Two-faced

There's a debate going in the comments section of my post Dangerous Curves earlier this month over who, if anybody, is responsible for the obsession with thinness in media images of women. Is it men? Women? Gay men? All of the above? Some of the above?

Of course, it's not just thinness which is at issue but also the computer enhancement and airbrushing of photos that make models and celebrities look younger, thinner, flawless. By now you've probably already seen this viral video ''Evolution'' documenting the process from boring to billboard-worthy. And that's without cosmetic surgery!

Turns out that so many models are so thin that magazines which promote fitness actually have to airbrush muscle definition on some of their cover girls!

As this opinion piece by Sheri Graydon, a former president of Media Watch and now a director of Media Action/Action Media, points out, there's an increasingly popular trend among the celeb tabs to show the stars barefaced, without the benefit of stylists, lighting and photo doctoring. The irony is, even though websites doing the same are all over the Internet -- and always trashing women by the way, as if men don't get Photoshopped -- this pretense and the pressure to look the same never goes away.

ILLUSTRATION BY PATRICK CORRIGAN

Here's Graydon on recent moves in the U.K. to put a little more truth in beauty, accompanied by a brilliant take on the Mona Lisa by The Star's Patrick Corrigan:

It should be an old story. Women's groups have been protesting unattainable beauty standards for decades. Here in Canada, Media Watch spent more than 25 years conducting research, delivering educational seminars, meeting with regulators and mobilizing consumers around the need for more responsible media portrayals.

Despite such activism, and greater public awareness, some aspects of the situation have gotten worse, not better. Magazine cover stories sensationalize celebrity crimes against body image every week; reality TV shows regularly invent new ways to exploit women's insecurities; and the digital distortion of Photo-shopped images fuels exponential growth in cosmetic surgery procedures, despite the health risks attached to many.

So the move by British magazine publishers to explore the development of an ethics code on retouching is long overdue. Why shouldn't magazines be held to the same ethical standards that newspapers follow? Consumers have a right to expect authenticity from the photos they disseminate. If we can't trust that the images we're looking at reflect reality, why should we credit the words that appear alongside them with any greater truth?

An even more compelling case can be made for the images that appear in ads. When cosmetic companies claim that their lotions and creams will reduce the appearance of wrinkles and cellulite, it's reasonable to expect that the photographs purporting to illustrate such results have not been altered. How is "truth in advertising" served when models promoting dietary aides and foundation makeup have achieved their slim silhouettes and flawless complexions with the help of an airbrush artist?

Which is a good point. If automobile manufacturers advertised that their cars could float or fly and not deliver, there would be repercussions. But flip through a typical fashion magazine's ad pages and you'll find dozens and dozens of pitches for products that not only don't work, but don't even work for problems that really don't even exist.

All of which keeps women, whose self-esteem is under constant assault, enslaved to cosmetics counters and wasting time, money and energy in a never-ending quest to be pretty. Imagine if all those resources were redirected into their studies, careers, or sports or hobbies.

Speaking for myself as a natural curly-haired girl who grew up in a time when the long straight "London look'' hair was in style, if things were different, I might have grown up to be a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon had I not wasted so much time trying to tame the frizz.

Even now I struggle...even with the invention of flat-irons, blowdryers, and all sorts of straightening lotions and potions.

Oh, and speaking of struggle, I am down exactly 20 pounds as of Saturday. That's with three-four walks daily with Jericho, about 15 minutes each plus three small meals and three small snacks daily. It even includes a few lapses while on vacation in the Caribbean and various social occasions, including a staggering Passover Seder on Saturday.

Now to face the challenge of Greek Easter at home with the family in Montreal.

See you next week.

Comments

[...pat.]

Awesome on the 20 lbs! congratulations!

I have a magazine around here somewhere... it was a Photoshop magazine, for professionals, and showed how to do the standard tricks that it seems art directors are asking for. Lengthen her limbs. Make her middle thinner. Make her breasts bigger. Reduce the size of her chin. Get rid of any signs of age.

I've never looked at a magazine cover the same way.

There's lots of stuff out on the web about it: some retouch artists have their portfolios up online. Just google photo retouch artist to see what they're proud of.

[Cynthia]

Don't forget that mags like to make people look taller too (if they're short). Body image activists, for some reason, always forget that height is an issue. It's always, weight, weight, weight (and then a bit about airbrushing one's face). Pourquoi?

[Steve]

"Is it men? Women? Gay men? All of the above? Some of the above?"

No, it's only women. As a normal man, I visualize the catwalk model naked and in my bed. Looking at the skinnies makes me nauseous .. and obviously the gay men don't have any fantasies other than the gorgeous clothing.

So it's the 'women' who are promulgating thinness to women who feeeeel they are too fat. It's some kind of primordial sickness that only resides in the mind of women, and they are exploited by gay men clothing designers.

The only fault that may reside in the minds of normal men is that they fantasize about the porn babes on the internet and cannot satisfy their lust with 'normal' women .. and that's why there are a lot of 'normal' women out there living a virginal life .. while guys are jerking off while on the internet and cannot resolve their obsession with 'perfect' fantasy women.

Sad but true .......

[charli]

I am an old lady, my Mother was a Doctor and she always
told me that being a little on the heavy side was good,
especially when one gets older...one day I saw two old
ladies walking down the street, one heavy one thin and
bent over, both about the same age...the heavy one looked
so jolly and healthy.................. Mum's are always
right...............

[Shaunna aka Shrunk]

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYY! C*O*N*G*R*A*T*U*L*A*T*I*O*N*S on being down 20 BIG ONES! That is AWESOME!

[Height is destiny]

Antonia wrote:
"All of which keeps women, whose self-esteem is under constant assault, enslaved to cosmetics counters and wasting time, money and energy in a never-ending quest to be pretty. Imagine if all those resources were redirected into their studies, careers, or sports or hobbies."

Cynthia wrote:
"Body image activists, for some reason, always forget that height is an issue."
----

Congratulations on your weight loss, Antonia. In all seriousness, it is a worthwhile and impressive personal achievement.

However, I think Cynthia makes a great point. I'd like to go a bit further and point out that height is much more of an issue for men than women.

Why, from reading The Star alone, I have learned:
- Pedophiles are shorter than average (you just have to know that some people will spuriously infer the reverse relationship, i.e. that short men are more likely to be pedophiles.)
- Short men earn less money and achieve less in their careers
- Short men are less likely to get married (and less likely to have kids). Tough luck for shorty if he was planning on leaving a legacy after his death.
- Short men are less likely to be respected by their peers
- Aggressive behaviour in short men is seen as repulsive, unlike aggressive behaviour in tall men, which is seen as manly
- Short men are generally seen as unattractive and child-like (in appearance)

Of course, short women are simply seen as cute. For example, short women have no trouble at all dating much taller men (so both parties win in the relative height department).

What confuses me is the following: Why are men who tease overweight women labeled misogynists (perhaps rightly so), yet it is perfectly natural, accepted, and societally encouraged for women to hate on short men? (*)

For example, at the typical office workplace, it is perfectly okay for a woman to loudly proclaim "I don't like short men" in the earshot of short guys. However, a man would be considered extremely insensitive, rude and perhaps misogynistic if he were to shout "I don't like fat women!", in the vicinity of overweight co-workers.

(*) Years ago, a woman actually wrote a letter to the Toronto Star editor simply to diss her short ex-husband, after she had married the tall, dark and handsome man of her dreams. Oh, I'm sure the letter had some tangential connection to something in the paper - probably a story about how short men are a worthless burden on society. (Sarcasm aside, this is probably closer to real attitudes towards short men than anyone would care to admit.) Of course, The Star printed the letter.

I wonder if the Toronto Star would ever consider printing a letter in which a man taunts his obese ex-wife and compares her to his brand-new skinny bride. Somehow I doubt it.

As for all the women who hate on short men (the number is far, far greater than 0), I sincerely hope none of them ever have a son who grows up to shorter-than-average. I can't imagine how painful that would be.

Ranting aside, maybe we should all recognize that human beings have NATURAL evolutionary biases for certain attributes such as height, weight, facial symmetry, etc. Maybe the fact that men prefer skinny women is no more a media conspiracy than the plain and simple fact that women prefer taller men.

And I hate to state the blindingly obvious, but in most cases, women can lose weight. I don't know of too many men who can get taller after their late teens or early 20s.

Long story short: yes, it is tragic that women must battle assaults on their self-esteem from many corners. However, I don't see much sympathy anywhere for short men, bald men, non-white men, or any of the other kinds of men who typically don't occupy dominant positions in Western society. Who blogs for the George Costanzas and Danny DeVitos of the world?

[...pat.]

Height is destiny:
these are some interesting points, and some things that could be difficult to back up on a broader canvas. I can't believe that any woman would get away in my office with screaming out "I don't like short men".

But that's a different issue.

I'm not going to negate it, but it's not the issue that Antonia is raising.

Women. How do they perceive themselves? How is this impacted by media? What can we do about it?

Just because you perceive that there is another issue that should be dealt with doesn't mean that this issue shouldn't be considered.

If you want to blog for the Danny Devitos and Jason Alexanders and Sandy Hawleys of this world, feel free. But those are successful short men, which argues against your hypothesis.

[Jonas Fischer]

my wife is 39 years old. she was shielded from the media growing up, but instead was bombarded by her mother who constantly bugged her and her sister about making sure they don't get fat. my mother-in-law was pencil-thin most of her life -- apparently the reason why her husband went after her in the first place. I'm having a hard time putting all this into context. We're talking about the 30's here.

My wife is size 6/8 (her mum says her bum is too "bummy") and very uncomfortably so. i think she's perfect, and i tell her so, frequently. her obsession with her weight came directly from her old-fashioned mother. anyone who blames solely "The Media" is taking the easy way out.

[B]

First of all, thank you for bringing the issue of representation of women in the media up front. It's not talked about enough and it's certainly not talked about enough among media professionals.
Photographers are probably more aware of the issues than anyone else. (I am biased, because I am a photojournalist.)

It's bad enough that fashion magazines do it, but photoshopping is actually fairly common among news magazines as well. As Pat in your comments pointed out, there are lots of companies that do it. Fluideffect
http://www.fluideffect.com/
is one of them and their client list reads like who's who of the magazine world. Women are, of course, usually the Photoshop victims, but men are catching up fast. Media Awareness network ran a piece some time ago on the subject
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_beauty.cfm
Photo doctoring has been going on for a long time
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering Scroll down to 21st century - it gets truly scary. And today you can do it yourself with the right kind of camera http://www.hp.com/united-states/consumer/digital_photography/tours/slimming/index.html Crazy stuff... and we so willingly buy into the illusion.

Kudos to the Star for having some of the most stringent ethical guidelines for photojournalists out there.

[Bojan]

Not to beat a dead horse, but check this out from the New Yorker magazine. You'll never look at a photo in a magazine in the same way:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_collins?currentPage=all

[Antonia]

GREAT link! Thanks.