The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Objectification at whatever size > Comments

Objectification at whatever size : Comments

By Melinda Tankard Reist, published 5/7/2010

New 'Body Image Code': it’s a start, but sexualisation and objectification still rule.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
You doth protest too much, Melinda. When I came to Australia 22 years ago, I was amazed at how much flesh was flashed, yet now it is more the norm, it is less of an issue for most.
Posted by McReal, Monday, 5 July 2010 9:41:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://movies.indiatimes.com/photo.cms?msid=1981536

Sigh...

Sheesh, Melinda focus on some real issues.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/thomas100806.htm

"The predators who control the sexual trafficking in children are well organized. They have thugs who snatch and break the resistance of children; banks who account the empire's profits without asking questions; ships that convey the hapless children from one continent to another and private planes that transport them to clients around the world.

Yet there is little or no cohesive and sustained war against this terrible evil. The United States and Britain try to stamp on the trafficking within its own borders. But as yet there is no universal challenge to the ever-growing sexual trafficking in children."

If a size 14 woman wants to get her kit off, where is the problem?
Posted by Severin, Monday, 5 July 2010 11:13:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As most of these body "issues" are in women's magazines that are seldom read by men, and have arisen after the feminist movement, I would suggest that this ideal image is what women consider to be beautiful not men. The women appearing in men's mags would definitely not meet the slender requirements for women's mags.

This article is against women of all sizes trying to look "sexy" which I feel is driven less by feminism and more by "daddy issues".
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 5 July 2010 11:25:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
great article melinda!

shadow minister, what men and/or women find beautiful is heavily influenced by environment. when bombarded by images of only thinness associated with sex and desire, eventually the majority of the population is going to find only thinness attractive.

thin is not universally upheld as the only way to look beautiful.

and please read the research melinda cited about the harms of sexualisation.

there is a big difference between wanting to be sexy vs being pressured to 'get your kit off' just to make a name for yourself. like that boom-boom-chk girl claire what's-her-name stripping for ralph magazine
Posted by Sylvie Jade, Monday, 5 July 2010 11:48:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'there is a big difference between wanting to be sexy vs being pressured to 'get your kit off' just to make a name for yourself like that boom-boom-chk girl claire'

LOL. Yes it's much better to give false accounts of a shooting to the media while using racist labels to 'make a name for yourself'. She sounds like she wouldn't need much pressure, unless you count the dazzling dollar signs as pressure. That an opportunist is milkin' it for all its worth, well, she's hardly a victim of pressure. Every woman's a victim...

'when bombarded by images of only thinness associated with sex and desire, eventually the majority of the population is going to find only thinness attractive. '

Well, seeing as though people still seem to be finding each other attractive, and bonking happily, and when you look at the obesity of the women (and men) seen all around us with this obesity epidemic, I think your fears are unfounded. It is harder to obtain thinness in our glutinous society, so thinness is used by women, via their magazines, as a competitive ideal. As men compete via fancy cars, share portfolios and growth hormones. Actually, it's easier to starve yourself and buy fake tits than to become filthy rich, have broad shoulders, a square jaw and a six pack. Women should count their blessings.

Regardless, sane people relate to the world around them, and see the fantasy in the media for what it is. Most of the men in the world are fantasising about the cute chick in the office with the nice smile and wiggle in her walk rather than some bland porcelain image in a magazine. That women don't get this, and then blame men for dictating they be stick thin models, is one of the many curiosities of society.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 5 July 2010 2:11:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MTR,

>'Model facial features'.

What, you mean, pretty faces? Oh, that's right, we should have ugly people in beauty magazines. As I've said before, how far do we widen the definition of 'conventional beauty' until it includes ugly people?

>'doesn’t change the main goal of the advertising and fashion industries - presenting women as sexually alluring. '

Um, I would have thought that the main goal of these industries was to make money. Women often use clothes and cosmetics for sexual allure, so... putting two and two together... where does this problem originate again..? 'These clothes will make you look ugly! Get 'em now while they're hot!'

>'As for disclosing digital enhancement, the message still sent is that women are not good enough on their own - they all need “work” done, they all need to be altered in some way.'

