What Are We Supposed To Do About the Way Women's Magazines Treat Women?
This isn't the first article I've ever read about a celebrity being airbrushed into a unrealistic, unachievable alien. It's not even the first time I've read about Jennifer Lawrence - a refreshing example of a more normal-sized human - being subjected to the treatment. I write about celebrity fashion for a (current) living. I'm well aware of the drill.
But for some reason this specific article made me angrier than the others. Maybe that's because Jennifer Lawrence has specifically asked magazines to stop doing this to her? Or because she's trying so hard to project a healthy body image to the young girls who worship her as Katniss and the old girls who worship her as anything character she plays including herself? Or it could be that I actually think she genuinely looks better before all the photoshopping!
I think the real reason I'm so annoyed is because I don't get it. Truly. Why do the magazines do this? Are they in some kind of cahoots with the diet food industry? Does the person who does the touching up have a body dysmorphia issue? Does someone over in the photo department think this is a funny trick. Really. Why? What incentive do print publications have to create and support an image that isn't real?
Who at this magazine thinks that it is correct and better to give Jennifer bigger boobs, a longer thinner neck, a lower hairline, thinner hips, narrower eyes, higher cheekbones and a more narrow nose? How did they even decide on all those specific edits? Did they sit around and say, "we the people of this magazine objectively believe that X changes make this celebrity more beautiful so we will make those changes for the benefit of this celebrity, our magazine and our readers." I've worked at a magazine. I know there was a meeting about this photo. Is that how it went?
If the differences were major I would almost understand it more. Say they thought JLaw looked too round in the photo and wanted to do her a favor. It would still be completely wrong on all levels but at least it would make sense. The difference between photo A and B in this case are just bizarre. The original is already an incredibly gorgeous human being that we women can stress about attempting to look like every day of our lives. Why make it worse? This is not a rhetorical question (even if I am asking it to the Internet...)
And, I think most importantly, how is this still being tolerated in an age where every real photo makes it way online anyway? Why aren't strong celebrities like Jennifer Lawrence saying, "I will not pose for your magazine if you airbrush me into oblivion." Do they have that right, or no? And if they do, how many of them would it take to make that change happen? 10 big ones maybe? If ten major celebrities made a huge stink about all this, do you think it could finally be over?
Shortly after I read this article about Jennifer Lawrence being airbrushed I read an article about the fact that children as young as 6 are being treated for anorexia. I don't have the data to back up a correlation between these two issues but I have the common sense to realize one isn't helping the other. Why don't women's magazines - magazines for women that are almost all run by women - have the desire to do the right thing for their own audience? Why don't they want to make it better for themselves?
I'm beginning to think the only logical answer is either, "because they're all owned by Weight Watchers," or, "because they're all run by assholes."Your thoughts?
But for some reason this specific article made me angrier than the others. Maybe that's because Jennifer Lawrence has specifically asked magazines to stop doing this to her? Or because she's trying so hard to project a healthy body image to the young girls who worship her as Katniss and the old girls who worship her as anything character she plays including herself? Or it could be that I actually think she genuinely looks better before all the photoshopping!
I think the real reason I'm so annoyed is because I don't get it. Truly. Why do the magazines do this? Are they in some kind of cahoots with the diet food industry? Does the person who does the touching up have a body dysmorphia issue? Does someone over in the photo department think this is a funny trick. Really. Why? What incentive do print publications have to create and support an image that isn't real?
Who at this magazine thinks that it is correct and better to give Jennifer bigger boobs, a longer thinner neck, a lower hairline, thinner hips, narrower eyes, higher cheekbones and a more narrow nose? How did they even decide on all those specific edits? Did they sit around and say, "we the people of this magazine objectively believe that X changes make this celebrity more beautiful so we will make those changes for the benefit of this celebrity, our magazine and our readers." I've worked at a magazine. I know there was a meeting about this photo. Is that how it went?
If the differences were major I would almost understand it more. Say they thought JLaw looked too round in the photo and wanted to do her a favor. It would still be completely wrong on all levels but at least it would make sense. The difference between photo A and B in this case are just bizarre. The original is already an incredibly gorgeous human being that we women can stress about attempting to look like every day of our lives. Why make it worse? This is not a rhetorical question (even if I am asking it to the Internet...)
And, I think most importantly, how is this still being tolerated in an age where every real photo makes it way online anyway? Why aren't strong celebrities like Jennifer Lawrence saying, "I will not pose for your magazine if you airbrush me into oblivion." Do they have that right, or no? And if they do, how many of them would it take to make that change happen? 10 big ones maybe? If ten major celebrities made a huge stink about all this, do you think it could finally be over?
Shortly after I read this article about Jennifer Lawrence being airbrushed I read an article about the fact that children as young as 6 are being treated for anorexia. I don't have the data to back up a correlation between these two issues but I have the common sense to realize one isn't helping the other. Why don't women's magazines - magazines for women that are almost all run by women - have the desire to do the right thing for their own audience? Why don't they want to make it better for themselves?
I'm beginning to think the only logical answer is either, "because they're all owned by Weight Watchers," or, "because they're all run by assholes."Your thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment