Commentators

Rain (AM and PM) 9° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Johann Hari: The fashion industry imposes a cruel burden on women

The prison of the unachievable body shape has replaced the prison of the kitchen


REUTERS/Kevin Coombs

When did it die? When did our collective disgust at the sickness and sicked-up stomach juices that fuel the fashion industry get replaced by an oh-so-ironic appreciation? When did even most liberals and feminists stop snubbing it and start wrestling their way to the rope-line in search of a goody bag? London Fashion Week starts later this week, a parade of the Emperor's Designer Clothes, made of tinfoil or feathers or rubber. A few years ago, I was sent backstage to cover this event - and it took more than a few London Un-Fashion Weeks of my own to recover from what I saw. I was forced to peer for the first time into the industry that is making so many of my female friends ill.

At the end of the catwalk, there stood a parade of young women who looked like they were about to collapse. On camera, fashion models look worryingly thin. In the (non-)flesh, they look so emaciated that the only other place I have ever seen people like them is reporting on African famines. Their eyes are glazed, shut-down because they have no fuel to run on. These coked-out jangles of gristle and bone were smeared with cosmetics, squeezed into a dress design that appeared to be made of rubbish bags, and pushed out to shimmy down the catwalk, to be applauded by the likes of Kate Moss and Hugh Grant. When they stumbled back, they appeared faint and listless, and leaned against a wall, looking like they needed an IV drip.

The fashion world claims two sets of victims. The first are the women who it uses as models, for a brief window, before discarding them. They are, on average, 25 per cent below a normal, healthy woman's weight. We know how they achieve this, because many former models say so: they starve themselves. They live on water and lettuce for weeks. When they fall below a Body Mass Index of 12 they start to consume their own muscles and tissues. Several models have dropped dead from starvation after success at fashion shows in the past few years.

But there is a broader circle of victims, far beyond the catwalk's cat-calls. They are ordinary women who are bombarded with these highly manufactured images of "beauty" every day, and react either by feeling repulsive or trying out semi-starvation themselves. A Harvard University study found that 80 per cent of women are unhappy with their bodies, and only one per cent are "completely happy". Men, by contrast, were broadly happy with how they look: the accepted idea of male hotness is so broad it can range from 79-year-old Sean Connery to 20-stone James Corden. We are now living through an epidemic of female anorexia and bulimia, with over 50 million victims in Europe and the US. How many women do you know who are happy with the way they look?

The fashion industry promotes this sick vision coldly and joylessly. The recent documentary The September Issue – following the production of American Vogue magazine's biggest edition of the year – had one great revelation. Anna Wintour – the magazine's editor, and the most powerful woman in fashion – is a brittle, sullen woman who appears to take no pleasure in anything, and only seems to show any vigour when she is being cruel to those around her. Presented with a picture of a stick-thin woman, she announces she "looks pregnant". Presented with a man with a stomach, she reacts with incomprehension, as if fat is a revolting glitch in the human genome. She promotes the use of fur, indifferent to the cruelty to animals it involves. She promotes creepily thin models – is she indifferent to the cruelty to women it involves?

Her depression is infectious: it spreads out through the pages of Vogue. A study by the American Psychological Association found that after three minutes spent looking at a fashion magazine, 70 per cent of women felt "depressed, guilty, and ashamed." Vogue and its ilk are banned in most eating disorder clinics because they know it sends their clients spiralling. The magazine has done real harm to ordinary women. It super-charged the trend for bone-thin models with Twiggy in 1965, and it popularised the bogus idea of "cellulite" in 1973: before then, it was just considered normal female flesh.

But this raises the apparent paradox: if it makes women feel so lousy, why do they buy it? There was a flurry of excitement this summer when Glamour magazine showed a tiny little tummy on the model Lizzie Miller, who was – the shock! – a size 12, still much slimmer than the average size 16. But when fashion magazines consistently show normal women, their sales fall. There is a masochistic impulse among women that draws them to these sick images. What is it?

The best answer lies in The Beauty Myth, the 1991 classic by feminist Naomi Wolf. She argues that it is wrong to believe there is one objective standard of "beauty". No. The Maori think there is nothing more beautiful than a fat vulva. The Padung adore droopy breasts. Obese women were hot here in the 15th century. Our idea of beauty changes depending on how we want women to be.

