Today's Pinup Fashion a Sly Wink to the Past - New York Times

[Drappa]

If ever there was a ready-made discussion group for Ariel Levy's book, this one would be it. I really encourage everyone participating in this discussion to take a close look at "Female Chauvinist Pigs," a book that really cuts deep to the heart of everything that's being discussed in this thread. You might not agree with everything she says or how she says it, but if she doesn't make you at least *think,* you weren't paying close enough attention.

I've read it, and agree with you. It does seem to be somewhat Anglo-centric though.

 

[Drappa]

Perhaps I may be in the minority of women's thinking here, but I never thought Cosmo or any women's magazine's for that matter make women feel bad or inadequate, at least I never have. I see nothing wrong with offering suggestions/articles on how to better one's self or life.

I think when it comes to the visual aspect of women's bodies, thin models are used as an ideal because people like pretty people. Also, I personaly, never saw models as a body I have to achieve, but rather an ideal of being the best and fittest I can be for my body. For me, I am terribly out of shape, but I don't blame "unrealistic" models, I blame my own laziness. In fact, I get so angry when women thank me for being a "real woman". Mind you, I am angry at the situation not the people paying the compliment. I get angry because they aren't thanking me for being a "real woman", but for being a lazy one! My body's extra pounds are not because I am built this way, but because I am lazy! Then it makes me wonder when I get back to my fighting weight, so to say, will people say that I am that size because society/media told me I have to be that size? Which will be completely ridiculous because it is this "real woman" size that makes me feel uncomfortable, sluggish, lazy, and swollen -- completely unattractive. And it isn't because models on the magazines are a 0, it's because this weight is heavy! Blaming models and media, in my mind, is an excuse for one's own laziness both to achieve their own best physical fitness (be it a size 0 or size 24) and fear to own themselves mentally! As I say to people whom I've taught Burlesque to, Burlesque isn't about saying, "I am a big/skinny girl, but I can be sexy too!" It's about saying, "I am freaking sexy! I just happen to be a big/skinny girl -- now watch me rock this show!"

As far as articles wanting to be better in bed or please or man or even how to get a man... Why is that so bad, I wonder? Do men not deserve to be seduced by an attractive woman? Are they not worth having a confident woman in bed? Which in turn makes it more enjoyable for the woman who knows her man is enjoying it just as much. What have men done so wrong to deserve this extra attention? It makes women feel good to be romanced, why can't men feel the same. If you think it is about domination and control, a confident woman will never be controlled. It will be about respect and understanding. I don't feel bad for women being "suppressed" by these articles, but rather for them men who no longer feel worth it to have a woman's effort for them or feel worthy enough to be allowed to glance at a beautiful woman!

All these articles are based on bettering one's self. Why is that so wrong? Why is it only the articles on beauty and sex that get all the hubbub? There are PLENTY of magazines on how to better one's faith, business, smarts, education, health, ect -- why can't beauty and sex be part of that? The reason why that gets so much attention is because people bring attention to it with their cries. The squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say. It is at this point it becomes a business, because no business is going to not take advantage of that -- that isn't very good business there. In the end it is about selling -- anything. Would you buy a magazine that had an article on how to make yourself uglier, dumber, less of a (spiritual) believer? I mean even the "celebs without makeup" magazines sell because they are selling a way for you to feel better about yourself. "Hey, look at Angelina without makeup, now I don't feel so bad," or "Ugh look at Beyonce's cellulite, even I don't have that much," or whatever it may be. You end up feeling better about yourself.

