Who’s to blame for super-skinny models?

16th June 2009

Who’s to blame for super-skinny models?

posted in Personal |

Vogue covers -- skinny models

The same prominent fashion editor who helped popularize heroin chic is now calling out top fashion designers for perpetuating a dangerous, unhealthy and unachievable trend of size-zero models.

Vogue magazine editor Alexandra Shulman sent letters “not intended for publication” but seen by and reported on by The UK’s Times to Karl Lagerfeld, John Galliano and fellow designers at Prada, Versace, Yves Saint Laurent, Balen- ciaga and other top fashion houses accusing them of forcing magazines to hire models with “jutting bones and no breasts or hips” by supplying them with “minuscule” garments that have become “substantially smaller” for their photoshoots. The garments are typically sent to magazines six months before they appear in shops and editors have no choice but to hire models that fit the clothes or risk failing to cover the latest collections from leading designers, explained Shulman. “We have now reached the point where many of the sample sizes don’t comfortably fit even the established star models,” she noted in her letter, adding that Vogue is now frequently “retouching” photographs to make models look larger.

Shulman’s “intervention” is being hailed as a “turning point” in the debate about super-skinny models sparked by the deaths of three models from complications related to malnutrition and anorexia (a fourth model, Hila Elmalich, died a year later without much ado). Baroness Kingsmill, who headed the 2007 Model Health Inquiry on behalf of the British Fashion Council, said the stand taken by Shulman was “an encouraging sign” from one of the industry’s “leading lights.” The supermodel Erin O’Connor described the stand by the editor of Britain’s most prominent fashion magazine as “a huge breakthrough.” Some designers, however, have responded to Shulman’s shuffling of the blame, insisting that the rest of the fashion industry is as culpable as the designers. Designer Kinder Aggugini called the size-zero trend a “vicious cycle” perpetuated by the entire fashion industry. “If tomorrow all magazines, model agencies and stylists used bigger girls, then the designers would too,” he said.

Shulman’s call is a long delayed and much needed one, but don’t be swayed by its seemingly altruism. Vogue dedicated its current issue to women and body image insecurities, so the international publicity Shulman’s supposedly “private” letter is now garnering is certainly fiscally strategic for the British magazine. And while relaxed model sizes would be beneficial for the women (and increasingly, men) who work in the business, regulating hyper-thin models is mostly a band-aid, feel-good, superficial approach to addressing more serious public health issues. Federal initiatives that reward companies for promoting thinness wellness, corporate interests that give rise to misleading studies about the health risks of obesity, a lack of affordable and stylish plus-size clothing options, and discrimination in employment and health care amongst others all do more to damage our national health and increase rates of eating disorders than the hordes of size-zero models strutting down the catwalk.

Yes, it would be fantastic if fashion and advertising images included a greater diversity of body sizes and shapes (and ethnicities) beyond a token few, but this won’t necessarily loosen in any significant way the draconian standards of beauty tethering women. Keep in mind that advertising doesn’t merely sell a product, it sells an image, a lifestyle, a vision; it achieves this by lowering our self-esteem and presenting products as solutions to problems in need of fixing. Dove didn’t use its bevy of full-figured “real women” posing playfully in bras and boyshorts in its ads for soaps, bodywashes or shampoos/conditioners. No, it used them in its ads for cellulite cream, because as even it admitted in one advertisement, “Firming the thighs of a size 2 supermodel is no challenge.”

And it’s not only those models in Vogue’s fashion spreads that sport concave tummies and xylophones of vertebrae. Commercial models pictured in the magazine’s glossy advertisement pages are also subjected to stringent and exact physical requirements that don’t fall within a Grand Canyon’s leap of mirroring the average American woman’s proportions. So, why doesn’t Shulman also call out advertisers who often use the same size models as the fashion designers? Because, like most media outlets, Vogue depends on these advertising dollars for the great bulk of its profits and corporate viability. The current recession has diminished those collective dollars — this is, in fact, at the very heart of the current newspocalypse — leading some magazines to become so desperate as to covertly place advertising on their covers in efforts to hook and retain scant advertising budgets. In this sense, Vogue is hardly an innocent bystander in the super-skinny model wars and just as complicit in perpetuating the same trends it now criticizes . In a January 2005 interview with The Scotsman, Shulman said:

I really wish that models were a bit bigger because then I wouldn’t have to deal with this the whole time. There is pressure on them to stay thin, and I’m always talking to the designers about it, asking why they can’t just be a bit closer to a real woman’s physique in terms of their ideal, but they’re not going to do it. Clothes look better to all of our eyes on people who are thinner.

