Marie Claire’s “Love Your Body Issue” is a Big Fail

howoldwomen

By Elena Rossini

A couple of weeks ago I read that the November 2011 issue of Marie Claire South Africa featured several thought-provoking ad campaigns by major advertising agencies on the topic of “Love Your Body.” I thought it would be wonderful to showcase this in my documentary “The Illusionists.” Thanks to the fabulous Jill Greenberg, who’s a Facebook fan of the project based in South Africa, this past Saturday I received a copy of the special issue in the mail. And I have to say, I was in for a BIG surprise.

A more accurate title for this issue should have been: “Please hate your body and buy our advertisers’ products.” Yes, it’s that bad.

The person chosen for the cover of the special “Love Your Body Issue” is statuesque supermodel Candice Swanepoel, wearing a bikini.

To her left, you can see the following headlines:

  • 21 DAYS TO GET BIKINI READY
  • TSELANE TAMBO ON LIFE AFTER LIPO
  • WIN: FREEZE YOUR FAT OFF!

And finally, in huge bold letters: Special Issue. LOVE YOUR BODY. 6 TOP SA AD AGENCIES COMPETE TO SHOW YOU HOW.

The first thing that one notices while turning the pages of the magazine is that it looks just like any other issue of a major fashion magazine, full of ads for cosmetics and luxury brands, and showcasing young, extremely thin models – whose pictures are thoroughly airbrushed, even in “candid” photos.

Like this one for instance:

The models’ legs have a plastic quality. They look like Barbie dolls.

After 40-something pages of advertising and galleries showing the latest beauty products and fashion accessories, the special “Love Your Body” section debuts, with various thought-provoking ad campaigns by South Africa’s top ad agencies.

TBWA shows the painting of Botticelli’s Birth of Venus. Underneath it, the headline: “Why change a masterpiece, you’re beautiful the way you are.

Next, an ad by Saatchi and Saatchi, showing the corpse of an older woman on a metal table. The headline: “When will you stop worrying about your appearance? Love the body you live in.”

Case in point:

Left: the ad by Canvas Lifestyle, showing a Barbie doll with several markings on her body. “Add cellulite from favorite heavenly chocolate brownies” … “Add caesarian scar from your first-born son” … “Add laugh lines from girls’ night out” …

Right: An ad for the Burberry fragrance “BODY” with a model who looks like a real life Barbie doll. Which is kind of contradictory, no?

Next ad:

Left: a simple message by TBWA. “IMPERFECT. I’M PERFECT. Start seeing things the way you really are.

Right: an ad for the Dolce & Gabbana fragrance “Light Blue” – with flawless looking models whose bodies are thoroughly airbrushed.

Next:

Left: a collage of photos by Kristina Stojilokovic that says, “Which part of your body would the people who love you change?” with close-up images of women’s bodies: a woman’s freckles, a big scar, knees, a belly button, a mole.

Right: an ad for L’Oréal Revitalift. With the big headline “FIGHT THE 10 SIGNS OF AGEING, IN A SINGLE GESTURE.

Less wrinkles
Smoother skin
Firmer skin
Rehydrated skin
More flexible skin
Suppler skin
Even skin tone
Radiant skin
Refined pores
Defined facial countours

The rest of the magazine doesn’t fare so well.

There are articles like: “I GREW HAIR ON MY CHIN” – “LIFE AFTER LIPO” and “HOW OLD ARE THESE WOMEN?” which asks readers to guess the ages of six women.

Then: “4 Ways to Get Beach Body” Ready

The final verdict: I would give this special issue a “FAIL” grade – on all fronts. The only diversity it showcases is racial: thankfully there are many African models represented. Problem is: they all have the same age and body type. ALL OF THEM. Every photo is thoroughly airbrushed, giving women a plastic / Barbie-doll-like quality. Including most of the “love your body” ads. This issue is the equivalent of the Big Bad Wolf disguised as Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother. And this is quite sad, considering the opportunity Marie Claire had to promote positive body image.

To read more on the topic, check out my April 2010 review of Marie Claire France: “100% Without Airbrushing.

Originally published at The Illusionists. Cross-posted with permission.

Post to Twitter

“You Look So Much Different on Facebook…”

Facebook and Photoshopping

By Sheena Vasani

I admit it: I’ve Photoshopped myself. Some of my Facebook photos have had their contrast and lighting settings tweaked and four them have been properly Photoshopped, either professionally or by myself. Sometimes, I took photos of myself in mirrors at such bizarre angles that I’m still not sure how I managed to pull off without breaking my arm. At 15, I thought it was “artistic,” and more importantly it made my self-proclaimed “flaws” less noticeable. In desperate moments after seeing a recently uploaded picture of another girl’s equally oddly-angled, retouched photo, my jealousy would lead me to dress up just to take a few–okay, fine, maybe about 30–photos of myself to post on MySpace to try and feel less inferior.

Growing up I was no self-absorbed, vapid young girl; I hated reality TV with a passion, was heavily involved in community service and social justice groups in school, and even led and created a few. I barely ever touched magazines because I preferred books; my heroine was not Paris Hilton but passionate women who made a difference in the world through either their hearts or intellect. My favorite place was the local bookstore, not the nearby mall. Yet with the sudden popularity of MySpace back in 2005, I almost felt like I became a different person. I still did well in school, but time I once spent buried in a book in my free time was now spent staring transfixed at my friends’ photos on MySpace. I envied how photogenic they were, so completely oblivious to the fact these pictures were digitally altered.

Now, the purpose of revealing all of this isn’t to simply embarrass myself in public, but because I believe there should be greater transparency concerning Photoshopped images not just in the media, but also in our personal lives. Recently, I’ve been feeling like a hypocrite. As friends know, I can go off about the media’s negative influence on our self-image and spout out the most obscure statistics about it. Yet I feel like I’ve failed to take personal responsibility by posting digitally altered photos (or even pictures that don’t truly capture how I really look) on my social networking sites. Nowadays, I do it far less than I did when I was 15, but I still find myself sometimes uneasy about the pictures I post.

I’m not going to put myself down too much, though, and I don’t want our readers to be hard on themselves either. Self-compassion is far more empowering and effective than harsh self-criticism. I know the real reason I Photoshopped my photos because I, like most teens and young women, struggle with self-image issues from time to time. We live in a world that glorifies appearances so much so that it’s become okay to surgically and digitally change how you look. For goodness’ sake, it’s even “okay” nowadays to Photoshop photos of toddlers. There’s an underlying societal belief that it’s better to appear “beautiful” than to, quite frankly, be yourself.

Yet wanting to look good in itself is not a problem, and in fact, it’s wonderful. The problem comes when we pretend to look a certain way without making it clear the image is contrived. As a result, we perpetuate the problem. Like the fashion industry and the media, we encourage people to try to achieve an unattainable look. Our attempt to achieve a certain image can lead us to post pictures that are truly just products of our great retouching skills, which can influence others to do so as well. It’s a vicious cycle. It is one I’m trying to stop.

People need to realize that many pictures you see on sites like Facebook aren’t totally reflective of reality. Judging by the many websites and YouTube videos that teach even the least computer-savvy people how to alter their pictures, I’m guessing even more people are doing so at increasingly younger ages nowadays. I hope by sharing my own experiences, I might inspire people to not compare themselves to these false images, as I frequently have done and sometimes still do. Men see these photos unaware they have been manipulated and think “this is what a real woman looks like.” Consequently, a real woman never measures up. We need to be conscious of the effect our own photos have; it’s not just the magazines anymore. With the popularity of social media and how easily accessible it is to anybody, we are also responsible.

Earlier I mentioned how at 15 years old, I’d spend hours browsing through random girls’ MySpace or Facebook photos, unaware of the “wonders” of airbrushing and Photoshop. As a result, I sought to unsuccessfully achieve a look that could never be imitated, and kept it to myself. I am open about this now because I believe I am not alone, and I want this to be the first step toward increased transparency. I read an article that the American Psychiatric Association now requires physicians to ask girls if they use Facebook when evaluating them for depression and body image issues. That speaks volumes about the power of social media on our mental health; it’s more than just a fun diversion to pass the time. It’s now become a means of helping young people establish or ferment an identity that can often have harmful effects if used inappropriately.

I’m going to guess that you or someone you know has probably had my experience. And, to be even more frank, if you digitally manipulate your photos to look like the false “beauties” you once felt inferior to without making it clear you have, you’re unintentionally helping contribute other girls’ and women’s insecurities. I’m not saying *we’re* the problem. It’s far more complicated than that. But let’s try not to contribute to the problem by being a little more transparent. At the very least, we could write captions under our photos if they have been altered. We may not have a lot of control over how the fashion industry has chosen to represent females, but we do have control over how we choose to portray ourselves. Let’s try to be the change we wish to see in this world.

Related Content:

Help Expose the Real Illusionists

Is Airbrushing On Its Way Out?

Putting “Proper” Clothes on Mariah Carey

Debenhams Breaks Fashion Protocol Again

Editor of Self Gets Her Photoshopped Ass Handed to Her

Warning Labels on Photoshopped Models? “Oui” Say the French

In the Name of Girls: The AMA Calls for Magazine Ads to End Photoshopping Bodies

Kardashian’s Cellulite: A Complex Controversy

 

Post to Twitter

The Self-Esteem Act Calls for Truth in Advertising

Image created by Adios Barbie students

Image created by Adios Barbie students

By Pia Guerrero, Co-Founder/Editor

Women and girls are bombarded everyday with thousands of media messages, from billboards to bus stops ads, telling us our worth is not in who we are, but in what we look like. The media and our culture tell us we should be sexy, thin, young, and perfect—just like the actresses and models plastered across ads everywhere we turn. We strive and struggle to look like these flawless creatures that–thanks to Photoshop–don’t actually exist. We’re buying what’s being sold and our self-esteem is taking a huge hit.

That’s why Off Our Chests, a new women’s online magazine and apparel line, has launched a campaign to create The Self-Esteem Act, a bill requiring “truth in advertising” labels be attached to advertising and editorials with models who have been Photoshopped or airbrushed beyond touch-ups. This announcement comes on the heels of news that in Britain, L’Oréal was forced to pull an ad campaign for falsely advertising an anti-aging product featuring the super Photoshopped images of Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington. In the words of British MP Jo Swinson, who led the effort to ban the ads, the images were “not representative of the results the product could achieve”. This move sets a precedent, opening the door for a wave of industry change here and abroad.

In addition to this ban, law makers in Britain and France have called for disclaimers in the form of health warning labels to accompany airbrushed images in ads, but in the US no proposals for such labeling have gotten traction to date. Needless to say, at Adios Barbie we are excited about the campaign to create the Self-Esteem Act and have been brimming with questions. We connected with Off Our Chests co-founder, Seth Matlins, who started the company with his wife Eva. Matlins spoke to us candidly about the vision for the Off Our Chest’s clothing company and plans for The Self-Esteem Act.

 

AB:  In order to make real change, awareness must be followed by concrete action and for that we want to acknowledge Off Our Chests for putting your money where your mouth is. What are next steps? What do you plan to do specifically to get this legislation passed?

Matlins: Before we can get it passed, we need to get it introduced and sponsored.  We’re working to build what we’re calling a “Coalition of the Concerned”…NGOs, talent, individuals, media companies and organizations who want to stand with us and support what we’re trying to accomplish and do.  As we’re building this coalition (and we’re open to better names) we’re simultaneously beginning to approach members of the Senate to discuss the situation, our intentions, and enlist their support and commitment.

AB: Do you have plans to partner with other groups in the self-esteem and body image movement to promote and pass the act?

Matlins: We have hopes of doing just that. Everything we’ve done since the moment we launched Off Our Chests and OffOurChests.com has been based on the premise that we’re all in this together, that we’re all connected, and that it takes a village. That goes for raising our daughter and our son…all your readers are contributing to the world in which we raise them and in which they grow up…to turning The Self Esteem Act from an announcement into life changing legislation.  We can’t do it alone, we don’t want to do it alone, and we need everyone’s productive support and efforts.

AB: In terms of your apparel line, do you have plans to expand your sizing and models for your own line to include women of color and women of different shapes and sizes?

Matlins: We love that you’re calling us on that. The short answer is yes, though all of our shirts run into XL sizing even now. We did so many things wrong with our initial launch of the apparel line, and will do many things differently moving forward.  The models we’ve used were images supplied to us by a manufacturer and, ironically, our shirts were simply Photoshopped on them.  We’re learning how to build an apparel line and company one mistake and one misspent dollar at a time.  Eva and I are the white parents of two beautiful black children, so we’re pretty conscious of providing a spectrum of images [on Off Our Chests], which we haven’t yet done, but will moving forward.

AB: Passing an act like this is a huge step. As a former CAA agent, do you have any plans to hold hands with Hollywood, as Geena Davis has done, to promote more realistic images of women and girls in the media?

Matlins: Hollywood and Madison Avenue play such an enormous and unrivaled role in setting and resetting our cultural norms, standards, ideals and expectations….and given where I come from and what I’ve done, we’d be crazy not to try and enlist their support, they can make all of this so much easier and quicker. Geena’s done and doing amazing work, though I think we’ll try and be a bit more strategically provocative than she’s been. We love Hollywood and whatever negative effects media has comes not from malice but from benign neglect, in our opinion.  We want to help play a part in making every one more mindful of their role and responsibility.  This crisis of confidence isn’t any one’s fault – it’s everyone’s.  Let’s stop blaming and judging and just start fixing and changing.  Then we can all feel happier.

AB: How did you come up with the name “The Self-Esteem Act”? It seems some recent commenters to your piece at HuffPo responded negatively to the use of “self-esteem”. Why not “Truth in Advertising Act?”

Matlins: Self-Esteem is what we’re trying to positively affect with everything Off Our Chests is and does.  Truth-in-advertising is how we hope to help affect it.  We decided to focus on the ends not the means, for it’s the ends, it’s the epidemic crisis of confidence hating on the happy of so many girls and women, that we’re trying to help make a little bit (if not a lot) better.

AB: Your t-shirt line carries some great messaging that makes folks think. You’ll be working with Fred Segal, a store known to cater to the LA/Hollywood elite. Many customers are (or are related to) the producers, celebrities and artists who work on the very ads that heavily use Photoshop. What is your thinking behind having Fred Segal be the target market for your clothing line?

Matlins: My family is the Fred Segal consumer, and their market is very much one we want to reach, influence and sell to.  If you want to change the conversation on a cultural level the way we do, we believe you have to enlist the makers of culture.  It’s where I come from, it’s what I know, and Hollywood is and can be a force for so much good if they embrace their power to do good.

From before we launched the line, we committed 10% of profits (profits, btw, we don’t yet have – but against which we’ve already written a check) to an amazing, amazing group called We Stop Hate (www.westophate.org).  Founded by the amazing Emily-Anne Rigal, who only now is 17, WSH works to raise what they call “teen esteem” as a way to end bullying of all types.  They are smart, and soulful and effective.  We will always do something with a percentage of our profits that furthers the mission and cause of Off Our Chests…making girls and women happier.

AB: What do you say to those who may feel this campaign is a publicity stunt to promote your own clothing brand for profit and name as body image thought leaders?

Matlins: Well, the first thing we’d say is would you like to buy a tee shirt?  The second is, yes, we hope this is good for our brand and our revenues. Our intent is to build the world’s most meaningful – and one of its most valuable – women’s brands. One capable of changing the world and making it a better place for our daughter and son, and everyone else.

We are not a charity, and beyond being parents we have neither aspiration nor qualification to be seen as a body image thought leader.  We just see problems and opportunities and try to address them. In fact, our focus is much more emotional than physical, and our clothing line and the other merchandise that will follow are all intended to serve as reminders…reminders to get things off your chest, to live out loud, speak your truth, and let your freak flag fly – even if it’s not very freaky at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post to Twitter

In the Name of Girls: The AMA Calls for Magazine Ads to End Photoshopping Bodies

In 2001, two media literate students produced this image  to raise awareness on the media and body image.

By Pia Guerrero, Co-Founder/Editor

When we first launched the Adios Barbie website 12 years ago, I had to explain what the term ‘body image’ meant to friends and family when they asked what I was up to. I was leading a lot of media literacy workshops at the time where I often had to prove to skeptical teachers and students that the media affects our perceptions and self-esteem.  Many didn’t believe they were impacted. But eyes and minds opened when they saw examples of body after body in magazine ads that had been digitally altered. “It’s impossible to look like that!” they’d finally exclaim. And I’d smirk, in a self-congratulatory way, thinking that my work was done.

In 2001, two media literate students produced this image to raise awareness on the media and body image.

 

Today, a lot of awareness has been raised around the digital and plastic manipulation of models and actresses in magazines. The likes of Kim Kardashian no longer hide the work they’ve had done and instead flaunt their new bodies on anything they can plaster their image across. Regardless, thousands of girls and women continue to hate what they look like and strive for the impossible–to look like women that don’t actually exist.

The primary message that most ads send to girls is that above all else their most valuable quality is their body and appearance. The most prominent image girls see of women and teens in the media is one that is hyper-sexualized and centers on an unrealistic ideal of beauty and size. As a result, studies show that mass media consumption is linked to obesity, eating disorders, and poor body image. According to the National Eating Disorders Association, 42 percent of girls in first through third grade want to be thinner, 81 percent of 10-year-olds are afraid of being fat, and 51 percent of 9 and 10-year-old girls feel better about themselves if they are on a diet.

The good news is that the American Medical Association (AMA) announced they’ve adopted a policy against what I’d call false advertising.

The AMA adopted a new policy to encourage advertising associations to work with public and private sector organizations concerned with child and adolescent health to develop guidelines for advertisements, especially those appearing in teen-oriented publications, that would discourage the altering of photographs in a manner that could promote unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image.

To drive the point home, Dr. McAneny of the AMA states, “We must stop exposing impressionable children and teenagers to advertisements portraying models with body types only attainable with the help of photo editing software.”

This institutional stand is definitely a cause for celebration, but don’t put on your party hat just yet. While the first step is always the most important, I hope AMA doesn’t end at only “encourag[ing] advertising associations” to stop their practices. Because it’s not just the advertisements in magazines that are the problem. It’s ads everywhere. In fact it’s other media like billboards, commercials, music videos, movies–even cartoons. I applaud the AMA for taking this first step. It’s powerful and important and will hopefully lead to great strides towards long-term change in how women and girls are portrayed everywhere.

 

Related Content:

Help Expose the Real Illusionists

Is Airbrushing On Its Way Out?

Putting “Proper” Clothes on Mariah Carey

Debenhams Breaks Fashion Protocol Again

Editor of Self Gets Her Photoshopped Ass Handed to Her

Warning Labels on Photoshopped Models? “Oui” Say the French

Kardashian’s Cellulite: A Complex Controversy

 

 

 

Post to Twitter

Putting “Proper” Clothes on Mariah Carey. Thanks Saudi Arabia!

mariahapshotarabia

mariahapshotarabiaBy Pia Guerrero, Co-Founder and Co-Editor

I just came across this post at Jezebel revealing an interesting make-over of Mariah Carey. The new Mariah no longer sports a body baring tube top. Her body jewelry has disappeared and a simple top covers her shoulders, chest and trunk. Clearly the old school Butterfly album cover has been photoshopped.

Apparently some Saudi Arabian digital manipulators have masterfully put clothes on the famous singer in accordance with their cultural standards. In Saudi Arabia women are denied the right to vote along with freedom to wear what they please. And while this digital effort reinforces the widespread Saudi  practice of oppressing women–I kinda like the the results. In our culture we are constantly overwhelmed with hyper-sexualized images of girls, women and celebrities.  It’s refreshing to see Carey purposely sexed down instead of sexed up.

In looking at this transformation, I actually noticed a shift in my own perception. I’ve become so numb to the sexual objectification of women in our media, I’ve never noticed the clothing (or lack there of) that Carey wore in her younger years. In fact, the Saudi’s modest Mariah actually made me consider who the singer is as a thinking, breathing person (then and now). To me she’s been an object and a carefully crafted construction used to move product. Not so much anymore. Thanks Saudia Arabia!

Click here to see more of Modest Mariah.

Related content:

Debenhams Breaks Fashion Protocol Again

Editor of Self Gets Her Photoshopping Ass Handed to Her

Kardashian’s Cellulite: A Complex Controversy

In the Name of Girls: The AMA Calls for Magazine Ads to End Photoshopping Bodies

Is Airbrushing On Its Way Out?

Warning Labels on Photoshopped Models? “Oui” Say the French

Post to Twitter

Debenhams Breaks Fashion Protocol Again

Debenhams shows that Photoshop is not necessary as is illustrated in the non-Photoshopped model on the left as compared to the Photoshopped model on the right.

Debenhams' campagin argues that Photoshop is unnecessary as is illustrated in the non-Photoshopped model on the left as compared to the Photoshopped model on the right.

By Sharon Haywood

In March of this year, we highlighted how the UK department store, Debenhams illustrated their commitment to diversity by launching an advertising campaign for a new fashion line featuring models of various shapes, backgrounds, and abilities. We’re thrilled to see Debenhams breaking fashion protocol again. This time, the department store will feature their models in all their natural beauty – without the use of Photoshop.

The campaign features the store’s latest swimwear line on photos of models sans airbrushing. To drive the message home, Debenhams will post digitally enhanced photos alongside the untouched ones with the message:

We’ve not messed with natural beauty; this image is unairbrushed. What do you think?

Here at Adios Barbie we think it’s long overdue and we’re not the only ones. Debenhams also has the support of Liberal-Democrat MP Jo Swinson, co-founder of the Campaign for Body Confidence:

More and more people are realising that airbrushing and other trickery are not necessary in order for women to look beautiful. I am sure that what this will demonstrate is that swimwear modelled by real women who have not been retouched can sell just as well as products advertised with extensive airbrushing, which has become the norm. Women can feel good about themselves knowing that beauty is not about achieving the unachievable.

Beginning this week, the department store features their real beauty (aka no airbrushing) campaign at their flagship store on Oxford Street. If consumers respond positively, we can expect to see all of their stores following suit. Be sure to let them know that they’ve got your support. Your voice can make a difference.

Read the full story at the Daily Mail here.

Related content featuring Debenhams:

Mannequins Make a Statement

Debenhams Department Store: Bona Fide Diversity

More related content on photoshopping:

Editor of Self Gets Her Photoshopping Ass Handed to Her

Kardashian’s Cellulite: A Complex Controversy

Is Airbrushing On Its Way Out?

Putting “Proper” Clothes on Mariah Carey

In the Name of Girls: The AMA Calls for Magazine Ads to End Photoshopping Bodies

Warning Labels on Photoshopped Models? “Oui” Say the French

Post to Twitter

Is Airbrushing On Its Way Out?

Healthy Bodies Cover

Girl instructor exaplaining

By Sharon Haywood

In March 2009, Kim Kardashian’s cellulite made headlines. The paparazzi didn’t snap an illicit photo of her sunning poolside, but rather, Complex, a men’s lifestyle magazine accidentally published an unaltered photo of the reality star. For those who work in the entertainment industry, it had always been common knowledge that photoshopping is standard practice. But before the Kardashian incident, the general public had remained more or less oblivious to the amount of photo retouching that occurs before a publication hits newsstands.

That has definitely changed. A plethora of media attention and debate has since emerged, questioning whether the presentation of unattainable images is harmful to young girls and women. Several countries outside of North America vehemently argue that it most certainly is. Earlier this year, Australian Minister Kate Ellis instituted a law in which all airbrushed images in women’s magazines must be identified as so. France’s MP Valerie Boyer is currently lobbying for a law that would require labels for all airbrushed images. And in the UK, MP Jo Swinson has proposed an initiative that would require all advertisements in teen magazines to remain untouched. Although many magazines would not do so voluntarily, a new magazine in the UK has chosen to lead by example.

The Central YMCA recently released Healthy Bodies earlier this month, the very first magazine to boast “an airbrush-free logo.” Chief Executive Rosi Prescott states:

“We think advertisers and the media should begin to adopt this approach in response to growing public mistrust about images they are presented with in advertising and through the media.”

To drive the point home, the front cover shows how Prime Minister Gordon Brown would look digitally enhanced, with the caption,

“Would THIS man get your vote?”

Healthy Bodies certainly has ours.

Read the full story at The Central YMCA and follow the publication on Twitter to show your support.

Related content:

Putting “Proper” Clothes on Mariah Carey

Debenhams Breaks Fashion Protocol Again

Warning Labels on Photoshopped Models? “Oui” Say the French

Editor of Self Gets Her Photoshopped Ass Handed to Her

Kardashian’s Cellulite: A Complex Controversy

In the Name of Girls: The AMA Calls for Magazine Ads to End Photoshopping Bodies

 

Post to Twitter

Warning Labels on Photoshopped Models? “Oui” Say the French

glamour

About seven years ago, I led an intense media literacy course for a group of amazing Bay area teens. As part of the course, students created art and media pieces that illustrated how they felt about unrealistic portrayals of men and women in the media.

I was blown away when a pair of fourteen year-olds, Shari and Shila, produced this piece:

Who would have thought that their play on cigarette warning labels would come to existence in the form of warning labels on Photoshopped images of women in the media? Well, dreams do come true, or at least they might. If you’re French.

French parliamentarian Valerie Boyer and 50 other parliamentarians are proposing a new law to thwart the negative effects of unrealistic, fake, and warped images of women in magazines and other media. According to Reuters:

“These images can make people believe in a reality that often does not exist,” Boyer said in a statement on Monday, adding that the law should apply to press photographs, political campaigns, art photography and images on packaging as well as advertisements.

This new bill would force French media to disclose through a warning label any airbrushing or retouching that alters the image of a woman. If the bill is passed, a fine of 37,500 euros ($54,930) would be incurred for breaking the law.

I’m all for the idea, but I think the warning should include all images, not just those of women. In an era where photojournalists are digitally manipulating their photos for news stories, we have much more than our self-esteem to worry about. Hopefully, this law will pass and will inspire us here in the US. A girl can dream, can’t she?

Post to Twitter

Pole Dancer Doll, Are You for Real?

poledancedoll

poledancedollThis week Gizmodo broke the “story” that a child’s toy, Pole Dance Doll is on the market.

Conservative and liberal blogs have been covering the product as if it were indeed for sale at a store near you. One blogger claimed that Mahalo.com sells the doll (Mahalo is a search engine of sorts that doesn’t sell products).

Everyone seems to be drinking the cool-aid without asking: Who is the manufacturer? What stores carry it? And, could it be a hoax? (Any one with a computer and Photoshop can create a mock up of a doll box.)

Yes, while the idea of a stripper doll for girls is abohrent, I’ll reserve voicing concern until I have proof this isn’t a hoax. Anyone have proof that this is for real?

Post to Twitter

Editor of Self Gets Her Photoshopping Ass Handed to Her

clarkson

You gotta go to the blog of Lucy Danziger, the editor-in-chief of Self magazine and read all the comments from readers who aren’t buying the lame excuse for photoshopping the hell out of Kelly Clarkson for the cover of this month’s Total Body Confidence issue. Most of Self’s blog readers say that as a result of the blog entry and their disgust with the editor’s statements, they are dropping their subscriptions and/or calling for the editor to resign.

Just like many of Self’s readers, I decided to give Lucy, the editor, a piece of my mind. Who knows if all of our protests will lead to any real change at the magazine. Regardless, read the piece and the comments. It’s quite amazing to see how fed up women are with being bombarded with manipulated images of perfection 24/7.

In regards to her recent weight gain, this is what Kelly had to say:

“When people talk about my weight, I’m like, ‘You seem to have a problem with it; I don’t. I’m fine!’ I’ve never felt uncomfortable on the red carpet or anything.”

Check out my comment that I posted on the blog. I’ve included it below.

——————————————-

I am appalled by your justification for digitally manipulating your cover of Kelly Clarkson. You digitally enhancing your personal photos so that you can feel better about the way you look is your choice. To draw a parallel between your personal choice and your job as a magazine editor makes no sense. Your personal choices only impact you. By “correcting” Kelly, *you* are choosing how you (as an editor with commercial interests) want Clarkson to appear in the public arena.

Clarkson is a role model because she is confident with her body, works out and has an amazing career. Millions of women and girls see her as someone they can relate to and the way you portray her has an impact.

One study done of 550 teens found that almost 70% stated that pictures in magazines (like yours) influence their conception of the “perfect” body shape.

To manipulate the cover of your Total Body Confidence issue is deceptive and irresponsible. You hold the key to your reader’s body confidence. Please take your job more seriously.

You say in your blog,

“Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best.”

The assumption you make is that her “personal best” means whatever falls along your narrowly defined beauty standards. Following your logic, an artist of Clarkson’s stature isn’t her “personal best” until your team narrows her hips and thighs and make a picture that pleases YOU. Wow, I thought this was the 21st century, where women are accomplished for what they do–not how they look.

You also can’t back pedal on this issue by asking us to think about our photographs and what we want them to convey. We are not celebrities, public figures, or roles models that grace the covers of magazines for millions of people to see. And please don?t tell us to

“go ahead and be confident in every shot, in every moment. Because the truest beauty is the kind that comes from within.”

Until you authentically promote body confidence and show Kelly Clarkson on your cover as she really looks, your words are meaningless. It’s called editorial integrity-look it up.

Related content:

Kardashian’s Cellulite: A Complex Controversy

Is Airbrushing On Its Way Out?

Putting “Proper” Clothes on Mariah Carey.

In the Name of Girls: The AMA Calls for Magazine Ads to End Photoshopping Bodies

Debenhams Breaks Fashion Protocol Again

Warning Labels on Photoshopped Models? “Oui” Say the French

Post to Twitter