Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 8:13 AM
Sun Nov 8
22 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/19/09
Perception and interpretation are two completely separate things. And no matter how much we can interpret the image as being edited, we will still perceive it as real, and therein lies the problem.
It's like when you're around someone who puts you down constantly. Although you may logically know what s/he is saying isn't true, if you hear it enough, it will still have a negative effect.
And these images are presenting something not even the subject of the photograph could naturally attain! What a mindfuck that is, to get deep into our brains. #robingivhan
10/19/09
10/19/09
This, I can't agree with. It isn't universal, and to the extent it's subconscious, it's because we're bombarded with the message that a certain stereotypically feminine body shape is appealing. But to the extent one could make the case that the "feminine body" is more appealing than the masculine body -- which I think is kind of the implicit point of saying this -- this is ONLY because of latent sexism and homophobia. Male bodies are beautiful, and women's bodies that don't have the "right" or stereotypically feminine proportions are also beautiful. HUMAN bodies are beautiful and trying to justify fashion and discrimination and sexism by positing that there's something special and magical and unique about FEMALE bodies only holds us back from true equality. #robingivhan
10/19/09
The difference, though, is that the female body is usually viewed through the male lens. Which views it as magical and strange, captivating and repulsive, mysterious and dangerous, beautiful but unrestrained. Containment of the female body is a major theme in art, which I think transfers into fashion which likes to view itself as similar to the "fine" art traditions.
I definitely think we've been socialized to think the female body is sexualized and not really ours...but a subject to be dissected and projected upon. But as for appealing...it depends. It's only appealing as long as it fits whatever beauty ideal is currently in vogue. Anything outside that is not, hence body snarking and the rest.
And you know, there are things the female body does that the male body doesn't. It doesn't make it mysterious, or not human, or not equal, but it is different. And that's okay, celebrating those differences is not in any way a bad thing.
If you're at all curious, I recommend Lynda Nead's book on the subject. It was written in the 70's or 80's, but still relevant. The Female Nude: Art, Obscenity, and Sexuality.
10/19/09
as for the comments that designers should market to the mainstream - that's just false. there's a reason catalogue models are often a more 'average/healthy' weight (i apply those terms to the world of models, not human females) while high end designers are using tiny, wide eyed russian rag dolls. the bigger the pricetag, the more unattainable the clothing, the more unrealistic the look. #robingivhan
10/19/09
10/19/09
In the Rubenesque era, only those who could afford it could own that art work...and in order to see it, you had to go to museums or be part of that upper class. Today, we have magazines, and the internet, and TV. We have so much more exposure to that imagery. Those images are not limited to just one set of people anymore. So while the Rubenesque ideal may have been part of the class structure, where plumpness represented higher social class, the imagery did not saturate society in the same way at all.
Designers do market to the mainstream, though. Anna Sui has a line in Target. Vera Wang has a line at Kohl's. And many designers have items in Nordstroms, which is high end, but still accessible by anyone.
The reason for the types of models is because of line. It's an issue of line theory. It's easier to make clothing drape and move off a figure that is more line than curve. Curves you have to fit and navigate and adjust to. Lines adjust to the clothing.
And if fashion were just an art to be admired, like a painting, that would be fine. But it's not. It's a functional, applicable, wearable art medium. We use what we wear to identify an aspect of who we are. It's hugely influential on a cultural level, so it doesn't exist in some pure vacuum where it's just for show (for the most part, some designer clearly make things no one would wear)...it has a functional purpose.
The problem is that we're, more and more, trying to make bodies conform to clothing and it should be the way around. #robingivhan
10/19/09
No, madam, compared to the fashion of the past, we are not "farther from the natural ideal" (even assuming there is a "natural ideal," which I don't.)
I agree with Givhan... fashion wants to be unattainable. When most people were thin, fat was the ideal. When most people were tanned, pale was the ideal. And (the fat-pride contingent pardon me), as far as unattainable ideals go, thinness isn't nearly as dangerous an ideal as, say, footbinding. Footbinding is ALWAYS going to be painful, debilitating, and dangerous. The desire for thinness is going to encourage healthy eating and exercise, which will benefit more people than it will hurt. Yes,, some people will take it to an unhealthy extreme... but we don't judge these things by the outliers.
Also, please be fair to the writer: nowhere does she say "fattie, heal thyself," or even imply that "fatties" need to "heal." She's says that she's talking about "aesthetics, not health." Don't turn her argument into something its not. #robingivhan
10/19/09
Secondly, I don't really think it's accurate to compare contemporary fashion with fashions of the past, because the line between 'democratic' fashion and 'high' fashion is extremely blurred. Yes, as someone else pointed out, catalogue models usually have more attainable figures than couture models, but it's not like Marc by Marc Jacobs shows use chubby girls. It's bloody difficult to find anything over a UK14 in TopShop, the store that's meant to epitomise fast, democratic fashion. This isn't a matter of Victorian factory workers versus the landed elite--we're all meant to want to take part in elite fashion now, whether via the real thing or the high street knockoff. But fashion isn't designed for the ordinary person--the aim of the superskinny model is to allow the designer to show off his or her work in its purest form, undiluted by curves. I don't know what the solution is--make fashion more elite, or make it really democratic?--but you can't just ignore the contemporary context. #robingivhan
10/19/09
And anyway, who cares? Why is the reaction to beauty ideals constantly being met with, so what, it's always been like this? Shouldn't we fight that, because it's repressive and unhealthy and we don't actually need beauty ideals like this? Because all they do is continually support the idea that women are valued for their bodies, and how close those bodies meet an ideal...that we are objects to be judged? Isn't that one of the things feminism is meant to question and criticize?
Apparently you've never known someone with a restrictive ED. Anorexia is, just for your information, one of the most difficult psychological disorders to treat. The recidivism rate is high, as is the mortality rate. Foot binding was a horrible, crippling, awful practice. Starving yourself to death isn't healthier. Obsessive thinness is not "better", and it does not lead to better health. Thin does not always =healthy, especially if it takes obsessive, harmful, destructive methods to get there. Our diet culture is a serious problem and many people, including those in the medical community, would say that it's one of the reasons we're having such health problems related to weight. It's not because not enough people are being shamed into being thinner.
10/19/09
10/19/09
And once again--I'm not saying "obsessive" thinness is better than foot binding (although I could). I'm making the assumption that MOST people would less harmed by a thinness ideal than a foot-binding or S-curve corset ideal.
Nor am I saying that we should throw up our hands when people photoshop human bodies out of all recognition. What I *am* saying, and what Givhens is saying, is that a) expecting fashion to become accessible is an exercise in futility, and b) that if we want to fix girl's self esteem, we should focus less on the social triggers (which are arbitrary and temporary) and more on the underlying problems (aka, girls who equate self worth with their appearance) . #robingivhan
10/19/09
Also, I didn't bring up the corsets and foot-binding--the author did. #robingivhan
10/19/09
I don't believe I talked about corsets and foot-binding. You said that fashion historically 'wants to be unattainable', and I said that I don't think it makes any sense to compare aspirational fashions of the past to contemporary aspirational fashion, because the democratisation of fashion and luxury provides a context in which it's ridiculous to portray fashion as something totally exclusive to the elite. It's not, and many designers don't want it to be, hence the proliferation of lower-cost lines. Yet at the same time as fast fashion proliferates, we have models and their photoshopped images--in low-cost as well as high-end lines--becoming ever more fantastic in their proportions. I just believe it's a little blinkered to say 'fashion is all about the unattainable, look it always has been', because in reality today a great deal of fashion is marketed quite clearly to be attainable. There's a cognitive dissonance in saying you should buy and wear these clothes, but my gosh you shouldn't look 'good' in them, because that's 'unattainable'. #robingivhan
10/19/09
Edit: You're right, I shouldn't have assumed. It's just that I find it frustrating when people say things like the desire for thinness will encourage healthier attitudes. I think it just encourages thinness. As someone who has also had an ED, and a restrictive one, I can tell you that's not true. I was not healthier when I wasn't eating and was obsessively exercising. I don't think this sort of thing encourages people to adopt healthier behaviors at all.