You are working on a few assumptions here that are not necessarily a given. Models are not simply "pretty people", in fact there are often much prettier people who could, for a variety of reasons, never be a model nowadays. Many people don't find the extremely thin models of today particularly attractive, nor are most of them the ideal of a fit and healthy body. Some models have starved themselves to death, others have eating disorders that in the long run affect fertility and bone density, to name a few side effects. Even the naturally thin ones aren't necessarily fitter than someone who weighs 160 lbs, but does a lot of physical exercise.
These articles aren't truly about bettering yourself, they are meant to make you doubt yourself in order to sell more stuff. new clothes to look better and be fashionable, make-up to hide flaws, health foods and lots of gadgets, all of which hammer home the idea that you aren't quite good enough the way you are. There aren't any articles about being a kinder human being, about being actually charitable or discussing any ideas in depth. Moreover, they are geared towards fulfilling male ideals of sex and beauty, which over centuries have been internalised by many women. None of the men's magazines, on the other hand, are ever geared towards the needs of women. How many articles do you find in men's magazines about becoming more emotionally available, helping out more at home, or truly listening? They are usually about how to get more meaningless sex, how to pretend you care, and what to do when you get caught doing something you shouldn't do. Granted, some of these are tongue-in-cheek, but overall both men's and women's magazines are about how to please men, get women to be prettier and skinnier, and have superficial relationships with lots of sex.

People (men and women) deserve better than this. It's not about not deserving a beautiful woman to look at, it's about only being reduced to a dress-up doll who should be thin and good at sex. It paints both genders in a very simplistic light, and assumes that most people have a uniform idea of beauty, relationships and sensual pleasure.
And no, I wouldn't buy a magazine that tells me how to make myself uglier or dumber. I would however buy one that assumes I have intellectual capacity beyond "12 Ways to Keep Your Man From Straying", or "The 5 Least Painful Heels". Let's not even think about the manipulation of pictures that goes on and the ridiculous percentage of young girls who feel fat because the Cosmo cover girl had 5" shaved off every thigh in photoshop.

 

[Flicka]

If ever there was a ready-made discussion group for Ariel Levy's book, this one would be it. I really encourage everyone participating in this discussion to take a close look at "Female Chauvinist Pigs," a book that really cuts deep to the heart of everything that's being discussed in this thread. You might not agree with everything she says or how she says it, but if she doesn't make you at least *think,* you weren't paying close enough attention.

I can only reiterate my very first post in this thread: I think everyone should read that book. For me it resonated, but even if you don't agree, like Lizzie said, it gets you thinking.

 

[LolitaHaze]

I find your reply quite interesting (not in a bad way). Perhaps it's about perception because I have never felt less than or doubted myself because of articles such as that. For me, articles like these are much like performance critiques. Honest critiques are meant to improve your performance, even if it points out the bad and makes you doubt what you have done. Even if there is a hidden agenda of making one feel less than in these magazines, I take them and their articles at face value and nothing more. One of the best words of advice I had ever been given was about performance critiques and I have applied it to the rest of my life... "Take what you can use and throw out the rest." Maybe that is why I take these articles at face value -- look at them as how to improve and throw out the parts that make me (or try to) feel bad about myself.

Now I can't speak for the models with eating disorders themselves, but relatively speaking, the majority of eating weight loss eating disorders are not actually about weight loss. And to get angry today's media for applying these pressures on these celebrities and models all while glorifying our Golden Age celebrity heroines is senseless since they were under the same pressure and did the same things. Veronica Lake was too fat at 105lbs versus her "normal" 98lbs. Same with Judy G! I suppose the point being, is that it shouldn't be media's responsibility to raise women into knowing the difference between fact and fantasy. But rather family raising. Teaching a child that these images are for entertainment and selling purposes only. And don't get me wrong, I get it... I have my moments too when I look at a flawless star and think how I wish I was pretty like them, but I also know what it takes to get a pretty me.

As far as articles, I highly disagree!! There are plenty of articles in these beauty magazines based on these types of women... charitable, hardworking, family women. The cover may not have it listed, but the contents do! But their market isn't going to buy their mag based on that, if they did, they would be buying Ladies Home Journal! They are marketing towards their clients. That is just good business.

While I don't think a person's life should be sex sex sex 24/7, I do think it's ok to celebrate it whenever one wants to.

 

[Juliet]

William Stratford, when put this way I understand your point completely. Thank you for explaining.
And don't even get me started on the Cadeux editorial - I only hope that it was reason for Roitfeld leaving so abruptly.

LizzieMaine, and isn't it a shame? Vogue used to be an institution.
Actually, I was thinking about this - Suzy Parker, Dovima, Janet Blair, Carol Landis could give contemporary models a run for their money (except for Karlie Kloss and Snejana Onopka, perhaps), and yet, miraculously, thinness was not a defining factor for a woman's worth.

LolitaHaze, the trouble with Cosmo (on a very basic level) is this - yes, it does tell you that you should be more sexually open and adventurous and that you'll be lauded for it. But, fact is, you won't be lauded for it. You'll receive tons of criticism, and that Cosmo doesn't tell you (and as a 16-17 year old, chances are you don't know it already). And some people don't want to be sexually adventurous - why are they made out to be inferior? E.g. if you don't know 77 sexual positions and you won't sleep with a guy in the first hour after you've met, no man will ever bother with you. That doesn't mean that there's anything morally wrong with the behaviour in the example, but it's put on a pedestal and made out to be the only thing that you should aspire to.
Or the body image issue. One of the reasons it's so controversial is because one page will tell a girl - "these darn stick-insect models should all be banned to the North Pole", then the next one will state - "don't you want to be this thin, this hot, this elegant"? It messes with a girl's head.
And it makes people feel like they can freely comment on other's bodies. Just like Lizzie stated, girls get yelled at everyday. And not only things like "fat a**", but "eat a ******* sandwich, you alien!", too.

That's what leads to the disagreement on Cosmo here, I think. Yes, it can be seen as a kind of feminist thing - it freely discusses sexual habits, earning money, men (mostly in a derogatory way). It's headed by female editors mostly, who, one assumes, are pushing their ideas.
On the other side, it also violates feminism by constantly implying that being beautiful and sexually skilled is the only thing you should concern yourself with.

 

[William Stratford]

If ever there was a ready-made discussion group for Ariel Levy's book, this one would be it. I really encourage everyone participating in this discussion to take a close look at "Female Chauvinist Pigs," a book that really cuts deep to the heart of everything that's being discussed in this thread. You might not agree with everything she says or how she says it, but if she doesn't make you at least *think,* you weren't paying close enough attention.

I haven't read that but if its wiki entry is correct then it is saying something that I have been saying all along here (and been slated for);
* that women who participate in stripping, porn and prostitution are participating in the sexual objectification of women.
* that 2nd and 3rd wave feminism have lead to this situation (the former through the "sexual revolution" and the slime of Helen Gurney Brown, and the latter through its promotion of these activities as not inherently exploitative)
Is this a correct description of at least a couple of the books conclusions?

 

[scotrace]

Somehow, I doubt that.

This is completely unnecessary and below our standards of conduct. Your tone isn't winning any friends. Please stick to the discussion and remember the litmus test we apply: "would what has been written be offensive if it were delivered out loud, at a live, brick-and-mortar dinner gathering of members?"

 

[William Stratford]

This is completely unnecessary and below our standards of conduct. Your tone isn't winning any friends. Please stick to the discussion and remember the litmus test we apply: "would what has been written be offensive if it were delivered out loud, at a live, brick-and-mortar dinner gathering of members?"

Could you then please explain how my post was deemed unacceptable and yet the post I was responding to was saying the same about me (and yet has raised no comment)? It looks as if I am being singled out.

 

[LolitaHaze]

William Stratford, when put this way I understand your point completely. Thank you for explaining.
And don't even get me started on the Cadeux editorial - I only hope that it was reason for Roitfeld leaving so abruptly.

LizzieMaine, and isn't it a shame? Vogue used to be an institution.
Actually, I was thinking about this - Suzy Parker, Dovima, Janet Blair, Carol Landis could give contemporary models a run for their money (except for Karlie Kloss and Snejana Onopka, perhaps), and yet, miraculously, thinness was not a defining factor for a woman's worth.

LolitaHaze, the trouble with Cosmo (on a very basic level) is this - yes, it does tell you that you should be more sexually open and adventurous and that you'll be lauded for it. But, fact is, you won't be lauded for it. You'll receive tons of criticism, and that Cosmo doesn't tell you (and as a 16-17 year old, chances are you don't know it already). And some people don't want to be sexually adventurous - why are they made out to be inferior? E.g. if you don't know 77 sexual positions and you won't sleep with a guy in the first hour after you've met, no man will ever bother with you. That doesn't mean that there's anything morally wrong with the behaviour in the example, but it's put on a pedestal and made out to be the only thing that you should aspire to.
Or the body image issue. One of the reasons it's so controversial is because one page will tell a girl - "these darn stick-insect models should all be banned to the North Pole", then the next one will state - "don't you want to be this thin, this hot, this elegant"? It messes with a girl's head.
And it makes people feel like they can freely comment on other's bodies. Just like Lizzie stated, girls get yelled at everyday. And not only things like "fat a**", but "eat a ******* sandwich, you alien!", too.

That's what leads to the disagreement on Cosmo here, I think. Yes, it can be seen as a kind of feminist thing - it freely discusses sexual habits, earning money, men (mostly in a derogatory way). It's headed by female editors mostly, who, one assumes, are pushing their ideas.
On the other side, it also violates feminism by constantly implying that being beautiful and sexually skilled is the only thing you should concern yourself with.

I can see everything you are saying and see how many do feel that way... but just using that example you gave about one page saying one thing and the next saying another. I've seen that before and I have scoofed at it. I found it very amusing and comical that someone didn't see this prior to printing. I have never been confused which way is the right way. Believe me -- I get this in what I do. I've been turned down for gigs for being too big, but yet celebrated for the same thing, so which is it? Does it confuse me? No. I know what makes me comfortable and confident and I know what I have to achieve it. Once I do get to where I am trying to get back at, guess what, I am still going to get the same thing, You're too big -- You're too small. And what am I going to do? I am not going to cry well which is it, I am going to shout out I am Perfect!

And as someone who is an adult performer, don't think I don't get it from the non beauty side. There are plenty of people here who just from this thread alone think to themselves, why doesn't she crack open a book and use her brain... other's think I am a genius. Some of the rudest, most self absorbed people I have ever met have been "book smart". I've been attacked for not being as smart as someone because she didn't feel that she was as pretty as me. Which is a shame because she was just as pretty, if not more! She just had no interest in glam like I do. So she had to slam me because I wasn't as educated as her. I think continuing education is just as important as continuing physical self confidence.

We just need to be smart enough to find our own peace in everything about our own lives. Not everyone thinks the same as us as individuals do, but that is ok. I think a lot of us here are already smart enough to begin the journey of self happiness -- otherwise our fashion choices would be like the people of today, however I have seen this self assurance become insecurity here and turn vile onto the modern world.

This forum does the same thing as these magazines. I have come across more people than I should have who have a beginning interest in vtg, find this forum and are turned off because this place makes them feel inadequate for not being vtg enough! I can see that because sadly a lot of this forum has become about slagging off those that are not like us instead of celebrating what is. It is not longer a how to forum, but rather a we're better than. I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me here about that -- but like I said this is both my observation (part of why I left in the first place) as well as others who come to me feeling discouraged.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I haven't read that but if its wiki entry is correct then it is saying something that I have been saying all along here (and been slated for);
* that women who participate in stripping, porn and prostitution are participating in the sexual objectification of women.
* that 2nd and 3rd wave feminism have lead to this situation (the former through the "sexual revolution" and the slime of Helen Gurney Brown, and the latter through its promotion of these activities as not inherently exploitative)
Is this a correct description of at least a couple of the books conclusions?

There's a good bit more nuance to Levy's thesis than you'll find on Wikipedia, I'd say. She's less concerned with what individual women are doing than she is with the internalized cultural forces that encourage them to do these things. A lot of people who've criticized the book dismiss her as "another McKinnonesque anti-porn/anti-sex crusader," but she approaches the issue as a cultural historian, not as a poiemicist either for or against any particular form of behavior.

I'd suggest everyone read the book itself, and see for yourself what she's arguing -- and what's more important, *why* she's arguing it. The latter is more important than the former.

Another book I recommend to teenage girls I know is Wendy Shalit's "A Return To Modesty," which offers a common-sense alternative to the Cosmo-girl mindset for young women. Shalit's opponents attack her for a supposed "religious mindset" in her work -- she's Jewish -- but she doesn't evangelize in any way, and the arguments she raises in favor of her position are entirely secular.

 

[Drappa]

I find your reply quite interesting (not in a bad way). Perhaps it's about perception because I have never felt less than or doubted myself because of articles such as that. For me, articles like these are much like performance critiques. Honest critiques are meant to improve your performance, even if it points out the bad and makes you doubt what you have done. Even if there is a hidden agenda of making one feel less than in these magazines, I take them and their articles at face value and nothing more. One of the best words of advice I had ever been given was about performance critiques and I have applied it to the rest of my life... "Take what you can use and throw out the rest." Maybe that is why I take these articles at face value -- look at them as how to improve and throw out the parts that make me (or try to) feel bad about myself.

Now I can't speak for the models with eating disorders themselves, but relatively speaking, the majority of eating weight loss eating disorders are not actually about weight loss. And to get angry today's media for applying these pressures on these celebrities and models all while glorifying our Golden Age celebrity heroines is senseless since they were under the same pressure and did the same things. Veronica Lake was too fat at 105lbs versus her "normal" 98lbs. Same with Judy G! I suppose the point being, is that it shouldn't be media's responsibility to raise women into knowing the difference between fact and fantasy. But rather family raising. Teaching a child that these images are for entertainment and selling purposes only. And don't get me wrong, I get it... I have my moments too when I look at a flawless star and think how I wish I was pretty like them, but I also know what it takes to get a pretty me.

As far as articles, I highly disagree!! There are plenty of articles in these beauty magazines based on these types of women... charitable, hardworking, family women. The cover may not have it listed, but the contents do! But their market isn't going to buy their mag based on that, if they did, they would be buying Ladies Home Journal! They are marketing towards their clients. That is just good business.

While I don't think a person's life should be sex sex sex 24/7, I do think it's ok to celebrate it whenever one wants to.

If you see them like a performance critique and are able to take only the positives it may just mean that you are strong in yourself. I would guess that most teenage girls who read these don't have that strength yet, some never will, and many adult women also don't. Also, why does there need to be any improvement on our looks all of the time? Especially if it's not asked for? How many little girls are quite happy to get muddy and scratched up playing outside, but as they age they internalise that it's more important that they look flawless, and not only that, but flawless by some ridiculous high standard? Parents can try to counter this as much as they want but you only have two parents generally and society is much larger than that. The subliminal messages of what standards we need to achieve in order to be accepted are constant, and no parent can effectively protect their kids from this. As Lizzie mentioned, complete strangers will stop young girls and leer at them, say inappropriate things and made rude gestures at them. I know it has happened to me LOTS of times, sometimes even when walking along with my husband. It takes a very strong character to not let this affect you negatively, and even then it is disturbing.
I also don't attempt to look like Golden Era stars or secretly wish I looked like them, because I know what they had to do to look like that, or to be accepted as an ideal. If I had a young daughter who was starving herself to look like Audrey Hepburn I'd be just as saddened as if she was trying to look like Kate Moss.
Their charitable articles by the way aren't usually thoughtful or necessarily true. I know a few women from the vintage scene who were recently contacted by a major UK women's magazine and asked to pretend they live a lifestyle they don't. If they can't even write about real women with real style and keep it truthful, why would anything else in their be inspiring to real women?

 

[LolitaHaze]

Lizzie... Please keep in mind that I am not disagreeing with your suggestions when I say the following, I am just using it as a jumping board. While I agree that these book suggestions are great aids for young adults, I think everything we are arguing here should start PRIOR to the books being suggested with the raising of the children. Before they are bombarded with these "issues". To raise a child by a parents standards, they must also be taught/warned of these obstacles/images that will hit them in young adulthood so they are not caught off guard. It shouldn't be a book/magazine/tv show's responsibility to raise your child no matter how much they are trying to get at your child.

