I have recently received an email from a dear friend, outraged at the announcement that the Australian government has decided to ban adult publications and films featuring small breasted women. I have asked her for permission to republish her message here, since her reaction speaks volumes…
Here is an extract from the article, featured on Boing Boing, which my friend quoted:
The Australian Classification Board (ACB) is now banning depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. They banned mainstream pornography from showing women with A-cup breasts, apparently on the grounds that they encourage paedophilia, and in spite of the fact this is a normal breast size for many adult women. Presumably small breasted women taking photographs of themselves will now be guilty of creating simulated child pornography, to say nothing of the message this sends to women with modestly sized chests or those who favour them. Australia has also banned pornographic depictions of female ejaculation, a normal orgasmic sexual response in many women, with censors branding it as ‘abhorrent’.
As a “small-breasted” woman who sees how the entire world is becoming silicone-injected, this is infuriating, insulting and enraging! This is just another thing that is pushing images of women farther and farther from reality. And for those of us who are real and want to love our bodies as they are, this kind of thing makes it an even steeper up-hill battle. And that last sentence, while I don’t watch pornography, is shocking in 2010. “Abhorrent”? Seriously?
This TV commercial for “L’Oréal Elvive Full Restore 5″ shampoo and conditioner has drawn criticism in the United Kingdom. The reason? Singer Cheryl Cole, the woman featured in the commercial, is wearing expensive hair extension, that cost up to £1,000 pounds ($1650). It would be thus impossible to obtain the same look by simply using the shampoo.
During her TV commercial, a message flashes up, saying her hair is “styled with some natural extensions”, but it remains on screen for fewer than two seconds of its 30-second duration. In magazine advertisements, the hair extensions are mentioned in print 2mm high.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it had rejected 13 complaints that the ads were misleading because the disclaimer about Cole’s hair extensions was “clear and legible”.
And what about L’Oreal’s take on this? From the Times:
A spokeswoman for L’Oréal said she “did not know” whether Cole used human or artificial extensions. A company statement said: “Cheryl has worn hair extensions for some time. They are part of her look and are cared for in the same way as normal hair.”
Although Demi Moore has denied that her W cover was dramatically Photoshopped to accidentally remove part of her hip, a photographer who also noticed it is calling bullshit… to the tune of $5,000.
Following controversy about her body proportions on the current W cover, Demi Moore posted the following message on Twitter:
With a link to the following image:
Professional photographer Antony Citrano reacted to this post by saying:
Whether or not her hip was botched, I do not believe for a moment that the image Demi posted yesterday [on Twitter] is the original shot. If she’s aware of that – and I expect she is – it’s irresponsible (and silly) of her to make that assertion.So, I’ll see her move and raise her $5,000: if the shot she posted yesterday is really the unretouched original, I will donate $5,000 to a charity of her choosing.
Babies’ eye colour, skin tone – and even the fat creases on their arms – are altered before the images are put on glossy magazine front covers.
Politicians and industry experts described the practice as “shocking” and said it would put further pressure on parents who wanted their babies to be perfect.
From the Washington Post’s “On Being” video series: an interview of make-up artist Bailey Orenia-Sessoms – who speaks eloquently about race, beauty, and self-esteem.
A terrific quote:
When you have that lack of self-love, you’re more susceptible to accepting society’s “beauty standards” and then you find yourself not liking who you are year to year because every year (fashion) changes.
Slate magazine recently launched Double X, a blog devoted to women’s issues, which feels like an hybrid of Jezebel (for its sass) and Feministing (for its feminist consciousness); The New York Times wrote an insightful article about the blog launch here.
I have been thoroughly enjoying this new site – so imagine my surprise when, this morning, I stumbled upon this ad from Sprint (the U.S. telecommunications company) on an article about Suprime Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (notice the top banner):
It reads: “Plastic surgeries happening in the U.S.: 31″ … “Videos uploaded on sprint phones: 459″
A page reload yielded a similar ad about the # of “spray tans sold in the U.S.”
Plastic surgery? Spray tans? I understand the importance of niche marketing, but why is it that I have to witness obnoxious, stereotypical ads on a progressive site with a feminist slant? Am I the only one to notice a disconnect? Bah.
Scarlett Johansson just wrote an article for the Huffington Post, speaking out about the media’s obsession over celebrities’ weight loss (and gain):
Every time I pass a newsstand, the bold yellow font of tabloid and lifestyle magazines scream out at me: “Look Who’s Lost It!” “They Were Fabby and Now They’re Flabby!” “They Were Flabby and Now They’re Flat!” We’re all aware of the sagas these glossies create: “Look Who’s Still A Sea Cow After Giving Birth to Twins!” Or the equally perverse: “Slammin’ Post Baby Beach Bodies Just Four Days After Crowning!”
According to the National Eating Disorders Association (NEDA), as many as 10 million females and 1 million males living in the US are fighting a life and death battle with anorexia or bulimia. I’m someone who has always publicly advocated for a healthy body image and the idea that the media would maintain that I have lost an impossible amount of weight by some sort of “crash diet” or miracle workout is ludicrous. I believe it’s reckless and dangerous for these publications to sell the story that these are acceptable ways to looking like a “movie star.” It’s great to get tips on how to lead a healthier lifestyle, but I don’t want some imaginary account of “How She Did It!” I get into and stay in shape by eating a proper diet and maintaining a healthy amount of exercise. The press should be held accountable for the false ideals they sell to their readers regarding body image — that’s the real weight of the issue.
While skimming through the Washington Post on the web, my eyes were drawn to a photo on the main page: that of a smiling woman. The caption next to her name piqued my curiosity: “Mona Sutphen, perhaps the least well known of Obama’s advisers, takes a new approach to policy.” Now, what is so interesting about this, you may ask? Yes, I am a big admirer of President Obama and I follow American politics closely from France. And I was a big big fan of the TV show The West Wing – something that makes me naturally curious about the real people working in the West Wing. But what caught my attention today was something else entirely. Namely, the category under which the article was filed: STYLE.
Puzzled, I clicked on the article and went about reading the 3 page feature story on Ms. Sutphen, who I may add, is an extremely bright woman who has had a brilliant career so far. In my eyes, she is an authentic role model for women of all ages – as opposed to the cheap, plastic quality of the Paris Hiltons of this world. The article states,
Sutphen passed the foreign service exam right out of college, but ended up in Chicago working for the advertising agency Leo Burnett. After a few years, she decided that “if I’m going to be staying up until 3 a.m. it should be for world peace and not shampoo sales.”
She went on to work for the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, where she “managed the human rights portfolio for Burma, then on to an assignment helping implement the Dayton Peace Accords, which ended the war in Bosnia. After a hiatus to study at the London School of Economics, she went to work for then-U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, whom she met during her work on Burma.”
And now, she finds herself working in the West Wing, as Deputy Chief of Staff, coordinating policy. A BIG deal. So, why is this matter of fact article, this profile, filed under “Style”? Had the Deputy Chief of Staff been a man, would the article have appeared in Style or Politics? I’m guessing the latter. This reminds me of an article that appeared last year in the International Herald Tribune, about Fadela Amara, France’s secretary of state for urban policy. The male journalist wrote,
Amara, a practicing Muslim who rarely bothers with makeup, never went to college and never married, retains the strong accent of an Arab immigrant and sometimes uses slang.
(Emphasis mine)
Can anybody tell me why on earth this article about Mona Sutphen is filed under “Style”? And why is it, that when a woman has a brilliant career in a field like politics, the public has to be constantly reminded about her gender and the stereotypes attached to it?
