Was the second Palmes image reviewed through the same process?
• What changes, if any, will Converse make to its advertising review system?

The absence of answers does not establish that the company ignored these issues.

It does mean the public cannot currently determine where the review process failed.

The removal answers one question, not the larger one

Removing the advertisement stopped its continued distribution through Converse’s own channels.

The apology acknowledged the harm caused by the image.

But neither action explains how the campaign reached publication.

That distinction is increasingly important for major brands operating in global markets. Once an advertisement has been produced and approved, the most consequential decision may already have happened before the public sees it.

In this case, the public saw the final photograph only after it had passed whatever creative and marketing process Converse used.

The company has acknowledged the outcome.

It has not disclosed the process.

Until it does, the precise reason the image was approved remains unknown.

Reporting Credit: Converse — product and campaign information, public apology and removal of the disputed advertisement; Nike — corporate ownership relationship; SM Entertainment — representation of Karina, with no substantive response identified in the reporting reviewed.

The post How Did a Converse Ad Evoking Racist Imagery Get Approved? appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published: October 11, 2025, 21:45 EDT

After years of progress in feminist storytelling and representation, a new wave of pop culture trends appears to be steering society backward. The “male gaze” — a concept describing how women are framed and viewed through a male-centered lens — is once again influencing advertising, entertainment, and social narratives.

A Cultural Shift Reverses Progress

Across the late 2010s and early 2020s, films, television, and advertising reflected more inclusive portrayals of women. Campaigns celebrating body positivity and equality replaced narrow beauty standards and male-dominated storytelling.

However, over the past year, this progress has shown signs of reversal. Influenced by political shifts, social media trends, and changing market forces, depictions of women in mainstream media are increasingly filtered once again through the “male gaze” — prioritizing attractiveness and desirability over agency and complexity.

Cultural analysts suggest this shift coincides with broader political and social changes following movements like #MeToo and the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Defining the Male Gaze

The “male gaze” is a concept introduced by British film theorist Laura Mulvey in 1975. It refers to the way media often represents women from a heterosexual male perspective, positioning them as objects of visual pleasure rather than autonomous individuals.

Dr. Linda Tuncay Zayer, a professor of marketing at Loyola University Chicago, explains: “The woman’s value is reduced to existing for pleasure — she becomes an object.” This gaze is evident in everything from slow camera pans in films to the use of women’s bodies in advertising.

It is not limited to how women look but extends to how power and narratives are structured — who gets to speak, whose stories matter, and whose desires define social norms.

A New Wave of Advertising and Imagery

Recent ad campaigns illustrate the male gaze’s resurgence. American Eagle’s July campaign, featuring actress Sydney Sweeney, reignited debate for using her image to market jeans by appealing to male attraction.

Similarly, beauty and fashion brands once praised for body diversity are shifting back toward hypersexualized imagery. Even comedic and influencer-led promotions now blur the line between empowerment and objectification.

This change, according to experts, is not accidental — it’s profitable. Sexualized imagery remains one of marketing’s most effective tools, and corporations often revert to it during economic uncertainty or cultural polarization.

Cultural Reactions and Public Concern

While audiences have grown more media-literate, the subtle nature of the modern male gaze makes it harder to spot. “We’re kind of goldfish in water,” Zayer notes. “It’s so ingrained that it feels normal.”

The shift is also reflected in social media, where influencers often reinforce beauty ideals linked to desirability and thinness. Viral trends like “trad wives,” “what I eat in a day,” and “thinspiration” content promote nostalgia for outdated gender roles.

Dr. Katherine Sredl of Loyola University Chicago observes that “historically, there’s almost always a backlash after women achieve something significant.” This mirrors earlier cycles in history — from women’s liberation in the 1920s to conservative retrenchment in the 1950s.

Female Gaze and Alternative Storytelling

Despite the resurgence of male-centered imagery, many creators continue to challenge it. The “female gaze” — an approach centering women’s perspectives, emotions, and agency — has gained traction through projects like Bridgerton, Lady Bird, and Portrait of a Lady on Fire.

These works explore women’s desires and identities without catering to male validation. Other examples, such as Hidden Figures and Everything Everywhere All at Once, highlight women as multidimensional heroes rather than accessories in men’s stories.

Films like Bridesmaids and series like Star Trek have long subverted the male gaze by presenting women as funny, powerful, and complex. Yet, such portrayals remain exceptions in an industry still largely controlled by male directors, writers, and executives.

Marketing, Money, and Media Power

Advertising continues to use sexuality as a selling tool. For decades, brands like Carl’s Jr. and GoDaddy built their images around provocative campaigns. Though many companies shifted to more inclusive strategies by the late 2010s, recent trends suggest a regression.

Social media influencer Alix Earle’s 2025 Super Bowl appearance in a Carl’s Jr. ad — featuring the brand’s classic “bikini and burger” formula — signaled that old tactics still sell.

Critics argue that these portrayals commodify women’s bodies while reinforcing a hierarchy that privileges male desire and whiteness. Even when women appear to “own” their sexuality, the underlying profit structure often benefits corporations more than individuals.

A Gender Divide in Cultural Attitudes

Surveys by Ipsos show a widening gender gap in beliefs about traditional roles. Younger men increasingly favor conservative definitions of masculinity, influenced by online figures like Andrew Tate and certain athletes who promote “traditional values.”

In contrast, many women express frustration over being told their worth lies in domesticity or beauty. Public comments by figures like Kansas City Chiefs player Harrison Butker, who told female graduates to prioritize homemaking over careers, reignited debate about women’s autonomy and ambition.

Yet counter-narratives persist. Many men advocate for emotional awareness and partnership-based family dynamics, arguing that masculinity should include empathy, responsibility, and shared household duties.

Why the Gaze Still Matters

The persistence of the male gaze has tangible effects beyond entertainment. It shapes societal expectations, influences mental health, and constrains both women and men.

When women internalize objectifying standards, self-worth becomes tied to appearance. For men, the gaze fosters emotional detachment and limits their capacity for genuine relationships. “It affects everyone,” Zayer says. “It narrows what we think is possible for both genders.”

Experts also note racial implications — beauty ideals tied to the male gaze often center on whiteness, marginalizing other expressions of identity and attractiveness.

Changing the Narrative

Scholars and activists suggest that expanding who tells stories is key to progress. Supporting diverse filmmakers, authors, and creators can dismantle entrenched biases.

“The stories we consume affect how we see ourselves and others,” said Madeline Di Nonno, CEO of the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. Studies show that diverse representation inspires real-world change — encouraging women to pursue education, careers, and independence.

Audiences can also practice media literacy — recognizing bias, supporting inclusive creators, and questioning which narratives dominate screens and feeds.

Ultimately, as media consumers and creators, the power to reshape representation lies in collective awareness and choice.

Conclusion

The male gaze never fully disappeared — it simply adapted. But awareness, dialogue, and alternative storytelling continue to challenge its dominance. As viewers, readers, and consumers, choosing narratives that celebrate complexity over conformity remains one of the most powerful ways to shift culture toward balance and equality.

Source: CNN – The male gaze is back. And it’s coming for everyone

The post The Return of the Male Gaze: How Pop Culture’s Power Shift Is Reshaping Gender Narratives appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.