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 > Shock horror: nude supermodel has dimple on thigh > Comments

Shock horror: nude supermodel has dimple on thigh : Comments

By Melinda Tankard Reist, published 6/1/2010

Jennifer Hawkins has put on a brave face to reveal her 'flaws' in public.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Wow, thank you Melinda. I have witnessed a lot of discussion about this in the last few days. There are a few people out there who have been defensive saying that Jennifer is a "real woman" and that "doing something is better than nothing." Those who are criticising this so called "brave move" are being characterised as "catty" women who will never be satisfied. It is assumed that us critics are all fat and bitter women. And the fact that the proceeds of this edition are going to the butterfly foundation which assists people with eating disorders...well us critics must be against a charitable organisation!!

None of that is true - we just believe that the magazine has missed the point in a major way when they employ "Miss Universe" in the fight against body shame and eating disorders.

This criticism isn't about Jennifer's body and of course she is a "real woman." Skinny women exist, but so do a whole range of other types of women, not that you'd know it from magazines and advertising. We are a diverse bunch and not all of us are meant to be skinny. It is very unhealthy for those who are not naturally skinny, to aspire to be this way. There is broad range of "healthy" in terms of size and weight, why not represent that through the entire magazine?

So yes, Jennifer is a "real woman" but the representation of women in these magazines is not real, it is an artificial narrow minded representation designed to sell magazines and the products within. Referring to Jennifer's human characteristics (er, the fact that she bends in the middle...you know, the "crease") as "flaws" is devastating to the cause. The controversy over this just highlights the fact that women won't be fooled and we demand better.
Posted by Elka, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 9:00:34 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
Melinda is right when she says that many of us (from both genders) have imperfect bodies. That being the case, it should surprise no-one that "only 12 per cent of women were happy with their bodies." Instead, it should be seen as natural that most women would like to change some aspect of their looks. We certainly shouldn't be telling most women that they have a mental problem called "low self esteem." Almost all of the unsatisfied 88% are being perfectly rational and shouldn't be told that they have a problem. We don't treat men this way.

Thank-you, Elka; thin models are just as real as any other woman. They aren't androids.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 9:54:20 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
Of course all men and women come in different shapes and sizes as do all their bits and pieces. I'm sick of this body image stuff. Not everyone even wants the same thing and the way nudity is regarded as shameful for some reason is beyond my comprehension. If everyone walked around naked, as they do in some places, no one would take much notice. If for some reason bald men were considered salacious in some way and kept hidden, I wonder how many people would go to lengths to see one? It's mostly only the the hidden nature that causes the desire. We admire a Rubens Nude and hang it on the wall, but depict it in the flesh and everyone goes crazy. The Archibald fountain by the War memorial in Sydney hardly creates a second glance yet everything is on view there and few have wanted it banned since the 1930s. However, Jennifer Hawkins was not the person to photograph to give women confidence although she shows nothing more than displayed in her lingerie adverts, unretouched as she maybe.
We have always been hypocritical over body image and while it was quite alright for large aboriginal women to dance topless in front of Parliament House and at the Olympic Games, what sort of criticism would be apparent if those women were white ?
Posted by snake, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 11:00:02 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
I notice with some interest that Melinda has only the one image available on the net which I guess is many years old. Could it possible be because she is afraid of showing her wrinkles?

Miranda's politics come from the religious right wing, and whose writings follow more closely baptist dogma than womens' rights. Considering that nearly all her pleas are for restrictions on choice whether it is for termination of pregnancy, advertising, internet access, etc, she is definitely the vanguard of the PC thought police, and for the restriction of liberty.

Considering that food photographs in magazines consist mostly of undercooked meat covered in oil, and styrofoam chips, I am not stunned by the air brushing of a few models.

Jen Hawkins sells because it is what women want to see. The time of the muffin top models is still a long way off.

http://unbelief.org/articles/melinda-tankard-reist/

http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/news/latest_news/2009/2009925_776.shtml
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 12:40:46 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
SM “she is definitely the vanguard of the PC thought police, and for the restriction of liberty.”

She certainly reads that way

I wonder if Jennifer HAwkings bothers to read the dross of Tankards pieces

Probably not, dear Jennifer is probably getting on with her life, as a successful super model… and good luck to her

Just as I will return to getting on with my life and ignoring this victim of O/C disorders, manifest in the way she demands to controll what everyone else is allowed to do, wear and have pictures of themselves taken.

Noting that the few images of the Tankard portray her in a manner of her choosing, it is a shame she cannot respect the same desire of Jennifer Hawkin’s and other women (like my wife) who just like to look “great”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 12:52:47 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
Oh Shadow Minister, I so love it that you've resorted to to caricatures, personal attacks and opinions on physical appearance instead of responding to the substance of Melinda's argument. It means you really have nothing to say.
Posted by Elka, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 1:25:24 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 would like to take this opportunity to make my first ever post to this site, having just joined today, by thanking Col Rouge for showing us what an important commentator Melinda Tankard Reist must be to have attracted his comments.
Posted by Wybong, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 2:16:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to ask Graham Y, did you actually pay for that little rant?

I'm staggered if you did.

From my experience, nothing screams fat jealous bitch like the use of the phrase 'real women'.

'The whole PC beauty shift is for so many just a hilarious bit of theatre.'

Indeed it is! I think it's a measure of the disdain most have for

a) Proponents of the shift like MTR
b) The attempt at PC censorship
c) Victim gender politics

Remember when politics dictates what's correct, it's called propaganda. Aptly realised and appropriately reacted to by the group intelligence of telegraph forum trolls, hooking the 'please give me something to be irate about' MTR, and adding to the wealth of 'anecdotal research' that she splatters on rants like this to push that horse. Wonderful theatre! A triumph for free thinking human spirit.

What would never occur to the likes of MTR, is that the general punter on a telegraph forum can see the farce for what it is, doesn't care (shock horror) about her hobby horse, and enjoys adding fuel to the fire and getting a rise out of the likes of her. Or maybe it does occur to her, and the indirect mocking of her hobby horse is even more upsetting to her than the fact she'll never look like Jen Hawkins.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 2:27:52 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 don't read this article as being about thought police or being against women looking nice at all.

I read it as a comment about a magazine using the lovely Jen Hawkins as a role model for average women. It was done probably to show that even Jen H. is not afraid to show her flaws in contrast to the media's tendency to airbrush women to look perfect (even if the image is not real). The point being that Jen Hawkins is probably not really an average looking woman to use in this particular instance and her flaws are not really flaws just a natural part of a real body.

Melinda R, I think, was arguing that if normal body characteristics are seen as flaws how does this help with body image. The comments made by posters on online newspapers make the point.

There will always be someone more beautiful more brainy more elegant more skilled than oneself. The trick is being content with the way you are.

The magazine was trying to make a (well-intentioned) statement that even Jen Hawkins has flaws and no-one is perfect - even a Miss Universe. The mistake was the assumption that the dimple and waisline are flaws in the first place.

When models (male or female) are featured in magazines without airbrushing we will have evolved to another level in civilisation where ageing will be seen as a natural and beautiful part of the life cycle. Where real body characteristics are not hidden as though something to be ashamed of, but cherished as realistic and beautiful.

Even men and young boys are becoming obsessed with the way they look. The fashion and beauty industry do have vested interests in keeping the status quo so don't hold your breath for change anytime soon. Give me a real-life craggy, rugged guy over a metro plastic variety anyday.

Ultimately, the only way it will change if we the consumers don't fall for it and that may take some time too.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 2:41:22 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
Elka,

Before I posted I read through many of Melinda's posts and some articles on the web, and saw that as the link I posted claimed, that Melinda has deviated from reflecting the women's liberation movement to representing exclusively the church's definition of what women should want.

My comments were to show that her article is both hypocritical and from the religious right wing.

Having just read through all your posts over the last couple of years, it is clear that your views are so much in lock step with Melinda / religious right that either Elka is a pseudonym for Melinda, or your sole burpose is to follow behind her clapping.

I support women's rights not right wing women.

Melinda's article was trite, sarcastic, and completely missed the point.

Women's magazines are the ones focusing on the body perfect, and the beautiful people, and why? Miranda and her ilk (elka) would have us believe that it is to influence how we think, however, it is purely in response to how we think.

Any women's magazine that does not feature these beautiful people will sell only to the religious right and end up bankrupt.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 2:43:14 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
Well, I await to see that day pelican when all photography is done in passport photo detail bright flash light, none of that flattering soft light that hides 'flaws'. The brothels and strip joints will be in stark fluorescent lighting and women all over the world will all wear flat shoes and no make-up, never shaving any body hair, or even washing their hair for that matter.

It will be like that Ben Elton's book Blind Faith, with all the fatties wandering around in their 'beautiful' barely covered sweaty pimpled bodies.

Anyone who knows anything about photography would know that the 'stillness' of the captured image makes people look less attractive as we normally never see live people in such static light and stillness. So the 'flaws' are more visible than in real life. So lighting and angles and lenses are used to make the images more flattering.

Since no photo is ever an accurate representation of reality, at what point do you draw the line in post-processing? Do we go down to regulating contrast hue and even white balance on every image? Do we legislate all photo processing must be done by the camera's sensor and processor? Do we outlaw digital imaging altogether and regulate some standard of film to keep everyone 'enhanced' only by the talent of the photographer?
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 3:22:46 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
Houlley
You are taking my comments to the extreme - of course photographers would use subtle lighting to make the best of a photo in a similar way I would take a photo of my family without faces squinting in the sun.

I don't think this is the same thing as a whole industry built on the myth that bodies are absolutely perfect in that plastic airbrushed way. This is not just an issue for women, male models are treated the same and it is being reflected in an increase in boys with eating disorders. What is wrong with the body au naturelle? Most models like Jen Hawkins don't need airbrushing.

If you read my last line I wrote that it will be the consumer that will change the nature of fashion magazines/industry not government intervention. It is already happening and some magazines are already responding to public opinion. Last year there was another magazine that did an experimental issue without airbrushing and it received a very positive response
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 3:45:16 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
What I find funny is it's womens mags that do this.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 4:05:22 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
Another exceptional article on real issues women face DAILY!
We need to continue to keep the issue of the objectification of women in the forefront of public debate. I know that there are many people who care about this issue deeply and there are many women who are impacted by this kind of thinking and imagery immensely. This is certainly not an isolated view. There are lives impacted daily by this twisted view of how women should be and what they should look like.
With sexualized imagery on the increase and magazines continual emphasis on the 'physical body over any other qualities' I think regulatory systems and bodies need some serious review.

The Butterfly Foundation says it is “dedicated to a world that celebrates health, well-being and diversity”. They also say they are about “cultural change”. I’m not sure how using Jennifer Hawkins to raise funds helps achieve these aims.

There seems to be some mixed-messaging about what the Butterfly Foundation wants to achieve.

Good on you Melinda for highlighting this issue
Posted by Ric Skeleton, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 4:53:28 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
Well Hell I am so dissapointed , I was conned , gawd I hate it , I thort she was a decent shiela now I find out she's got more galls than a redgum forest , Geesz I friggen hate bein sucked in .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 5:31:26 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
Stripping nude for the good of other women. She is more deceived or deceitful than Bill Henson or the PETA earth worshipers who are more comfortable carrying on like animals than humans. Mothers who bring this women trash into their own homes are silly enough to wonder why their teenage daughters have such a tough time of things.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 6:06:47 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
*There will always be someone more beautiful more brainy more elegant more skilled than oneself. The trick is being content with the way you are.*

Pelican, you are of course quite correct! In fact you produce
quite a few words of wisdom, as long as it has nothing to do
with economics :)

Runner, nude is in fact quite normal and natural, its how your
god made you. It does not even mention in the 10 commandments,
that nudity is evil. I think you will find that your friend the
Catholic Church, invented all that some years ago, back when they
were the only Xtian religion in town. They carry some strange chips
on their shoulders in Rome, especially anything to do with sex.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 6:38:28 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
Hi Shadow Minister!

I too identify as atheist and do not subscribe to right-wing politics. Does this mean that I can never share any of the goals or beliefs that Melinda Tankard Reist does?

So you support "freedom" - do you not think that there are varying degrees of what people in society should be "free" to do ? Is it okay to shout "FIRE!" in a packed theatre? Or to stand up on a soap box and pound out 'hate speech'?

Clearly there should be limits. Thanks to people like Melinda Tankard Reist, a recent video game accessible over the internet from Japan was banned. This game encouraged players to rape a mother and her two daughters (aged 8 and 10) on a train. Thanks to Melinda's speedy actions, this game was banned so Australians could not access it via the internet. Is this what you disagree with ? Do you support the raping of women and children?

If you decide that just because someone may be of a different political persuasion to you, that you can never agree on any common objectives, then you significantly limit the potential to minimise harm in an unhealthy environment.

As a psychologist and eating disorders specialist, it is well documented that the promotion of a thin-ideal and sexualisation increases body dissatisfaction, which in turn increases risk of disordered eating.

A reiteration of one body ideal is harmful to many. If Marie Clare really wanted to promote healthy body image, why would they choose a woman most famed in Australia for matching the prescribed beauty ideal? And then call the natural 'crease' in the middle of her torso a “flaw"?

A healthy body image will be adopted when people are allowed to feel safe in their own bodies, and enjoy eating a healthy diet and exercise without being pressured to be thin. Not everyone can be healthy and thin at the same time.

Maybe you would like to do some research into the actual issues being discussed, Shadow Minister, rather than personally attacking Melinda Tankard Reist's appearance and right to her political opinions.
Posted by Sylvie Jade, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 8:24:01 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
Given the form runner believes his god gave hime (cynical, snide and ignorant) it is no surprise runner would wish others to hide the bounty life has given them.

More power to Hawkins, sight unseen.

Rusty.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 9:02:13 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
According to Bishop Brian Frumpley, the editor, of "Christianity Today" a survey of 5,500 readers that found only 12 per cent of Christians were happy with the state of their souls. "Its a disgrace" fumed editor Frumpley. "That smug self-satisfied 12 per cent better watch out, because they're headed straight to HELL!!"
Posted by Johnj, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 9:52:14 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
Kenny: I don't find it surprising. The magazine is part of the extensive Hearst empire I believe - dominated by older men promoting conservative values and limited ideas about women.

The only thing that surprises me is that there are still enough silly people, presumably women, to buy it. I wish they could realize their full potential and see how their anxieties in trying to gain social approval are being exploited.
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 11:23:31 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
Rusty: <"... it is no surprise runner would wish others to hide the bounty life has given them.">

The trouble is that it isn't the "bounty" of the average or ageing bod that Hearst and other magazines want to promote. Women who flash it only get approval if they meet certain ideals. On a forum somewhere else I saw where women who'd had kiddies and were no longer 'ideal' were referred to as "letting themselves go".

I don't think too many people care too much either way whether men display their bounty even if it's a paunch and hairy ears. I've never heard or seen any comments from women bagging out pics of men, whereas, as the article points out - many men feel entitled, even obliged, to pass judgement on a female's looks.

It's a good article.
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 11:31:28 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
SM and Col Rouge, the big issue is not whether some women like shaving their legs or not.
It's about women's social place, where they are reducted to a physical body. Eating disorders are (it seems to me) the result of the interplay between social expectations and an individual's urge to matter.

That we are happy to reduce women, again and again, to their physical appearance, is dehumanising.
Have a look at magazine photographic images of women from fifty years ago. Our cultural representations of women have become glossier, younger, and hypersexualised in comparison.
Even our movie characterisations of women aim for a 'young and dumb' prototype.

It is an issue that is impinging on women's lives, not least because men feel as entitled as ever to comment on women, in a way that women do not comment on men.
When I married, I became privy to the banter between sporting men about women. I thought I was fairly realistic about the esteem with which men hold women. Alas, I was in for a shock.

Women need to help themselves come to grips with life as protagonist, not as vase.
And, no, that does not solely mean the 'right' to be available, or to appear available, for sex. Is 'Sex And The City' the best we can offer ourselves? Pretty (read 'sexy') clothes?
Posted by floatinglili, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 11:53:03 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
Floatinglili “That we are happy to reduce women, again and again, to their physical appearance, is dehumanising.”

One observation… what you appear to be complaining about happens to men too… maybe not to the same extent but to some degree or other…..
proof… pictures of “hunks in trunks” in magazines and the success of the male review groups like “Chippendale”

what you also complain about as “we” is also misleading.

The point is ladies have free will. They are free to accept being reduced to their physical appearance or not.

I know a lady who is extraordinarily beautiful.

She has got used to other women coming up to her and complimenting her on her appearance and asking her advise on health / weight / beauty secrets.

When she walks through venues both men and women turn and watch her. She has often retreated to the ladies room to avoid persistent would be suitors

She admits she is the vainest person she knows and she just loves the attention and disruption she causes from momentary and fleeting encounters.

However, anyone who thought she was simply a coat hanger for her Dior coats and Versace tops would be very much mistaken.

So it seems to me, those who come here and complain about ladies being treated as “beautiful objects” are venting mainly because

no one has treated them as “beautiful”… objectified or otherwise.

If you do not like something you have the personal right to ignore it and get on about your life.

You do not, however, have the right to impose your personal expectations or limits upon others.

Like I said before

Jennifer Hawkins is likely simply getting on with her life

It is a shame Tankard cannot find a real life to get on with, instead of writing the anti-aesthetic drivel which I suppose she thinks impresses the god-squad
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 7 January 2010 7:19:38 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
"A healthy body image will be adopted when people are allowed to feel safe in their own bodies..."

I agree. This will be achieved when women can say "I aren't as good-looking as that model, photoshop or no photoshop" without getting criticised. The problem is (well intentioned) people, saying "oh no, you cannot say that, you have to think that you are absolutely gorgeous or you have a mental problem called low self-esteem." We all know what attractive looks like and how we compare. Expecting every woman to think of themself as beautiful is unrealistic, over-protective and is setting them up to fail.
Posted by benk, Thursday, 7 January 2010 7:19:50 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
All this discussion proves is that Marie Claire were absolutely right to run the article, and the photographs.

The media commentary has been worth many millions to them in advertising . It has allowed their editor to appear on morning TV, which is a PR coup. And the existence of the piece will undoubtedly sell many more copies of Marie Claire, this and future editions, than would otherwise have been the case.

Do you believe they really care whether it degrades/empowers/upsets/delights anybody?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 7 January 2010 8:33:03 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
Thank you, Melinda, for taking the time to highlight the problems with this type of 'empowerment' stunt for women. It beggars belief that Frank and the Butterfly Foundation wouldn't have come up with the same concerns when this 'fundraising' initiative was first dreamt up--and if they didn't they should have hired you as a consultant to think through the obvious implications. As you point out, there is no point in generating pictures that add to the sexualised culture surrounding girls, when it's this culture that has contributed to their eating disorders in the first place. I think the Butterfly Foundation should seriously review its organisational mission if it really can't see the problem with this means of 'fundraising'.
Posted by warexx, Thursday, 7 January 2010 10:01:03 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
I'm inclined to think this whole body image thing is just symptomatic of rampant consumerism.
How many billions of dollars are spent every year on everything from curtains to cars, handbags to houses, jewellery, perfumes, colognes, shampoo etc, etc., just so people can feel more happy about themselves -in comparison to others?
There just isn't any money in people accepting themselves -and each other- as being who and what they are.
Pericles is right. If they chose an ordinary person, with ordinary 'flaws', why would anyone buy the mag?
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 7 January 2010 10:47:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I Dont always agree with MTR but I do on this issue. This is ridiculous. How can Marie Claire possibly hold up a supermodel as a model to make women love themselves just as they are?
More to the point what a lot of bull about Jen being 'brave'? what is so brave about a lingerie model taking nude photos as a publicity stunt? Nor, for that matter, can you see any more than you would in a lingerie shoot.
Oh and labeling these photos 'untouched' is horrendous as it seems to suggest they are totally natural. Um... hello? Natural would mean not sitting getting hair and make up done for hours, then setting up lighting and poses etc. These photos are HIGHLY contrived to make her look good. Just bc they weren't photoshopped does not mean thats what she naturally looks like
Posted by ninaf, Thursday, 7 January 2010 11:05:53 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
Why is she held up as a role model? How is this other women any better? Who is she anyays? Why do nobodies feel the need to go naked on a cover of a magazine nobody buys and why do we care? Haven't we got any decent role models? She justs looks nice in a frock, big deal. Or out of a frock, wow so important.

Same as men, we have a man who hits balls around a field and he is paid trillions and upsets everyone when he fails the image test? A ball whacker? We hold a ball whacker up as a role model? He gets paid all that for such a moronic task?

I don't think wrinkles and dimples is the real problem here.
Posted by TheMissus, Thursday, 7 January 2010 12:49:42 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'm inclined to think this whole body image thing is just symptomatic of rampant consumerism.*

Grim, I think its more like basic evolution theory in action.

Males in general are still instinctively attracted to young,
healthy looking females, as it implies fertility and health.
Females in the end, are competing with one another for better
males, any survey will show that looks makes a big difference.

Females OTOH commonly are attracted to power and resources,
so they line up for a guy like Tiger Woods. The fact that
a guy can provide the resources to feed the offspring, still
matters in female selection criteria.

No matter how much we wish, some of these deep down, instinctive
human drives, are not just going to go away, they are part of
our genetic make up.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 7 January 2010 1:07:52 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 and Floatinglili,

Human beings are still driven by primeval instincts, where physical image has been linked to status since Helen of Troy. People, especially women are keenly sensitive to status, and the focus on celebrities and beautiful people in women’s magazines is a reflection of this. My 13yr old daughter spends far more time dressing up for a girl’s only party than any other time. Myself and other males look on with incredulity.

The magazines show what people want to see, not the other way around. Unless showing models in mags is banned, this is unlikely to change. So my point is why should we look at imposing such limitations on expression which are unlikely to have any impact.

PS, my 12 year old son on hearing that Grand theft Auto Vice city was banned took 30 mins to download a cracked (license deprived) version via bit torrent that bypassed even my strong filter installed on his machine. After various threats he removed it, but it simply goes to show how futile censorship is with modern technology. The net filter will only work with old farts like us. While I can punish him, short of banning technology all together censorship is futile.

The suspension of liberty or freedom of speech should only be done if the following criteria are met:
1. There is a significant and defined threat
2. The restriction of liberty will have a clear and measurable impact on the threat,
3. The restriction of liberty has as little impact on those not vulnerable to the threat as possible.
As the measures proposed by MTF clearly fail on 2 &3, and as less than 2% of the population will ever be affected by eating disorders with about 0.001% ever requiring hospitalisation, I would suggest that it is marginally more serious to Australian health than hangnail, and fails under criteria 1 as well.

Finally, considering that the single greatest eating related disorder in Aus, causing 1000s of premature deaths a month, is obesity, the question of why we want to tell our kids that being chunky is OK
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 7 January 2010 2:23:57 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
SM and Col,
I know that we are apes, and that looks count for a lot for both men and women... but that for women, looks are significantly more important in being selected as a mate.
My private joke is that men prioritise compliance above all other 'virtues' when selecting a mate. Looks second, probably... and then character. The most important thing being that a woman not complain. In that way, men are realistic, and uncomplicated.
As a broad generalisation, men do not select for economic power, and in fact may find the lifestyle realities of a hardworking woman somewhat of a turn-off.
These realities, as well as the constancy of objectification of women in images, shows a power imbalance between men and women, and a sexual anciety for women resulting from the awareness of that imbalance. The rampant consumerism that women indulge in is probably a symptom of all this.
Because we are not just mindless apes, staggering from branch to branch. We are more evolved than that, and aware of our circumstances.

I do not need to hear that women also prefer good looking men, as a kind of apology for the human race, as I know this to be true.

However, women are generally better mannered about airing their sexual preferences, because they do not have the social power to enforce their choice as the community priority.
Posted by floatinglili, Thursday, 7 January 2010 2:41:13 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
Floatinglili

"women are generally better mannered about airing their sexual preferences". In my experience, women are much more open about having a huge wish list. Ask any teenaged girl about what type of boy they likes and you will be stuck there for an hour. Men who have a huge list of criteria are ridiculed for their arrogance. Women who have this huge list are applauded for having self confidence. Unfortunately, socialising women to have unrealistic expectations is going to lead to failures that won't help their self-esteem too much at all.

Grim

"I'm inclined to think this whole body image thing is just symptomatic of rampant consumerism" It is more than just symptomatic, it is propping it up. Open any women's magazine and you will find articles telling women that they absolutely have to think of themselves as beautiful or they have a huge problem. Interspersed with these, you find adverts for beauty products that seem to offer the chance to feel beautiful. Add to that the tendency for most of the media to tell people what they want to hear and the free publicity that Pericles mentioned and you see why these magazines have an interest in this body image crap. It is nice when people can make their self interest look like their principles.
Posted by benk, Thursday, 7 January 2010 3:39:35 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
pelican,

What technical line are you asking for in the manipulation of an image? Just the airbrush tool in photoshop? There's lots of tools.

It seems to me, the technology gets unfairly blamed. As per ninaf's comments, how is make-up and lighting any different to airbrushing blemishes and wrinkles? How about the old-fashioned stocking over the lens? Blue contact lenses? How many models will shag a photographer that makes them look old anyway? It is a matter of degree, but where do YOU want the line drawn?

To what degree should ugly women be shown in beauty magazines? Draw the line for me. How real is real? How far do you expand the definition of a beautiful woman so that it doesn't include any ugly people? I agree it's too narrow for my taste in women, but I'm not the consumer they're after, it's more likely women are the target. What they're doing now sells, and the odd attempt at expanding the definition have met rejection by women consumers.

pynchmne,

'many men feel entitled, even obliged, to pass judgement on a female's looks.'

pft. They were invited. How dare men express appreciation of beautiful women who are paid to be photographed for display! How dare they reject the ideal of feminine beauty being promoted in this display in favour of something different. Having their own preferences! How dare they!

The celebrity cellulite exposés show that women are way harsher on each other than any guy would be. Nope, the ultimate judge of women and their bodies is other women. Womens magazines demand thinner models than 'lads mags' too.

BTW: An article with barely 2 paragraphs of any real substance that merely states the bleeding obvious (ie the whole exercise is 'air cover') , and the rest referencing from The Telegraph forum is not a good article.

floatinglili,

There's no 'imbalance'. Men just become wage slaves to show off their money and risk their lives to display their toughness to show off to women.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 7 January 2010 4:35:01 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
Floatinglili “I do not need to hear that women also prefer good looking men, as a kind of apology for the human race, as I know this to be true.”

If you “don’t need to hear”, then don’t listen

but if you don’t want to listen, don’t bother to post

One of the obligations attached to exercising the entitlement of being allowed to make public comment is to expect and possibly suffer a public response

Unfortunately too many folk anticipate exercising their entitlement without considering the obligation.

mmmmm… now who else said something like that…

ahhhh dearest Margaret..

(and she also said she owed nothing to womens lib either)

Ah Houlle… nice to see you posting again….

I also agree with your comments re the coat hangers of the cat walk versus the voluptuous, big bosomed babes of Playboy….
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 8 January 2010 6:57:24 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
Houellebecq: When I said, "many men feel entitled, even obliged, to pass judgement on a female's looks", I was referring to all women, not women who might be considered to invite such judgements by modeling, though it applies somewhat to them as well (as noted in the articles re: the quotes from men).

Even you, just a few posts back, concluded that women who disagree with the magazine action must be 'jealous fatties' or some term to that effect. Just as, in attempts to diminish feminist commentary you and your cohorts attempt to portray feminists as hairy legged humourless man haters. In praising or denigrating women; it's always referring to their appearance (or assumed appearance) - rather than to the content of what they say.

The issue isn't whether you have prefences in the looks of people with whom you choose to be intimate; it's whether women are valued for all that they are besides their looks.

For you and Col: Not all females need to be regarded as mateship material 24/7 - we can do other things besides bonk and produce babies. For example, why this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1164744/The-worlds-beautiful-female-politicians-revealed-surprise-surprise-theres-British-woman-them.html

What is the relevance of that article?

Anyway here's summin for you fellas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuWmb5xQowA&NR=1

I read somewhere - men who think a woman's appearance is her main source of value and women who value men primarily for their income tend to be drawn to each other; and each deserves what they get.
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 9 January 2010 12:41:59 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
Yabby, thank you. I think?

Economics Bah. :)

"I read somewhere - men who think a woman's appearance is her main source of value and women who value men primarily for their income tend to be drawn to each other; and each deserves what they get."

That is priceless Pynchme because it rings so true - each to their own. It sometimes takes a lifetime for people to realise what happiness means for them, and I don't think for most is having a wardrobe full of designer frocks or a trophy wife on their arm.

Houlley
I guess there is a point where one asks where do you draw the line in terms of photographic technology. Like most lines - they are drawn when there is no market. Many of my peer group no longer buy women's magazines - I haven't for years not because of the photo aspect specifically but because they are generally boring. Give me an organic gardening or news journal in preference.

Personally I don't use photoshop or other tools unless it is to clean up a flaw. I prefer a picture to depict what it is. Some might see a more artistic role for photography and that's fine too although I would prefer a real photo rather than a manipulated image.

In the face of these sorts of media images, the only way to combat the trend is to refuse to buy the magazines and to teach our own children to be resilient and confident to offset external influences.

MTR does raise some good points and I was interested in Sylvie Jade's comments about the Japanese game that was banned. What a travesty these sorts of games are even made. What does this say about society?
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 9 January 2010 9:09:57 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
Excessive concern for body image is a consequence of the ideals set forth by the overly sexualised society we live in – needless to say that women’s mags are doing a great job at it... Change will come from people understanding that self-worth is an innate characteristic of human beings. Incidentally, I recently heard author/researcher Maggie Hamilton talk about her book "What's happening to our girls?" which would be of benefit to any parent of a teenage girl.
Posted by AMCE, Sunday, 10 January 2010 12:07:19 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
*we can do other things besides bonk and produce babies.*

Pynchme, well I should hope so! A bit of cooking, cleaning
and ironing, would be pretty handy too :)
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 10 January 2010 12:28:18 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
Yabbie: <"A bit of cooking, cleaning
and ironing, would be pretty handy too">

Haha Yabster you old stirrer you!

That would be saying that blokes are too:

(a) Stupid
(b) Lazy
(c) Superior
(d) Arrogant

(choose all that apply)

- to do those tasks!

I have every confidence in you fellas to manage those self care tasks for themselves :)
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 10 January 2010 12:57:21 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
Thanks Melinda for being able to see the big picture on this issue. The objectification of women is trivialised by many as a non-issue or written off by resorting to unintelligent slander. Your article is a welcome example of someone thinking clearly and honestly about it!
Posted by tar, Sunday, 10 January 2010 8:09:58 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
Pynchme, perhaps most blokes simply designate that stuff as
"womens work" :)

*The objectification of women is trivialised by many as a non-issue or written off by resorting to unintelligent slander*

Tar, I see it little different to some women intent on marrying
Mr Moneybags and bleeding him dry when they do. Lets face it,
some women do have $ signs in their eyes, when they walk down the
isle.

As some have pointed out, perhaps Mr Moneybags does indeed
deserve Ms Bigtits. They kind of suit one another and if that is
what she has been marketing herself as, that is how she is seen.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 10 January 2010 10:05:25 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
Hey pynchme,

'Even you, just a few posts back, concluded that women who disagree with the magazine action must be 'jealous fatties''

No I did not.

What do you weight? Very defensive.

I said women who use the term 'real women', are often in my experience jealous of thin women, who I proclaim are just as real as fat women.

All this focus on Anorexia, and I really think obesity is 10 times more prevalent and serious. But anorexia can be twisted to be men's fault (for 'gazing' at beautiful women) rather than obesity that's simply women's fault for eating too much. Even that doesn't stack up because the womens magazine market has the thinner women than the men's market.

'you and your cohorts attempt to portray feminists as hairy legged humourless man haters.'

Of course. It gets a rise out of you. It also allows you the ruse of ignoring the serious content of our posts; to write us off as misogynist shallow 'typical' men. Even though Col for example has sang the praises many times of many non-physical qualities he loves about his partner.

'In praising or denigrating women; it's always referring to their appearance'
Rubbish, I attacked the quality of the whole article, with one bit of bait thrown in. I think you should read Nina's article on the ease of baiting the average pynchme type. Anyway it's 'de rigeur' on OLO to attack the motivation of all authors. Why should feminists get special treatment.

'What is the relevance of that article? '

Relevance to what? The article is about what it's about. Should female politicians not ever be seen as beautiful women? Should Tony Abbot not be seen as a Budgie smuggler? Alex Downer not as a cross dresser? I'm much more offended when they tell you what she's wearing in an article about something else. I remember my 'feminist' friend asking only 'what was she wearing?' when her father met Julia Gillard.

If you think that's 24/7 you need to broaden your reading material.

Thanks for directing me there though, I enjoyed this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1242017/Twilight-star-Ashley-Greene-wears-body-paint-sizzling-new-ad-campaign.html
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 11 January 2010 9:50:32 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
Houellebecq: You're too tedious and basically dishonest to be able to conduct a good exchange of opinion.

These are you exact words from the first post:
<"From my experience, nothing screams fat jealous bitch like the use of the phrase 'real women'.">

This is my recent paraphrase of your words as quoted above:

<'Even you, just a few posts back, concluded that women who disagree with the magazine action must be 'jealous fatties''>

This is your current attempt to sanitize your original statement as well as have a jab at me personally in a way that isn't generally directed at men:

<"No I did not.

What do you weight? Very defensive.

I said women who use the term 'real women', are often in my experience jealous of thin women, who I proclaim are just as real as fat women.">

You say that disparaging women is a way to, "It gets a rise out of you. It also allows you the ruse of ignoring the serious content of our posts; to write us off as misogynist shallow 'typical' men.".

Now you have a choice. You can either leave out the disparaging comments and have an adult conversation; or you can leave in the disparaging comments and have us diverted from the "serious content" you're trying transmit.

Your choice.

I've got better ways to waste my time than this.
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 3:06:36 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
pelican,

'Give me an organic gardening or news journal in preference.'
You've just moved out of the target market.

It's like I have to keep reminding myself about TV; It's not aimed at me any more. The government provides the ABC as a welfare initiative for people who aren't in the target market for advertisers that fund the entertainment industry.

Yabby,

It's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man you know.

Cornflower,

Exactly. Thin is in because it is hard to attain in your average slothful glutinous western lifestyle.

I think really this whole beauty industry is solely a responsibility of, and a reflection of, women.

Women compete with each other to attain an ideal they have created themselves and projected onto men as being responsible for it all. Gay guys used stick thin models to sell clothes, women decided this occupation was glamorous and expanded the fashion lust for the clothes to the actual bodies hired to display the clothes. Men are neither here not there in the whole scenario, but where there is a feminist, you'll always quickly find a man to blame somewhere.

The proof in the pudding is that you'll not find many feminists at all interested in the lack of physical exercise most girls do or their poor diet and being over weight, you instead see a super strong emphasis on the few girls who take on this competitive extreme to cover for their self esteem problems.

Guys who take steroids to be muscular don't blame girls for swooning over Brad Pitt.

Women could take a leaf out of the social expectations of men who mock and laugh at each others beer guts and thinning hair in good humour and deplore vanity. Metrosexuals could well do the same. Much better than this bitchy behind the back womans way where chicks are obliged to compliment friends to reasure each other on every change in appearance, and are afraid to be seen at two social occasions in the same outfit.

It all comes down to vanity. You reap what you sow.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 9:31:18 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
pynchme,

The two quotes are the same. Neither says that 'women who disagree with the magazine action must be 'jealous fatties'', both say the use of the term 'real women' screams fat jealous bitch.

You've made it clear that you never have any intention of addressing any of my points and just concentrate on your image of the 'typical' male. So I play up to your expectations, and give you what you want.

I understand you don't have any answers, so I leave the bait there as a service to you, as you have no comebacks for...

pynchme: as the article points out - many men feel entitled, even obliged, to pass judgement on a female's looks.

Houleeee: The celebrity cellulite exposés show that women are way harsher on each other than any guy would be. Nope, the ultimate judge of women and their bodies is other women. Womens magazines demand thinner models than 'lads mags' too.

pynchme: It's a good article.

Houleeeeee: An article with barely 2 paragraphs of any real substance that merely states the bleeding obvious (ie the whole exercise is 'air cover') , and the rest referencing from The Telegraph forum is not a good article.

pynchme: many men feel entitled, even obliged, to pass judgement on a female's looks..... as noted in the articles re: the quotes from men

Houleeeeee: How dare they reject the ideal of feminine beauty being promoted in this display in favour of something different.

(ie: men rejecting just what the author wants rejected.)

pynchme:What is the relevance of that article?
Houleeeeee: Relevance to what? The article is about what it's about. Should female politicians not ever be seen as beautiful women? ...I'm much more offended when they tell you what she's wearing in an article about something else.

All pretty adult conversations. Questions from me, no answers from you, but instead cowardly diversions like...

pynchme:For you: ... Not all females need to be regarded as mateship material 24/7 - we can do other things besides bonk and produce babies.

Where exactly did I say anything like that?
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 10:08:00 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
Many a true word is said in jest. Take for example, "nothing screams fat jealous bitch like the use of the phrase 'real women'." Most of us need to eventually face up to the fact that we aren't as attractive as we could be. The point behind Houlie's one-liner is that some bigger women women react to their predicament by being bitchy toward those women who are more fortunate or have better self-control. This obsession with body image gives them a licence to be nasty to models, its almost their duty as women. It would be so much preferable if women were encouraged to act with a bit more dignity.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 3:31:56 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
Benk: Nice of you to pop by to interpret Houellebecq's comment.

The point that you and apparently he is missing, is that HE is the one who is using the term "fat" and ascribing character flaws (jealous) to people he designates as physically unattractive.

The author doesn't look to me like she would fit his typology.
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 4:41:50 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. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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