‘Time had the opportunity to explore motherhood and the individuality of each parent-child bond, to validate the mundane and empower women who make countercultural parenting choices. Instead, the editors chose to cash in on cookie-cutter sexploitation and mum-vs-mum sensationalism’

Nicole Jameson

Time magazine threw fuel on the fires of the Mummy Wars last week, with its controversial feature story on Attachment Parenting. Or – and probably more to the point – with its controversial cover picture, featuring 26-year-old Jamie Lynn Grumet posing somewhat cooly while her almost four-year-old son stood on a child-sized chair and fed from her exposed breast.

The magazine cover, of course, went viral, sparking conversation and debate all the way from the blogosphere to the mainstream print media. Many were wondering about attachment parenting – and if breastfeeding chair-standing man-children was really part of the deal and if it’s what you have do to do be ‘Mom Enough’?

While standing up isn’t my preferred method of feeding my babies, I am committed to attachment parenting including extended breastfeeding. But I’m afraid the authentic message of this style of baby raising is being drowned out by TIME’s controversial cover.

According to Dr William Sears, pediatrician, father of 8 and founder of the modern Attachment Parenting movement,

“Attachment parenting is an approach to raising children rather than a strict set of rules. Certain practices are common to AP parents; they tend to breastfeed, hold their babies in their arms a lot, and practice positive discipline, but these are just tools for attachment, not criteria for being certified as an attached parent. So forget the controversies about breast vs bottle, crying it out or not, and which methods of discipline are acceptable, and go back to the basics. Above all, attachment parenting means opening your mind and heart to the individual needs of your baby and letting your knowledge of your child be your guide on making on –the-spot decisions about what works best for both of you. In a nutshell, AP is learning to read the cues of your baby and responding appropriately to those cues.” (The Attachment Parenting Book)

Breastfeeding children past infancy is all about bonding. Breastfeeding, says Dr Sears, “is the prime example of the mutual giving at the heart of attachment parenting, since both babies and mothers benefit from breastfeeding.”

And therein lies the rub. The benefit of breastfeeding to a baby is, to most, without question. But mothers? Surely breastfeeding is not for the benefit of the mother, beyond the self-sacrificial joy of providing for her little one? A burden, of sorts, gladly borne, but primarily for the sake of the beloved child. Weaning is liberation, from baby and from home. And with formula and cow’s milk so easily available in the West, the choice to continue breastfeeding once that child no longer physiologically requires it is baffling to many.

But extended breastfeeding is a choice, and a valid one at that. For some women, it is a choice pursuant to attachment parenting. For others, it is easier to allow a toddler to continue nursing than to enforce weaning. And for some women, probably more than will admit, breastfeeding is a source of pleasure, one which they themselves are unwilling to relinquish until it is absolutely necessary.

The notion of maternal pleasure in breastfeeding is one of the great taboos of Western culture. Because everyone knows that breasts are instruments of beauty, lovely sexual orbs manifested primarily for the enjoyment of men and the advertisement of Lynx deodorants. To enjoy breastfeeding – or for that matter co-sleeping, or popping your baby in a sling instead of a pram -is nothing less than socially deviant behaviour.

Look no further than a 2009 poll of Australians, which revealed that nearly a third of Australians felt that women should not breastfeed their babies beyond six months and that young adults aged 18-24 were the least supportive of a woman’s (and baby’s) right to breastfeed in public.

Yet among this same demographic, wearing the image of a woman’s exposed breasts or buttocks printed on a t-shirt is considered fashionable.

In a pornified world, breasts are to be seen only in terms of sexual gratification, even in breast cancer awareness campaigns.

It should be of no surprise, then, that of the four families photographed for Time’s cover story, it was Jamie Lynne Grumet who was chosen for the cover image. Jamie Lynn Grumet, conventionally attractive young blonde, tightly braless as her camouflage-pants-clad preschooler stared down the camera instead of up into his mother’s lovely face. Jamie Lynn Grumet, sexpot MILF who just loves to nurse.