Wolf points out something remarkable in the shifting tides of the fashion world. Whenever women become stronger in the real world, fashion models – our collective vision of Beauty Incarnate – become weaker and scrawnier. In the 1910s, it was considered beautiful for women to have soft, rounded hips, thighs and bellies: most women's natural shape. In the 1920s, when women got the vote, the idea of what was beautiful shrank. Suddenly models became bonier and feeble – and women started to starve themselves. In the 1950s, when women's rights receded, women could be curvy and eat again. With the 1960s and the rise of feminism, models became smaller and smaller – until today, when women are breaking glass ceilings, and emaciated models are the norm.

Why would this happen? Women were kept down for millennia – and now, in a few generations, there have been incredible strides towards liberation. But the old, patriarchal beliefs are deep in our cultural DNA, for both men and women. Wolf believes women suffer from "guilt and apprehension about our own liberation – latent fears that we may be going too far". This skinniness craze is "a collective reactionary hallucination willed into being by both men and women stunned and disorientated by the rapidity with which gender relations have been transformed". Women have replaced the prison of the kitchen with the prison of an unachievable body shape, as if it doesn't make sense to be a woman without bearing a cruel burden. The more powerful a woman is, the more likely she is to be bulimic.

One day, we will look back on a time when women aspired to be Belsen-thin with the incomprehension we feel for Chinese foot-binding. But how do we get there? This is a problem that lies deep in our subconscious minds, and like all subconscious problems, it has to be dragged to the surface. Wolf says anorexic and bulimic women "are walking question marks pleading with schools, universities, and [the rest of us] to tell them unequivocally: This is intolerable. This is unacceptable. We don't starve women here. We value women."

She's right. We need to start publicly scorning the people who promote sickness in women as if it was cool and glossy and gorgeous. Enough. Women should not be made to feel subconsciously bad about demanding equality; starvation is not the Siamese twin of female success. It requires more of us – men and women – to say: No more. This industry is sick, and stupid, and wrong, and when we see it, we will show our contempt. Can't we have a vogue – and a Vogue – for that?

j.hari@independent.co.uk

To read Johann's latest article for Slate, click here

More from Johann Hari

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Hypocrisy
[info]why_tell_me_why wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 01:12 am (UTC)
Belsen-thin, African famines, this is the same man who wrote an article on using language sensibly and not misleading or over blowing an issue. Well i dont think i need to post links to pictures from belsen or kids with kwashiorkor to show their absolutely nothing like Kate Moss or Twiggy. Like alot of Hari articles a point, but consistent name calling and general overplaying of a hand.
Johann Hari: The fashion industry imposes a cruel burden on women
[info]famulla wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 01:20 am (UTC)
Johann Hari: The fashion industry imposes a cruel burden on women
The prison of the unachievable body shape has replaced the prison of the kitchen
This is unacceptable. We don't starve women here. We value women." I LOVE MY MOM DO YOU?
When did it die? When did our collective disgust at the sickness and sicked-up stomach juices that fuel the fashion industry get replaced by an oh-so-ironic appreciation? When did even most liberals and feminists stop snubbing it and start wrestling their way to the rope-line in search of a goody bag?
Johann
cut cut cut action, light , cameras, cu cut cut action
Relax. We still have to face the man for production with all of those doors and Windows with not axe but Vista. Relax relax I said you will get high BP. relax now you are feeling groggy, relax, now you are in command of your thoughts, relax and all will pass. My Dad, Your Dad they all are dead. Open your eyes slowly as there are some glass to be washed and the salads to be made, the clothes need ironing and you have a job at 9.00
Now tell me, how do you feel?
Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut
Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
Abraham Lincoln
There is no such thing as an uneducated guess
Think wrongly, if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.
Doris Lessing
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Re: Johann Hari: The fashion industry imposes a cruel burden on women
[info]freethinkin wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 11:38 am (UTC)
I like you. Will you be my friend?
[info]monkey72 wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 02:31 am (UTC)
As slight irony that when one browses the "fashion" pages of this website, there's a model in the left margin with painfully thin legs. Just further evidence that the abnormal is the norm when dealing with the media.
womens thinness
[info]addda44 wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 02:38 am (UTC)
Go to the museum they have much more interesting skeletons there than at fashion parades
[info]dnmurphy wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 02:43 am (UTC)
Women have the choice and they have chosen skinny looks and excessively high heels. There is no patriarchy, it is women themselves who define these ideals. I know know no men who like these waifs to look at. All men I know like curves. I certainly do. SO you will have to deal with women, not men, on this issue.
Not women's fault
[info]awooble wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 10:13 am (UTC)
Actually, the fashion industry is dominated by gay men, not by women. It is true that these models are not attractive and the problem is that other women try to emulate them. It should be taught at school, if necessary, that fashion parades are about the clothes the models wear and not about their bodies which are so thin that they almost fade into invisibility. What's the point of having a partner if you've got nothing to hold on to?
Adrian.
Re: Not women's fault - [info]cupkatething - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 11:45 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Not women's fault - [info]colinru - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 12:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Not women's fault - [info]juve_girl - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 03:02 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Not women's fault - [info]colinru - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 03:52 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Not women's fault - [info]wernersliver - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 04:09 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Not women's fault - [info]juve_girl - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 04:24 pm (UTC) Expand
I totally agree - [info]kuma2000 - Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC) Expand
Agenda-based journalism
[info]pinhut wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 02:55 am (UTC)
"She's right. We need to start publicly scorning the people who promote sickness in women as if it was cool and glossy and gorgeous. Enough. Women should not be made to feel subconsciously bad about demanding equality;"

Who's this WE, pale face? Hari, just because you are gay, doesn't mean women need you to speak for them.
Re: Agenda-based journalism
[info]dydor wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 12:11 pm (UTC)
I'm not a woman, but have opinions on womens issues. I'm not homeless, but have opinions about homelessness. Is that alright with you?
Re: Agenda-based journalism - [info]pinhut - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 04:38 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]karen555 wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 07:16 am (UTC)
I've always been a fan of plus-size models! There's a great site with many images of plus-size models here:

http://www.judgmentofparis.com/

They're all gorgeous.

The site's forum also has thought-provoking discussions about body image and the media.
re. judgement of paris
[info]theelectrician wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 08:44 am (UTC)
Thank you for that link karen, you are so right. I'll try reading the words later.
Well, Doh!
[info]had_it wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 07:44 am (UTC)
The industry is run by gays who don't like women much. What did you expect to happen?
WOMEN ARE THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES
[info]georgesign wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 08:56 am (UTC)
Women only have to say NO and stop buying all the crap that they seem to read about in women's magazines
Re: WOMEN ARE THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 11:47 am (UTC)
But it's vastly more pervasive than just women's magazines (as you term them). What about images on TV, film, newspapers - what about everything already internalised up to the point when they 'stop' reading these magazines....
Re: WOMEN ARE THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES - [info]pinhut - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 04:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: WOMEN ARE THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES - [info]juve_girl - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 06:12 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]quiensea wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 09:03 am (UTC)

fashion industry is run by misogynistic perverts, they make bras so badly designed so that you cannot breathe normally, they make high hills, so that you cannot walk properly, they impose standards of beauty that are unhealthy.

And no, not all women have the choice, most are not used to have it, never learned to have it, they were indoctrinated from the crib to follow the dictates of society

don't forget that women are people and "many people would rather die than think, in fact, most do" (Bertrand Russell)
Fail to see
[info]fastguyeddie wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 09:34 am (UTC)
How can you blame this one on misogynists sadistic or otherwise given the demographics with the fashion industry; and of course as other people have stated; you choose to follow or not. Simply choose not to and have the courage of your conviction.
If you do look at images of women specifically targeted at men you'll not see any stick insects (admittedly they are are equally unreasonable Caricatures but thats a seperate thread).
Re: Fail to see - [info]juve_girl - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 03:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Fashion Industry?
[info]shoestring7 wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 09:09 am (UTC)
By 'Fashion Industry' I suppose you mean the zeitgeist created by the gay men and women who run it are the ones imposing the cruel burden?

