| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get it.
The final image is so obviously photoshopped a wombat with cataracts could see it. And a hideous monstrosity.
The original girl is cute though.
I'm of the same opinion, Meatrace. This isn't why girls have image problems. They took a cute girl who hadn't done her hair and are trying to make some point about how easily photoshop turns ugly into pretty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't get is the (apparently very common) notion of looking at an obviously photoshop'ed image and go "I'm going to starve myself to death so I can look like that!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't get is the (apparently very common) notion of looking at an obviously photoshop'ed image and go "I'm going to starve myself to death so I can look like that!"
I think that is the point. Girls are being affected in exactly that way.
What I don't get is the (apparently very common) notion of looking at an obviously photoshop'ed image and go "I'm going to starve myself to death so I can look like that!"
Do you think the average 14 or 15 year old would think it obviously photoshopped?
Anorexical teenage girls predate Photoshop by a great many decades I think.
Yes, I'm sure you're right. Nevertheless, it's one more (of many) contributing factor(s).
Do you think the average 14 or 15 year old would think it obviously photoshopped?
The photoshop part wasn't really the important part. It was more the mindset of "Angelina Jolie exist. So by logical extension I must now starve myself to death."
I get that it exists. I just don't understand it.
To me, the problem isn't that pictures of hyper-beautiful people exist. The problem is that people look at those pictures and go "I am going to torture myself until I look like that."
While the sentiment is laudable, I think they maybe went a little overboard with their example. The perniciousness of the problem is that the final, touched-up images look just believable enough to convince girls that the image they are seeing ought to be attainable (regardless of whether that is actually the case). The final product in the video blows past believable, especially in the face department. I think that a number of other before/after projects featuring models or celebrities have been more effective in showing the gulf between image and reality.
|
What I don't get is the (apparently very common) notion of looking at an obviously photoshop'ed image and go "I'm going to starve myself to death so I can look like that!"
People have less free will than you think. Girls are sold these images as easily as we are sold Paizo products. We geeks have stereotypes we try to live up to, books and movies we must read and see. Paizo bases its sales and advertising on qualities we geeks share and outcomes we desire. We place pressure on our fellow geeks to be like us- "Oh, you have to see blah!", "How can you dislike bleah book?"
Likewise, certain assumptions are made about what women must be and they are punished for failing to comply. You talk about 'an obviously photoshop'ed image' and forget that billions of women are constantly, endlessly, everyday, bombarded with images both more and less subtle than this one case. And only a few million women develop eating disorders.
Whereas we geeks are only bombarded with Paizo products when we visit here. And I'll wager a larger percentage of us geeks fall to the advertising here, than women do to photoshop elsewhere.
$0.02 (Before rounding :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, eating disorders: These are not something that happened in the sixties, unlike what some try to sell you. There are good accounts of it from at least medieval times. The more we learn of them, the more we find biological correlates, specifically hormones that regulate weight and body image. It is becoming more and more difficult to say that it is because of images of women, today. Within a decade or so, I suspect we will have a clear answer for how it happens. Understand that the post-war generations are the first ones where most of the population never had to worry about food. And if you want to learn about destructive beauty ideals ofearlier times, read up on the history of corsets. Add to this that various mineral and vitamin deficiencies were common enough to be considered baseline in large areas, and you will find that things were in no way easier in relation to food than they are today. The typical motivation I have heard for why anorectics do what they do is simply to have one single area of their lives where they can have control. Calories are neat, because they are easy to learn to count, plus and minus. And the girls who fall into it are typically deeply ambitious, but who may feel things are a bit out of their control.
So... Make sure young people get decent school environments, that there are jobs for them, and that they will be able to shape their lives as they wish if they apply themselves, and you will see eating disorders and self-destructive behaviour decrease. Forbidding photoshop won't help.
Anorexical teenage girls predate Photoshop by a great many decades I think.Yes, I'm sure you're right. Nevertheless, it's one more (of many) contributing factor(s).
I would be very interested in seeing your sources for this.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
On behalf of the Y chromosome set...
We are hereby officially not taking responsibility for the stick figure look.
I have NEVER heard a guy drool, or say "yay baby thats what i want" to what is functionally a 6 foot tall coat rack.
If ya'll wana look like that? Its for you. Not us.
First, eating disorders: These are not something that happened in the sixties, unlike what some try to sell you. There are good accounts of it from at least medieval times. The more we learn of them, the more we find biological correlates, specifically hormones that regulate weight and body image. It is becoming more and more difficult to say that it is because of images of women, today. Within a decade or so, I suspect we will have a clear answer for how it happens. Understand that the post-war generations are the first ones where most of the population never had to worry about food. And if you want to learn about destructive beauty ideals ofearlier times, read up on the history of corsets. Add to this that various mineral and vitamin deficiencies were common enough to be considered baseline in large areas, and you will find that things were in no way easier in relation to food than they are today. The typical motivation I have heard for why anorectics do what they do is simply to have one single area of their lives where they can have control. Calories are neat, because they are easy to learn to count, plus and minus. And the girls who fall into it are typically deeply ambitious, but who may feel things are a bit out of their control.
