Wednesday
Questions....
So there are a few questions I've run into since starting my project. As I'm writing my literature review I've found I'm getting more and more confused about what exactly I want it to say. As it's done now, I focused on research which examines the media's effects on body image. My project will be an analysis of Cosmopolitan Magazine's cover pages for 2010. Should I be trying to find research on that specifically? I haven't run across anything similar, but there are probably studies out there.... Also, are our papers supposed to detail all of our methodologies and reasonings? Do we write these papers as if you would an empirical research study? Or do we just talk about what we found? The other question I have is, does the research that we use in the body of our papers need to be addressed in the lit review? Do the sources used in the lit review need to brought up again in the body of our papers?
Sunday
Annotated Bibliography
Aubrey, J. S. (2007). The impact of sexually objectifying media exposure on negative body emotions and sexual self-perceptions: Investigating the mediating role of body self-consciousness. Mass Communication & Society, 10(1), 1-23. doi:10.1080/15205430701229584
In this article, Aubrey examines the effects of exposing women to images of other women who fit the cultural thin ideal, and the impact that exposure has on the subjects' perception of their own physical appearance. In her study, the women consistently used more negative self-descriptors after being exposed to the images than without said exposure.
Aubrey, J. S., Henson, J. R., Hopper, K. M., & Smith, S. E. (2009). A picture is worth twenty words (about the self): Testing the priming influence of visual sexual objectification on women's self-objectification. Communication Research Reports, 26(4), 271-284. doi:10.1080/08824090903293551
This article is very similar to the one mentioned immediately before. Women were exposed to images of female models with either a lot of exposed skin or images where only part of a female body is visible. They were then asked to describe themselves. The photos with a lot of skin appeared to cause women to be less satisfied with the way they look. The photos of female body parts didn’t have as much of an impact.
Bergstrom, R. L., Neighbors, C., & Malheim, J. E. (2009). Media comparisons and threats to body image: Seeking evidence of self-affirmation. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 264-280. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=36909409&site=ehost-live
In this article, Bergstrom, Neighbors, and Malheim discuss whether or not women, who are very discrepant from the women shown in the media, respond to that threat by considering aspects of the self which are not related to physical appearance as being more important after exposure to those images. The research shows that they do, indeed, affirm themselves based on internal characteristics after viewing images which threaten the value they place on their appearances.
David, P., Boyne , N., & German, T. (2009). Thinness portrayals of fashion models: Perceived body dissatisfaction in self and others. Visual Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 67-78. doi:10.1080/15551390902803812
This article is similar to the first articles I mention here. Subjects are exposed to different photographs of models and then their body satisfaction level is examined. The interesting part of this article is that it looks at how viewing the photographs affected the way women perceived other women’s bodies. Viewing thin models made women view other women as less physically attractive.
Holmstrom, A. J. (2004). The effects of the media on body image: A meta-analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(2), 196-217. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=15961572&site=ehost-live
In this article, Holmstrom provides evidence that the media’s depiction of thin women as having the ideal body type does not cause (or at least only causes very little) body dissatisfaction in women. Her research also shows that depictions of over-weight women in the media increases body satisfaction in audiences.
Jerslev, A. (2006). The mediated body. NORDICOM Review, 27(2), 133-151. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=23814797&site=ehost-live
This article is really interesting. Jerslev basically did case studies of television programming which she claims causes viewers to view the idea of a body as something which is meant to be transformed and modified. She seems to avoid examining whether or not this is healthy or unhealthy for women’s attitudes towards themselves, and instead simply explains that this phenomenon is occurring and how these television programs create those ideas.
Smeesters, D., & Mandel, N. (2006). Positive and negative media image effects on the self. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 576-582. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=20373888&site=ehost-live
Smeesters and Mandel, in this article, set out to explain whether or not exposure to thin or heavy media images will have positive or negative effects on audience’s body image. They found that it depends on how heavy or thin the model is, and the way the body image is measured. Participants were 84 females. It was found that the more extreme the condition of the body of the model, the more impact was evident in the body of those 84 females.
Sohn, S. H. (2009). Body image: Impacts of media channels on men's and women's social comparison process, and testing of involvement measurement. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(1), 19-35. doi:10.1080/15456870802505670
This study was done to determine the differences between the body dissatisfaction of men or women caused by socially comparison to television programming and magazines. Sohn found that men found fewer differences between themselves and the men portrayed on television, where women felt they did not compare to the women in the programming. The interesting part of this was that the article suggests this is likely because there is less variety in the physical appearances of women on television as opposed to men...whose characters show more variety in appearance. Magazines caused a nearly equivalent comparison levels in both men and women.
Tiggemann, M., & Amy Slater, A. (2004). Thin ideals in music television: A source of social comparison and body dissatisfaction. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35(1), 48-58. doi:10.1002/eat.10214
This article was interesting because it focused specifically on music television. Its claim is that, like the title suggests, music television is a form of media which causes viewers to compare themselves to the individuals depicted in the programming. The result of the study was evidence that viewing music television which depicted thin women increased body dissatisfaction in female audience members.
Watson, R., & Vaughn, L. M. (2006). Limiting the effects of the media on body image: Does the length of a media literacy intervention make a difference? Eating Disorders, 14(5), 385-400. doi:10.1080/10640260600952530
This article positions itself uniquely in this discussion. Watson and Vaughn consider whether or not educating women about the pressures put on them by the media has the potential to reverse the negative effects the media can hypothetically have on a woman’s body image. The results are that education can decrease body dissatisfaction.
That's all...
We hate her, but we want to be her. What?
Based on my experiences with the media, there has been a very clearly defined stock character in films and television of The Popular Girl. She has many aliases: The Bitch, The Snob, The Maneater, The Hot Chick, The Evil One, The Queen, The Manipulator, The Seductress, The Fake One, The It Girl, etc.
Because this girl is almost always cast as the "bad guy" in the media, we (or maybe it's just me) generally identify more with her nemesis The Good Girl (The Girl Next Door, The Geek, The Plain Jane, The Virgin, etc.). We're almost always supposed to root for this girl instead of The Popular Girl. And, in the end, she almost always wins.
This is what's interesting, though: I have a girlfriend who told me recently that she wants to be just like Regina George. Regina George is The Popular Girl in the movie Mean Girls. As the title implies, she is mean. She is the leader of the popular girl group. She is beautiful. She is powerful. She is evil. Katy (The Good Girl) is smart and kind and cultured and cool. She ends up trying to be like Regina, but then learns the oh so important message that being kind to other people is more important than being cool, and looking good on the inside is better than looking good on the outside. Regina goes down in flames. Really original plot line.
So why does my girlfriend want to be like Regina??? She is clearly painted as the "bad guy." She loses in the end. The Good Girl gets the guy, etc. I don't get it. I didn't ask her why. I know. I should've. But instead I'll just have to guess...
I think the reason girls want to be like these girls we hate, is because even though we know all about how looks and popularity shouldn't be that important and being a good person should...blah blah blah.... we're still constantly told about this in ways that contradict that message. Even in Mean Girls. Yeah The Good Girl wins in the end, but up until then The Popular Girl is basically worshipped. Think about the movie Grease. In order to get the guy in the end, Sandy has to throw out all her morals and pick up smoking...and we LOVE her for it! Why? Because now suddenly she's everything we preach against, but that makes her so much hotter. Really cool girls. Great role model.
Terrible. It's terrible. We ladies need to stop being so confused, and so inconsistent! And I'm sure a similar phenomena occurs with men trying to be The Badass. The media glorifies these villain characters and depicts them as the most unattainable, and therefore desirable, types of people to be. I just see all these young girls trying to look sexy when they're 12, and worrying about their waistlines even earlier, and I hate it. As a society, we're sending them the wrong message. The media very consistently tells young, impressionable individuals that bad is good. And maybe my understanding of the words is a little off, but that just doesn't seem to make sense.
That's all...
Because this girl is almost always cast as the "bad guy" in the media, we (or maybe it's just me) generally identify more with her nemesis The Good Girl (The Girl Next Door, The Geek, The Plain Jane, The Virgin, etc.). We're almost always supposed to root for this girl instead of The Popular Girl. And, in the end, she almost always wins.
This is what's interesting, though: I have a girlfriend who told me recently that she wants to be just like Regina George. Regina George is The Popular Girl in the movie Mean Girls. As the title implies, she is mean. She is the leader of the popular girl group. She is beautiful. She is powerful. She is evil. Katy (The Good Girl) is smart and kind and cultured and cool. She ends up trying to be like Regina, but then learns the oh so important message that being kind to other people is more important than being cool, and looking good on the inside is better than looking good on the outside. Regina goes down in flames. Really original plot line.
So why does my girlfriend want to be like Regina??? She is clearly painted as the "bad guy." She loses in the end. The Good Girl gets the guy, etc. I don't get it. I didn't ask her why. I know. I should've. But instead I'll just have to guess...
I think the reason girls want to be like these girls we hate, is because even though we know all about how looks and popularity shouldn't be that important and being a good person should...blah blah blah.... we're still constantly told about this in ways that contradict that message. Even in Mean Girls. Yeah The Good Girl wins in the end, but up until then The Popular Girl is basically worshipped. Think about the movie Grease. In order to get the guy in the end, Sandy has to throw out all her morals and pick up smoking...and we LOVE her for it! Why? Because now suddenly she's everything we preach against, but that makes her so much hotter. Really cool girls. Great role model.
Terrible. It's terrible. We ladies need to stop being so confused, and so inconsistent! And I'm sure a similar phenomena occurs with men trying to be The Badass. The media glorifies these villain characters and depicts them as the most unattainable, and therefore desirable, types of people to be. I just see all these young girls trying to look sexy when they're 12, and worrying about their waistlines even earlier, and I hate it. As a society, we're sending them the wrong message. The media very consistently tells young, impressionable individuals that bad is good. And maybe my understanding of the words is a little off, but that just doesn't seem to make sense.
That's all...
Back Off Media
So there are apparently are a bunch of television shows about "real" housewives??? My understanding is that these shows are the realty TV version of Desperate Housewives. Since our class just finished its discussion on television, I felt these programs would make a fitting topic for my blog!
One of these shows is on right now. It's in Atlanta...for the those of you who watch and want to know what I'm referencing. Apparently there are also versions for Orange County, New York, New Jersey, D.C., and Beverly Hills. Wow. After walking in on one of these shows the other day, I decided to discuss the messages that were being sent to me, the viewer.
One of the main focuses of the episode was the plastic surgery one the housewives had gotten. She got a nose job and some kind of breast surgery. The most interesting part of the situation was the way the other housewives reacted. When the son of the woman who got the surgery saw her in her bandages, he seemed upset. She said she just wanted to make parts of her look better. He said those parts weren't really hers anymore after surgery, though. When the other housewives were interviewed about his reaction, they were sort of upset with him. They said he should support her decision, and that they're her body parts so she should be able to do whatever she wants.
There is a lot of controversy over plastic surgery. If there wasn't, it wouldn't be so common to keep it a secret. If there wasn't controversy over plastic surgery there wouldn't be headline after headline on celebrity gossip magazines reading "Did she or didn't she?" I happen to be pretty indifferent. I can't see myself ever getting it, but to each his or her own. So don't mistake what I say next to be an anti-plastic surgery rant. That's not my intention whatsoever.
Then point I'd like to make is simply this: there is version upon version of this show, each of them with viewer upon viewer upon viewer. That means all those people are constantly being exposed to media that won't allow them to stop thinking about appearances. These shows are constantly about appearances. Looks are constantly the focus. The body is presented as something that should be molded and modified to fit someone else's idea of perfect. Even when the women on these shows are talking about how great they look, they're still talking about how they look. And the reason I got so worked up, is that this is one of those shows that doesn't overtly say it's about looks, but it is. Think of all the people who watch things like What Not to Wear or America's Next Top Model. Everybody Loves Raymond was on at Applebee's last night, and even that whole episode was about whether or not Ray's wife should get a boob job.
I think media audiences just need a break. I seriously think a big part of why so many people are so unhappy with the way they look is that they are constantly, constantly, constantly told to think about their physical appearance. Whether they're told to love it, change it, embrace it, hate it, etc., they should be able to go through a day without being reminded to think about how they look. The Physical Appearance is like a media created God that it forces everyone to worship by not allowing them to look away. Maybe I'm being dramatic, but I for one would love to open up the Internet or turn on the TV without being bombarded with these messages.
Back off media. Just let me be me.
That's all...
One of these shows is on right now. It's in Atlanta...for the those of you who watch and want to know what I'm referencing. Apparently there are also versions for Orange County, New York, New Jersey, D.C., and Beverly Hills. Wow. After walking in on one of these shows the other day, I decided to discuss the messages that were being sent to me, the viewer.
One of the main focuses of the episode was the plastic surgery one the housewives had gotten. She got a nose job and some kind of breast surgery. The most interesting part of the situation was the way the other housewives reacted. When the son of the woman who got the surgery saw her in her bandages, he seemed upset. She said she just wanted to make parts of her look better. He said those parts weren't really hers anymore after surgery, though. When the other housewives were interviewed about his reaction, they were sort of upset with him. They said he should support her decision, and that they're her body parts so she should be able to do whatever she wants.
There is a lot of controversy over plastic surgery. If there wasn't, it wouldn't be so common to keep it a secret. If there wasn't controversy over plastic surgery there wouldn't be headline after headline on celebrity gossip magazines reading "Did she or didn't she?" I happen to be pretty indifferent. I can't see myself ever getting it, but to each his or her own. So don't mistake what I say next to be an anti-plastic surgery rant. That's not my intention whatsoever.
Then point I'd like to make is simply this: there is version upon version of this show, each of them with viewer upon viewer upon viewer. That means all those people are constantly being exposed to media that won't allow them to stop thinking about appearances. These shows are constantly about appearances. Looks are constantly the focus. The body is presented as something that should be molded and modified to fit someone else's idea of perfect. Even when the women on these shows are talking about how great they look, they're still talking about how they look. And the reason I got so worked up, is that this is one of those shows that doesn't overtly say it's about looks, but it is. Think of all the people who watch things like What Not to Wear or America's Next Top Model. Everybody Loves Raymond was on at Applebee's last night, and even that whole episode was about whether or not Ray's wife should get a boob job.
I think media audiences just need a break. I seriously think a big part of why so many people are so unhappy with the way they look is that they are constantly, constantly, constantly told to think about their physical appearance. Whether they're told to love it, change it, embrace it, hate it, etc., they should be able to go through a day without being reminded to think about how they look. The Physical Appearance is like a media created God that it forces everyone to worship by not allowing them to look away. Maybe I'm being dramatic, but I for one would love to open up the Internet or turn on the TV without being bombarded with these messages.
Back off media. Just let me be me.
That's all...
Monday
TV Timeout
No TV for 72 hours! So I have to say...this assignment probably wasn't as life altering for me as it was for others in our class (cou-Jasmine-gh). I hardly ever watch any TV. Once in a while I'll catch up with a show online. Even more rare are the times when I sit down in front of the television in our living room. I pretty much only watch TV socially. I'll go to a friend's place to watch the game, for example. There weren't any gatherings during our TV famine, though, so I can honestly say I didn't have to make any lifestyle adjustments. I get my news online. I get my entertainment from other sources (books, exercise, human interaction, etc.). I can't think of a single thing that I ever try to find out and turn to the TV in order to do so. I have the Internet...and it is much more convenient to me. Not only does it have more information, but you ,at very least, seem to have so much more control over what information you access at what time.
The hardest part for me was avoiding TVs in public places. We have them on every wall at the restaurant where I work, and sometimes I would catch myself glancing to, say, see the score. In other words, I don't usually voluntarily turn on the tube, but when it's on in the vicinity it's hard not to give it any of my attention. Not only was it difficult at times to physically stay away from the TV, but it's also difficult to keep it out of conversation. I was paying extra attention to its prevalence in my life, and I realized that people don't just watch TV a lot, but they talk about it for what seems like the rest of the time! It's crazy how much it infiltrates our thoughts; TV must be pretty powerful.
Because I don't usually watch TV, I did not find myself needing to replace it with a different medium. I go to school full time and work two jobs, so I would hardly have time to watch it if I wanted to. I get my news online. I get my entertainment from other sources (books, exercise, human interaction, etc.). I can't think of a single thing that I've ever tried to find out and turned to the TV in order to do so. I have the Internet...and it is much more convenient to me. Not only does it have more information, but you ,at very least, seem to have so much more control over what information you access at what time. There are so many things on TV that I don't want to see, that it doesn't usually seem worth my time to filter through.
That's all...
The hardest part for me was avoiding TVs in public places. We have them on every wall at the restaurant where I work, and sometimes I would catch myself glancing to, say, see the score. In other words, I don't usually voluntarily turn on the tube, but when it's on in the vicinity it's hard not to give it any of my attention. Not only was it difficult at times to physically stay away from the TV, but it's also difficult to keep it out of conversation. I was paying extra attention to its prevalence in my life, and I realized that people don't just watch TV a lot, but they talk about it for what seems like the rest of the time! It's crazy how much it infiltrates our thoughts; TV must be pretty powerful.
Because I don't usually watch TV, I did not find myself needing to replace it with a different medium. I go to school full time and work two jobs, so I would hardly have time to watch it if I wanted to. I get my news online. I get my entertainment from other sources (books, exercise, human interaction, etc.). I can't think of a single thing that I've ever tried to find out and turned to the TV in order to do so. I have the Internet...and it is much more convenient to me. Not only does it have more information, but you ,at very least, seem to have so much more control over what information you access at what time. There are so many things on TV that I don't want to see, that it doesn't usually seem worth my time to filter through.
That's all...
Friday
Curves, Curves, Curves!
I just got back from spending a few days in San Francisco...home of Levi's corporate headquarters. The whole city seems to love Levi bluejeans. Their latest line of jeans (which, if you read any of the same magazines as I do, you've probably seen advertised) is "Curve ID." From what I gather off their website (levi.com), the point of the line is that jeans should not only fit you size, but also your shape. The categories are Slight Curve, Demi Curve, and Bold Curve (I added the italics, underline, and bold just for fun...don't mind me). In order to figure out which will fit your body best, there is a quiz you can take. After taking it, I think your "Curve ID" is based on how you're proportioned from waist to thigh. Each of those categories for shape can then be sorted through by selecting you size and style.
To my knowledge, Levi is the first brand to design and market their jeans this way. They're basically saying that three girls could all wear size 29, but since they'd all be built and proportioned differently, one pair of size 29 jeans isn't going to look as flattering on each of them....and they're saying that that's okay.
Two big reasons why I like this campaign:
1.) It tells young women that there isn't one body-type that is better than another. It's sending the message that all shapes should be accommodated by jeans, and no one should have to wear the wrong size in order to fix problems with jeans' shape. No matter what your body looks like you can wear Levi jeans and look good in them...because there is no cookie-cutter shape defines attractive.
2.) It takes the emphasis off of size. Since they're not naming a superior shape, this is a great way for women to stop analyzing the number on the tag of their jeans. There is this terrible phenomenon I've heard countless times in dressing rooms: girl puts jeans on, jeans are too tight, mom tells girl to try a bigger size, girl gets upset that her mom is telling her she's bigger. It's absurd. We all know those girls who wear clothes that are too small (or too big for that matter)...it's because they think that the size they wear is deciding factor on whether or not they look good! This "Curve ID" stuff is a nice way to tell young women to think about what's flattering and comfortable for the way they are built instead of the number they wear.
This is, of course, all in theory. Maybe their jeans suck and the ones they tell me I should wear will look awful. But I like what they're trying to do.
That's all...
To my knowledge, Levi is the first brand to design and market their jeans this way. They're basically saying that three girls could all wear size 29, but since they'd all be built and proportioned differently, one pair of size 29 jeans isn't going to look as flattering on each of them....and they're saying that that's okay.
Two big reasons why I like this campaign:
1.) It tells young women that there isn't one body-type that is better than another. It's sending the message that all shapes should be accommodated by jeans, and no one should have to wear the wrong size in order to fix problems with jeans' shape. No matter what your body looks like you can wear Levi jeans and look good in them...because there is no cookie-cutter shape defines attractive.
2.) It takes the emphasis off of size. Since they're not naming a superior shape, this is a great way for women to stop analyzing the number on the tag of their jeans. There is this terrible phenomenon I've heard countless times in dressing rooms: girl puts jeans on, jeans are too tight, mom tells girl to try a bigger size, girl gets upset that her mom is telling her she's bigger. It's absurd. We all know those girls who wear clothes that are too small (or too big for that matter)...it's because they think that the size they wear is deciding factor on whether or not they look good! This "Curve ID" stuff is a nice way to tell young women to think about what's flattering and comfortable for the way they are built instead of the number they wear.
This is, of course, all in theory. Maybe their jeans suck and the ones they tell me I should wear will look awful. But I like what they're trying to do.
That's all...
King of Cool: Mr. Lupe Fiasco
One rapper that I've really grown to appreciate is Lupe Fiasco. Please read the lyrics to his song "The Cool" via the following link before you keep reading:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/lupefiasco/thecool.html
Now I don't know the artist personally, so I can't tell you all what the lines of the song mean or what his intentions were with them...but I can tell you the way I interpret them. I think the song is a critical analysis of what it can mean to try to be cool. Getting involved with violence and drugs and the so-called "street life" can eventually lead to your death. He seems to be challenging his fans by asking them if it's worth it. He's asking if being cool is worth it. Fiasco has another song called "Dumb it Down," in which he seems to be fighting against the idea that being smart isn't cool. He's taking the messages that especially young, black men are being sent by their other favorite rappers and trying to dispel them. At least that's what I think. And it just so happens that I think he's cool for doing that. Maybe he could help me write my blog and talk about how the media brainwashes us into thinking that whatever they tell us to be is what we should be but sometimes that's really bad for us. It's good to see people with influence trying to teach their audience to protect their minds from the ideas they're being pounded with.
I guess one criticism would be, though, that he's part of the media. And he's trying to get people to believe his message...it's just a different one. And I guess he could just be saying that stuff to sell records. And maybe I've got his whole message wrong.
Just something to think about.
That's all...
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/lupefiasco/thecool.html
Now I don't know the artist personally, so I can't tell you all what the lines of the song mean or what his intentions were with them...but I can tell you the way I interpret them. I think the song is a critical analysis of what it can mean to try to be cool. Getting involved with violence and drugs and the so-called "street life" can eventually lead to your death. He seems to be challenging his fans by asking them if it's worth it. He's asking if being cool is worth it. Fiasco has another song called "Dumb it Down," in which he seems to be fighting against the idea that being smart isn't cool. He's taking the messages that especially young, black men are being sent by their other favorite rappers and trying to dispel them. At least that's what I think. And it just so happens that I think he's cool for doing that. Maybe he could help me write my blog and talk about how the media brainwashes us into thinking that whatever they tell us to be is what we should be but sometimes that's really bad for us. It's good to see people with influence trying to teach their audience to protect their minds from the ideas they're being pounded with.
I guess one criticism would be, though, that he's part of the media. And he's trying to get people to believe his message...it's just a different one. And I guess he could just be saying that stuff to sell records. And maybe I've got his whole message wrong.
Just something to think about.
That's all...
Which pair fixes you?
I am known amongst my friends to be the one who is always going on and on about how the media perpetuates the poor body image of perfectly healthy young women. It's possibly my favorite thing to talk about; it makes me mad. This year's October issue of Glamour Magazine got me started on exactly one of those rants. It features an article on finding pants that are flattering for your body shape. It claims to gives pants-buying advice for everyone (female, at least).
Here is the online version of the article - http://www.glamour.com/fashion/2010/09/how-to-find-the-best-pants-for-your-body-shape#slide=1
I have two problems with this article:
1.) As you click through the slides you will notice that the body shapes included are: plus-size, boy-shaped, tall, and petite. That's it. Apparently there are no other body shapes...only four. Now, I understand that it would be next to impossible to come up with an exhaustive list of all the body shapes in the world. Not only that, but imagine all the space in the magazine that would take up. Still, something about the format needs to change. For starters, I wouldn't describe myself as any of those four. I'm not plus size; I'm not tall; I'm too curvy to be considered boy-shaped or petite. So how do I know which pants will flatter me? In the section on pants for boy-shaped women (which is, by the way, a use of terminology which could have me ranting for days) it's recommended that you get pants which are narrower at the waist than in the leg. In the section on pants for petite women it's recommended that you wear super-skinny styles. So what is a petite, boy-shaped (wow I hate that term) woman supposed to do? What about women who are pear-shaped, etc.? I'm not mad at the magazine...I feel like they're trying to be inclusive and acknowledge that a lot of variety exists in the bodies of women. I just don't think the possible consequences are being considered.
Not every girl who doesn't fit into one of these categories is going to get all ranty (new word?) and mad. Some of them are going to take that to heart. What if I decided that there was something wrong with my body because it doesn't look like any of the options listed? One thing Glamour could possibly consider would be changing the article to being about the pants instead of the bodies. Tell me what wide-leg pants do to the line of my figure, and I'll decide if I want that to happen. Tell me that dark jeans are slimming and I'll decide if I want to be slimmed. This way they could avoid categorizing women altogether.
2.) Here's the main reason I have a problem with these kinds of articles, though. They're implying that there is something wrong with some of these body types. They're offering ways to "fix" the way women are...when in reality all body types can be beautiful and there's no such thing as one definition of beauty. In the section on pants for plus-size women, the pants are supposed to "slim" and make you look "long and lean" and "sleek." Well what if not everyone wants to look long and lean? Why should a petite girl be trying to "lend the illusion of more height?" What's wrong with being short? Is it ugly to be short? No. It's not. They're sending the message that your goal in getting dressed should be to try to look different than you do. Silly.
There are definitely women out there who want to look taller, thinner, curvier, etc. But maybe it's articles like this that make them think that way. Maybe if they hadn't already read a million times how to look thinner, they wouldn't feel so much pressure to do so. These articles are perpetuating this idea that there is one best way to look. But that's not up to Glamour to dictate.
Absolutely no one can decide for you what you want to be; the media should stop trying.
That's all...
Here is the online version of the article - http://www.glamour.com/fashion/2010/09/how-to-find-the-best-pants-for-your-body-shape#slide=1
I have two problems with this article:
1.) As you click through the slides you will notice that the body shapes included are: plus-size, boy-shaped, tall, and petite. That's it. Apparently there are no other body shapes...only four. Now, I understand that it would be next to impossible to come up with an exhaustive list of all the body shapes in the world. Not only that, but imagine all the space in the magazine that would take up. Still, something about the format needs to change. For starters, I wouldn't describe myself as any of those four. I'm not plus size; I'm not tall; I'm too curvy to be considered boy-shaped or petite. So how do I know which pants will flatter me? In the section on pants for boy-shaped women (which is, by the way, a use of terminology which could have me ranting for days) it's recommended that you get pants which are narrower at the waist than in the leg. In the section on pants for petite women it's recommended that you wear super-skinny styles. So what is a petite, boy-shaped (wow I hate that term) woman supposed to do? What about women who are pear-shaped, etc.? I'm not mad at the magazine...I feel like they're trying to be inclusive and acknowledge that a lot of variety exists in the bodies of women. I just don't think the possible consequences are being considered.
Not every girl who doesn't fit into one of these categories is going to get all ranty (new word?) and mad. Some of them are going to take that to heart. What if I decided that there was something wrong with my body because it doesn't look like any of the options listed? One thing Glamour could possibly consider would be changing the article to being about the pants instead of the bodies. Tell me what wide-leg pants do to the line of my figure, and I'll decide if I want that to happen. Tell me that dark jeans are slimming and I'll decide if I want to be slimmed. This way they could avoid categorizing women altogether.
2.) Here's the main reason I have a problem with these kinds of articles, though. They're implying that there is something wrong with some of these body types. They're offering ways to "fix" the way women are...when in reality all body types can be beautiful and there's no such thing as one definition of beauty. In the section on pants for plus-size women, the pants are supposed to "slim" and make you look "long and lean" and "sleek." Well what if not everyone wants to look long and lean? Why should a petite girl be trying to "lend the illusion of more height?" What's wrong with being short? Is it ugly to be short? No. It's not. They're sending the message that your goal in getting dressed should be to try to look different than you do. Silly.
There are definitely women out there who want to look taller, thinner, curvier, etc. But maybe it's articles like this that make them think that way. Maybe if they hadn't already read a million times how to look thinner, they wouldn't feel so much pressure to do so. These articles are perpetuating this idea that there is one best way to look. But that's not up to Glamour to dictate.
Absolutely no one can decide for you what you want to be; the media should stop trying.
That's all...
Sunday
From Giggles to Tears: "What's wrong with MY body?"
Maxim Magazine’s Hot 100 (2010) was all the buzz in my house this week. I came home from work one evening to find my roommates nearly yelling with (not at) each other about how wrong all the men in the world are about what a “hot” woman looks like. It’s basically a list of the 100 most beautiful women in the media… according to Maxim. My roommates and I proceeded to pull up the list online and spend a good hour looking at all the woman, from number 100 through number 27, and deciding if we understood why she made it. Lots of giggling, yelling, and junk food were involved.
It was at number 27, though, that the fun stopped and one of my roommates ended up in tears. “Is that Hillary Duff!?” she asked. We told her it was and she instantly started to cry. She went on to explain how she didn’t understand why Duff was “so skinny now.” We tried explaining that it’s probably just because she’s all grown up and out of her baby fat. My roommate was not happy with this answer. “Does she want all her young fans to think that they have to get skinny to be beautiful?” “Do I really have to look like that for guys to want me?” “What’s wrong with my body?” “Why don’t any of these women have curves?” “Aren’t curves supposed to be a good thing?” The questions and tears seemed like they’d never end.
This was, first and foremost, a very sad thing to see. Aside from feeling terrible for my roommate, though, it was fascinating. This girl completely lost control over her emotions and good sense because of one (probably photo-edited) picture. Granted, there is likely some insecurity already at play here, but still that picture clearly holds a lot of power. It’s shocking how much time we spent talking about and looking at that list. Obviously one magazine can’t speak for every man. Is it reader voted? Does a panel of judges decide? Maybe some celebrities pay Maxim to appear higher on the list. Who knows? Did any of us take the time to find out? No. Would finding out the way in which the list was generated have an impact on our reaction to it? I don’t know…but I would imagine it might. Maybe we give these messages (like the ones perceived to have been sent by this list) power by ignoring the fact that the sender doesn’t have to have the final say. Maybe if we would more often acknowledge that they are sending messages and not facts, we would each of us have more power in deciding which ones we want to go along with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)