And that, folks, is the bottom line. Skinny models sell clothes. There are many among us, myself included, who would disagree with this and who want to see models who look more like ourselves, but there are many more who do agree with it. A modeling agency spokesperson quoted in a 2004 article published in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology said: “Statistics have repeatedly shown that if you stick a beautiful skinny girl on the cover of a magazine you sell more copies… at the end of the day, it is a business and the fact is that these models sell the products.”* A 2006 study by the University of Bath in England backed this up, with findings that (college-age) women are more inclined to buy products advertised by thin models (It should be noted that most of those women interviewed who preferred the thinner models also believed that weight can be controlled by simple diet and exercise). These findings were challenged last year by an Australian researcher, but the maxim that thinner models brings fatter profits continues to reign as Madison Avenue gospel.

Yet while fashion magazines certainly share in the blame, Shulman raises a legitimate point. Even Bust magazine, which is arguably one of the best feminist magazines in circulation, has said before that its near exclusion of plus-size women from its fashion spreads isn’t deliberate, but rather because it is a small-budget publication that has to use models who fit the (free and tiny) clothes sent by designers. And financial motivations aside, I do believe Shulman is sincere. The magazine drew criticism in the 1990s for popularizing the Kate Moss heroin chic look that has been accused of promoting unhealthy body images in girls and women and contributing to rising rates of eating disorders. Shulman glibly dismissed these concerns in a 1998 interview with PBS’s Frontline, claiming: “Not many people have actually said to me that they have looked at my magazine and decided to become anorexic.” But she has since become more sensitive to the issue in recent years, acknowledging in 2005 that anorexia is a “huge problem.” In fact, I gave kudos to Teen Vogue last April for removing what had devolved into a pro-ana/mia messageboard on its forums.

Shulman appears to understand firsthand just how damning body image insecurities can be for the self-esteems of girls and women. In an editorial written last month for The Daily Mail, she describes how her own parents — the late drama critic Milton Shulman and the writer Drusilla Beyfus — were “constantly critical of my size, endlessly trying to coerce me into slimming down” and how arguments with her father would end with him shouting, “you’ll never get a husband if you don’t lose weight.” The rest of the article is somewhat nauseating, assuming that “most women” still want a good man and babies, but some gems can be gleaned from the rubble. Shulman writes:

Look at some of the most celebrated beauties of the day: Jennifer Aniston and Cameron Diaz’s constant quests for a good man demonstrate that perfect bodies have most definitely not given them perfect lives. Madonna, despite her devotion to the treadmill, is in the throes of divorce; Sienna Miller has had more than her share of romantic ups and downs.

The reality is that men are not the body fascists of women’s imagination, and many of them are far less judgmental on the subject of women’s appearance than we are – sadly, that doesn’t lessen the demands we make upon ourselves.

The fact that images of super-skinny models dominate in magazines written by (mostly) women for women indicates that consumers — women — who buy into these images are also duplicitous in perpetuating the trend. Despite all the jocks in high school who would scream out “fat whale” in the hallways and the unsolicited and sexually-degrading catcalls trilled by men of all ages, I’ve always felt the most scathing criticism for my weight to come from other women. This is not to say that women bear the burden for their own oppression, but that we’ve been conditioned to view one another with a wary eye; we’re taught that our “value” as women is relative to our comparisons of beauty in one another. This divide-and-conquer strategy is precisely why I do not use the terms “real women” to describe women who are not rail thin and why I try to bite my tongue and refrain from smacking thin women who complain about how “fat” they are. The nature of the beauty beast is to pit women against one another by rewarding those who best succeed in achieving an aesthetic ideal and castigating those who can’t or won’t. The supreme irony is that while the standards constantly shift and become higher and harsher so that no woman can ever be “thin enough” or “pretty enough” or “good enough” it doesn’t stop so many women from trying nonetheless.

So, who’s to blame for emaciated models? Fashion moguls who see women as clothes hanger commodities? Magazines that place profits before principles? Consumers who tacitly promote such images with their wallets? Short answer: We all are. And until we — and I’m talking mostly women, but also men — reform altogether our definitions of what constitutes “beautiful” and its relative importance in our lives, no amount of fuller-figured models will ever see the eradication of the tyrannical beauty standards that continue to bind women. As Naomi Wolf wrote, “You do not win by struggling to the top of a caste system, you win by refusing to be trapped within one at all.”**

* Halliwell, Emma. “Does Size Matter? The Impact of Model’s Body Size on Women’s Body-Focused Anxiety and Advertising Effectiveness.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23.1 (2004:pp. 104-120), 105.

** Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, pg. 290.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 at 3:37 pm and is filed under Personal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On June 16th, 2009, Retouching photos to make models look larger? — The Curvy Life said:

[...] to Rachel at The-F-Word.org for this great article on the issue of “too thin” models in high fashion. She presents [...]

posted on June 16th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

2 On June 16th, 2009, Tari said:

I don’t really have much to say; you said so much, so well! Damn, that was a good post.

posted on June 16th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

3 On June 16th, 2009, Amy said:

I was flipping through Elle or Marie Claire, one of those, and saw a model with her midriff exposed and I did not see hip bones. I actually stopped and stared at the ad because I was so effing surprised. Now I’m wondering if it’s been retouched in the other direction or if this model actually was, you know, kind of normal.

posted on June 16th, 2009 at 6:09 pm

4 On June 16th, 2009, J said:

Thanks for the article, and for your blog overall; I’ve been reading it for a long time and finding it valuable, especially on the intersection of fat and eating disorders. I (fat) do not have an eating disorder, whereas my mother (thin) probably does, to the point that at times when I talk with her and she is withdrawn or extremely irritable, I wonder afterward if she was driven by hunger. I think she’s hungry a lot, and I grieve for her.

Oh, and I’m geeky enough to delurk to suggest a small correction from my home in London — the newspaper you linked to is not called the UK’s Times. It’s normally called the Times, and when it needs to be distinguished from other newspapers it’s called the Times of London. Wikipedia says it can be called the London Times as well, though I’ve never heard it called that.

posted on June 16th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

5 On June 16th, 2009, JupiterPluvius said:

The sample size used to be US 8 or US 10 in the 1970s. Size inflation means that those sample garments are probably US 4 or US 6 today.

Sample garments today are US 0 or US 2. This is actually a problem for museums that collect couture, because they have to order new, slimmer mannequins for the newer garments.

posted on June 16th, 2009 at 10:14 pm

6 On June 17th, 2009, Jera said:

This is probably one of the best pieces I’ve read on this matter.

I don’t know where to put the blame for super skinny models. Certainly not on the models themselves. I hate to be cynical but I have a feeling that this is a publicity stunt. The letters were “not meant for publication” yet mysteriously found their way to a major media outlet. Hmm. It’s great to be able to have a dialogue on the issue but its sad that voices like Rachel’s and others are the ones that won’t have a prominent place in the dialogue (as they should). This sort of reminds me of many months ago when France was introducing bills to criminalize ‘inciting anorexia” and some fashion people were were seeking to establish a minimum “healthy” BMI for models walking the runways (because a ‘healthy” BMI automatically means that someone isn’t engaging in eating disordered behaviors and obsessions, right?)
I hope I’m wrong to be cynical though.

posted on June 17th, 2009 at 12:46 am

7 On June 17th, 2009, Misty said:

This is a defeatist article, and much worse. It is my observation that many people who have formerly suffered from eating disorders have trouble really condemning the size-0 starvation aesthetic as it deserves to be condemned.

I don’t know why that’s the case. (Is it lingering attraction to this look? I hope not. But boy, it seems hard for them to come out and say, “My god, being concentration-camp thin is visually disgusting and repellent!”, which it is.)

But the fact is, to hedge and try to deflect attention, and to say, “Oh, it’s part of a bigger problem,” etc., etc., is pointless, and a recipe for irrelevance. Sure, it’s part of a bigger problem. Everything is part of a bigger problem. But THIS. IS. A. PROBLEM. And it’s a serious one. Some women really are pushed into anorexia, or at the very least seriously unhealthy starvation, because of these images.

So let’s try to focus and solve this problem, instead of just lamenting that everything else is messed up too.

And it’s just unbelievable to see this site buying into the nonsense that only skinny models sell. Oh, really? And where are the alternatives? Where are the dozens of other Vogue-quality magazines on the magazine racks selling top-quality clothes to compete with them? Where is ONE? Most plus-size magazines have been a joke and an embarrassment. Even MODE, the best of a bad lot, suffered from poorer-quality clothes than its competition. And if it’s just one magazine against a host of waif-pushers, some women are going to feel like they’re in the margins just by reading it.

Here’s when you would be able to make the “skinny sells better” assertion: If there were a host of Vogues, and Elles, and Cosmos, etc. all exclusively featuring beautiful young plus-size models (all supremely facially beautiful), none of these magazines including a single diet ad or pro-weight-story, all of the magazines with clothes just as fashionable as those in the skin-and-bones magazines, all photographed just as well, etc.

THEN you would have a real selection, a real choice for women. THEN, if the skinny magazines were still preferred, THEN you could make a decision about which sells better.

Otherwise, this idea of “skinny selling better” is based on a few focus groups with a bunch of magazine readers who are already indoctrinated into the thin look. What kind of a result do you think those focus groups are going to reach? And what do the plus-size models in those comparisons look like? How were they photographed? Do we REALLY believe the reports about the results when these supposed focus groups are produced by people who have a vested interest in propagating the emaciated aesthetic? How naive can anyone be?

posted on June 17th, 2009 at 3:02 am

8 On June 17th, 2009, Jackie said:

I agree Misty. It’s pointless to suggest something sells better, when there isn’t a choice to be had in the first place.

posted on June 17th, 2009 at 7:37 am

9 On June 17th, 2009, Rachel said:

@Misty: I don’t think it defeatist at all and I am offended by the insinuation that somehow my views are disordered on the matter because I am eating disorder recovered. I am incredibly self-aware of the reasons for my disorder, which is why I was able to successfully recover largely on my own. Please note that I am also an expert on the subjects of women and beauty standards and have an advanced graduate degree in this area, as well as the fact that I am a professional, working journalist who has been trained in the art of distancing my personal feelings on a matter from my craft. This is my personal blog and not a newspaper, yes, but I can’t simply shut off my reporter switch when I write here, either.

Even if there existed quality plus-size magazines, any “focus groups” would still be skewered because we live in a CULTURE in which women are indoctrinated in the gospel of thinness. What good does it do women to have token plus-size magazines when their government, doctors, news outlets, friends and family and even strangers on the street all tell them that they’re fat, that their fatness is going to kill them, that it represents a national security and environmental risks of the grandest proportions, and that they should just diet and exercise more? You also forget that many of the Vogues, Cosmos, and Elles would not even exist if they did not accept advertising from diet moguls and other companies that advertise “problem” products. This is precisely one of the reasons why Bust remains a low-budget publication. Regulating model size is but a feel-good, bandaid approach that gives us the illusion of promoting health, when, in fact, there are many more pressing matters that affect the ways in which women and men view themselves and their bodies — matters that continue to go unaddressed as we fight amongst ourselves about what size models should be. And if you read the University of Bath study, for instance, it was conducted by a highly respected university and not a group with a vested interest in the fashion industry. Even the Australian researcher’s study, while finding that skinnier models do not sell necessarily, still asserted that more attractive and “average-weight” models were more effective in advertising. Another recent study out of Germany found that while children did not prefer underweight cartoon characters, they didn’t like cartoon characters who were overweight, either. I do not find these and other studies like them suspect because I understand that they are but a product of the culture in which we all live.

I’m all for setting minimum BMI standards for models but I promote these regulations more so as a labor issue for the models themselves. I think it is self-delusional at best to think that simply showing models with BMIs of at least 18 will significantly affect eating disorder rates in any meaningful way. If you actually talk (and listen) to people with eating disorders or who have recovered from one, you will find that Kate Moss envy factors very little, if at all, into the development of their disorders (mine included). Images in the media certainly affect eating disorder development, but the desire to be “beautiful” is just one of a great many symptoms. The fact that much of the strongest opposition to underweight models today comes from eating disorder awareness groups comprised of activists, many of whom have personally struggled with an eating disorder, suggests that those of us who have or have had eating disorders are, if anything, more sensitive to these issues and more vocal in our lobbying against them.

posted on June 17th, 2009 at 9:38 am

10 On June 17th, 2009, jimmy slaot said:

Well Thishere puppy dog is starting to get frustrated and a littel angy!Where the hell is hollywood? Why should I have to care? Who are thease people who think they can tell me what kind of woman I can love?Im a good looking man! Ill do what ever i want!I know that I dont need worry about anyone being easy!Some one is makeing my life hard whith no real reason!Im not going to marry a skinny woman. I keep getting the your you just like me cause Im easy, Its ok from time to time I
understand but Im getting older and ready to settel.
I shouldent have to prove my self evry time I want a date whith some one I want!Iv had both and I know what Im doing!Have what you like,I dont care but dont make problems for me! I just want someone I enjoy snggeling
and sleep with!Now perfectly good chicks are half crazy
with self imige things in their heads,No,not easy not really,their much harder as a matter of fact and its driving me crazy!