Then you know that the causes and triggers of an ED are as varied as the people who have them. And as much as ED's are about self-hatred, the fact that they take the form of ED says something. They are about controlling the body, by controlling what goes into it, what shape it is, what weight it is, which does come from a place of self-loathing...but it's connected. The form the disorder takes matters, and it's not separate from body or food issues. Especially for women.
(I'm mainly talking about restrictive ED's, overeating is often about a lack of control.)
We have a culture that is obsessed right now with dieting. And yet apparently we have an obesity epidemic...which seems like something is deeply disconnected. While foot binding is a permanent disfigurement, thinness as an obsessive pursuit can lead to malnutrition, yo-yo-dieting, and ED's...which aside from killing you, can lead to permanent heart and organ damage. Let's not compare, since they're both about controlling women's bodies and forcing them into a state that has nothing to do with what is individually healthy, but is all about an aesthetic ideal. The argument that something is worse than something else, in order to dismiss discussion about it, is not helpful. It's been done about all kinds of issues...from sexual assault to the vote.
I don't think we need to be so one or the other about it. Why do girls equate self worth with appearance? Could it be because they are presented that idea by the culture? Because they're socialized at home, at school, in the world, to believe that? Could it be because the media, as an element that is influenced by, and influences the culture, promotes beauty ideals? These things don't exist separately, they're related.
Girls don't develop self-esteem issues in a vacuum. And they develop issues with food and the bodies for a reason. Because our culture is pretty relentless with the notion that that's what matters most. I agree we need to work on that, but it won't be solved by ignoring the role of the media or images. It won't be solved by treating it like it's only about one thing. There a lot of factors of work.
I don't expect fashion to do anything, but that doesn't mean I should ignore it. Nothing changes if you say nothing. That status quo should always be challenged.
10/19/09
Or, people now are a lot thinner than they would be if thinness weren't considered "attractive". We can't know. But the "normal" lifestyle these days can be pretty sedentary: office, car, TV, computer, etc, and eating healthily/working out is time consuming, expensive, and it frequently sucks. There are very few things that routinely motivate people NOT to eat chocolate cake.
I meant that the author of the original post brought up foot-binding. But I'll concede the point: I was conflating "fashion" with "status," as the two terms used to be very closely linked: fashion was a direct reflection of status/class/social desirability, and it's more complicated now. But "exclusive" brands need to be worn by exceptional looking people, or else how will anyone know that they're exclusive? #robingivhan
10/19/09
Personally, I only have so much socially conscious anger to go around. I have to pick and choose my battles. I, too, disapprove of these PhotoShopped, unrealistic images. But I think it would be more effective to focus on the underlying emotional problems of girls than trying to change the fashion industry. #robingivhan
10/20/09
The other reality is, yes, focusing on the emotional health of girls would really help. But that's a huge systemic change. That requires parents, teachers, and the culture to shift dramatically. Which we should absolutely work towards. And part of how we do that is looking at what the culture promotes. Which, partly, are these beauty ideals in media images. My entire point is that on the one hand you're asking for things to change that take decades, but are then unwilling to look at one of the aspects of it that -can- change. Women were wearing corsets a little over a hundred years ago as a matter of course. We don't now.
No self-esteem issues will ever disappear. People will always face ridicule from parents or peers, be born with depression, or be prone to self criticism. The fact that we have a Beauty culture at all will, in some way or other, negatively effect people. Which is why we always have to critique it, because it won't be going away anytime soon. Human beings are visual creatures. Which is why it's just always going to be a struggle. We always seem to find some new one to try and force an ideal.
The thing is, this is part of that battle. It's not separate from it. That's really all I'm trying to say. When we act like these things don't work together, then we end up ignoring how complex the issue really is. It's fine if you don't personally care about it, but if you care about girls self-esteem, then this is part of what effects it because it's bred out of a culture that perpetuates the idea that women are their bodies. #robingivhan
10/19/09
If, as designers, they are unable to make aesthetically pleasing clothes that can be represented realistically, maybe they should find a new line of work.
It's not my fault you think your designs only look good on fake people... maybe you should work on that, Ralph Lauren? #robingivhan
10/19/09
Givhan is a smart woman. She writes for my local paper, and she's capable of more than this. I feel like she completely skirted the issue. #robingivhan
10/19/09
10/19/09
Look at all the designers making lines for Target. The process is slow, but it will happen. Go ahead and enjoy your Bratz doll, Ralph Lauren, but it certainly won't buy your line of Disease Wear. #robingivhan
10/19/09
This has nothing to do with my agreeing or disagreeing with the current state of the industry, mind you. #robingivhan
10/19/09
My point is, you do have a point, I was just saying that it's not as simple as more customers = more profit, in their eyes, that is. #robingivhan
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
My comment was mostly off-hand, but I do think that the problem I had with Robin Givhan's editorial is related - she's advocating that the fashion industry reflects our idealized version of our bodies, or what we'd like to be. If we're talking about money, this presumes that we want to be thin in part because our society associates thinness with wealth and status. Before the twentieth century, people wanted to look healthy - which meant somewhere in balance between thin and overweight - because the availability of resources to be well-fed also indicated social class. It wasn't being overweight that was in vogue (like some people have suggested was the case in medieval europe) - it was a moderate weight.
As you've pointed out, modernity has brought with it a number of new diseases, physical conditions, medical technolgies, et al., that make weight an unstable marker of health - but we still formulate our ideals based upon an abstract "body" that doesn't take into account these types of fluctuations. #robingivhan
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
women need to realize that the world at large will never reassure you of your looks. some of that has to come from within. hell, i bet if jezebel was around in the the 90s when the models were closer to "attainable" beauty, we would still get articles bitching about the modeling industry. fashion is going to be around with or without the vogues/ralph lauren's of the world. you either allow the influence of anna wintour et. al or you don't.
10/19/09
that's debatable. while anorexia/bulimia are not conditions created by photoshop and existed well-before digital media, the past few decades have seen numbers of affected women and girls (and even men and boys!) spike and pro-ana/mia subcultures evolve. while there is probably a bit of a moral-panic that overemphasizes its pervasiveness of these disorders, there is a very real correlation.
" fashion is going to be around with or without the vogues/ralph lauren's of the world. you either allow the influence of anna wintour et. al or you don't"
these sorts of "it would happen anyway, these people are just cogs in a machine" sort of arguments bother me so much. so they're just a part of a larger problem, doesn't that give them a pass? should we ignore their agency? or should we pressure and expect them use their power in responsible ways? if we allow the status quo to continue unchallenged, just because it is status quo, nothing would ever change and no progress would ever be made.
i don't think photoshop is the biggest problems of the century. i dont think its the biggest problem women face. but it certainly is something that should be open for criticism, especially considering that we are the demographic that is being targeted with these campaigns. and not to fall back on the trite "think of the children!" argument, but it is reasonable to bring into question they way these images are affecting girls and younger women who may not have access to alternative ideas of beauty or fully developed reasoning skills that can sepearate the fantasy from the reality. #robingivhan
10/19/09
that's akin to the ridiculous notion that if you arrest one major drug lord, all drug activity will be eradicated in one given area. anna wintour will not listen to the common woman who cannot buy most of the clothes featured in the ads. the truth is that her high-end subscribers don't want their magazine democratized because of the very valid belief that once the doors are opened to the masses, Vogue as we know it will lose some of its sheen.
all you can hope for is that the current twenty/thirty-somethings interested in fashion are able to better ride the line between exclusivity and diversity much better. i believe it's possible with Vogue, but not now with anna wintour at the helm.
for me, my favorite fashion "magazine" is broadway in SoHo. I see more stylish people of all shapes and ethnicities that motivate and inspire than i have in anything anna wintour, grace coddington and carine roitfeld have displayed in their pages. hell, i have this theory that once a trend and or designer is featured in their pages, the real fashionistas are already on to the next thing. besides, where do you think all the designers and editors get their inspirations from? everyday people. #robingivhan
10/19/09
Women are conditioned at very young ages to value themselves based on how others view them. We are taught to value our bodies and our looks above other considerations. This is reinforced all over the place, continually. Even if we're lucky enough to have parents aware of this and who help combat it, we still have peers, society, and the media, which functions as arms of the culture, to repetitively hammer that message home...sometimes obviously, sometimes subtly.
It's really easy to say, don't let it bother you. And ideally, we wouldn't. But for most people, there's no switch. But then, if we weren't influenced by these images, we wouldn't buy anything. And our culture is pretty much all about buying things and making us want to buy things. Sometimes they sell us a lifestyle. Sometimes they sell us an ideal. And sometimes they sell us the idea that we are not good enough the way we are. So we'll buy things that will. How many people, on a day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute, basis are aware of this? How often are you aware of that influence on your life? Do you really think it's only because people "let" it?
Look, I agree, these things do need to come from within. But lots of people are never given the tools to construct that sense of well being from within. Why? Who knows. Maybe it's depression. Maybe they had shit parents. Maybe they're just sensitive to influence. Maybe it's because some people look around and see what's going on and have a hard time processing it without internalizing it in some way, because the world is a giant, scary, mess.
I was brought up in a household without TV for the first few years, and only limited access after that. My parents were ex-hippies and did not teach me to only value my looks, but my intelligence, my wit, my view of the world. And yet, by the time I was 17, I was trying to starve myself to death because my peers had told me I was fat and disgusting and should be dead. Why did that influence me so much? Why did I believe them? Later in life, I studied feminist discourse on beauty and body image...I took classes about the psychology of eating disorders. I don't read fashion or women's mags, and am not generally influenced by those images, good or bad. And yet, the cultural beauty ideals still get to me. Why? I. Don't. Fucking. Know. And I bet most other people who have this issue don't either.
But I'll tell you, it's not because I "allowed" the fashion world to get to me. It's because that shit is everywhere, fashion aside, and even if it doesn't get to you, it gets to someone else. Sometimes people internalize it, and sometimes they use it to judge and berate others. It's part of our massive beauty culture that does, in every way possible, perpetuate damaging ideas about what women should be valued for.
I'm not blaming fashion for any of this, or the media, or any one thing. That's ridiculous. But I'm not going to blame myself or other women for seeing what's around them and struggling with it. I think that's normal. Even good. Because if you didn't, you'd never question any of it, and never see how truly fucked up it all is. #robingivhan
10/19/09
i'm not saying it's foolish to be influenced. however, it's just giving anna wintour too much power to keep knocking on her door wanting to be included in a magazine that ultimately doesn't want you and your money. and if she does let you in, you will not be wanted or photographed well (i.e. jennifer hudson) so essentially, we are suffering from unrequited love and need to focus our attention on changing the industry from another angle.
also, it's very telling that the mulleavy sisters of rodarte, both full-figured women, only send waifs down the runway.
10/19/09
And definitely, we need to change attitudes in the culture before anything else...although I think it's kind of...chicken or the egg at this point. I think the culture creates it, but this stuff perpetuates it, is influenced by it, and in turn, influences the culture, until we've got one big old mess on our hands. '
But, that said, I think it's fine to criticize fashion world...mostly because we're constantly told not to because that's just the way it is. Anytime people try to defend the status quo that hard, I'm left wondering why. It's not that I think Vogue will change, but someone else might do something else with it if they see it a different way.
And yeah, the fact that designers that actually do cater to all kinds of women don't use diverse models shows a really unhealthy level of internalizing. To me, anyway. #robingivhan
09/09/09