So... Make sure young people get decent school environments, that there are jobs for them, and that they will be able to shape their lives as they wish if they apply themselves, and you will see eating disorders and self-destructive behaviour decrease. Forbidding photoshop won't help.
It'll allow me to feel superior to people who still use/consume photoshopped images though, right? 'Cause that's really gratifying on a personal level . . .
Here the US, Dove Soap had an advertising campaign where they showed reasonably proportioned women in their underwear, but they cancelled it, because no one wanted to buy soap endorsed by (to put it badly) fatsos. I think you're right Sis, standards of beauty have never been realistic. (Like, never going back to the Bronze age.) I also think banning photoshop because you want to stop unrealistic depictions of beauty is like banning umbrellas because you don't want it to rain.
Edit: On reflection, that metaphor doesn't quite work; it's more like banning lawn sprinklers because you don't want it to rain.
|
|
You do not speak on behalf of my Y chromosome.
Our patriarchal society's constant depiction of airbrushed women as the norm sets unrealistic expectations that do insurmountable damage to both men and women. These expectations are shown from birth and taught as we grow, as naturally as walking and talking. While you may not have personally engineered our societal perceptions, the market was made by men, for men, and the emergence of a market for women is still a comparatively new occurrence and still controlled by men.
Just because your peer group defines ugly women differently to the majority doesn't mean society as a whole allows women to look or dress how they please. The simple fact of the matter is that if you judge women based on appearance, be they coat rack or not, then you are contributing to the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you want to learn about destructive beauty ideals ofearlier times, read up on the history of corsets.
Corsets? Pfft*, howzabout foot-binding? Or neck rings?
On the subject at hand, I don't know, I never took a women's studies course. But I did read in an essay by Camille Paglia, the Anti-Feminist Feminist Troll that the whole connection between beauty standards and anorexia was made up out of wholecloth without a shred of scientific evidence by Naomi Wolf, an English major, and that the real cause of anorexia was young women starving themselves to stave off sexual maturation in order to keep flirting with Daddy. Camille, it should be noted, is an Arts professor.
---
*Only kidding. Corsets sucked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do not speak on behalf of my Y chromosome.
Our patriarchal society's constant depiction of airbrushed women as the norm
Who's depicting them that way? Fashion designers that don't want to have to have their artistic vision of clothing ruined by being on an actual person (and are themselves.... not entirely in the Y chromosome set)
Guys are not pushing for that look.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think the average 14 or 15 year old would think it obviously photoshopped?The photoshop part wasn't really the important part. It was more the mindset of "Angelina Jolie exist. So by logical extension I must now starve myself to death."
I get that it exists. I just don't understand it.
To me, the problem isn't that pictures of hyper-beautiful people exist. The problem is that people look at those pictures and go "I am going to torture myself until I look like that."
At what point do you think a teenaged girl -- hopped up a flood of hormones, bombarded with unrealistic images like this, and constantly reminded how her worth and social/economic mobility is tied to her appearance -- is going to stop and rationally assess the load of b#&**!$# she is being sold? Logic doesn't come into it.
Boys are being sold a slightly-different-but-equally b!*~!!*# package about their looks and self & societal worth... look at the male physiques they are told is "manly" in media and action figures, bodies that require daily hour+ workouts and strict diets of high protein, low carbs.
|
You do not speak on behalf of my Y chromosome.
Our patriarchal society's constant depiction of airbrushed women as the normWho's depicting them that way? Fashion designers that don't want to have to have their artistic vision of clothing ruined by being on an actual person (and are themselves.... not entirely in the Y chromosome set)
Guys are not pushing for that look.
Nope, they just often make it clear that if a girl looks fat, it looks bad. Which, in turn, does make girls want to lose some extra pounds. The hard thing is recognizing when it's enough.
I don't think that girls want to be super-model thin. I do think society (both males and females alike) broadcast "you should be thinner" continuously, at everyone.
To be fair, most of us Americans can bear to lose a few pounds. I know I'm probably 30 pounds overweight (and 90 pounds more than I'm told is ideal).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anorexia specifically means that you do not know when to stop. That IS the problem. You know, when they look at themselves in a mirror, they see an overweight person, despite lacking far too many pounds? Turns out, we have a pretty sharp regulation of a) how much we feel we weigh, and b) how much we feel we SHOULD weigh. This happens through at least two hormones, leptin and ghrelid, that control this down to a very specific weight (10s of grams). That is why losing weight is a constant struggle - deviating from what your body feels it should weigh is not an easy thing, no matter if you weigh too much or too little. Now, some things can cause this regulation to go out of sync (obviously). We are not yet sure what. However, it's not as easy as "evil societal photoshopped images kill defenseless girls by giving them anorexia", no matter how much some people want that to be true.
I am not saying people don't starve themselves to death. It happens. If you want to find where it does, see what happens in the modelling business itself. That, my friends, is where you should direct your righteous anger.
In a larger view, we are ill equipped to handle the concept of beauty. Being tall and being attractive are both traits that gain you better jobs, careers, salaries, more options on the dating market, better treatment in most situations... We know this. We have all seen it. Since this is demonstrably true, should it come as a surprise that people are ready to do quite a lot to be tall and attractive? Plastic surgery, botox, height operations, beauty cremes, makeup, fashion, magazines, etc etc etc etc etc... It is a massive industry, providing what people want. That doesn't in itself make them evil. It's merely a reflection of how we humans value things. The time and money people sink into looking good ARE worth it to them. Stands to reason, right?
So what can we do? We can put a stop to where it truly becomes dangerous. The rest, I am afraid, will not be stopped, because deep down, people WANT to look good. And while the specifics vary, the drive to look good is completely universal, through cultures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that red head from Firefly and Mad Men (Christina Hendricks) has about the closest to perfect figure possible. Curvy is good, my friends.
...and Kate Upton is not fat. FFS!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do not speak on behalf of my Y chromosome.
Our patriarchal society's constant depiction of airbrushed women as the normWho's depicting them that way? Fashion designers that don't want to have to have their artistic vision of clothing ruined by being on an actual person (and are themselves.... not entirely in the Y chromosome set)
Guys are not pushing for that look.
Most head designers are men, so yes, men are pushing for that look.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that red head from Firefly and Mad Men (Christina Hendricks) has about the closest to perfect figure possible. Curvy is good, my friends.
...and Kate Upton is not fat. FFS!
AMEN BROTHER!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they DO tend to be men who don't really have much interest in a woman's body other than how the clothes they design hang off of it.
Objectification springing from aesthetics rather sexual interest is still objectification.
Well, they DO tend to be men who don't really have much interest in a woman's body other than how the clothes they design hang off of it.Objectification springing from aesthetics rather sexual interest is still objectification.
By the fashion industry. Not society at large. Fashion is moronic anyway.
You can't separate the fashion industry and its standards of beauty from the standards of beauty in more mainstream media.
Fun fact I just learned from wikipedia: the term "anorexia nervosa" was invented by Sir William Gull, the villain of Alan Moore's From Hell.
|
Well, they DO tend to be men who don't really have much interest in a woman's body other than how the clothes they design hang off of it.Objectification springing from aesthetics rather sexual interest is still objectification.
One has to wonder if they are really skilled enough to be getting paid the millions that they do, why they can't seem to make clothes that fit women that exceed stick-figure proportions.
It probably hurts a young girl's body image just as much to call Kate Upton's body "normal" as it does to call her fat. I mean, let's get serious...she's not fat, and she's not too skinny, but she's hardly "normal" either...she hit the genetic equivalent of perfect match on PowerBall.
She may not be "normal", and she may have been blessed with a nice figure, but I don't think she goes above and beyond to keep it that way, and she eats normal stuff. I wouldn't even call her skinny, I'd call her healthy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One has to wonder if they are really skilled enough to be getting paid the millions that they do, why they can't seem to make clothes that fit women that exceed stick-figure proportions.Well, they DO tend to be men who don't really have much interest in a woman's body other than how the clothes they design hang off of it.Objectification springing from aesthetics rather sexual interest is still objectification.
So, male fashion designers who aren't attracted to women are designing clothes for non-curvy androgynous female models that don't look like typical women? Hmmm, my slaadi-sense is tingling that there might be a connection there... ;)
Coincidence?
I THINK NOT
You can't separate the fashion industry and its standards of beauty from the standards of beauty in more mainstream media.
They're already radically different.
Every culture has standards of beauty and people always try to exploit those for profit. Those people don't care about the health or moral implications, they just want to make money and they've identified a product that sells. The reason that product sells is what we should explore as a society, and the best thing we can do is to not buy that product and instead buy into a product that we do find healthy, both physically and mentally.
OMG, I just tried to look up a Canadian model that is natural and beautiful as an example, and the top 10 list of 'plus sized' models from Oddee popped up a window saying "If you enjoyed this article you might also like... 20 Ugliest Celebrities". I can't believe that just happened, they directly jumped from large models to ugly celebrities!?!?!? Honestly, I didn't realize how bad it was for women, that was just a horrible example of the industry. (the model I was trying to find was Christina Schmidt by the way, and she wasn't on Oddee's list)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue around this self-image business is not about fashion, not about photoshop and not about men's feminine ideal.
It's about marketing. The reason women on magazine covers and in commercials are presented this way is precisely BECAUSE it's an ideal most women have to work very hard to achieve, and most work very hard just to approach the "ideal". If they presented women in a way that matched an average woman, there would not be a need to work very hard.
And men are getting the same treatment now, in case you haven't noticed.
And by "work very hard" I mean "spend a lot of money."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At what point do you think a teenaged girl -- hopped up a flood of hormones, bombarded with unrealistic images like this, and constantly reminded how her worth and social/economic mobility is tied to her appearance -- is going to stop and rationally assess the load of b*&$~&!* she is being sold? Logic doesn't come into it.
Boys are being sold a slightly-different-but-equally b#!!#$$+ package about their looks and self & societal worth... look at the male physiques they are told is "manly" in media and action figures, bodies that require daily hour+ workouts and strict diets of high protein, low carbs.
The thing is, we cannot completely stop objectification (at least not realistically).
Counter-wise, there is a valid place in our society for cosmetics, gymnasiums, etc.
We need to do a better job of equipping young people (and ourselves really) of knowing where to stop.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not about knowing where to stop. It never was. See my post above. I get that it feels good to have simplistic solutions... but if it was easy, it wouldn't still be a problem.
It is not about knowing where to stop. It never was. See my post above. I get that it feels good to have simplistic solutions... but if it was easy, it wouldn't still be a problem.
Sometimes it is that easy, but there are enormous economic interests opposing the simple solution.
As individual people, we cannot stop the bombardment of unrealistic beauty images. So I was looking at what we can do.
That is why I am saying we need to learn (and teach) were to stop trying to fit into a nearly impossible (unless one happens to win the genetic lottery).
Yes, try to look your best, be good to your body, etc. This is why we need to work on learning were to stop. To do that, we need to achieve for ourselves (and then pass on to our heirs) a better level of self acceptance.
|
|
Most head designers are men, so yes, men are pushing for that look.You do not speak on behalf of my Y chromosome.
Our patriarchal society's constant depiction of airbrushed women as the normWho's depicting them that way? Fashion designers that don't want to have to have their artistic vision of clothing ruined by being on an actual person (and are themselves.... not entirely in the Y chromosome set)
Guys are not pushing for that look.
Ha? You are like those people over at fox news who want to prove that all immigrants are thieves, and as a proof, they bring some examples of immigrants who stole things.
BigNorseWolf was *obviously* saying that most males are not responsible for the situation - that is, that most of them don't even *want* girls to be super-model skinny, let alone be willing to let girls hurt themselves to get there.
He wasn't saying no man ever had a part in creating a situation - he's saying that if girls feel a constant need to be thinner, it's not because men are pressuring them into that.
Men are no more responsible for the situation than women are, because hey, some head designers are women, too. As a matter of fact, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of men (and humans in general) are not head designers.
Why twist words?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not about knowing where to stop. It never was. See my post above. I get that it feels good to have simplistic solutions... but if it was easy, it wouldn't still be a problem.Sometimes it is that easy, but there are enormous economic interests opposing the simple solution.
As individual people, we cannot stop the bombardment of unrealistic beauty images. So I was looking at what we can do.
That is why I am saying we need to learn (and teach) were to stop trying to fit into a nearly impossible (unless one happens to win the genetic lottery).
Yes, try to look your best, be good to your body, etc. This is why we need to work on learning were to stop. To do that, we need to achieve for ourselves (and then pass on to our heirs) a better level of self acceptance.
My point is that it's very likely not the images of women that are to blame for anorexia. I have never seen any sort of conclusive study that speaks for this view, I don't even know how one would be conducted to possibly show this, yet it gets blathered out in droves in every discussion on the subject as if it's the Truth.
It's not. Even if it may have a role in the problem, it isn't likely to be responsible for more than a minor part. Anorexia is a biological process, documented hundreds of years back.
Look at it this way: There are a huge number of people out there, who never deviate more than a pound or two from their normal weight, and that's without them EVER thinking about it. Why should they, when it never became a problem, right? And it's not that these people always eat the same things, either. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the body has a pretty fine-tuned control system for weight. Every complex system can go wrong, and thus we have anorexia and obesity. The reason for this could be many things: Infection, autoimmune reaction to something in the body, genes. We don't know yet. What we do know is it's not easy to handle. We know it has a strong element of cognitive impairment, i.e. it's far worse than "But that model I saw yesterday was so thin, I need to be like her". More along the lines of "You're going to die if you lose any more weight." "But I don't want to gain weight! I am healthy now!"
There is a huge movement that want everything to be simple psychology, and nothing biological or genetic. In everything but the popular press today, this has been resoundingly discredited. Anorexia is a biological process of dysregulation, as is obesity, no matter how much you want to blame images of too thin women and weakness of character for them.