SS7
Re: Fashion Industry?
[info]ilestlouis wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 09:57 am (UTC)
The author did actually assert that it is a "self-imposed" prison. Clearly women are doing this to themselves, but the question is why? You must look at the cultural context.
In sub-saharan Africa, it is the grandmothers who carry out female genital mutilation, but you would be hard-pressed to say that women prefer to mutilate themselves for their own reasons. They live in a highly patriarchal society where a woman's worth is dependent on her chastity, and she will never make the same decisions about life that a man is free to make.
We live in a society where a woman's value has changed radically from that of solely a wife and mother, to participating in the workforce. Women are still told that they are selfish for trying to raise children while working full-time, and still face discrimination at work in many fields such as law, business, the armed forces. Is it conceivable that women feel ambivalent about their own progress and sometimes turn that feeling inwards?
What a load of...
[info]smarttog wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 09:21 am (UTC)
Cods wallop!!!

I have never read such junk before....apart from the last indi article I read...

Any woman can look good and sexy, it is just about self belief and application.

Some women and men are naturally thin, I have to eat like a horse just to maintain my weight.

If you doubt this have a look at my fashion and glamour web site www.smarttog.com

It features ordinary women looking good.
Re: What a load of...
[info]dydor wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 12:16 pm (UTC)
Did you read the article?
I'm a skinny heterosexual man
[info]laconico wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 09:26 am (UTC)
Johann is this country's most vociferous moral voice in my opinion, yet I still fancy thin ladies. I am generally capable of making my own mind up about stuff, so I don't think my tastes are programmed by the times. I look ridiculous with size 16 women.
Perhaps this article would carry more weight (sorry) if someone from of my demographic had penned it? It would certainly be less black and white or at least suffused with reluctant lust
Re: I'm a skinny heterosexual man
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 11:50 am (UTC)
Why would you look ridiculous? Size 16 isn't so big and many people have to wear it just for hips.

What about other types of opinion here? What about intelligence? I find it hard to find someone who is anywhere near my level, but I accept it! I don't say it would make me look ridiculous to date someone with lesser grades, a lower IQ... etc. Maybe that's your point though? Look as the operative word?
Re: I&#39;m a skinny heterosexual man - [info]laconico - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 02:01 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: I&#39;m a skinny heterosexual man - [info]juve_girl - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 03:10 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]starlingnl wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 09:43 am (UTC)
How does fashion "impose"? Do we not have our own minds? I don't let fashion "impose" anything. I wear what I think looks good on me not what fashion says I should wear (which currently seems to be anything square. Sorry, I like curves). I also refuse to get below a size 14-16 (I'm 5'10"), because I think I look just right that way. Stop being a slave to fashion, girls, it's not worth being miserable about clothes. And if a guy doesn't want me because I'm not thin enough? Then I don't want that guy anyway (OK, I must admit I'm married to a woman, so it's kinda irrelevant anyway).
Fashion designs
[info]annelew wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 10:29 am (UTC)
Todays designers produce clothing that looks good on a clothes hanger, or model if you prefer

In the High Street well covered 16 year olds wear jeans with their chubby bits hanging over the top because the garments are designed for stick insects, the tops they wear are designed for boobless 6 foot boney women...so said teenager, who cannot go braless because she is woman shaped, has her bra totally on show with her backless or halter top. Tacky.

Designers seem to be so wrapped up in the whole 'arty' concept they cannot conceive that their products have to be usable too.

In the fifties designers cut cloth to account for waists and hips, I can either buy a skirt/trousers to fit my waist OR something that will go over my hips, every one i know has the same problem

Don't blame the youngsters for slaving to slimming, its either that or have a miniscule choice of clothing to wear.

The fashion industry is so up its own backside and self congratulatory dahling...it wouldn't occur to them that the rest of us even exist.
Skinny heterosexual
[info]annelew wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 10:32 am (UTC)
"i look ridiculous with size 16 women"

Image is everything isn't it...

Sounds like you got the depth of a teaspoon, fancy a job in the fashion industry?

