I can definitely see your point, but I don’t believe that it has to be this way. The cliff is still a cliff, and anyone who jumps really has no one to blame but themselves in the end. You all know the saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”, right?
We’ve all watched TV more than twice in our lives… we’ve all been to at least 2 web sites… all seen at least 2 billboards… all listened to the radio at least twice… purchased at least 2 magazines… etc etc etc. In short, I think that as a society we’ve seen enough of the efforts of the marketing/media world that they just shouldn’t be fooling us so easily anymore. I dunno that I can realistically expect this to change too much, but I don’t have to like it.
I don’t wish to deny or minimize the tragedy of anorexia and other eating disorders.
It is not insensitve, however, to point out that the media are not responsible for this problem, any more than the Republicans or gay aliens.
The media moguls did not get together and say, “hey, let’s drive all the women nuts by depicting only rail-thin heroin-chic toothpicks,” neither did the hundred million American women one day pick up a copy of Vogue and say, “Oh, I have to be rail thin now.”
Even more to the point, it is not men who are responsible for the commercial success of these magazines, it is women. I lack statistics, but I know of no men at all who buy or subscribe to these magazines; they seem entirely supported by women, contradicting your argument that these magazines cause these dire health problems. True, they cynically exploit women’s insecurities, and they deserve their measure of contempt for doing so.
As BillyBoy has so eloquently pointed out, each individual person is ultimately responsible for his own behavior and self-esteem. If your opinions are dictated by the media or anyone else, you cannot be free; you can only be held in more or less benevolent slavery.
We’re on the same page, then, mostly. I think it’s a shame that so many people are so impressionable, but I think it’s more of a shame that so many others prey on them.
Which gets back to the OP. I’m not concerned so much about the image Harper’s is displaying, or whether or not they have an obligation to provide a “healthy body image.” They don’t.
I’m just saying that if the decision was made that Renee should be pulled because she was “overweight,” I cannot understand how those decision-makers can sleep at night.
Oops. I was replying to Billy, but my response holds for you as well, Joe.
Absolutely true. Who did point this out? And who thought it insensitive? I did make a point of saying that I do not believe the media are at fault for much of anything, any more than I hold “the government” at fault. People, people, people.
Fair enough. I am indeed a man and will freely concede that I’m no expert on women’s magazines. I pay almost zero attention to them in general (even their racks, for the most part). However, I can’t resist an opportunity to play devil’s advocate.
I just started working at a prominent women’s magazine, and I have something to add - I’m not sure how it is at Harper’s Bazaar, but down on the editorial floor, I’d say it’s about 90 percent female, if not more. I’ve seen all of two guys down there who aren’t delivering mail. So the idea that the vague “media” is perpetuating this horrible thing for against women is a bit inaccurate, as, at least at this magazine, it’s women that make up the media.
<One other observation, which may or may not be relevant, but I’ve been wondering about it - how come women spend so much money on shoes when men never, ever notice their shoes (unless they’re gay). What’s up with that? Feel free to ignore this as it’s sort of a hijack but I’ve been wondering…>
My point is, it’s in our culture, and I find it crummy that we have this idea that thin is so ideal and perfect.
I would rather look like Kate Winslet than Kate Moss anyday.
I don’t blame the media. YES, it is a personal responsibility thing.
However, my point is, how would some girl, who is rather overweight feel if she heard someone say, “Oh, we’re not going to put up a “fat” picture of Renee whoeverhernameis.”
It’s kind of like, they put you under a microscope and disect you.
We have to get rid of this narrow idea of beauty.
Or maybe it’s just late and I’m talking out of my ass again.
Imagine that some young girl, maybe 11 or 12 or so, starts hearing that, all the damned time. She’s a little plump, but not fat…and she sees that not-fat-but-not-skinny women are being talked about in that way. Don’t you think that is going to color her perception of herself? I know at about age 11, I was far from fat (that came later) and I was already dieting. Because I heard my (not fat) older sisters say how fat they were, how fat everyone was, and how you are useless and hideous if you are fat. But they weren’t fat. And I remember thinking, “They look OK to me, but I am 11, what do I know of the world? They must be fat, my judgment must be wrong.”
When you are force-fed that crap from such a young and impressionable age, what chance do you have of having a clue what a “normal” attitude is? My sisters were force-fed this crap by other people and from the media, they fed it to me, and so on and so on.
When you never hear anyone say “I would rather look like Kate Winslet than Kate Moss anyday.” how can you choose to think that way? You aren’t even aware you are entitled to think that way about weight, and appearance. That’s the way it is for a lot of young girls. That’s the way it’s been for many years. That’s why so many of us have such a strong reaction to this issue.
Yeah, well. Your verbosity, and the way you come across as extremely dull, just made me want to throw in a jokey remark. And there ya go, even your response proved my suspicions.
Very good question. One explanation I’ve heard: a woman’s feet are one of the few aspects of her body that she’s relatively happy with and that doesn’t change in size. It’s way fun, therefore, to dress 'em up.
Don’t know if that’s correct, or even close, but it’s all I got.
A third-grade girl said she’d like to be Britney Spears
And:
And then there’s this:
And so it goes. These are probably the same parents who don’t want schools to teach sex education: “If we don’t talk about it, she’ll lose interest in it. Besides, I’m so uncomfortable with my own sexuality, I really can’t discuss it with her. And it’s normal to be uncomfortable with your sexuality; I don’t trust people who can discuss it with just anyone. And they may tell her it’s all right to be a lesbian, when it just so obviously isn’t.”
If you don’t talk about it, she may experiment with sex and you may end up with a pregnant 13-year-old, or worse, you idiot.
If girls as young as 8 aren’t getting the message that they must be thin, sexy and sexually active from the media, then where ARE they getting it? Their peers? Older children? From ten-year-olds?
So, here are the messages children hear today:
Only thin people are sexually desirable. Fat people are ugly.
You must be sexually active. If you aren’t, there’s something wrong with you.
We aren’t going to tell you what sex is. You have to find that out for yourself.
Don’t have sex out of wedlock. If you do, you’re a slut and your child will be a bastard. And you’ll go to Hell.
If you’re gay, too bad. You can’t have sex EVER. Unless you turn straight. Don’t ask us how it’s done, though, we’d rather not talk about it.
Any wonder why the kids in that survey are so confused?
(Oh, and I apologize for not providing a link to some online version of this story; I simply couldn’t find it. Sometimes, these public library computers can be REAL stubborn.)
Women’s magazines don’t exist to satisfy the desires of women. They exist to satisfy the desires of advertisers. Most of the publishers’ incomes come from advertising rather than from their profit from the newsstand prices and subscriptions. To make a reasonable profit on the magazine, they have to please the advertisers rather than the readers. Women’s magazines which publish articles based on what the readers want rather than what advertisers want don’t get advertising, so they cost too much and eventually go out of business. (Interesting exception: Ms. magazine became non-profit so they wouldn’t have to take advertising.) Look at the advertisements in women’s magazines: They’re for clothes, for make-up, for food, and for diet products. (First, get them fat, then sell them on diets.) Advertising is about creating desires as much as it is about satisfying them.
Incidentally, it seems to me that most men don’t really like excessively thin women. I’ve heard women claim that, unlike men, they have to put in the effort to stay thin in middle age, whereas men can get fat, because it’s acceptable for men to get fat but not women. I’m not really convinced that that’s true though. When I think about the couples in my acquaintance where one partner is noticeably heavier than the other, it seems to me that it’s at least as common for it to be the woman as the man. This would seem to indicate that men care no more than woman about a partner’s weight.
I totally agree. Back to the subject of the OP, I think Renee Zellweger is the cutest thing going. I was seriously crushed in Jerry McGuire, and after seeing Nurse Betty, I think I’m in love. I also think Kate Winslet is hot.
I have nothing good to say about women’s magazines. They make assumptions on beauty, and then people start believing those assumptions based not on their own preferences, but because it seems like “everyone else feels that way.” Bah.
There is no doubt in my mind that Women’s magazine choose articles to sell products. The basic model seems to go like this:
Everyone has a fun, fufilling sex life
If you don’t, thre is something wrong with you.
We have a product for that.
It’s not jsut women’s magazines, of course, and not just fat–there are other insecurities that can be played up. I have a friend who ,I swear to god, thinks that he was the only one Not Gettting Laid in highschool, and is still bitter about it (he’s in his mid-twenties). He thinks everyone else went through high school in a teen sex comedy.
Another example: I read about one cosmo a year, just cause I like to get angry. (I I want to get really angry I read a 17, but that is another story). Every issue I have ever read makes a referense somewhere to the idea that a “normal” man should be able to sustain an erection and have sex 15 minutes after orgasming. At 18 I believed this–at 23 I started looking for empiical evidence. The truth seems to be that very few men past about 18 get an erection that fast, and even if one can be achieved through oral or manual stimulation, they usually don’t feel like taking it anywhere until they’ve had a short nap. I don’t know where Cosmo got this “fact”, but I think it serves the purposse of making every “woman” (and lets face it, a serious part of Cosmo’s real audience is not the proclaimed audience of 26 year old single corporate women in NY and Chicago, but 16-23 year olds that want to be Cosmo girls. Real “Cosmo girls” are reading Business Weekly) feel like there is something either wrong with her because her man dosn’t want her enough to screw her every 15 minutes, or something wrong with her man, and thus something wrong with her for not attracting a better one.
Truth is, happy, content people spend less money. The best way to sell people things is make them misrable.