By sexualising the cover image for their Attachment Parenting feature, Time hit the viral media jackpot, and affirmed the relevancy of print media in an e-world. But did anyone read the story? Time had the opportunity to explore motherhood and the individuality of each parent-child bond, to validate the mundane and empower women who make countercultural parenting choices. Instead, they chose to cash in on cookie-cutter sexploitation and mum-vs-mum sensationalism. A sadly predictable choice, but one which ultimately does neither women nor motherhood any great favours.

Nicole Jameson is an Adelaide-based mother of two and Collective Shout activist. While completing her Master of International Public Health she developed a keen interest in maternal and child health. She would have breastfed her three-year-old while writing this if he hadn’t gone and self-weaned nearly two years ago.

I’ve been asked my opinion on the Time magazine cover depicting a mother breastfeeding her three-year-old son. My view is that women should be able to breastfeed for as long as they wish and be supported and encouraged to do so. However Time Magazine’s cover of Jamie Lynne Grumet breastfeeding her three-year-old son, does more to sexualise breastfeeding than to promote it (could it even put some women off?). Most breastfeeding mothers cuddle their children in their arms while feeding. Here, Time has Grumet standing up (a better view of the breast perhaps?) and, somewhat unconventionally, depicting her child accessing her breast using a small chair. Both are staring at the camera in an impersonal image devoid of warmth – hardly the best advertisement for attachment parenting. Then of course there’s the headline ‘Are you mum enough’? which sets women up for competition and judgement. Mothering is challenging enough already, thinking they might not be ‘mum enough’ contributes to feelings of inadequacy.

Bitch Media echoes my thoughts on this image. And on three other magazine covers as well – two from Newsweek and one from Foreign Policy – in this May 10 piece by Kjerstin Johnson.

Read it here.

Ambiguous declaration raises more questions

Jane Hollier

After years of being slammed with accusations that they are projecting unrealistic body image ideals onto women, Vogue magazine has finally decided to do something about it. The 19 editors of the magazines around the globe have collectively made a pact that has the fashion industry giving them a standing ovation. The move has even been hailed as marking “an evolution in the industry.”

In an announcement made last week by Condé Nast International, which is accountable for all 19 magazines, Vogue has pledged to “not knowingly work with models under the age of 16 or who appear to have an eating disorder.”

With such hype surrounding it, is this the revolutionary change we’ve been promised? Only by a perfectly blow-dried hair’s breadth.

The move is in a bid to help promote a healthier body image, but with a declaration as ambiguous as this, it’s easy to see why the fash pack is pleased, and why the rest of us have been left wondering what it actually means.

Firstly, are our standards really so low that showcasing models who “don’t appear to have an eating disorder” is actually considered groundbreaking? Shouldn’t that be a given? And secondly, you cannot tell that someone is sick by simply giving them a quick once-over. Bulimia, for example, is extremely hard to detect because many of the signs and symptoms are not visible to the eye.

The ABC’s Dubravka Voloder also questioned this, asking Australian Vogue editor, Kristie Clements, how exactly does one police an eating disorder? Clements’ answered:

I think you just have to make a judgement as to whether the girl looks healthy, whether she’s glowing, whether she has energy. You know, that there are not bones sticking out. I don’t think you can do a BMI like a body mass index. That is sort of cookie-cutter stuff. You can’t weigh people and get the tape measure out but I think from the general demeanour of a girl and the way she presents on the page you can see whether that’s a healthy image.

Clements’ answer only raises more questions. What is a “healthy” body? What does it look like? And is not having “bones sticking out” really the most accurate measure of health they can offer?

As for the healthy glow and energy Clements’ mentioned, that can be attributed to something that was completely overlooked in Vogue’s pledge: photoshop. Across all its publications, Vogue has become notorious for its liberal use of the digital retouching program. They’ve lightened dark skin , wiped out limbs, removed all expression from models and celebrities, and even children aren’t safe – somehow in postproduction of the US September 2011 issue, several fingers were erased from a child’s hand. Plus, let’s not forget the incident where US Vogue put musician, Adele, on the cover (who represents a more accurate version of the average woman), only to whittle her down a few sizes . What kind of message does this send? That “healthy” and “average” are acceptable standards, so long as any trace of normalcy is obliterated?

