British “health” mag fattens up gaunt thin model

25th May 2010

British “health” mag fattens up gaunt thin model

posted in Body Politic, Eating Disorders, Fashion, Health, Nutrition & Fitness, Pop Culture, Rachel |

In a strange twist to the usual Photoshopped models debate, a British magazine has ‘fessed up to digitally manipulating an image of a shockingly thin model to make her look… heavier.

Jane Druker, editor of the ironically titled publication Healthy, admitted to airbrushing model Kamilla Wladyka’s cover shot on the April edition of the mag, explaining that the model initially *appeared* to be in good health, but had lost so much weight in the week between casting and shoot that airbrushing became necessary. As the Daily Mail UK reports, editors added 2-3 stone, or 28-42 pounds, to Kamilla’s photo to make the 5-foot-10-inch, British size-6 model look “a little bit bigger, to make her look like she was a size ten as opposed to a size four” out of concern for the magazine’s commitment to promoting “health and wellbeing.”

‘There were plenty of clothes that we couldn’t put on her because her bones stuck out too much,’ Druker said. ‘She looked beautiful in the face, but really thin and unwell. That’s not a reflection of what we do in our magazine, which is about good health.’

Good health? Really?

In its defense, the magazine acted transparently and stated that they do not normally airbrush images of models to give the false illusion of health. Yet if this model appeared to be so unnaturally thin and unhealthy that digital airbrushing was required, why wasn’t she sent home immediately and another healthier model used instead? Oh, silly me… I forgot. Healthy magazine, like so many others, determines health and wellbeing on almost the sole basis of appearance. And as everyone knows, thin=healthy but too thin=unhealthy, so instead let’s just made the model LOOK like she doesn’t suffer from raging anorexia, actual health be damned.

Yes, it’s a good thing that magazines and advertisers are beginning to take heed of the tragic and dangerous social implications of showing images, altered or otherwise, of super-skinny models. But the solution is not to simply airbrush the same radically thin models into some slightly higher, but more socially-acceptable vision of conformity, but rather to actually seek out and hire models whose body shapes and sizes require very little to no airbrushing in order to meet these standards. As eating disorder activist Susan Ringwood, who has campaigned for the use of diversely-sized fashion models, told Britain’s Daily Telegraph:

There’s a fundamental difference between using camera work to make someone look polished, and changing the shape and size of someone’s body in order to portray them looking differently, to conform to whatever ideal. It’s just not helpful and puts huge pressure on people to keep up a hyper-perfectionism that isn’t real. If you can’t trust the health industry to be healthy, how can you expect the fashion magazines to put their house in order?

But, then again, what do we really expect from a “health” magazine that also advertises weight-loss advice on the same cover as the same gaunt-thin model airbrushed to look heavier?

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 25th, 2010 at 12:57 pm and is filed under Body Politic, Eating Disorders, Fashion, Health, Nutrition & Fitness, Pop Culture, Rachel. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

1 On May 25th, 2010, Frankincensy said:

I was in Holland & Barrett recently, and the cover of the magazine they had on display (probably a different issue of this one) featured the headline “Cook Yourself Thin!” directly opposite “Beat the Osteoporosis Epidemic!”.

posted on May 25th, 2010 at 1:31 pm

2 On May 25th, 2010, Lady Di said:

God, not even “Healthy” magazine is healthy. I do not have children yet, but someday I want my children to be able to look at a magazine that is empowering and postive to all human beings, does such a magazine exist or should I just not buy magazines at all?? ugh!

posted on May 25th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

3 On May 25th, 2010, Rachel said:

@Lady Di: I’d be hard pressed to name such a mag for adults, but New Moon magazine is a great body-positive read for tween girls.

posted on May 25th, 2010 at 2:05 pm

4 On May 25th, 2010, Stacie said:

It’s really sad that they wouldn’t get another model!