:-)



[info]catherineib wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 10:42 am (UTC)
I am in an Inpatient unit for Eating Disorders for the second time, and here there is no ban on such magazines. I'm not sure where you got your information on their contents sending patients 'spiralling down' or if this is just your opinion - but I can assure you that we (ED sufferers) are barely effected at all by these images. We know that it is a sad place to be, we know it looks unpleasant and we know better than anyone how unhealthy being such a small size can be. Instead of anger, perhaps a little sympathy for these overworked, uncared-for models wouldn't go amiss.
Expanding waist lines
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 11:10 am (UTC)
Wasn't a size 12 the normal size for a woman in the 1970-80? When did size 16 become the accepted norm?
Re: Expanding waist lines
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 11:41 am (UTC)
Sizes changed! Vintage sizes are not the same as today's sizes. Size 16 often isn't that big - if you counr thing like child-bearing hips... at its most emaciated, my body is a 12.
Re: Expanding waist lines - [info]devils_sprog - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 03:27 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Expanding waist lines - [info]cupkatething - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 03:43 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Expanding waist lines - [info]devils_sprog - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 03:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Expanding waist lines - [info]cupkatething - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 03:44 pm (UTC) Expand
Have you seen the size of LADETTES love ?????
[info]des60 wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 12:15 pm (UTC)
The girls around here are so fat from drinking so much booze , and eating junk food ,and multiple preganacies , i really think you don't need to worry
[info]anything_123 wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 12:22 pm (UTC)
Could this be not that women are suffering from "guilt and apprehension about our own liberation – latent fears that we may be going too far", but rather that as women become stronger (in society as well as body) men find them less attractive/threatening (perhaps to their own dominance and freedom), and so fetishise the opposite condition (skinny weak models)? And vice versa? This strategy, if successful, would mean that women were always objectified, underlining supposed male dominance. Perhaps women are susceptible to this just because society isn't, for an understatement, quite equal yet, and sometimes people assimilate and project the images given to them? Perhaps especially if they have been socialised to please?
[info]colinru wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 12:41 pm (UTC)
None of the women that I meet seem to have this problem. If this was about what men want, the Models would be far more Rubenesque.

If some women, not all because I do not meet them in day to day discourse, are susceptible to some sort of presuure then that is what they need to address.
[info]anything_123 wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 12:23 pm (UTC)
I like the option to 'enlarge' under the pic of the model. If only!
Blame Someone Else
[info]bruceburniston wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 12:47 pm (UTC)
Grow Up Johann Hari. Women inflict the misery on themselves by their overweening vanity.
Re: Blame Someone Else
[info]theelectrician wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 04:43 pm (UTC)
I thought that researching and analysing a situation and then writing about it and inviting comments was the 'grown up' thing to do.

It's people who give a knee jerk 'grow up!' response to opinions they don't agree with who need to do some growing up.
The opposite of progress
[info]mortysmith wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 12:55 pm (UTC)
It's a shame that whereas the feminism of, say, the suffragette era was based on asserting that women are adults not children, the feminism of today seems hell bent on reversing that position.

It's a fair bet that the half naked man on the cover of the current issue of Men's Health magazine is slimmer and fitter than me. Likewise the men in the Gillette TV ads, the diet coke ads, and male models generally. Yet I've never heard it suggested that I need to be protected from seeing them or else I'll go and starve myself, or exercise obsessively, out of a desire to look like them. Likewise, the "pressure" to look good to attract sexual partners applies just as much to men as to women. Are there men out there claiming to be victims of a tyrannical matriarchy just because they might have less sex if they get fat?

Feminism should be encouraging women to be self-reliant, instead of seizing on yet another thing to claim they are victims of.
Re: The opposite of progress
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 02:19 pm (UTC)
'It's a shame that whereas the feminism of, say, the suffragette era was based on asserting that women are adults not children, the feminism of today seems hell bent on reversing that position'

Could you unpack that a little? I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Thanks!

I think the argument about women is yes, it does ignore the position of men to an extent - but men have never been as regulated as women, in their appearance. Regulated, yes, but it is a question of degree. Especially as the history is that women had to be ornamental and nothing more - apart from some feminine accomplishments. Look at George Eliot's Rosamund. The satire in Middlemarch is a prime example of this.

Besides which, we haven't had a 'tyrannical matriarchy'! The appearance of male politians is discussed, of course, but not in the same way that of female politicians - the so-called 'Blair's Babes' for example...
Re: The opposite of progress - [info]mortysmith - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 02:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The opposite of progress - [info]cupkatething - Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 08:20 am (UTC) Expand
Lots of emotion but...it's the economy stoopid!
[info]rjd8 wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 01:06 pm (UTC)
So, "we are living through an epidemic of anorexia and bullimia". This doesn't square with the obesity epidemic news that we are bombarded with daily. Who's right? I thought that we were collectively too fat as a nation and I see far more evidence of obesity than fashion starvation. No one denies that anorexics and bullemics are out there but this article lacks some hard stats on whether this is a growing problem never mind an epidemic.

I also think Hari is confused about the aims of the fashion industry. They aren't trying to create an army of skinny people. They are selling fashion products using branding and advertising. When the little girls about town pick up a magazine the last thing they risk is deathly skinniness. What they do risk is going broke after stupidly trying to emulate the latest trends in everything from toe-nail polish to handbags to god knows what else the stupid army of conformists think is important to their well-being. Consumerism is the real thing that needs attacking.

There will always be a small proportion of people who end up anorexic. They are ill and should be treated. I have no sympathy for the rest of the 80% of unhappy women who don't like their bodies. They are educated and choose to buy and read fashion mags. So they must pay for their choice with unhappiness. If they stopped buying fashion mags, the abuses that take place in the industry would collapse and everyone would be happier. But I am putting my money on pigs flying before that happens.
Re: Lots of emotion but...it's the economy stoopid!
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 02:13 pm (UTC)
I agree that capitalism is the overall problem... But... Don't you think it's about inculcating desire? Children get this from a very young age, before they have had much education - look at what passes for children's magazines and television.

Some feminists recently looked at the changed image of Dora the Explore, made to be 'fitter' and fall in line and in competition with the Disney Princess marketting. It's seriously creepy.

Education, also, doesn't have that much to do with it. See my above point about imbibing this stuff everywhere; magazines are only one part of it - it's television, too - which is fairly ubiquitous, no? My highly educated females friends don't necessarily buy fashion - or any other type of - magazines, but still suffer low self-esteem when it comes to their bodies. Despite high flying careers, despite their University educations, despite satisfying relationships.

Furthermore, there's a significant medical difference between starving yourself to be thin and the condition of anorexia or bulimeia (sp, apols). Both are about control and relations with the world outside the mind and body - not the appearance of the body itself. That is just the means. They may also revile fat, but it is a control thing.

Even if we are too collectively fat as a nation, this is about attitude, as much as it is about bodily actualities.

It is also possible to consume fashion because it is enjoyable. Witness all the critical theory books on fashion discussing identity formation - which doesn't have to have anything to do with haute couture...
Re: Lots of emotion but...it's the economy stoopid! - [info]rjd8 - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 03:22 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Lots of emotion but...it's the economy stoopid! - [info]cupkatething - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 03:44 pm (UTC) Expand
Fashion facists
[info]jimfred wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 02:08 pm (UTC)
Do most women fall for this?Most that I know do not even buy the silly magazines.They are all too busy multi tasking to be taken in by fashionista nonsense.
Most guys dont like matchsticks,does our vote count?
Re: Fashion facists
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 02:16 pm (UTC)
I think it's a question of whether people 'fall for it' or not, our culture is imbued with it. I don't read magazines, don't watch TV, sometimes watch films if I get the time, spend most of my time buried in books studying - but I was more a part of the magazine consumer world when younger, so it still has an affect on me, personally.

Good for your friends, if they're more comfortable in their skin than the presumed subjects of this article.
Re: Fashion facists - [info]jimfred - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 03:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Fashion facists - [info]jimfred - Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 04:03 pm (UTC) Expand
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Columnist Comments

steve_richards

Steve Richards: Party leaders still fear the Holiday Test

Blair took his family to Australia in the winter of 1996. Revealingly, no one raised a murmur

terence_blacker

Terence Blacker: A great day for famous do-gooders

For celebrities, highly visible charity activities are a good deal

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Cash-machine man in need of withdrawal

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! I have arrived at the local cash-machine to find no one there


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion