Jump to content
Skypool

Sexism

Recommended Posts

Double posting as it is WAY later and this is a GREAT story:

 

WAY to go teenage girls ! They want to:

 

stop the "altering of photographs in a manner that could promote unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image".

 

Note that phrase. "appropriate body image"....

 

But wait:

 

Seventeen says

we believe that Julia left understanding that Seventeen celebrates girls for being their authentic selves, and that's how we present them. We feature real girls in our pages.

 

Ummmmm

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

Double posting as it is WAY later and this is a GREAT story:

 

WAY to go teenage girls ! They want to:

 

 

 

Note that phrase. "appropriate body image"....

 

But wait:

 

Seventeen says

 

Ummmmm

 

Yep. I don't think the fashion industry will really cut down on photoshop. They do it to celebs, why would they stop doing it to "normal" people?

 

Example:

user posted image

 

I hate how photoshop makes people's skin look like plastic.

Edited by ylangylang

Share this post


Link to post

Well at least Vogue has announced it will use no more under 16 models so as not to get them into early anorexia etc. It's a start.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

ylangylang, she's beautiful already, there was no need to make her look like a pinhead >_< They seriously shrunk her head.

 

Good for the teens protesting...good for them indeed. More people need to be aware of this, and I'm very glad to hear about teens taking their magazine to task.

 

I'm thinking it's Britney Spears, she recently took grave issue with her photos being edited and released the originals. Yes, it was she: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/b...n_n_535981.html

 

I don't get this. She's lovely all on her own before they photoshopped her butt straight off and then bent her spine lifting what was left of it.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that's quite a good solution, considering that in the model industry it's how much experience the models have that gets them jobs, and if someone really wants to become a model when they grow up, telling them they can't start until they're 16 is rather... cruel. Especially when people who want to become artists of some sort can start working on portfolios earlier than sixteen. I don't really see any difference between someone who really wants to become a model and someone who really wants to become a <other art related career here>, as long as the person who wants to become a model is healthy. I'd think a better solution would be to start encouraging a greater diversity of clothing sizes for the models, while not outright banning small clothing sizes, because there are some people who are naturally impossibly skinny, although they are very rare, and banning them from modelling is just as wrong as creating the impression that ALL people have to be that skinny.

Edited by Layn

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think that's quite a good solution, considering that in the model industry it's how much experience the models have that gets them jobs, and if someone really wants to become a model when they grow up, telling them they can't start until they're 16 is rather... cruel. Especially when people who want to become artists of some sort can start working on portfolios earlier than sixteen. I don't really see any difference between someone who really wants to become a model and someone who really wants to become a <other art related career here>. I'd think a better solution would be to start encouraging a greater diversity of clothing sizes for the models, while not outright banning small clothing sizes, because there are some people who are naturally impossibly skinny, although they are very rare, and banning them from modelling is just as wrong as creating the impression that ALL people have to be that skinny.

It applies to all models - so that works for me. Young girls should not be modelling adult clothes anyway - it gives adults a deranged view of how they look on a grown woman.

 

And modelling is hardly an "art related career". CREATING fashion is. Strutting on a catwalk isn't.

Share this post


Link to post

It applies to all models - so that works for me. Young girls should not be modelling adult clothes anyway - it gives adults a deranged view of how they look on a grown woman.

 

And modelling is hardly an "art related career". CREATING fashion is. Strutting on a catwalk isn't.

It also brings up the problem of... someone who wants to be a doctor will probably take lots of biology classes in high school, then take pre med classes in college, then go to med school.

 

Someone who wants to become a lawyer will do equivalent things to get into law school.

 

Someone who wants to be a model will probably follow the same pattern, regardless of when they are allowed to start working, and preventing them from working until they're sixteen won't change the way they treat themselves before then, if the industry doesn't change the fact that it's promoting exceptionally skinny models.

 

Which is why allowing them to work as models, but stop promoting the "models must be incredibly skinny" would be a more effective deterrent to early anorexia than "models can't work until they're sixteen". Saying models can't start working until they're sixteen right now just implies "when you turn sixteen you must weigh less than a hundred pounds no matter how tall you are or you won't be able to fit into clothes". Saying "you're fifteen, and you've eaten 100 calories in a day, I know you didn't eat anything more because you've been here all day and skipped your lunch break, that's unhealthy, you aren't working until you gain five pounds on a healthy diet, not from eating ice cream" would be a more effective deterrent.

 

You could make the case that saying models can't work for Vogue until they're sixteen is because under sixteen year olds won't be wearing the clothes anyway. But what Vogue said is that they're trying to discourage early anorexia. Which this isn't going to do. So in terms of simply discouraging early anorexia, this is pointless.

Edited by Layn

Share this post


Link to post

It also brings up the problem of... someone who wants to be a doctor will probably take lots of biology classes in high school, then take pre med classes in college, then go to med school.

 

Someone who wants to become a lawyer will do equivalent things to get into law school.

 

Someone who wants to be a model will probably follow the same pattern, regardless of when they are allowed to start working, and preventing them from working until they're sixteen won't change the way they treat themselves before then, if the industry doesn't change the fact that it's promoting exceptionally skinny models.

What someone who really wants to model will do is a: not work for a magazine and b: model as a hobby. One does not have to be in flipping Vogue at 16 to do work as a model. They can strut around on their sidewalk and put on fashion shows for their friends.

 

Vogue doing this IS CHANGING THE INDUSTRY.

 

Suggesting that Vogue not change the industry until the industry changes is beyond backwards.

Edited by Princess Artemis

Share this post


Link to post

What someone who really wants to model will do is a: not work for a magazine and b: model as a hobby.  One does not have to be in flipping Vogue at 16 to do work as a model.  They can strut around on their sidewalk and put on fashion shows for their friends.

 

Vogue doing this IS CHANGING THE INDUSTRY.

 

Suggesting that Vogue not change the industry until the industry changes is beyond backwards.

But not hiring models under 16 isn't going to encourage women under 16 to not be anorexic.

 

I don't have a problem with them trying to change the industry, I'm just saying that the change they're implementing is not likely to have the effect they're hoping that changing the industry will have.

Edited by Layn

Share this post


Link to post

What someone who really wants to model will do is a: not work for a magazine and b: model as a hobby.  One does not have to be in flipping Vogue at 16 to do work as a model.  They can strut around on their sidewalk and put on fashion shows for their friends.

 

Vogue doing this IS CHANGING THE INDUSTRY.

 

Suggesting that Vogue not change the industry until the industry changes is beyond backwards.

But thats not changing the industry at all, its not even changing Vogue's culture, they still use the same models, the only thing they're doing is pulling a publicity stunt that will make them look good in the eyes of the world....

 

When Vogue starts supporting healthy looks/diets and employs models that dont look like they're starving, then it will be a firm statement about changing the industry, "culture" of the industry needs to change for things to actually change, minimum age is just public relations.... Thats how I see it...

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post

 

When Vogue starts supporting healthy looks/diets and employs models that dont look like they're starving, then it will be a firm statement about changing the industry, "culture" of the industry needs to change for things to actually change, minimum age is just public relations.... Thats how I see it...

That's another part of what they say they plan to do. Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't say it was an earth-shattering change, but it is, indeed, a change. Vogue cannot very well dress adolescent girls up like adults if they aren't employing adolescent girls as models, can they?

 

My point to Layn still stands. It is changing the industry. Changing indicates the process isn't finished yet. It's baby-steps, but we can't see those baby-steps forward and then tell them they should stop taking baby steps because the industry needs to change first >_O

Share this post


Link to post

From little acorns mighty oaks grow and all that. It's a start. And it is a change.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's influential because people are actually starting to take responsibility for what their power; namely the power to make people idealize a certain type of body or a certain type of look, which hasn't been done for a long time. The power of the media and of the fashion industry to effectively police what the mainstream idea of beauty should look like shouldn't be overlooked.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/...xic_models.html

 

In her book, “Pricing Beauty,” model-turned-sociologist Ashley Mears wrote about the routine buck-passing that goes on in the fashion industry when questions about size and ethnic diversity come up. Bookers and editors and designers all blame each other for deciding what kind of female beauty is the right kind of female beauty.

 

“Designers want them to look a certain way,” one magazine editor tells Mears, blaming them for making models so skinny.

 

“We take who the agencies give us,” a designer explains, passing the buck along to booking agencies. “If they only choose that kind of waif, tall figure that that’s what we’ve got to choose from.”

 

“34-24-34 is the ideal size,” a booker says. “I have no idea where that came from. Of course I don’t like that.”

 

And round and round it goes, and the quest for edginess pushes the “look” to ever bonier extremes, and no one is willing to step forward and say, “Enough.” Amazingly, this week, Vogue did just that.

Share this post


Link to post
I didn't say it was an earth-shattering change, but it is, indeed, a change. Vogue cannot very well dress adolescent girls up like adults if they aren't employing adolescent girls as models, can they?

 

My point to Layn still stands. It is changing the industry. Changing indicates the process isn't finished yet. It's baby-steps, but we can't see those baby-steps forward and then tell them they should stop taking baby steps because the industry needs to change first >_O

My problem is that the changes they are making have no effect towards their intended goal. None whatsoever. Changing what age models are allowed to start working will have no effect on anorexia in people younger than sixteen. None. I'm not saying changes shouldn't be made, I'm saying that this is in no way helpful towards what they say they're doing. This isn't a baby step. It's a publicity stunt.

 

If their intended goal was doing away with exploiting children for teh sake of fashion, sure. I'd approve of this as a first step. But since their "intended goal" is reducing anorexia in younger people... no. This won't have that effect.

Share this post


Link to post

What do we need models for? Can't they just pull anyone off the street to wear their clothes? Wouldn't the fashion industry benefit more from putting their clothes on average people instead of people who look nothing like their typical customer and are so photoshopped that the final result is a person who isn't even real? I don't understand why it's called the 'fashion' industry when they are more concerned about the hanger than the clothes.

Share this post


Link to post

Uh, Layn?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly...ting-disorders/

 

they said

 

Vogue magazines will not work with models under the age of 16 or who appear to have an eating disorder. They outline the importance of models who both appear healthy and “help to promote a healthy body image.”

 

So they are doing sth to combat eating disorders. And it's not like a person under 14 will suddenly stop regurgitating by force two weeks before they decide to enter Vogue so...I think it actually does try to combat eating disorders.

Share this post


Link to post

what was originally said was that they were only hiring models who were older than 16, nothing about "no one who appears to have an eating disorder"

Share this post


Link to post

There was a hilarious stunt in Berlin where some pranksters made some huge Photoshop pallettes and put them on some subway posters to highlight the shopping. Unfortunately, the american site where I had read it doesn't seem to carry the article anymore. There's just some stuff left in the cache. This just shows a little piece of it.

 

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/gal...dd15418e2_o.jpg

 

http://gizmodo.com/5130163/photoshopped-su...posed-in-berlin

 

As far as the boys and appropriate color thing, my nephew's favorite colors were bright green and yellow. Especially yellow. his dad told him it was not an appropriate color o.O. Pfft, we buy him yellow stuff anyway. He had really wanted a bright yellow car. His mom had one and he loved it. It did make him sensitive about the colors though.

Share this post


Link to post

I have always liked colors that were "gender-innapropriate" for myself, such as red, blue,, gray. I generally dislike the "gender-appropriate" colors, and was rather dissed on for it for much of my younger life. Stereotypes are dumb.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
There was a hilarious stunt in Berlin where some pranksters made some huge Photoshop pallettes and put them on some subway posters to highlight the shopping. Unfortunately, the american site where I had read it doesn't seem to carry the article anymore. There's just some stuff left in the cache. This just shows a little piece of it.

 

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/gal...dd15418e2_o.jpg

 

http://gizmodo.com/5130163/photoshopped-su...posed-in-berlin

Love it!

 

I googled it in German to see whether there was any more and found this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
There was a hilarious stunt in Berlin where some pranksters made some huge Photoshop pallettes and put them on some subway posters to highlight the shopping. Unfortunately, the american site where I had read it doesn't seem to carry the article anymore. There's just some stuff left in the cache. This just shows a little piece of it.

 

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/gal...dd15418e2_o.jpg

 

http://gizmodo.com/5130163/photoshopped-su...posed-in-berlin

That's fantastic. Heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Love it!

 

I googled it in German to see whether there was any more and found this thread.

Fantastisch.

Share this post


Link to post

This is 2012, right? I haven't wandered back in time a century or two?

 

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/...-right-to-vote/

 

But at no point have remarks approached those made in a recent sermon by Rev. Peterson, a champion of the Tea Party movement, who declared:

 

“I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote.  We should’ve never turned this over to women. And these women voting are the wrong people.  They’re voting in people who are evil who agree with them, who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.

 

“And this probably was the reason they didn’t allow women to vote when men were men.  Because men in the old days understood the nature of women.  They were not afraid to deal with it.”

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.