I agree with Lady Di – I have a subscription to Health magazine, but still disagree with alot of it because so much of it focuses on weight loss and looking good. Why can’t there be a health-focused magazine that doesn’t focus on what women’s bodies LOOK like, and instead focus on their actual health. But I guess that doesn’t really sell magazines (or many of the products advertised in them), does it?

posted on May 25th, 2010 at 6:28 pm

5 On May 25th, 2010, Alyssa (The 40 year-old) said:

One would think that hiring a healthy model in the first place would be common sense. But no one ever accused the fashion and magazine industries of having common sense.

posted on May 25th, 2010 at 6:41 pm

6 On May 25th, 2010, Anna said:

Because if they actually get a size ten model, she might not be exactly proportioned the way they want her to be. She’ll be a real person, who might be fatter through the legs, or arms, or whatever. This way, getting a skinny model then digitally altering her, she can have the unrelastic proportions they want her to have.

posted on May 25th, 2010 at 8:23 pm

7 On May 25th, 2010, Shinobu said:

If I read a magazine with the thought that the models are air brushed to look thinner and give an unrealistic version of beauty, I can push them out of my mine. The thought the models are air brushed to look heavier… I think it would be extremely unhealthy and very triggering to even try to wrap my mind around that.

posted on May 25th, 2010 at 8:39 pm

8 On May 26th, 2010, Ashley said:

What I can’t get my head around is, who gets to judge what “looks” healthy and what doesn’t look healthy? Where exactly are they drawing the line? It’s so subjective since everyone has a different idea of this. I think the while idea of “let’s forget if this model is actually healthy, lets photoshop her to fit the mold of what our idea of healthy looks like.” Healthy comes in all shapes a sizes and I think we need to promote that idea as best as we can instead of further screwing up the message of what supposedly is a good size of health.

posted on May 26th, 2010 at 4:47 pm

9 On May 31st, 2010, Crimson Wife said:

How does a model lose 2-3 stone in one week? That just doesn’t seem to make sense. I could see maybe losing 10 points in a week if she had a bad case of the flu. But triple or quadruple that?

posted on May 31st, 2010 at 12:54 am

10 On June 2nd, 2010, Michelle Zive said:

While the magazine acted transparently by “adding” pounds to the model, wouldn’t have been better if they sent the young girl to the closest fast food restaurant for a super-sized combo meal? This is flip I know since I’m a registered dietitian and I’ve been battling food and body issues for a long time. But is is the magazine’s fault for airbrushing and changing appearances, since we are the ones that buy these magazines and also are the ones who are buying the lose weight quickly schemes. Until we stand up and say, “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore,” publishers of magazines will continue to skew reality.

posted on June 2nd, 2010 at 9:29 am

11 On June 2nd, 2010, Willow said:

It’s an admission that the standards we are expected to adhere to aren’t healthy for most women. It’s an admission that, yes, we expect you to be unhealthy so that you may be socially acceptable. There’s more to unpack, clearly, but… I’ve been so overwhelmed by this story for the past few days. It’s mindblowing.

posted on June 2nd, 2010 at 12:30 pm

12 On June 2nd, 2010, Willow said:

Oh, and Michelle Zive – I completely agree! And how do we tell the magazines out there that we are tired of their impossible beauty standards? DON’T BUY THEM ANYMORE! GAH! I haven’t bought one of those pieces of trash in literally a decade. It’s simple, really – the articles suck (mostly), and I don’t have to go through gallons of shame as I look at all of the slim, smiling (or pouting) women in the pages. So… why buy them?

posted on June 2nd, 2010 at 12:33 pm

13 On June 10th, 2010, Back To The Fature! » said:

[...] “British ‘Health Mag’ Fattens Up Gaunt, Thin Model” — The F-word unpacks a lot of weirdness about what it means when a health mag reveals that its cover model was too thin to look healthy. [...]

posted on June 10th, 2010 at 10:23 am

14 On July 21st, 2010, Alaina Frederick said:

LOVE it! I also have these same feelings. I love that magazine that they have at the counter of the Layne Bryant store. It has REAL women on the cover with REAL curves. They aren’t “fat” but a healthy curve that makes them look real and that they enjoy life and don’t surround their being around food.

posted on July 21st, 2010 at 3:14 pm