Girlfriend February Review

Many girls and young women look to girl’s magazines for advice on life, relationships, bodies, health and sexuality. But too often they receive conflicting advice and mixed messages and even, sometimes, outright contradiction.

Take for example, information provided in the sealed section of Girlfriend this month, where, within four pages of each other, two medicos give different information about age of consent laws. A 15-year-old, in a relationship with a boy the same age, enquires about age of consent laws because the two want to have sex. Dr Philip Goldstone replies “generally, if you are both under the legal age of consent, it is still illegal for you to have sex.” However Dr Sally Cockburn, under the heading ‘What if you’re both under the age of consent?’ writes: “If two people are both under the age of consent, but are the same or similar age, and both decide to engage in sexual activities, it’s not a legal issue – as long as there’s no coercion, violence or power imbalance involved. Basically, as long as you’re both in control and making informed decisions, there are no legal problems.” So who is the reader to believe? Isn’t this important enough to get right? How does the editing process work at Girlfriend for a contradiction like this not to be noticed? Girls don’t need confusing advice about where they stand under the law.

Not a matter of legal confusion, but something that is consistent is that I have to comment on the ‘Project You Reality Check’ again like I have to on the equivalent in Dolly. The logo is used so inconsistently I have little choice. On the front cover the ‘Reality Check’ provides the vital information that a tag was removed from fashion girl Kylie’s top and that the water in the background was darkened. Seriously, why bother? Then inside, ‘Style School’ features four girls with the ‘Reality Check’ telling us “We haven’t retouched any of these images – we didn’t need to! All the girls look great just the way they are”. So if that’s the case, does it mean that when girls are airbrushed they didn’t look ‘fine the way they were’? Do some need to be airbrushed while others don’t? Also confusing is that the young women featured are specifically clothed to highlight and play down certain parts of their bodies. For example Alex, 15, is dressed to give “the illusion of longer legs” and a mix of large and small prints “also disguises any unwanted bumps”. Eloieese, 14, is lanky, so given curves and a defined waist and “fuller figured” Gemma, 18, is put “in a peplum top, as it draws attention to the slimmest part of her body – her waist”. No airbrushing – but they are still dressed to give the illusion of something other than what they are, and to hide unwanted bumps. I’m all for the disclosure…but it needs to be consistently applied and align with what else is in the magazine as a whole. Otherwise it loses all meaning.  Read article here.

As published on Generation Next blog

Girl Mag Watch

As always, I’m confused about teen girls’ magazines approach to airbrushing and photo-shop (see here for a past example of my confusion).

This issue contains an explanation of the ‘Retouch Free Zone’. “DOLLY is all about healthy body image – that’s why we only feature photos of girls that haven’t been altered or ‘perfected’ in any way. Whenever you see this stamp, you know the girls pictured are real and unretouched!”

Wonderful. But if only.

“Whenever you see this stamp”? What if you don’t see it? What does that mean? The declaration does not appear on every image of every female in the magazine. It occurs inconsistently, which raises doubt. Why ‘retouch’ free’ on this one and not this one? And what about the ads? They are never ‘re-touch free’.

Selena Gomes is on the cover. Not a ‘re-touch free’ logo in sight and Selena’s skin is as flawless as the day she was born.  Was she re-touched? Don’t readers have a right to know that?  A consistent approach would be helpful.

More helpful (though somewhat lightweight) is ‘The 7 deadly sins of facebook’, on online etiquette – how to avoid looking like a stalker, keep control of your online image by setting your privacy settings high (the context is avoid being tagged in ugly pictures of yourself posted by others prior to approval…not so helpful), taking it easy with the ‘like’ button and avoiding angry outbursts.

‘The downside of YOLO’ – the motto ‘You Only Live Once’ and LWWY, ‘Live While We’re Young’ discusses the risks to young people of living by these codes. Dolly asks: “Do these cute shorthand mantras really warrant their sometimes long-term effects?” Psychologist Gemma Cribb says these mottos attempt to justify crazy behaviour regardless of consequences. “When somebody tweets ‘Oh well, YOLO’ it means they’re already aware that their decision might not be sensible.” Another psychologist Sally-Anne McCormack, says YOLO can be used as an excuse to deal with peer pressure or embarrassment. “Girls might be pushed into situations that they don’t want to face and instead of saying no, they think ‘What do I have to lose?’”. Rapper Ervin McKinness and four friends were driving in a speeding car when the 21-year-old tweeted: “Drunk…going 120 drifting corners…#YOLO.” Minutes later all were dead.  Brain development is discussed. The frontal lobe – responsible for impulse control, problem solving and considering consequences – isn’t properly developed until 25. Girls are advised to think smart rather than by the YOLO mantra. Read more here

As published on Generation Next Blog

It’s time for a Love Your Mind campaign

I ASKED a group of Year 12 female students what message they would like me to deliver on their behalf to an advertising conference I was about to address.

Their profound and carefully worded message?

You suck.

Not exactly poetic. But they were tired of the way advertisers covered the public domain with unrealistic, sexualised, hyper-thin images of women, eroding their self-confidence and self-esteem and making them feel inadequate.

Of course, it’s not just the ad industry. Girls receive distorted messages every day from popular culture, magazines, clothing and music video clips.

New research shows attempts to help girls feel better about themselves don’t work – because there’s no let-up in the barrage of messages telling them they’re not good enough.

Mission Australia’s 11th national Youth Survey – the biggest annual poll of 15,000 people aged 15-19 – found 43 per cent of young women were significantly concerned about body image, which was in their top three concerns.

Mission Australia’s national manager of research Dr Bronwen Dalton echoed what many of us have been saying: current interventions are a failure. “Well-meaning efforts to combat the problem by governments and others have failed to make an impact,” Dr Dalton says.

“Unrealistic and unachievable images of physical perfection seems to have entrenched high levels of concern among young women. Magazines are some of the worst culprits when it comes to feeding young women’s negative views of their bodies.”

There’s too much emphasis on positive self-talk without demanding any changes from those who promote, prey upon and profit from the body dissatisfaction of girls.

Telling girls to repeat over and over “I’m beautiful as I am” isn’t going to cut it.

We have a meaningless body image voluntary code of conduct, with no penalties.

A code with no teeth was always doomed to fail.

That only 15 companies entered the Federal Government’s inaugural body image awards showed what they thought of them.

The winner was Dolly – just after it revived its model competition upholding the body ideals of the global beauty industry.

A runner-up was the Dove Body Think Program. Dove is owned by Unilever, which also owns the Lynx brand, known for its degrading depictions of women. As for the other entrants, we don’t know who they are – I’ve been waiting five months for the list from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

The body image code was claimed to be a world-first attempt to regulate the industries contributing to increased rates of body shame and eating disorders.

Minister Kate Ellis wanted industry professionals to “move beyond the ‘business as usual’ approach and take real action to promote positive body image”.

The aim was to gather the beauty, fashion and advertising industries in a partnership to address the growing problem of body image dissatisfaction. But industry didn’t really care.

Even Mia Freedman, then head of the National Body Image Advisory Group, said the code she helped create has been given the “fashionable middle finger”.

Another problem is that even well-meaning programs still emphasise looks.

Butterfly Foundation’s Stop The Fat Talk campaign encourages girls to love their bodies. For example, they can say “I have a great butt” and “my hips are sexy”.

CAN’T we appreciate their marvellous design and function without falling in love with our bums?

The “love your body” emphasis could create more pressure, implying all women should feel beautiful all the time. I imagine there are a lot of women who don’t feel beautiful – but that’s OK, because beauty shouldn’t have to define self-worth.

Perhaps it’s time for a Love Your Mind campaign to help girls see they are more than their bodies.

One of the advisory group recommendations states: If, after a sustained period of continued developments, there is a broad failure of industry to adopt good body image practices, the Australian Government should look to review the voluntary nature of the code.

We haven’t yet had the “sustained period of continued developments”.

A voluntary approach hasn’t worked, and the Mission Australia results prove it.

As published in the Sunday Herald Sun Dec 9, 2012

Girlfriend’s November issue is about boys. Sort of. It’s more about ‘hot’ celeb boys and recycling gender stereotypes.

What do girl readers learn about the opposite sex?

That they are, disgusting, fart, pee standing up and aren’t just “good for pashing”, they can also be “quite useful” (“they can fix all the things you accidently break”).   And here’s a large illustration of their penises with everything explained in ‘The dangly bits’. You’ll find it just a few pages on from ‘A blush-free guide to your first kiss’ and preparing for your first date.

Further helping girl readers understand boys is ‘The most cringe-worthy moments of our fave celeb guys’, ‘Guest guy eds spill on their ultimate man crushes’ and  ‘Fictional boyfriends we wish were real’. That should do the trick.

In a piece re-enforcing gender stereotypes, GF gets boys to ’fess up about their girlie little secrets’  (accompanied by a pic of a boy blow drying his hair). Some moisturise (OMG!),  one likes chick flicks, one googles pictures of cute baby animals to de-stress, one likes having his hair cut and one even spends “my whole weekend in the kitchen baking cakes and cupcakes”. Why do any of these things have to be labelled ‘girlie’? What’s’girlie’ about a boy in the kitchen? (Hasn’t GF heard of Jamie Oliver?) Actually what’s ‘girlie’ about anyone in the kitchen? Read entire article here.

Friday 19 October, 2012 • 9am-5pm: Sydney

NSW Parliament House, 6 Macquarie Street, Sydney

The erosion of childhood is becoming a social and cultural trend of great concern to child development experts as well as the broader community. Commercialisation, sexualisation, body image dissatisfaction and over exposure to violent imagery are some of the key factors. A growing body of scientific evidence and expert opinion has transformed the debate about this trend into an important issue with major implications for mental health, public health, education and policy. We look forward to meeting you at this unique event.

Click here for more information.

Dr Ramesh Manocha, Convenor and Chairman

One suicide is a tragedy. But what happens when a community is rocked by a series of suicides, one after another, all of them young people? Do the families mourn in private, fearful that expressing their grief publicly could result in more deaths? Or does the community come together, so that individual families can tell their stories and in turn do something to combat the insidious face of depression and its consequences?

Until now the accepted wisdom has been to publicly downplay suicide but in speaking to families who’ve lost children, reporter Liz Jackson found that young people are in fact talking about suicide all the time on facebook. Social media has the potential to influence behaviour, for better or worse, and it’s now accepted that suicide prevention strategies need to deal with this. As one parent explains, it was only after the death of her child that she realised her daughter had been discussing her depression and suicidal thoughts on facebook…

I watched this exceptionally powerful and moving program last night. It is a must-see for anyone with young people in their family - and for anyone who cares for their mental health and how apparently easy it is for teens to fall through the cracks in the mental health system.

 It should also be watched by struggling young people, in the hope they might seek help before it is too late. Perhaps the program would help them see how much they are loved and needed and to see the cavernous yawning hole of pain and anguish left in their absence.

I watched it with my 16-year-old daughter and her friend. One of the strong messages to come through was that there is no changing your mind, you can’t come back, it’s final, over, and your friends and family can’t call you: there is no 3G in heaven…

To the family and friends of those who took their lives, you are so brave. You have offered your suffering in a desperately needed act of community service. I hope improved suicide prevention methods will be developed and lives will be saved as a result.

Watch program here