GF’s ‘reality check’ needs a reality check
Revolution: a: a sudden, radical, or complete change b: a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed c: activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation d: a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm…e: a changeover in use or preference…
It’s a big word, revolution. Sudden, radical, or complete change. Overthrow. Fundamental change. A paradigm shift.
It’s a word Girlfriend should never have invoked on the front cover of this month’s issue.
What appears in GF’s pages does not constitues a sudden and radical change to their previous approach to beauty, weight loss, dieting, body size and airbrushing. There’s some tinkering around the edges. But no revolution.
Girlfriend reminds us of its promises, which are part of its
“strict body image policy”, flowing from the National Body Image Advisory Code (its editor sat on the board). We can “know when you look at an image in this mag it’s exactly how that person looks…”
But GF has failed to deliver.
Let’s have a good look – just like me and my Collective Shout mates (left) did during a retreat recently on the Gold Coast.
Cover girl is Leighton Meester. “’I’m this way and that’s it.’ Why we heart Leighton” reads the text. On the front we get the one and ‘Reality Check’ disclosures about altered imagery: “Girlfriend received this image of Leighton Meester already retouched.” So, she’s not quite ‘this way and that’s it’ because her image has been doctored.
While it is good to be up front on these things, the disclosure reads as though GF had no choice in the matter. Can’t you request an air-brush free image, consistent with your own announced policy of staying ‘virtually retouch-free’? Did GF commission the image or did it just drop on the editor’s desk? This is important, because Sarah Cornish’s editorial stresses GF’s amazing new approach:
…there’s no doubt that more and more of you are telling us that you don’t feel great about your bodies and taking advertisers and media to task when they alter images to make them look unrealistic. So, we have decided to take a stand and say enough with the hating (of our bodies and each other) and take a positive approach. Girlfriend is committed to being 100 per cent honest when it comes to images in our pages and to staying virtually retouch-free, so you never have to feel that you need to look like a model to look good.
Sarah reiterates GF’s “new commitment to less models and less retouching.”
‘100 per cent honest when it comes to images in our pages…’
OK. Then why is there only one disclosure on retouching when there appear to be many airbrushed images of young women in GF’s August edition? And is advertising excempt from any disclosure at all? Don’t readers look at the ads as well?
GF says that for four years “we’ve been pointing out when an image in Girlfriend has been digitally altered (retouched) or professionally styled”.
I think this image below, illustrating the Love2Shop ‘bonus mag’ is one of the most questionable. No airbrushing/retouching/professional styling at all GF?
Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps these women are naturally flawless. Perhaps they have just carried that pure newborn skin through to their adult years?
These are flaws?
In a section about loving your ‘quirks’, we are presented with four girls in a section headed ‘Perfection is boring’, which suggests they are imperfect. One has a gap between her front teeth. One has “curves”. One has red hair (though more strawberry than carroty in appearance) and the last girl has freckles. It seems to me that these are acceptable ‘flaws’. Actually young women tell me they think a gap between the front teeth is quite cute. I wonder where girls with acne or scars or facial deformities would fit in this lineup? Or maybe they wouldn’t?
177 thin girls. 4 not.
Positive body image ambassador Stephanie Rice is interviewed by GF. She says it’s “really important for teenage girls to know there isn’t just one stereotyped image for them to live up to.”
But apart from four non-normative, slightly larger girls, GF has pages of stereotyped girls, illustrating and supporting the thin ideal. A quick count came up with 177 images which would fit the normative, standard thin dominant ideal, a common feature of all women’s mags.
She may not be a model. But she can be made model-like.
It’s one thing to use readers, not models. GF discloses use of readers in photo shoots seven times. But are these girls your average readers? How are they selected? (and who isn’t selected?). How many hours has the girl spent in hair and makeup, were special lighting and soft focus lenses used? Because those things alter appearance as well. She may not be a professional model. But she can be made model-like.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t wear makeup and have their hair done for a GF photo shoot. What I am saying is how does selecting traditionally understood attractive girls and beautifying them radical?
To be positive for a moment, there’s an article, ‘7 ways to make friends with you body’, which is good. There are a couple of inspiring stories about troubled young women made good, and another wanting to end poverty through her work with World Vision. It would be worth expanding the ‘real story’ section, because it’s the only real counterpoint to the pages and pages of beauty, fashion and advertising. There’s a piece on ending bad friendships, an anti-bullying focus and assessing online relationships. There are no dieting articles. And adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg’s provides helpful advice to readers.
But I can’t get away from what is the bulk of the content.
The featured clothes are pretty much all for skinny girls. Take these jeans for example, clearly shot with someone’s legs in them. Has this image been doctored?
And I’d also like to know if this is the same girl because if so, her body shape appears to have changed between p 74 and 75.
If they are not same girl, has anything been done to alter girl 2?
All GF girls ‘love to shop’, which helps cement them into consumerist culture. They also like to check out ‘hot celeb boys’ and ‘eye candy’, including Justin Bieber, whose boyish self features in a poster for their walls.
How is all this “busting bad body image”?
While GF promotes a ‘Think. Do. Be Positive’ philosophy, there is significant emphasis on beautification, beauty preparation and being pretty. At this stage I’m not sure the positive messages will outway the standard messages about beauty, looks and grooming, as reflected in editoral and advertising which is designed to sell mass dissatisfaction. I suppose you could say GF is making an effort. But revolutionary it’s not.
I see that last year Girlfriend joined forces with Supre to promote a new initiative, national compliments day, to help cultivate positive self-image. I wonder if GF thinks Supre’s t.shirts for tweens, including ‘Santa’s Bitch’, ‘Pussy Power’ and ‘High Beams’ help girls feel good about themselves? (see earlier blog).
The editor asks for reader input: “Let me know what you think about your body and whether our campaign will make a difference to you: Email me at: GF_editor@pacificmags.com.au”.
Why not do that? And let me know too. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Melinda, your question about ‘where girls with acne or scars or facial deformities would fit in this lineup’ is very pertinent indeed, and congratulations to you for raising it. The answer is – unfortunately nowhere, and these magazines must ultimately be held responsible for promoting what has been described as ‘the last bastion of discrimination’ – that of facial difference or disfigurement.
I have a facial disfigurement myself and the extremely narrow, juvenile representation of female beauty and sexuality across the entire spectrum of the Australian media has driven me to the point where I have decided to leave this country for good. In Australia, if you are a woman with a facial difference, you might as well not exist, and you certainly will never be represented in any sort of printed mainstream publication aimed at women except perhaps from the curiosity, medical or ‘pity’ angle. The consequences of this exclusion are not hard to deduce!
I am past the age of preoccupation with my appearance but I really despair for any young girl nowadays who may have a disfigurement and who is bombarded with these relentless images of the ideal female. It’s very irresponsible of the media, and I even wonder if at some stage the media’s approach would not stand up in law.
In the UK work is progressing to make the media aware of these issues and to attempt to work towards a truly representative depiction of women in the media, including women with atypical faces. It may be a long road, but we will walk it until the end.
Interested readers can google ‘Katie Piper’ and read about a UK TV personality who was facially disfigured and who has courageously used her subsequent experience to raise awareness of these issues.
Thank you for mentioning this important matter, Melinda.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Great post, but Justin Beiber is 16. Not that it’s nice or ok, but let’s get our facts right. 🙂
August 24th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Thanks Rebecca, you are right, I’ve changed it.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Dear Marsco. That was a profound comment. Thanks for sharing. Are you sure you need to leave the country? I think we need you to stay to help fix this discriminatory treatment and, as you perfectly express it, ‘the extremely narrow, juvenile representation of female beauty and sexuality’ in Australia. But sounds like you have decided to go…if so best wishes. Melinda
August 24th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I suppose I feel a little relief that there is some effort to not just continue headlong into the trend of image obessed, photoshopped & thus deceptive magazine content.
BUT I very quickly feel disappointed that it is such a half hearted effort. Are girlfriend being deliberately token in their attempt or are they SO blind that they can’t see the contradictions all through their magazine?
Image how wonderful it would be ifthey really did lead a revolution!
August 24th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Thanks Melinda for exposing yet another hypocracy within the advertising/ fashion industry!
August 24th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Since when were things like gap between teeth, freckles and red hair flaws? Aren’t these just some facial/ appearance features that any percentage of the population will share at any given time? Framing them as “flaws” is particularly concerning in this day where beautification- and cosmetic surgery- come all too easily. Red hair is easily died. Tooth gaps and freckles can be corrected- and often are under the auspice of health. Curves? Don’t get me started!
August 24th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
‘Think, Do, Be Positive’ – hmmm – let’s look at that for a minute. Is GF attempting to convince us that they are encouraging girls to:
‘Think’ i.e. value their brains/knowledge/intellect more than looks. Well I don’t see much on books, uni choices, career choices for girls in the mag! It is more of ‘Think about your face/body/hair and how it does not measure up to our models.’ I believe
‘Do’ – i.e. do things for the community perhaps? Well apart from that one amazing yet lone reader who does work for World Vision, I don’t see much on that. Perhaps they mean ‘do’ things by being active for fun and health reasons rather than the thin ideal? Nope, none of that either. Just the skinny girl jogging in the picture above, no pictures of women’s bodies of all shapes out for a run can be found on any page. Perhaps they mean ‘do’, as in shop more, buy more make-up to feel better about yourself, try these clothes which oops sorry you wouldn’t fit into anyway!
‘Be Positive’ – This is a contradiction, considering the fact that all the models fit the thin or perfect ideal. Even the ‘flaws’ and ‘flawless girls’ fit the perfect ideal. How on earth are young girls supposed to maintain a ‘positive’ self image after reading GF when it tells them quite clearly that they don’t cut it.
I have no problem with girls enjoying shopping, make-up and buying clothes, but I do have a problem with a girls magazine telling girls indirectly what the ideal body and face should look like and then pretend to promote the beauty revolution for ALL shapes and sizes!
Ha – I don’t buy it!
August 24th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
For a true ‘revolution’ to take place, the focus needs to be off ‘beauty’ and onto the whole person. A girl is much more than how well she can fit within the narrow minded beauty ideals. Making that narrow beauty ideal just a little bit wider by including a gap in the teeth (as a flaw!) is hardly a revolution.
I think it says a lot about how superficial our culture is when girls have to justify normal variations in their appearance.
Is this a step in the right direction? Maybe just a little shuffle, I expect when the spotlight is off the positive body image issue, they’ll take a step back again. You don’t sell magazines by making girls feel good about themselves.
August 24th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
I think society is always going to gravitate towards some ideal as more beautiful than others. the problem then is that we reward this ideal again and again while others aspire to be it – and within capitalist structures the more we can sell mass dissatisfaction and stress the importance of being beautiful, the more people will strive towards it.
i think it would be nice if they showed girls who had acne as beautiful, and at the same time from an evolutionary viewpoint i wonder if it is realistic for us to ever think that acne will be considered as beautiful as ‘flawless’ skin, or similarly asymmetrical faces.
for example there are some features that are considered universally beautiful when they have done studies on this- including dilated pupils, symmetrical faces etc. this may have to do with finding a mating partner who is less likely to have poor genes (and even though for the most part, it is a rather primitive and flawed way of screening for ‘good genes’ – eg someone with bad acne could have great genes while miss universe could have schizophrenia in the family) – we are probably hardwired to prefer certain traits over others, and then on top of that is a cultural shaping towards a socially contructed ideal (eg bound feet, elogated necks etc)
i think a real revolution would require us (or magazines like Girlfriend,really) to stop putting beauty on such a pedastal – to actually reward other things like talent, intelligence etc rather than beauty as the priority trait one must possess. just like with plastic surgery and how it is now a ‘duty’ to look good and “age well” ( what a crock!) – a real revolution would see people laugh at the ridiculousness of beauty pageants and women stripping in the name of charity etc etc –
so in some ways it’s good if they are making some steps to widen the definition of beauty but i don’t think girlfriend could ever really say it is bringing about a revolution, esp as you say melinda most of their pages show the thin ideal and photoshopping undeclared.
August 25th, 2010 at 12:28 am
Thanks Melinda for raising this. I think it reveals the triumph of marketing over principle. We have just seen an Australian election campaign based heavily on focus groups and polling and I think this sort of marketing technique is even stronger in magazines, where circulation and dollars rule. Magazines will pick up and reflect anything their market research finds. If some readers are worried about body image, the magazine will run with that as long as it does not get too much in the way of normal business. But I think to get mags to really change requires people of like mind to persuade the general public first. I know Melinda and other contributors on this blog are working to do just that.
August 25th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
pity GF don’t spend more time perfecting their contents and scrutinizing their pages rather than their faces.
August 27th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Different mag, but New Idea recently had a big feature about Rowena Wallace having a facelift. Big before & after photos. ‘Before’ photo: not smiling, poor lighting, black clothing, no makeup. ‘After’ photo: smiling, makeup, lighting on face, white blouse revealing less of her (nicely) freckled chest area. If they really wanted to show the ‘improvement’ achieved by surgery then why not have the photos taken under identical circumstances.
Older women too are subject to outrageous expectations of how they should look, pushing us all towards ‘enhancing’ ourselves & ‘defeating’ the ageing process. What a lie, New Idea!!!! These magazines are supposed to be ‘for women’ but I think they’re actually ‘for the profit of industries that prey on women’.
September 1st, 2010 at 10:11 am
[…] the word Revolution gets thrown around a lot and watered down in the process. However it has been defined […]
September 9th, 2010 at 9:42 am
[…] Girlfriend misusing the word ‘revolution’ in its alleged new approach to body image (Girlfriend: we’re still waiting for the beauty revolution), Lovable is abusing the term ‘cultural […]
September 10th, 2010 at 11:17 am
I understand that in Australia and many other countries the majority of girls are not “skinny” and “thin”, and so there are many girls that feel bad about their bodies.
In magazines such as Girlfriend and Dolly, and also many of your blogs that i have spent time reading, words such as “fat” and “overweight” are avoided because they make girls feel bad. In replace of these we see words such as “normal” and “curvy”.
In this particular blog you speak of “thin girls” as though this is a bad body type, and a bad body shape, image etc is being promoted though the use of “thin” models. This is a great aricle however i would like to point out that “skinny” and “thin” are also very normal body types.
Is “thin” bad because it is not the majority? Should “thin” be discouraged because it makes the majority feel bad about themselves? Am i to feel bad about myself because i am “thin”?
I am healthy, I do not have an eating dissorder, yet i am “thin” and i am “skinny”. Is this bad? Becuase now, when I read a girls magazine I am positioned to believe that “curvy” is “normal” which would make me not normal.
= More body image issues just with the shoe on the other foot. Contrary to popular belief, there are many girls that are both “normal” and “thin”.
October 21st, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Melinda,
I totally understans where you are coming from. But we have to wonder, do we REALLY need to be so discrimative of this Girlfriend mag? I, for one, am really interested at reading these sort of magazines, and Girlfriend has been the best so far. You have ot realise that what this magazine is doing is 100% more then what any other magazines like Cleo and Cosmo are doing. At least they’re trying, and I’ll stand by them and say that they are a positive influence on me as a teen.
I’m doing an assignment at the moment on the exploitation and sexualisation of young girls, and I understand your concern, but there is no need to rip shreds out of this mag, they’re doing more then others, and should be commended at least, because I know first hand how hard it is in a world like this to not fall into the trap of perfection, at least they’re doing something about it, and most girls who read this mag (older ones or course; which are actually their target market) realise this.