Finally, Vogue’s promise has ignored a key factor in promoting a healthy body image: diversity. Aside from the token plus-size editorial spread once or twice a year (which so far have been overhyped and over sexualised ), the magazine has shown next to no variety in the shapes and sizes of women. If we were to look at the covers of Vogue US, UK and Australia from the last two years as an idea to what the average woman looks like, we could only draw the conclusion that “normal” equates to skinny and Caucasian.

The closest thing to an average woman Vogue Australia has put on their cover is Victoria’s Secret model Miranda Kerr while she was pregnant, in their December 2010 issue. And although they have previously featured indigenous supermodel Samantha Harris, and Puerto Rican supermodel Joan Smalls, on their covers , that’s still only two women to represent culturally diverse society across two years. As for the US and UK publications, a Photoshopped Adele, and 62-year-old Meryl Streep is all they have to offer.

It is true that Vogue’s decision not to use models under the age of 16 is commendable, and the move not to use girls that look like they have an eating disorder is a lot more than the magazine has done previously in the name of promoting healthy body image. However, as author of All Made Up: A Girl’s Guide to Seeing Through Celebrity Hype and Celebrating Real Beauty , Audrey Brashich, told the UK’s Daily Mail, this pledge is merely a “tiny baby step of progress.”

“The cynic in me feels like they are simply grandstanding while really just throwing a bone to an audience that is getting ever more savvy and tired of the tricks of the trade,” Brashich said.

Feminist and creator of The Beheld blog, Autumn Whitefield-Madrano, agrees saying that:

For as significant as it is that it’s Vogue, with all its class and taste-making connotations, making this announcement, it’s also a double-edged sword. If the go-to reference for the absurdity of the thin imperative has always been Vogue, and then Vogue says it’s switching up the game, we’ve suddenly lost our reference point. Yet the referent still exists. Models are going to remain far thinner than the average woman, fashion images will continue to do their job of creating longing and desire, and otherwise sensible women will keep doing the master cleanse. All that has changed besides models’ labor conditions is that Vogue gets to seem like it’s doing the right thing, and those who have been agitating for body positivity get to feel like we’ve made progress. Vogue is doing nothing truly radical to change the thin imperative, and to pretend otherwise is to silently walk in lockstep with the very system that put us in this situation to begin with.

So although the pledge is a slight nudge in the right direction, what the magazine really needs is a solid sartorial kick. The fact still remains that at its core, Vogue is a business. It is trying to sell a product. In order for a business to survive, it has to listen to the needs of its consumers, yet all Vogue has offered is an implied guarantee. The models will not be hired under the age of 16 knowingly. The models will not be used if they appear to have an eating disorder. The models are not getting healthier, just seeming to do so. However, one definitive thing this move shows is that change is in fact brewing. For after all, a magazine cannot live off ambiguous declarations alone (and neither can its models).

While there appeared to be more ‘retouch free zones’ in this issue of Dolly (you may recall I said I’d like to see more of these), there also seemed to be even less body diversity. I couldn’t see one girl who didn’t fit the mould.

Dolly has so many pages of fashion and shopping I stopped counting. It’s the bulk of the magazine.

There’s a feature interview with Jennifer Lawrence, (also Dolly’s cover girl), Hollywood’s “latest It girl” who is Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games trilogy. She’s “freaking awesome”, apparently.

“Crush Crib Notes” tells girls how to “get” the boy they like. Stealth ways (i.e lying) include: ”Tell him you’ve lost your phone and ask if he wouldn’t mind calling it so you can find it”, “If you’re friends on Facebook, private message him saying, “I’ve lost the homework question and my laptop charger is broken…can you text it to me? My number is 1800AWESOME”. (Nothing like a bit of modesty to get the man of your dreams).

You can also “Text him: ‘you were in my dream last night.’ It’s sure to get him curious”. It may get him more than curious. Surely this will be read as a come-on? (bear in mind 11 and 12-year-olds read Dolly). There’s also 5 tips for how to make eye contact.

Justin Bieber’s new perfume Someday (“NEVER LET GO with the new fragrance for her that gives back” huh?) is scattered through the magazine. Yep, a 16-year- old boy with his own perfume line. Perhaps it’s the lingerie line next?

More useful is a two page feature on not comparing yourself to others and how to stop procrastinating. Even more timely is a feature called “Bullied to Death” about Sheniz Erkan who tragically took her life just short of her 15th birthday as a response to extreme cyberbullying. The piece cites a recent Australian report revealing that 52 percent of 13-14 year olds and 29 percent of 15-16 year-olds are victims of cyberbullying.

Joanna, 17, shares a personal account of two years with The Esther Foundations’ development program which helps out troubled young women, following bullying induced depression and self- harm. The piece also provides helpful advice on what to do if you are the target of bullies.

Another important piece is about the harms of marijuana ‘The Real Deal on Marijuana’ . According to the article, 21.5 percent of teens aged 14-19 have tried cannabis. Sandra, 16, shares how she saw the life of her best friend destroyed through marijuana. “…losing your friend to pot is the scariest thing – it’s a way more dangerous drug than you might think.” There’s a breakout box on ‘How to say No to marijuana’.

There’s a few pages on boys ‘extreme hotness’, ‘model of the month’, ‘homegrown hottie’, ‘hot factor’ (‘Did someone say T.A.S.T.Y?’)…You get the picture.

First person accounts from Dolly readers include a 17-year-old Speedway driver, a teen mum, an 18-year-old fighting to protect sharks from poachers, a 14-year-old athlete with an artificial leg, an 18- year-old ballerina, a girl with a “mystery illness”, another who survived an earthquake and a 14-year- old who stars in Nine’s ‘Tricky Business’.

Last month I wrote critically about the revival of Dolly’s Model search. This issue we meet past Dolly model search winners. Even a quick glance at the cover images from the 80’s and 90’s show just how much airbrushing and photo-shopping have changed the images we would see now.

Next issue we’re going to meet the state finalists of the Dolly Model Search. Guess I’ll have more to say then.

Published by Generation Next

MTR condemns trade in girl’s virginity on Sunrise and Morning Show

See also:

‘Why virginity is a best seller: how the sex industry profits from an Asian girl’s first time, Caroline Norma, MTR blog

‘Selling women on virtual auction blocks: 19 y.o Chinese student ‘must be sold!’, MTR blog

Rape culture in 140 characters

Jane Hollier

For some it seems, there is a difference between rape, and you know, rape rape.

If the latest debacle involving a UK sports ‘hero’ found guilty of rape can tell us anything, it’s that rape is when a slutty, drunk chick totally has it coming. This kind of rape shouldn’t be taken seriously because, well, she’s drunk and the guy was just having a bit of fun.

Rape rape though is when a sober woman dressed head-to-toe in white is viciously attacked while leaving church by a man with a thick moustache and twitching eye. This man is clearly a rapist, and this woman is clearly innocent (not like that slutty chick, am I right?).

Wales and Sheffield United professional footballer, Ched Evans, was sentenced to five years in jail after being found guilty of rape. The basic premise is that last year in May, a young intoxicated woman went back to a hotel room with Evans’ teammate, Clayton McDonald. She and McDonald had intercourse, and soon after Evans arrived and McDonald left.

This is when Evans is said to have had intercourse with the young woman, while two friends had the audacity to film it through a window.

The victim claimed to have no memory of the night, and with the assistance of CCTV footage showing just how intoxicated she was before the incident, the jury found that the 19-year-old was in no state to be able to consent to sexual intercourse. McDonald was acquitted and Ched was found guilty.

However, sometimes the law is not enough to quench the thirst of a troll; because although the jury found the 19-year-old’s accusation to be legitimate, she is now facing trial by Twitter.

It started with Evans’ teammate, Connor Brown, posting a series of vicious tweets on the micro blogging site. He called her a “money-grabbing little tramp,” and eloquently added, ““If ur a slag ur a slag don’t try get money from being a slag (sic) … Stupid girls… I feel sick.”

This was just the beginning. London Feminist, in a post titled ‘Rape Culture in up to 140 characters’, kept track of the #chedevans Twitter trend and found that a disturbing number people don’t seem to understand exactly what rape is.