posted on June 17th, 2009 at 11:36 am

11 On June 17th, 2009, Rachel2 said:

Rachel, you bring up some very valid points, as usual. Our culture has a huge issue (no pun intended) with this, and it’s ridiculous. As one who is very intensely vulnerable to such images and fat-bashing by the mass media, I make a conscious decision to *NOT* buy Cosmo, Elle, etc. I *do* wish that there were magazines out there for normal-size women that weren’t just a cheap token of a much larger problem.

For a long time, I blamed the models. I don’t anymore. They are a product of their environment. There are choices to be made in that world, and being the vulnerable and impressionable young women that they are, companies and agencies will snap them up and break their souls in half before they can make those choices. That’s really sad, but a harsh and brazen reality of the advertising “Biz”.

Yeah, go ahead and promote a look that resembles prepubescent boys. While not a direct *cause* for an eating disorder, this sort of mentality is like loading the gun and waiting for the impressionable, insecure consumer to pull the trigger. Why would we care about the well-being of women (the impressionable consumer) anyway? They’re just there to fill their heads with fluff and BUY THINGS. That’s the MOST important thing of all, isn’t it? To make people buy things? Let’s play on emotionally vulnerable, insecurities to earn that buck.

Which leads to a bigger point that I will be addressing in my own blog at some point. Yes, the self-image / disordered mind – eating thing is spinning out of control into oblivion. Yes, it’s awful. It’s a train wreck in progress. There are some serious things that need to be worked on AS A CULTURE. But there is an underlying cause for this BS that is not immediately apparent, that needs to be addressed in a huge way. The soft, white underbelly of it all is something that Rachel brought up in her post: It’s about the sales. Consumerism at a whole is that derailing train that has not only destroyed our culture, but the very fabric of women and well-being as a whole in the US. We’ve gone into a tailspin over the past 20 years because of this capitalistic, consumerist bullshit. “Buy things! Buy them now!” Consumerist garbage being shoveled down our collective throats is the cause of much insecurity and heartache. When having to deflect this bull from ALL angles (billboards, magazines, TV, internet ADs, etc), it’s difficult to tune it all out. It takes practice, and a conscious effort to IGNORE the ten tons of trash being shot in your direction on a daily basis. If caught unprepared, a young and impressionable girl (or boy) will get caught in the crosswinds of it all and can be easily destroyed.

The Point: Making people feel insecure about themselves generates sales.
The Resulting Problem: A live and vicious breeding ground for doubt, insecurity, and a multitude of doorways into mental illness and/or lifelong issues. An increase in eating disorders. Also an increase in mental illness as a whole.

I struggle with many things in many different ways. Fortunately, I seem to have dodged the bullet on the full-blown eating disorder. Sure, I’ve experienced disordered eating and exercise patterns, but as a result of several other underlying issues. ED never became my vice. Self mutilation and other things, yes, but fortunately, I spared myself the agony of the full-blown eating disorder.

In order to survive in this bloated, extreme, consumerist culture, I’ve literally had to cut myself off from the magazines, TV, and other unhealthy pieces of the mass media machine. I have done this to preserve my own sanity, and protect myself. I am still lost in the crossfire most days, but I am more grounded than I otherwise would be. I have to keep myself OFF of the ED circuits because stepping in front of the gun doesn’t seem like a good idea. Sometimes, I can’t resist and I will go poke around anyway. I usually regret this and have to cut myself off and find solid ground again.

I found The F Word through MamaVISION, but I’ve had to leave MamaVISION because that is not the place for me. I keep myself cut off from a lot of TV. And I have to be especially careful with the “Expose” types of documentaries because there are a lot of triggering elements involved. I see it for what it is: ratings and money. I also see avoiding those things as a way to preserve my own mental health (what little of it I do have, anyway). I still have a hard time resisting the urge to seek out these documentary-type shows on various (and sensitive) parts of mental illness. It’s familiar territory, and sometimes it *does* help to know that I’m not alone. But, it’s playing with fire. The mass media machine is giving people like me lighter fluid to play with, and it takes a lot of effort not to be triggered by these things. All in the name of sales, ratings, and the money.

Argh. I’m going to live in a tree somewhere.

posted on June 17th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

12 On June 17th, 2009, Tiptoe said:

Rachel, excellent post. I think you bring up many valid arguments here. This post reminds me a lot of what Susan Bordo addressed in her talk awhile back. Consumerism is huge, and unfortunately underlies all the rest of the issues at hand.
If you don’t mind, I’d like to send her this post.

posted on June 17th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

13 On June 17th, 2009, Rachel said:

The Point: Making people feel insecure about themselves generates sales.
The Resulting Problem: A live and vicious breeding ground for doubt, insecurity, and a multitude of doorways into mental illness and/or lifelong issues.

Rachel@: Very well put. I agree that consumerism breeds consumerism. It’s a vicious circle that many people are unable to break out of. And I also avoid anti-feminist magazines and other influences as best as I can, but when you live in a culture itself that is disordered, it’s difficult to isolate oneself from these forces entirely. Still, simply reducing my exposure to unhealthy influences has been of great benefit to me and my mental wellbeing.

@TipToe: I don’t mind at all. I actually just read and reviewed her book Unbearable Weight for my last independent study and found myself nodding my head in agreement with every page. You have her contact info? Is it listed anywhere public?

posted on June 17th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

14 On June 17th, 2009, Rachel2 said:

@Rachel: Thank you! It is indeed very difficult to isolate oneself from these outside forces. Being bombarded constantly and consistently, we *will* hear the message, despite our efforts to ignore it. And yes, reducing my exposure to the unhealthy influences has proven to be a great benefit to me and my own mental wellness.

@Tiptoe: I’m sure you were talking to Rachel The Original, but if you feel there are any valid points in my reply that you’d like to pass along, you certainly may. In fact, I’ve blogged about it today at my own little Blog Operation: http://vocabularyvixen.wordpress.com. It’s basically the same thing I wrote in my reply, just edited slightly for better readability.

posted on June 17th, 2009 at 7:17 pm

15 On June 18th, 2009, Tiptoe said:

Rachel, yes, I have her contact info. though I will admit, it is really hard to get in touch with her. I’ll send her this post.

Rachel2, I’ll pass along your points as well.

posted on June 18th, 2009 at 12:30 am

16 On June 18th, 2009, Blimp said:

Emaciated models are people selected by the British Empire to “model” for us how the Empire wants us to behave: be idiots, starve and die! The Queen, her consort Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Al Gore and Tony Blair form the nucleus of the Malthusian genocide club. Their “environmentalism” is just a euphemism for eugenics and population reduction. President Obama and his wife are now members of that club. Besides cutting off our power supply with carbon cap-and-trade and hostility to nuclear power, they all blame American doctors and their “excessive” use of advanced technologies to diagnose and treat illness for driving health care costs “out of control”. In other words, in their view, there are too many of us people, we use too much power, we eat too much and we live too long!

The key to stopping the anorexic model phenomenon and discrimination against fat people is to recognize that the power of reason can, through an endless series of scientific, technological, moral and artistic breakthroughs, overcome all limits to growth, so the more people there are, and the longer they live, the merrier! Great scientists, great political leaders and great musicians and poets all have the same purpose: progress, or the increase of the power of all humans over the forces of nature, and the decrease of the tyranny of some humans over others. The two go hand-in-hand, both because the more powerful the technology, the more important that it not be used by some to enslave or intimidate others, and because the the higher the level of technology that we use, the higher the level of education that the population as a whole must achieve in order to sustain it.

posted on June 18th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

17 On June 18th, 2009, Rachel2 said:

@Blimp: your message is good. The second part of it, anyway. I’m not so sure about the first part, but I definitely stand by your sentiment in the second paragraph about making the mental, scientific, technological, moral, and artistic breakthroughs.

The first part, true or not, seems pretty “out there”.

@Tiptoe: Cool! If, and only if, you deem my sentiments relevant, of course! Thanks!

posted on June 18th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

18 On June 19th, 2009, Misty said:

@Rachel (blog author): You may claim that you cannot shut off your reporter instincts, but I don’t believe that reporters can ever shut off their emotional instincts — not you, not anyone — which manifest themselves in the bias and slant with which they write about an issue. I did not mean to offend you by my assertion that your views may be skewed on this matter, because I believe that everyone’s views are skewed on *every* matter, and it’s not something that a degree or training can necessarily remove very much. That is not meant offensively, just realistically.

Your response seems to largely restate your original argument. Yes, we live in a culture that validates thinness. But the widespead availability of plus-size alternatives would go a long way to changing that, because this cultural inclination originates from visual input, and the inputting begins at the earliest age. You say that there are “more pressing matters,” and I contend again that this is a far more serious matter than you are indicating. You say that this gives the “illusion of promoting health,” but I maintain that that’s a reductive to appraise this (depending on how narrowly or expansively you define “health”). This is more than a physical well-being issue. In fact, I would argue that it’s more important than a physical well-being issue.

You offer anecdotal observations that visual imagery doesn’t affect eating disorders (and you mention your own case, which again suggests that you are evaluating this issue through a personal lens), but there is ample evidence in the psychological field that indicates the opposite. (The articles of Dr. Helga Dittmar, e.g. in the British Journal of Social Psychology, include a list of these studies.) And besides, that’s a narrow definition of the problem — cases of full-blown eating disorders vs. cases of women who, say, struggle their whole lives with the feeling of being overweight, and keep dieting and hating themselves; not quite meeting the medical definition of a disorder, but having their lives significantly negatively impacted. I wouldn’t narrow the scope of this problem to the former, just to people who can be clinically diagnosed with a disorder, but include all women who are negatively affected. And when you include the women who in general are adversely affected by a media that promotes underweight images exclusively (many of whom could be helped greatly by fuller-figured alternatives (according to the psychological research I just alluded to)), then you see just how far-reaching this issue is.

Oh, and by the way, you mention that “Even the Australian researcher’s study, while finding that skinnier models do not sell necessarily, still asserted that more attractive and “average-weight” models were more effective in advertising.” That rather bolsters my point, especially given that “average weight” models were able to come off so well, given people’s lack of exposure to such images generally. But as for “attractive,” well, of course they are effective at selling! That’s not the issue. It is CRITICAL to separate “Do attractive models sell?” from “Do full-figured models sell?” Conflating the two is how the myths that full-figured models don’t sell begin. Unless the models being compared in these studies are equally attractive, then the results are meaningless. If the underweight model is attractive and the full-figured model is unattractive (as I suspect they invariably are, in these studies), then the results doesn’t prove anything about which body type sells, but simply whether beauty sells.

posted on June 19th, 2009 at 1:47 am

19 On June 20th, 2009, Want to look hot this summer? Bacardi suggests getting an “ugly girlfriend” » The-F-Word.org said:

[...] the discussion the other day on how the beauty beast pits women against each other? This is a prime example. The campaign [...]

posted on June 20th, 2009 at 10:12 am

20 On August 1st, 2009, random said:

I stopped buying those magazines altogether a few years back. I wish more women would do the same. The people who publish those rags are NOT getting my money.

What’s really interesting is that consumer purchases account for 70% of all economic activity in the US. That’s right, the consumption of “everyday” people. It’s no wonder, is it?, that magazines (& companies like Dove, Revlon, etc., etc.) will stop at nothing to encourage people to buy their product: Our dollars count for a lot. Make the girlies feel fat & then offer them cellulite cream! (Which works temporarily at best – it offers no long-term results!) Guess what, ladies? Women are supposed to store a little fat around the hips, abdomen, and thighs. This means cellulite.

Well, that turned into a rant! Down, rant, down! *rawr*

Rachel, I’m new to your blog but I fell in love with it as soon as I saw the chocolate brownie.

posted on August 1st, 2009 at 9:41 am

21 On October 2nd, 2009, Beautiful, Curvy, REAL Women Revolution! « Women Warriors! said:

[...] to drape off their bones. I am not slamming naturally-thin, healthy women, I am calling out the unrealistic image of beauty and size that us women are challenged to measure up to. If us women started loving our bodies more, [...]

posted on October 2nd, 2009 at 11:28 am

22 On October 29th, 2009, Venus Pixeleada – La Raíz del Problema « El Rincón del Ornitorrinco said:

[...] un blog que habla acerca de este y otros temas: The F-Word. El artículo en cuestión se llama “¿A quién culpar por las modelos super delgadas?”. Es un comentario sobre un escrito publicado por Alexandra Shullman, editora del Vogue, en The [...]

posted on October 29th, 2009 at 12:57 pm