 

[Juliet]

LolitaHaze, yes, what you say is true - but for an adult. These days, Cosmo and the like are mostly targeted at teenagers and young adults, who are still developing psychologically.
You didn't get affected, and that's great, but a LOT of girls do. They look in the mirror and they see someone deformed, because they have this very crystal image of what they're supposed to look like (which isn't even a real-life image of a genetically blessed girl, but an artificial Photoshop creation). It's easy to discount this influence, but it's there and it's not healthy by any standards. Vintage ideals were a lot kinder on girls, IMHO.
Now, the discrepancy between messages is not a mistake - it's marketing. The point is that the reader doesn't settle on one opinion and one goal. They ought to be confused, doubting, easily led that way or another.
Also, there's the thing that magazines were for a long time a guidance to women. With parenting taking a backseat to work, many girls rely on magazines. It may sound silly - but it's a fact. Unfortunately.

I absolutely understand what you're saying the book smart/pretty thing - I can't tell you how many time I've experienced that attitude. Because God knows, if you're don't look like Quasimodo, then you cant' be any kind of intelligent! Le sigh.

 

[Juliet]

How many little girls are quite happy to get muddy and scratched up playing outside, but as they age they internalise that it's more important that they look flawless, and not only that, but flawless by some ridiculous high standard? Parents can try to counter this as much as they want but you only have two parents generally and society is much larger than that. The subliminal messages of what standards we need to achieve in order to be accepted are constant, and no parent can effectively protect their kids from this. As Lizzie mentioned, complete strangers will stop young girls and leer at them, say inappropriate things and made rude gestures at them. I know it has happened to me LOTS of times, sometimes even when walking along with my husband. It takes a very strong character to not let this affect you negatively, and even then it is disturbing.

Yes, exactly! Thank you.

And don't even get me started on the teachers who treat girls, who develop early, as "loose". Talk about positive reinforcement, indeed!

 

[Drappa]

Lizzie... Please keep in mind that I am not disagreeing with your suggestions when I say the following, I am just using it as a jumping board. While I agree that these book suggestions are great aids for young adults, I think everything we are arguing here should start PRIOR to the books being suggested with the raising of the children. Before they are bombarded with these "issues". To raise a child by a parents standards, they must also be taught/warned of these obstacles/images that will hit them in young adulthood so they are not caught off guard. It shouldn't be a book/magazine/tv show's responsibility to raise your child no matter how much they are trying to get at your child.

Don't you believe in society also having a social responsibility to the people of all ages, genders, ethnicities etc. though? If we put ALL responsibility on the parents and say "society is like this, deal with it", we also absolve society. That would be akin to accepting crime as a given, because it happens, instead of wanting to actually do something about it to make sure it doesn't happen quite so much or at all. Absolving society of the responsibility would make for very apathetic citizens. I wouldn't want to live in a place like that.

 

[LolitaHaze]

If you see them like a performance critique and are able to take only the positives it may just mean that you are strong in yourself. I would guess that most teenage girls who read these don't have that strength yet, some never will, and many adult women also don't. Also, why does there need to be any improvement on our looks all of the time? Especially if it's not asked for? How many little girls are quite happy to get muddy and scratched up playing outside, but as they age they internalise that it's more important that they look flawless, and not only that, but flawless by some ridiculous high standard? Parents can try to counter this as much as they want but you only have two parents generally and society is much larger than that. The subliminal messages of what standards we need to achieve in order to be accepted are constant, and no parent can effectively protect their kids from this. As Lizzie mentioned, complete strangers will stop young girls and leer at them, say inappropriate things and made rude gestures at them. I know it has happened to me LOTS of times, sometimes even when walking along with my husband. It takes a very strong character to not let this affect you negatively, and even then it is disturbing.
I also don't attempt to look like Golden Era stars or secretly wish I looked like them, because I know what they had to do to look like that, or to be accepted as an ideal. If I had a young daughter who was starving herself to look like Audrey Hepburn I'd be just as saddened as if she was trying to look like Kate Moss.
Their charitable articles by the way aren't usually thoughtful or necessarily true. I know a few women from the vintage scene who were recently contacted by a major UK women's magazine and asked to pretend they live a lifestyle they don't. If they can't even write about real women with real style and keep it truthful, why would anything else in their be inspiring to real women?

When I speak about improving one's looks, I don't necessarily mean glam standards. I am talking about those who make excuses for not being as thin or curvy or as pretty as other's when they don't even try. Or if they do try... give up because they can't tough it out. Same with people who have given up formal education -- I am just speaking beauty here. For example, I don't care for the au natural hippie dreads look. But if someone else does that is great! If that is in their eyes beautiful and they do their damnedest to keep it going, more power to them. It's those that prefer that look, then slag off glam queens like me that I want to say stuff it to. People need to be smart enough to stop comparing themselves to others. Finding inspiration is great, but stop blaming other's because one can't hack it. But back to the question of why all the time... it doesn't have to be all the time. I look nothing like my avatar right now, believe me. And if other's are shouting out negative comments, screw them... it says more about them than it does you, because you can bet your bottom dollar for every 1 negative there are 2 positives... and 3 if you include yourself! (I always include myself because I am that vain hahahaha).

Funny thing, raising confident self thinking children is possible. My mother did it and she was a single parent! All 3 of us have our moments and issues, but doubtful you will find any of us being subject to anyone else's opinions, whom we could care less about! Even amongst siblings! My sister is super liberal (I am surprised she has come to my shows) and I am the black sheep. None of us feel like we have to look like a beauty magazine -- though my sister is an avid runner and my brother lifts weights (they just enjoy that) nor do they feel that they have to be the best parents ever by getting their kids the newest and best gadgets which are being advertised to them just as strongly as physical images.

No matter the temptation -- the world needs to take personal responsibility and stop blaming the world for their problems and short comings because chances are they are not short comings at all. No matter how nice society begins to play, there will ALWAYS be someone smarter, richer, prettier, and better. That isn't the fault of collective society.

 

[LolitaHaze]

LolitaHaze, yes, what you say is true - but for an adult. These days, Cosmo and the like are mostly targeted at teenagers and young adults, who are still developing psychologically.
You didn't get affected, and that's great, but a LOT of girls do. They look in the mirror and they see someone deformed, because they have this very crystal image of what they're supposed to look like (which isn't even a real-life image of a genetically blessed girl, but an artificial Photoshop creation). It's easy to discount this influence, but it's there and it's not healthy by any standards. Vintage ideals were a lot kinder on girls, IMHO.
Now, the discrepancy between messages is not a mistake - it's marketing. The point is that the reader doesn't settle on one opinion and one goal. They ought to be confused, doubting, easily led that way or another.
Also, there's the thing that magazines were for a long time a guidance to women. With parenting taking a backseat to work, many girls rely on magazines. It may sound silly - but it's a fact. Unfortunately.

I absolutely understand what you're saying the book smart/pretty thing - I can't tell you how many time I've experienced that attitude. Because God knows, if you're don't look like Quasimodo, then you cant' be any kind of intelligent! Le sigh.

I just want to say that I have my self esteem issues right now -- I have had my food issues as well -- I am currently well over weight, but I will never blame the media for it. It is my fault that I let myself go from my personal best, it isn't the media's fault that I am not a size 0. I've been this way since I was a child. But it isn't about achieving someone else's idea of perfection. It's about achieving my own ideas of perfection. I can not blame the world for my laziness to do just that. I know that even once I hit my personal best, I'll still be too big for some and too small for others. I am smart enough to know that is never going to change. I am not going to read an article on how to lose those stubborn 10lbs as I am 10lbs too heavy... I am going to read it as good, now I can do what it takes to make myself feel better. I am explaining myself so horribly here I know.

As for vtg ideals... A study of classic Hollywood pictures (which are comparable to today's magazines) are just as airbrushed! You can see the lines from where the photographer scrapped off inched on a ladies arm, waist, and thighs. In a way celebrity images are a bit more honest as the world knows these images are doctored, plus there are plenty of without make up and cellulite candids being floated around that studios and stars of yesterday would NEVER let happen. Plus we have access to pictures of these same stars with the before and after Photoshopped images. Girls back then didn't have this with their stars back then. The information is there, people have to just see it.

I don't disagree that these images aren't influential, but it is how you take the influence that needs to be taught by parents. And you are right, girls are relying on these magazines as parenting takes a backseat. That is my point -- it's not these magazines' responsibility to raise a child, it is the parents.

now don't let this be a shocker to anyone... I actually do think these magazines could be a bit more encouraging and supportive, I just don't blame them for not being that way. They are in the business to make money, not save the world.

 

[LolitaHaze]

Don't you believe in society also having a social responsibility to the people of all ages, genders, ethnicities etc. though? If we put ALL responsibility on the parents and say "society is like this, deal with it", we also absolve society. That would be akin to accepting crime as a given, because it happens, instead of wanting to actually do something about it to make sure it doesn't happen quite so much or at all. Absolving society of the responsibility would make for very apathetic citizens. I wouldn't want to live in a place like that.

I am not sure how to word this and it might not come out right, but I will do my best. With proper parenting, 1 by 1 society will change. You cannot tell society to change simply by griping about it or telling other's to do their part, you do your part and lead by example. In relation to crime... You can't stop crime by telling someone to stop, you stop it by doing your part by not doing crime and teaching your children to not do crime. Lead by example. Help hinder current crime by catching the criminal, don't buy or support the magazine. It's the personal responsibility. And while I am not saying don't take an active stand (that would be silly since I am talking a stand for the media side), I am saying, do your part to help fight what you are complaining about. Couch activists don't change the world. If a neighborhood is full of crime and one is relying soley on the police force to fix it, well that is ridiculous when one has many options. Move, mentor, community watch, as well as working with the police force. One has to stand up for what they believe and DO something instead of just protest. Complaining that it is only up to the police force to take care of it and is responsibly for the crime in the neighborhood is dumb. Tell the media what you want -- less photoshopped size 0's. But don't blame the media when they are just selling what others are buying.

 

[LolitaHaze]

I am going to give an example. In Burlesque (oh goodness Burlesque again - sorry, it's what I know. LOL), there is a wave of horrible shows. This is becoming the norm, it is what is being acceptable as Burlesque and unfortunately Burlesque is getting a bad rap as a joke. I can sit and moan about it all I want. I can even say how producers and performers need to get better, but they are not unless they have to. So I do my part (personal responsibility) by a) being the best I can be b) constantly trying to improve my shows and acts c) try to not perform in horrible shows (sometimes you can't help it.) d) showing the audience what a good show is... you get the idea. My point being, I can't blame the majority (society) of Burlesque shows when that is what people are buying into because they think that is the best out there. I take an active lead -- a lead by example approach. And on my couch activist days, as much as I complain about the state that burlesque is, I can't blame it for it's troubles when it doesn't know strong leaders of example.

does this make sense of my views? At least partially?

 

[Drappa]

I still have to disagree with you Lolita Haze, but that's fine. I think personal responsibility can only go so far. Nobody said that people were merely complaining. As shown by those teenage girls demanding that magazines abolish photo shopping, their parents did apparently do their job well and there are many people not only angry about it, but being active to change things. Giving industries a carte blanche though because they are only trying to make money is again absolving them of responsibilities they should shoulder as well. Companies don't just sell what people want to buy - the whole point of advertising now is to sell people things they didn't need nor necessarily want, often subliminally. I consider that unethical. There is a lot of research done in order to find out different groups' insecurities and exploiting them. It doesn't matter how smart someone is, marketing is geared towards getting around this and getting around natural instinct and suspicion in order to convince even unwilling subjects that they need something to be complete or acceptable.
Often times the parents themselves have been heavily influenced by these artificially created insecurities, so the fact that they can't protect their children from it doesn't automatically make them neglectful or bad parents.