Here are just a few.

“Curious to find out more about the #chedevans rape conviction. Not premeditated but locked away for 5 years for lack of consent.”

“Read up on the laws as well now! I change my mind! Seems that it is rape after all! #chedevans”

“Baffled by the #ChedEvans case. You convict both men or neither! How can there be any evidence if the silly bitch can’t remember anything?”

“If nailing a tramp who is too wankered to say no is a crime….. then the old bill need to get down to mine with a set of cuffs. #ChedEvans”

But here’s the thing: rape is non-consensual sex, and a woman being drunk does not and should not exempt rapists from the law. We could question how one man was sentenced to jail and how the other wasn’t, but Senior Crown Prosecutor in Wales, Nita Dowell, lays out the facts.

“Ched Evans took advantage of a vulnerable young woman who was in no fit state to consent to sexual activity. It is a myth that being vulnerable through alcohol consumption means that a victim is somehow responsible for being raped. The law is clear: being vulnerable through drink or drugs does not imply consent.”

Well said. Now if someone could just pass that on to the Twitter trolls.

Jane Hollier is completing a Media degree at Charles Sturt University.

Clinical director of BodyMatters Australasia and co-founder of Collective Shout, Lydia Turner has a piece on ABC The Drum today defending the position she took in leading a campaign critical of a conference of girls’ educators inviting the CEO of Jenny Craig as its keynote speaker.

Every day in my work as an eating disorders therapist I see the harm the diet industry inflicts on girls.

I see girls’ education interrupted with several bouts of hospitalisation, girls unable to complete their homework as they are triggered by pop-up diet ads on the internet, girls distressed as all of their friends compete to see who can eat the least number of calories at the lunch table.

The diet industry thrives on creating body dissatisfaction and feelings of inadequacy, keeping itself financially well-padded off the backs of women and girls’ health and self-esteem. So when I heard that a major conference of girls’ educators was to have the CEO of Jenny Craig Amy Smith as its keynote speaker, I felt I had to take action.

I wasn’t the only one concerned. I was soon joined by health professionals from all over the world, including psychologists, dietitians, medical doctors and eating disorder experts. Told by the conference organisers, the Alliance of Girls’ Schools, that there was to be no discussion on this issue, I started a petition to oust Jenny Craig’s CEO from the conference. One thousand and two hundred signatures were gathered within the first 48 hours. Despite being called a “witch” and a “bully” by certain radio ‘shock jocks,’ I persisted because this diet industry is killing girls. Read more>

Read more Lydia Jade Turner on MTR blog: ‘Women’s Bodies are not Sex Aids’ 

 ‘Not done yet: More on body image hypocrisy and mixed messages’ 

 ‘Maggie is fat and it’s all her fault: new diet book for children puts them in danger’ 

‘OBESITY INC’s conflict of interest’ 

See my interview with Lydia and co-director of BodyMatters Sarah Turner on the importance of a health-based not weight-based approach to eating

‘Every single player needs to know there are serious, career threatening consequences for assaulting a woman’

Brisbane father of two Anthony Simpson has launched a petition through Change.org calling on the NRL to ban players who engage in violence against women. Every time the petition is signed an email will be sent to the league’s Chief Executive.

Launched less than 24 hours ago, the petition has already attracted almost 5000 signatures.

Anti-violence against women campaigner and assault survivor Kate Ravenscroft, published on the MTR blog before (‘I was so ignorant of the epidemic of violence against women until it happened to me: rape survivor tells; ’100 years of International Women’s Day: let’s end the tyranny of sexual violence ),  has urged anyone who cares about the violent treatment of too many women by so called sport ‘stars’ – and the way it is too often excused or glossed over by sporting institutions – to add their name to the campaign. Kate writes:

Please consider signing this petition to the NRL urging them to penalise violence against women by their players.

Sports in this country are amazingly powerful institutions and although not many of us may be NRL fans, through a petition like this we have a real opportunity to show a powerful organisation in Australian society that violence against women is never acceptable.

As ordinary Australians we do not condone or accept such behaviour and we do not want to see our sports players getting away with it. Let’s make that very clear to the NRL.