As does every postcard, every food photo, every real estate photo, every damn photo. Every photo is a 'representation' of reality. There is no right and wrong in digital post processing, and it is based on aesthetics. EVERY photo is manipulated from start to finish, it's not some conspiracy against women.

>'a modeling contract - in what could be read as a reference to female dogs competing for the prize, whatever it takes.'

What, like that Donald Trump show, or any other reality TV show. It's the format people seem to like, you can apply it to anything. People like to see bitchiness and smugly get on their high horse and think they're better than that. Bitchiness from camp guys is especially popular with women for some reason.

>'It doesn’t want to use real and natural women who might have moles, freckles, blotchy skin and pimples.'

As if any travel brochures show the rubbish in the water around Circular Quay, on a cloudy day, with homeless people begging for change. So, basically you want them to not allow clothes and cosmetics to be advertised at all, or to advertise them by deliberately making them look unattractive, showing up all flaws as best as possible. What planet are you from?
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 5 July 2010 2:28:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It bemuses me how people make such a fuss over issues like this when...

a) Obesity is a much bigger problem then anorexia

b) The problem is nothing to do with the sexual desires of men, the 'distortion' of images used to sell stuff, the competitiveness of women, the plainly false ideas of women on what men find attractive, the vanity of women. They're all complimentary side issues to this small problem.

c) The core reason is the fact that women have chosen to place being a clothes model as the most desirable occupation on the planet. Getting to wear the latest clothes and walk down a plank and then turn around and walk back seems to resonate with women. Meanwhile men are off idolising sporting heros and rock stars...

I suppose the underlying desire is based on doing something you love for truck loads of money, being famous, getting lots of drugs and sex. Cant argue with that!
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 5 July 2010 2:43:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sylvie,

You are missing my point. The issue is where is the sexualisation coming from?

In Victorian times, women were largely treated as property, were expected to cover up, and sexuality was largely repressed. As women got more power politically and in relationships, they began to realise and express their sexuality.

I have a 13yr old daughter (14 shortly) who when out with a bunch of boys will dress casually, but at a party with her peers (girls only) will dress to kill. Young girls compare themselves against their peers more than in magazines.

While it can be argued that magazines influence trends, magazines that don't reflect the existing trends tend to go out of business quickly. So pressurizing the magazines is trying to treat the symptoms, not the cause.

Clothing models are generally much thinner than those from men's mags, simply because clothes look better on them, and it is about the clothes they are selling and not the models.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 5 July 2010 3:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@shadow minister

i'm all for liberating people sexually, and have genuinely no desire to dictate to people what they should and should not be allowed to do in the bedroom. totally against the whole idea of repressing and denying female sexuality and sexual desire.

but the constant bombardment of sexualised imagery (including padded bras for 8 year old girls etc) - surely there is a difference between commercialised porn that prescribes certain behaviours to girls rather than giving them the freedom to decide what they like to do?

A recent study in Minnesota reported more college girls reporting to doctors with anal calluses because they were engaging in anal sex with their boyfriends. now feel free to correct me, perhaps *some* women enjoy anal sex but i would imagine that a lot of that sex has to do with pressure and normalisation of that sort of thing from porn culture increasingly entering mainstream media, music videos etc?

Dolly Doctor (mag for teens) for example talked about how to have anal sex with boyfriend but no comments on the fact it may be painful or the girl may not want to engage in that at all... perhaps this has the effect of normalising and popularising a practice that a lot of girls wouldn't otherwise choose to do (and probably don't enjoy)
Posted by Sylvie Jade, Monday, 5 July 2010 3:37:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Houellebecq

i stand by my previous comments, even if you disagree. you seem to take an anti-female slant in all of your posts and i just can't be bothered arguing with you anymore.

what i will say is that your assumption that the thin-ideal is warranted in order to curb obesity, and that anorexics just have to sacrifice themselves in this 'war' is misguided. there's an excellent article somewhere in the online opinion archives that discusses this - titled 'tv show a loser for weight loss' or something like that- i recommend you read it
Posted by Sylvie Jade, Monday, 5 July 2010 3:40:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@shadow minister

you said

"While it can be argued that magazines influence trends, magazines that don't reflect the existing trends tend to go out of business quickly."