As the petition clearly shows violence against women is a very serious problem in Australia and until we make it undeniably clear that it is unacceptable behaviour, it will continue.

Our voice in a matter like this could really make a difference. Please sign and circulate to your friends, family and contacts.

Thank you,

Kate

“I was trying to cover myself, that’s when he kicked me in the head. I was curled up trying to cover myself” — Taleah Rae Backo, girlfriend of NRL player Robert Lui

It was a horrifying assault. While their six-month-old baby slept in the next room, NRL player Robert Lui dragged his girlfriend Taleah to a mattress by her hair, then headbutted and kicked her repeatedly.

It’s the second time this year that the NRL has failed to take serious action against players guilty of assaulting women. Just weeks ago, another player was found guilty of physically abusing and threatening to kill his 7-month-pregnant girlfriend.

I’m a born and bred Tigers supporter of over thirty years. I love the game, and I want my son to grow up a Wests Tigers fan, but I’m ashamed and sick of the weak response from the NRL to players bashing women. It’s not the culture and behaviour I expect of players who are held up as role models to kids.

I am calling upon the National Rugby League CEO, and the Wests Tigers and Cowboys clubs to implement a one season ban on players convicted of assaulting women. Every single player needs to know there are serious, career threatening consequences for assaulting a woman.

Please sign my petition, and share it with friends and family — it’s time the NRL takes meaningful action against domestic violence.

Sign petition

We are tricked into thinking that women on magazine covers and on TV naturally look like this in real life…we need to fight back!

By Miriam Nassif

Name is Miriam Nassif and I am 14 years-old so I completely understand what it like to be a teenage girl growing up in our modern day world and what it is like to deal with the things that are being thrown at us by the media.

I was lucky enough to have a childhood. I was allowed to play in the mud, sometimes eat mud, run around and be as messy as I liked. But many children around the world are being forced to dedicate themselves to a beauty pageant life. Small children are forced to dress like adults, wax their eyebrows (even though there are hardly any eyebrows to wax) and pose for hundreds of people so that their parents can win some money! And I thought it was bad enough to be a teenager dealing with this sort of pressure! A poor child is denied their childhood!

These days, who doesn’t walk into a Westfield shopping centre to see a topless girl in the most ridiculous poses to advertise perfume or a pair of jeans or something totally irrelevant to the advertisement? I know I have. We are constantly being given these images that imply that women have no purpose in life but to be “hot” and “sexy”. We are told that if we are not these things, we aren’t worth anything. The media and popular culture tells us that our whole being and value relies on how we look! This is totally and utterly wrong.

I am not here to say that we should all wear baggy clothes, have scruffy hair and that we must try our best to look as terrible and unattractive as we can. You can still look fine if you have bushy hair, a crazily curvy shape, zits (which we all have) and pale skin! I am simply saying that our worth is not based on how we look. Trust me, I know what it is like to want look nice and there is no crime in wanting to be so!

But where we go wrong is when we are defining nice and attractive. Because of major media influence, we have been tricked into thinking that beautiful is someone who is skinny (more like anorexic if you ask me), tanned skin, no zits, and big boobs. But let me tell you that a very few naturally fit this description, and many of the women you see who do fit this description in magazines or on TV have had a major touch up, got a fake tan, wear tonnes of makeup, have had a boob transplant or plastic surgery.

Did you know that if shop mannequins were real women, they would be too thin to menstruate and bear children? Did you know that in every 3 billion women that live on earth only 8 naturally look like supermodels? Did you know that if Barbie were a real women she would have to walk on all fours because of her unrealistic proportions?

We are tricked into thinking that women on magazine covers and on TV naturally look like this in real life!

We are all different and we are all beautiful in our own ways! Whether we are robust, skinny, pale, dark, covered in zits, have a big nose, huge ears or frizzy hair. We need to learn to live with the gorgeous body that is our own, not try and change it or be somebody else!

I can’t help but worry that the new Dolly model search will make girls wonder if they are OK as they are.

Girls feel so pressured to look perfect every single minute of every single day. Many girls feel like their life is not worth living if they don’t look good. Some teenage girls have even been overcome with depression or anxiety due to the stress and pressure to always look “sexy”. It is as if their whole life is based on how they look!

Your worth is not based on your looks! It is based on your personality! Our value is based on who we are as a person! Girls need to spend their time enjoying life, not trying to look good! Be yourself! Be YOU! Be the beautiful person that you were created to be! And enjoy life! If you are so busy being somebody else, who will be you?

And fight the culture that makes you feel bad. If more girls joined together to reject these negative messages, I think we would all feel better.

Miriam is a student and lives in the Blue Mountains, NSW

‘I was never as happy or as sure of myself after that. It was just too big of a let-down, because it wasn’t a rejection from a high school bully, it was a rejection from ‘the experts’, from people with professional opinion, and it was a closing of doors in my face from a glamorous and revered industry’

By Melanie*

Thank you for bringing the Dolly Model Reboot to my attention. I am disgusted and appalled. I’m sure you are already aware of the massive damage it can do. The fact that they have brought it back bothers me so much I wanted to share my story with you.

I was 15 when my mum entered me into the Dolly Model Competition. She told me it was to help me with my self-esteem which, at the time, was shockingly low. She said I was so beautiful there was no way I wouldn’t win. A mother’s naivety.

At first I was horrified because I had no respect for fashion models. I told mum that if I won, no one would ever respect me. I wanted more than to be a pretty face. I wanted to be a writer.

But she said, “What better way to get you noticed than to have everyone see your beautiful face?”

And it occurred to me that I would like to win.

I was bullied badly at school, long before I entered the competition. I had freckles and a flat chest and I was terribly shy, I wasn’t tall but I was very thin. You see, I barely ate. And I did think I had a pretty face. I’m part Native American, so I have very white skin with Indian eyes. I felt like it made me stand out.

I began to fantasise about winning the competition and not telling anybody, so they would all discover it when they saw the magazines and be sorry that they bullied me.

Of course, I didn’t win. I didn’t even make semi -finals, or get featured on the collage of entrants in the magazine. And I was crushed because I didn’t know why. The girl that won was pretty, but I just couldn’t see how I was different, or what made her, or all the other girls ‘better’ than me.

And I think the thing that is so painful is that they aren’t really better. They are all beautiful for different reasons, and for whatever reason they didn’t like the look of me.

But none of the entrants ever got to find out what was ‘wrong with us’. That’s what hurt the most. Not knowing why. All we got was the silent rejection of never having been called and knowing that for some reason we could never be told, we weren’t model pretty.

And because that was the whole point of the magazine’s message, that ‘successful’ was ‘pretty’ and ‘model’ was ‘most desired’, I started thinking that I would never really be successful because I wasn’t good enough, and that no matter how hard I worked, no one would ever pick me because I wasn’t pretty enough. The cold and silent rejection stung, and reinforced the message that I was not good enough, and that my bullies were right to pick on me.

It made me feel so worthless.

So 11 years later, after two sexually abusive ex-boyfriends, an eating disorder, an anxiety disorder that I’m still trying to control, and three suicide attempts, I have finally learned the value of myself and my life, and have clawed back some semblance of self-respect.

And I don’t blame the Dolly Model Competition for all of these things, but I do recognise it as a catalyst, and I know I was never as happy or as sure of myself after that. It was just too big of a let-down, because it wasn’t a rejection from a high school bully, it was a rejection from ‘the experts’, from people with professional opinion, and it was a closing of doors in my face from a glamorous and revered industry.

Teenage girls just are not equipped to deal with the conflicting messages, and they are not equipped to deal with damaging competition and rejection.

If I knew what I know now, I would never have accepted the competition in the first place. If people had been less fixated on my looks and more on my talents and interests, I might not have accepted a boyfriend that hurt me, I might not have tried to starve myself, I might not have tried to die.

Girls are worth more than how they look, and I cannot accept that, with teens feeling the way they do, magazines like Dolly are willing to exploit them.

The Dolly Model Competition is bad news. They have enough girls clamouring for stardom in the industry, without bringing the rest of us into it.

*Real name withheld at author’s request.