that's exactly right, and precisely why legislation is needed to regulate these industries rather than a voluntary code of conduct which, as melinda states, "bears no teeth"
Posted by Sylvie Jade, Monday, 5 July 2010 3:42:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sylvie,

Please outline the anti-female parts of my post. Just because someone doesn't agree women are victims of magazines does not make them anti-female. All I have done is given women the responsibility for their own choices, and rejected that it is men putting pressure on women to be thin. I just see it as a women-centric problem with FA to do with men. Women have created a market, and willingly buy the products. In no other area of marketing and advertising (especially those aimed at men) do we hear of regulating industry to stop it selling stuff that people want, and making it look attractive to those people.

'your assumption that the thin-ideal is warranted in order to curb obesity'

Nowhere did I state this. In fact that's a bizarre interpretation. I just think obesity is a much bigger problem, and something that would be more valuable for feminists to be tackling. But naturally they wouldn't be interested in the greater proportion of women who are overweight, as that has no utility in shifting the responsibility of women's diet and consumer desires onto men and away from women.

See, I'm a true feminist. I give women credit for being virtuous enough to take responsibility for their own vanity and also intelligence enough to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

'precisely why legislation is needed to regulate these industries'
What practical regulations do you propose? It boils down to a measure of degree, and as I said, every photo in every magazine, whatever the topic, is doctored. How will you police it?

I believe the money regulating photos would be better spent on regulating dietary advice. Some of the ridiculous diets advocated in women's magazines would not be accepted by the vast majority of dieticians.

BTW: Should car enthusiast magazines be forced to show cheap second hand family sedans, pictured with a bit of dust and mud? Isn't it a health risk to have guys working away, under stress, wasting their lives trying working to afford and maintain these unattainable goals.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 5 July 2010 4:52:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You are missing my point. The issue is where is the sexualisation coming from?" says Shadow Minister... well, it comes from the very heart of capitalism for a start, as part of the insatibale demand for endless growth and the sale of 'things that are made to be sold'.

That women are targetted for a market niche is not a shock.

But of course, some of those who shriek about this are engaged in it, up to their armpits.

Hillsong owns a shabby programme called 'Shine'.

A sexist gendered programme desigend to capture young girls into empty church pews.

It's all about make up and 'looking good' and is yet another part of the sexualisation of young girls.

Are you going to write about that Melinda?
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 5 July 2010 6:07:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"BTW: Should car enthusiast magazines be forced to show cheap second hand family sedans, pictured with a bit of dust and mud?"

Well at least the hobbyist engineering magazine I read does show old lathes and other tool's from real people's workshops. The guy's from Top Gear do drive old bomb's fairly regularly.

Severin how can the plight of children in eastern europe come close in seriousness to people's free choice's to read certain magazine's or buy into particular fashion trends? What were you thinking?

I have my doubt's about the sum's of money involved in the report you linked to but even without that it was staggering.

For those not to tied up in the horror's of size 14 women being considered sexy you might prefer some light reading to add to Severin's earlier post (no not the first link to my photo, the other link)

http://gvnet.com/childprostitution/CzechRepublic.htm

Try not to do that just after eating or straight before bed.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 5 July 2010 6:41:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sylvie,

Considering that local magazines compete with international magazines, forcing them to use less suitable models means losing market share. This is why no one is stupid enough to try this.

As many of the fashion cues come from overseas, this will simply enforce the idea that Australia is a fashion backwater.

Until the world changes, there can only be small changes here.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 5 July 2010 8:55:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The whole aim of beauty advertising is to make women feel bad about themselves, inadequate and in need of improvement."

The same could be said for the way magazines use self-esteem. Women are told they have a mental problem called "low self esteem" if they don't think they are beautiful. What will make them beautiful? Some over-priced clothes and skin treatments of dubious theraputic value.

Shadow Minister

Good point. Australian magazies are never going to stray too far from what the real powerbrokers in the fashion industry think is in fashion.
Posted by benk, Monday, 5 July 2010 9:18:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reminds me of a send-up a certain magazine on The Simpsons once called, "Better Homes Than Yours".
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 5 July 2010 9:27:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

:D

I understand that MTR is concerned by women being objectified by over-sexualisation of women's images. This occurs across all stratas of media. While women's mags present a clotheshorse ideal, the men's mags present women as if they were born silicon injected and never grew pubes.

AS TBC has pointed out there are other sinister methods in which the focus on female appearance is used to indoctrinate and subjugate women into various religions such as Exclusive Brethren through to the extreme of Sharia Law.

It is a concern for both sexes, who wants their daughter (or son) to strive for a look and way of behaviour that is not only unachievable but can be harmful?

However, I take issue with MTR's focus on the relatively benign image of an attractive size 14 as being problematic.

Fact: Some people are very attractive.

Fact: We are sexual beings motivated by the visual (both women and men like to see attractive people - hence my photo image at the beginning of my first post).

That we see more sexualised images of women than we do of men has more to do with the balance of power held by mostly men in the media. Even, when (if) there is a 50/50 balance of power held between men and women, we will still be subjected to sexy images - thank goodness.

The reason I posted a link to sex slavery is to place the focus where it is needed: when women, girls and boys are treated as commodities, denied their humanity and used up and spat out by wealthy people (mostly male but some female as well).

Again I ask MTR and her posse to use her media savvy to focus on issues where people are harmed, instead of on these 'powder-puff' pieces that harm no-one.
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 10:58:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘The whole aim of beauty advertising is to make women feel bad about themselves, inadequate and in need of improvement.’

No one can make a woman feel anything she does not want to feel. Women who get upset because they do not look like models are basically insecure to begin with. Some women are more beautiful than other women and that is a fact. Some are also taller, can run faster, cook better and understand nuclear physics better than other women. No one feels inadequate when someone knows more than them or can do things better than them so why should it bother them that some women look better than them. It is a fact of life that we all have different attributes or skills or even looks. It only becomes a problem when a woman does not accept her own differences and is not comfortable with who she is as a person. Instead of learning acceptance of the wide variety of things that make up a human being some women want to shift the blame onto the advertising or beauty industry or anyone who ‘objectifies’ a woman. If you see a woman just as a sportsperson is that also objectification? Couldn’t you say that the media objectify women when they only focus on their sporting prowess?

The problem is not with beauty; it is that some people cannot just appreciate it for what it is and then move on to the next thing in their lives. It is much easier to blame some one else than it is to take responsibility for your own feelings of inadequacy and do something about changing those.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 1:52:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree phanto. Well, I agree but I think you've missed the point. The gripe is that women are being 'made' (I agree, BS) to pursue an *unrealistic* goal, due to the doctoring of images, make-up, lighting , and selection of models.

My beef is that it is women's fault if (and it's a massive if) they use magazines and media images as a reference point for comparison, rather than the people they see around them every day.

It's a silly as people hating the visual world around them as everything looks more colourful in the pictures in magazines, and complaining their burger doesn't look like it does in the McDonalds advertising.

McDonalds is a good example. I think this beauty industry has standardised in a similar manner as McDonalds. People making frocks have one body type to make for, a small one at that, so it's cheaper. The images of women are standard, designed to appeal to the majority of readers - in this case women, who have decided clothes models have the ideal body shape. More voluptuous ones for men as T&A are more popular with men.

There is a way of standardising to the majority view ie more sales. Best practise, unimaginative architecture, the visual world can be designed for broad-spread appeal. Even music can be created by algorithms to appeal to most humans. Facial features have also been studied in this way.

The problem overlooked is the most basic one. It's not the images, it's the flawed presumption that people aspire to emulate images in magazines rather than real life. It's the Joneses that are the more often used frame of reference.

The cart is before the horse. Rather than wanting women to aspire to be more than just beautiful, there is this obsession with representing everyone as physically beautiful. I'm sorry, but pimples are universally ugly!
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 2:22:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy