I'm watching a re-run of last week's episode of Dance Moms, my new guilty pleasure, and the focus of the episode is on the girls wearing extra skimpy dance costumes and performing an extra sexy dance for a competition. Think the infamous "Single Ladies" dance that made headlines last year.
Now, there were two conflicting opinions. Most of the dance moms thought the costumes and routines were extremely inappropriate. Personally, I agree with them. Then the choreographer and one of the dance moms made the point that a lot of successful dance groups wear that stuff, and do dances like that. To them, that level of sexualization is just necessary to be competitive in the dance world. And sadly, they're right.
Let's get one thing straight: I support dance, and I support cheerleading. I support any physical activity that can (potentially) teach girls to value their bodies for what they do rather than what they look like, or what they can do for men. Studies have shown that, statistically, girls who participate in sports and physical activities are less likely to participate in risky behaviors such as drugs and underage drinking; casual, unprotected sex; gang activity; and eating disorders. Not to mention, the endorphins from practices and success of doing well can boost a girl's confidence and test scores. This is why the Women's Sports Foundation launched its GoGirlGo! initiative, which gives money to programs that help underprivileged, at-risk girls get active, giving them a better shot at a bright future. Dance and cheerleading can be very good for girls and young women.
That said, there is a sexualizing element that needs to be addressed. My sister's an all-star cheerleader, and I've seen what a lot of the successful squads wear: short, short skirts, cropped tops, and lots and lots of makeup. These aren't just young women wearing skimpy outfits and pageant-level amounts of makeup, I've seen seven year-olds wear stuff like that, and it's a little disturbing. The dance world has the same problem. It's not just a few gyms and studios pushing the limits, it's a widespread problem that's often rewarded with top titles and trophies. Now, on Dance Moms the girls did not place, and the sexual nature of their routine was probably the culprit. But that was a single competition in Lancaster, a conservative area, if they had done the same routine at the Phoenix competition where the choreographer got the idea to do a steamy number, they might have won.
What message are we sending these girls when the teams when sexy equals success for so many teams?
I do understand that revealing uniforms make it easier to move. As a young woman, I get that girls probably get a boost of confidence from feeling sexy in those outfits. That is, the girls who have the "typical" cheerleader/dancer body (skinny). What about the girls who, despite the exercise they get from practices, aren't as skinny and don't feel comfortable, forget sexy, having to reveal so much of their bodies? Skimpy cheerleading uniforms may make some girls feel alienated from the sport because of their bodies. If being sexy is seen as a par for the course, a requirement for success in competition, girls who are unwilling to dance and dress in a suggestive nature might feel alienated as well. In fact, there was a six year-old girl who was kicked off her squad, not because she said anything, but because her mom expressed concern over a cheer where girls chant about shaking their booties.
Abby Miller, the owner of the dance studio in Dance Moms, does not take kindly to parents expressing concerns over their kids' dancing. She says that when a parent opens their mouth, they ruin their child. And yes, that is sometimes true. Doing theater in high school, the director made it clear that we were to ignore any notes our parents gave us about the performance. Overly involved parents have the potential to undo what is taught in the gym or studio. However, in this case, parents should be outspoken when they feel that something their daughters are being made to wear or do might be too sexual. It's a parent's responsibility to protect their daughter from early sexualization and exploitation.
This isn't about young women choosing to be sexy and exploring their sexualities. This is about girls having no choice but to be sexy, not realizing the implications of their actions. These girls are at risk of growing up with a manufactured sexuality, influenced by their dance moves and how they're dressed for competition, rather than an authentic one. The competitive environment can be toxic for the girls' sexualities and sense of self, overemphasizing the importance of being sexy in order to be competitive with other girls, not to mention the importance of being skinny enough to look good in belly-bearing tops and tiny skirts. Now, I'm not saying that it has this impact on all girls who compete, and it's certainly something that needs to be studied, but it really appears to magnify a lot of toxic cultural ideals.
So what can be done? Sadly, I don't have a fool-proof plan. The problem is that all-star cheerleading and competitive dance isn't exactly centralized. It seems as though every competition has its own rules and judging criteria, with lots of overlap but nothing established as a universal rule. The Varsity corporation does run a large portion of it, but even then, there is no one ruling body regulating the competition circuit, so there's no one office to write to in order to get judges to crack down on vulgarity or to implement rules regarding cheer uniforms and costumes. And of course, if skimpy costumes were banned or suddenly very much frowned upon, that means gyms have to get new uniforms, which may not be a problem for the rich, expensive gyms that frequently change their uniforms anyway, but might be an issue for lower income gyms that recycle their uniforms and can't afford to buy new ones to adapt to the rule change, putting them at even more of a disadvantage in competition. Still, change can come from the top down, if successful cheer gyms and dance studios can be persuaded to lead by example and wear uniforms with more coverage, at least for the younger squads.
I think the world of cheerleading and dance can be just as good, if not better, sans the skimpy outfits and suggestive dance moves that, by most people's standards, are not appropriate for the younger age groups. After all, the focus of cheerleading and dance should be what people's bodies can do, not what they look like.
Showing posts with label body image. Show all posts
Showing posts with label body image. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Yoplait's Pulled Ad
Recently, Yoplait agreed to pull one of its ads after the National Eating Disorder Association raised concerns that it triggered and encouraged disordered eating. I'm sure plenty of you have seen it, it's the one where a perfectly slender woman is standing in front of a fridge trying to justify eating a piece of cheesecake (saying she'll only have a little, exercise it off, she's been a "good girl," etc.), and another slender woman pulls out some cheesecake yogurt, saying that she's been waiting for it all day.
I first heard about this on the Huffington Post, where the comments were mostly from people who thought the whole thing was ridiculous. No, not the commercial, the fact that it was pulled. People were being "too sensitive," "every woman does that," just because it hurts a few people doesn't mean it shouldn't be shown, and my least favorite, "maybe more women should do that."
Why yes, many women do go through that thought process. Many women do obsess over what they eat; it's taken for granted as a part of womanhood. But it's also disordered eating. Just because an unhealthy relationship with food is normal doesn't make it any healthier.
The fact is, Yoplait and other food companies both prey on women with that mindset, and they encourage it in other women in order to sell their products. You see it in other commercials, like the ads where a woman wrestles with her dessert cravings, only to instead chew a stick of gum. There are ads for low-calorie desserts that say "hey look, now you can eat [cookies/ice cream/cake/pudding/whatever the fuck else] and STILL be a good girl!" as if "good girls" don't typically eat those foods.
I'll be honest, that was a big part of how I developed a disordered relationship with food a couple years ago. It wasn't that I wanted to look like a supermodel, but that I was bombarded with media messages - in commercials as well as "healthy eating" articles in magazines - that encouraged me to obsessively restrict my diet in the name of "health." Even WebMD had me convinced that any fat on my stomach was bad for me and that I needed to lose weight. For the record, I was 115 lbs at the time, smack dab in the middle of the healthy weight range for my height according to the BMI scale - which is a bullshit method anyway.
That's another major problem, people - mostly women, but men as well - assign morality to eating behaviors. Who hasn't wondered if they should be "good" and get a salad or "naughty" and eat real food. Let's be real, a bowl of lettuce is a good side dish but is hardly enough sustenance to be considered a meal, unless it comes with a decent amount of grilled chicken. People also tend to sexualize women's indulgence in certain food, namely chocolate - the idea is that it's "bad," but it's soooo good. Thinking about food in terms of morality is not healthy.
And yes, this country has an obesity problem. The problem comes from our culture of extremes, where we have this one limited idea of what a "healthy lifestyle" is, and it's not really appealing to most people, so many people decide being healthy isn't even worth trying. The answer isn't to encourage more people to obsess over what they eat and develop disordered eating habits, but to assure people that moderation is okay, that there are ways to exercise that are actually fun.
I hope this sets a precedent, and that other companies will reconsider using such a harmful method of advertising to market their products. And I hope that we find a way to empower women to, at least once in a while, eat the damn cake.
I first heard about this on the Huffington Post, where the comments were mostly from people who thought the whole thing was ridiculous. No, not the commercial, the fact that it was pulled. People were being "too sensitive," "every woman does that," just because it hurts a few people doesn't mean it shouldn't be shown, and my least favorite, "maybe more women should do that."
Why yes, many women do go through that thought process. Many women do obsess over what they eat; it's taken for granted as a part of womanhood. But it's also disordered eating. Just because an unhealthy relationship with food is normal doesn't make it any healthier.
The fact is, Yoplait and other food companies both prey on women with that mindset, and they encourage it in other women in order to sell their products. You see it in other commercials, like the ads where a woman wrestles with her dessert cravings, only to instead chew a stick of gum. There are ads for low-calorie desserts that say "hey look, now you can eat [cookies/ice cream/cake/pudding/whatever the fuck else] and STILL be a good girl!" as if "good girls" don't typically eat those foods.
I'll be honest, that was a big part of how I developed a disordered relationship with food a couple years ago. It wasn't that I wanted to look like a supermodel, but that I was bombarded with media messages - in commercials as well as "healthy eating" articles in magazines - that encouraged me to obsessively restrict my diet in the name of "health." Even WebMD had me convinced that any fat on my stomach was bad for me and that I needed to lose weight. For the record, I was 115 lbs at the time, smack dab in the middle of the healthy weight range for my height according to the BMI scale - which is a bullshit method anyway.
That's another major problem, people - mostly women, but men as well - assign morality to eating behaviors. Who hasn't wondered if they should be "good" and get a salad or "naughty" and eat real food. Let's be real, a bowl of lettuce is a good side dish but is hardly enough sustenance to be considered a meal, unless it comes with a decent amount of grilled chicken. People also tend to sexualize women's indulgence in certain food, namely chocolate - the idea is that it's "bad," but it's soooo good. Thinking about food in terms of morality is not healthy.
And yes, this country has an obesity problem. The problem comes from our culture of extremes, where we have this one limited idea of what a "healthy lifestyle" is, and it's not really appealing to most people, so many people decide being healthy isn't even worth trying. The answer isn't to encourage more people to obsess over what they eat and develop disordered eating habits, but to assure people that moderation is okay, that there are ways to exercise that are actually fun.
I hope this sets a precedent, and that other companies will reconsider using such a harmful method of advertising to market their products. And I hope that we find a way to empower women to, at least once in a while, eat the damn cake.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Image, Gender, and Public Figures
When a man is in the public eye, his appearance may be mentioned. Teen magazines may talk about the hotness of one actor or another, a politician may be called handsome by the papers as he's running for office. Certainly, attractive male public figures such as celebrities and politicians are praised when they are attractive. At minimum, a man must look put together, well dressed, neat, hair combed, but he doesn't always need a slim figure or perfect nose to succeed in his field, and in fact such physical traits are considered bonus features rather than requirements. What matters is his talent, his intellect, and what he has to offer to the field he is known for working in.
It's different for women.
Female celebrities are constantly scrutinized for their looks. Their outfits and hairstyles are constantly critiqued, especially after award shows and movie premiers. Their weight makes headlines in gossip rags and celebrity news. When a woman runs for public office, her appearance is also under scrutiny. Sarah Palin was called a MILF, and Hilary Clinton was sometimes discredited simply because she was masculine-looking and "ugly" (seriously, I've way too many people, mainly guys, say Hilary Clinton sucks because she looks like a man) - as if a woman needs to be physically appealing before her words are taken seriously. Even Michelle Obama is known for her biceps and dresses as much as she is for the actual work she's doing in the realm of public service, and she's not even an elected executive. The message? If you want to be a successful woman, you had better be gorgeous as well. The fact that a female politician's appearance makes headlines as often as her platform, her actions in office, and her words themselves, tell women, and really men too to a certain degree, that your appearance matters just as much as your intellect, if not more so.
Certainly, everyone needs to look nice. Everyone needs to dress appropriately, comb their hair, look neat, etc. - but it goes further for women. Where all a guy needs is to wear a nice suit, women are under pressure to make the "best dressed" lists, and make sure their dresses are perfectly flattering and show just the right amount of skin - a very fine line to walk. Where a man may make headlines for losing a substantial amount of weight and moving from the obese range to a healthier size, a woman makes headlines in US Weekly for gaining or losing 10 lbs., and everyone speculates as to why - is the pressure getting to her? is she pregnant? has she stopped trying to be a size 2? is she anorexic? what diet is she using?
Clearly, the media's heightened scrutiny over women's appearance sends a toxic message: that being skinny and perfectly dressed is much more important for women than it is for men. It also sends other messages, such as: if your weight changes even a little bit, everyone is going to notice; and if you gain weight, you better have a gosh darn reason for letting yourself go, piggy! It subtly tells women to watch out, people are paying attention to what you look like you you had better give them something nice to look at. Media criticism is almost like a public punishment, making an example of these celebrities that dared to break fashion rules, who dared to gain weight, who dared to go out in public without makeup and perfectly styled hair, scaring the rest of us into compliance with these beauty rules, and giving other women the power to police their peers into obeying as well. After all, the magazine writers do it, they talk crap about women who don't look perfect, why can't the rest of us?
What does this say to women who want to become actresses, singers, politicians, or pursue any other occupation which may lead to a life in the public eye? You had better be skinny and hot, or you might as well forget it. In fact, I remember wanting to be a singer when I was a preteen, and actually gave up not because of my voice or stage fright, but because I was told I was too fat and ugly. This is certainly discouraging to people who don't fit the beauty standard, women who may want to be president but feel more suited to a life behind the scenes because of their appearance, rather than their actual confidence in their intellect and leadership skills - which in itself tends to be lacking in women, for other reasons.
The idea that women need certain physical traits to enter and succeed in certain professions, while men need only to be clean and well dressed, definitely contributes to the glass ceiling that still remains decades after the second wave feminist movement. In order to achieve true gender equality in the workplace and in the public eye, we need to stop holding women to these extra standards of appearance and hold them only to the ones men are held to.
It's different for women.
Female celebrities are constantly scrutinized for their looks. Their outfits and hairstyles are constantly critiqued, especially after award shows and movie premiers. Their weight makes headlines in gossip rags and celebrity news. When a woman runs for public office, her appearance is also under scrutiny. Sarah Palin was called a MILF, and Hilary Clinton was sometimes discredited simply because she was masculine-looking and "ugly" (seriously, I've way too many people, mainly guys, say Hilary Clinton sucks because she looks like a man) - as if a woman needs to be physically appealing before her words are taken seriously. Even Michelle Obama is known for her biceps and dresses as much as she is for the actual work she's doing in the realm of public service, and she's not even an elected executive. The message? If you want to be a successful woman, you had better be gorgeous as well. The fact that a female politician's appearance makes headlines as often as her platform, her actions in office, and her words themselves, tell women, and really men too to a certain degree, that your appearance matters just as much as your intellect, if not more so.
Certainly, everyone needs to look nice. Everyone needs to dress appropriately, comb their hair, look neat, etc. - but it goes further for women. Where all a guy needs is to wear a nice suit, women are under pressure to make the "best dressed" lists, and make sure their dresses are perfectly flattering and show just the right amount of skin - a very fine line to walk. Where a man may make headlines for losing a substantial amount of weight and moving from the obese range to a healthier size, a woman makes headlines in US Weekly for gaining or losing 10 lbs., and everyone speculates as to why - is the pressure getting to her? is she pregnant? has she stopped trying to be a size 2? is she anorexic? what diet is she using?
Clearly, the media's heightened scrutiny over women's appearance sends a toxic message: that being skinny and perfectly dressed is much more important for women than it is for men. It also sends other messages, such as: if your weight changes even a little bit, everyone is going to notice; and if you gain weight, you better have a gosh darn reason for letting yourself go, piggy! It subtly tells women to watch out, people are paying attention to what you look like you you had better give them something nice to look at. Media criticism is almost like a public punishment, making an example of these celebrities that dared to break fashion rules, who dared to gain weight, who dared to go out in public without makeup and perfectly styled hair, scaring the rest of us into compliance with these beauty rules, and giving other women the power to police their peers into obeying as well. After all, the magazine writers do it, they talk crap about women who don't look perfect, why can't the rest of us?
What does this say to women who want to become actresses, singers, politicians, or pursue any other occupation which may lead to a life in the public eye? You had better be skinny and hot, or you might as well forget it. In fact, I remember wanting to be a singer when I was a preteen, and actually gave up not because of my voice or stage fright, but because I was told I was too fat and ugly. This is certainly discouraging to people who don't fit the beauty standard, women who may want to be president but feel more suited to a life behind the scenes because of their appearance, rather than their actual confidence in their intellect and leadership skills - which in itself tends to be lacking in women, for other reasons.
The idea that women need certain physical traits to enter and succeed in certain professions, while men need only to be clean and well dressed, definitely contributes to the glass ceiling that still remains decades after the second wave feminist movement. In order to achieve true gender equality in the workplace and in the public eye, we need to stop holding women to these extra standards of appearance and hold them only to the ones men are held to.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
WAM! Boston Film Festival Reflection
Today I attended the Women, Action, and Media (WAM!) Boston Film Festival at MIT, and I gotta say, it was a great way to finish off this year's Women's History Month! I had the pleasure of seeing 4 great documentaries. But first, an invigorating panel on the state of women in the film industry, where it was made clear that women are still not being taken seriously in the film industry (big surprise) and they're mostly confined to certain roles such as planning, gathering crew members, and asking for donations while the men take on most of the technical positions. Since I'm considering a possible career, or at least dabbling, in social activism media or documentary film making, this panel was certainly valuable and inspirational!
The first documentary I got to watch was called Beauty Mark, which was about the "race" to physical perfection. "Race" was a play on words because more than half of it focused on the filmmaker and her personal image and weight issues which were rooted in her athleticism. Not a unique situation. To be honest, it didn't quite live up to my expectations: it was very focused on the filmmaker, her history and her family situation, with less than half examining other aspects of the overall obsession with physical perfection. It did, however, feature some prominent experts, such as Eve Ensler, Naomi Wolf, and the guy who wrote the Obesity Myth whose name has slipped my mind. I've seen better documentaries on the subject, most prominently "America The Beautiful," which may have been made by a man, BUT is an amazing examination of America's obsession with beauty. I'm sorry, but as much as I support women in film, I won't go so far as to favor a mediocre film made by a woman over an exceptional one made by a man, but I will give that his gender may have meant the ability to get more funding and access to resources than if he was a woman.
After "Beauty Mark" was a short film called "Weightless," which was about overweight women who scuba dive. I know that sounds kinda lame, but it was pretty cool. This film had the audacity to feature women who, rather than cry about their weight and go to extreme measures to be skinny - felt awesome about themselves and found something awesome to do with their bodies regardless of size. In a Q&A with the filmmaker, it was revealed that the documentary was going to be a longer film about heavy women doing lots of awesome things and feeling great about themselves. While the movie itself wasn't all that exciting, it was certainly inspiring.
The third documentary was a gem from the Media Education Foundation called "The Gloucester 18." It was about the spike in teen pregnancy some years ago in Gloucester, MA, and the truth behind it. The film debunked the myth that there was a pact, clarified that one third of the pregnancies did not make it to term (though it was unclear if they were aborted or miscarried), and revealed some dark details about the girls' lives. It was incredibly eye opening about the issue of teenage pregnancy, highlighting the causes of it and the reasons why some girls get pregnant on purpose. It also shines a light on the realities of teen pregnancy, both in Gloucester and in nearby towns such as Springfield and Lowell. I highly recommend this one, and I was glad to be able to see it since it's one of the MEF movies I'd wanted to see for a while.
We were then given an hour for dinner. However, MIT must have been on spring break because it was next to impossible to find a restaurant or fast food establishment on or near the campus. Most of the places that were open were sit-down places, like Legal Seafoods. Being alone, I just wanted to grab some cheap food, eat, maybe walk around for a bit, and then return to the Stata Center on time for the last film, "Someone Sang for Me."
"Someone Sang For Me" was like Freedom Writers meets Glee - if Will Schuster was a kickass African American woman. It was about a school in Springfield that was suffering major budget cuts, and a woman started an after-school singing program for the students. The kids mostly sang songs they wrote together, which were songs about the struggles they faced growing up in an impoverished area, facing racism and classism. The film highlighted the power of music on kids' lives, and it was a great way to end the festival.
Sadly, because some events and films were run simultaneously, I was only able to catch about half of the presentations of the day. However, I'm happy with the choices I made, and I'm glad I chose to attend the event.
The first documentary I got to watch was called Beauty Mark, which was about the "race" to physical perfection. "Race" was a play on words because more than half of it focused on the filmmaker and her personal image and weight issues which were rooted in her athleticism. Not a unique situation. To be honest, it didn't quite live up to my expectations: it was very focused on the filmmaker, her history and her family situation, with less than half examining other aspects of the overall obsession with physical perfection. It did, however, feature some prominent experts, such as Eve Ensler, Naomi Wolf, and the guy who wrote the Obesity Myth whose name has slipped my mind. I've seen better documentaries on the subject, most prominently "America The Beautiful," which may have been made by a man, BUT is an amazing examination of America's obsession with beauty. I'm sorry, but as much as I support women in film, I won't go so far as to favor a mediocre film made by a woman over an exceptional one made by a man, but I will give that his gender may have meant the ability to get more funding and access to resources than if he was a woman.
After "Beauty Mark" was a short film called "Weightless," which was about overweight women who scuba dive. I know that sounds kinda lame, but it was pretty cool. This film had the audacity to feature women who, rather than cry about their weight and go to extreme measures to be skinny - felt awesome about themselves and found something awesome to do with their bodies regardless of size. In a Q&A with the filmmaker, it was revealed that the documentary was going to be a longer film about heavy women doing lots of awesome things and feeling great about themselves. While the movie itself wasn't all that exciting, it was certainly inspiring.
The third documentary was a gem from the Media Education Foundation called "The Gloucester 18." It was about the spike in teen pregnancy some years ago in Gloucester, MA, and the truth behind it. The film debunked the myth that there was a pact, clarified that one third of the pregnancies did not make it to term (though it was unclear if they were aborted or miscarried), and revealed some dark details about the girls' lives. It was incredibly eye opening about the issue of teenage pregnancy, highlighting the causes of it and the reasons why some girls get pregnant on purpose. It also shines a light on the realities of teen pregnancy, both in Gloucester and in nearby towns such as Springfield and Lowell. I highly recommend this one, and I was glad to be able to see it since it's one of the MEF movies I'd wanted to see for a while.
We were then given an hour for dinner. However, MIT must have been on spring break because it was next to impossible to find a restaurant or fast food establishment on or near the campus. Most of the places that were open were sit-down places, like Legal Seafoods. Being alone, I just wanted to grab some cheap food, eat, maybe walk around for a bit, and then return to the Stata Center on time for the last film, "Someone Sang for Me."
"Someone Sang For Me" was like Freedom Writers meets Glee - if Will Schuster was a kickass African American woman. It was about a school in Springfield that was suffering major budget cuts, and a woman started an after-school singing program for the students. The kids mostly sang songs they wrote together, which were songs about the struggles they faced growing up in an impoverished area, facing racism and classism. The film highlighted the power of music on kids' lives, and it was a great way to end the festival.
Sadly, because some events and films were run simultaneously, I was only able to catch about half of the presentations of the day. However, I'm happy with the choices I made, and I'm glad I chose to attend the event.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Why "Dress For Your Body Type" Advice Is Problematic
At first glance, an article in Seventeen Magazine that instructs readers on what kinds of jeans to wear for every body type may sound progressive. "Look," you may think, "they're acknowledging that different body types exist!"
Well yes, they're not outright condemning body types that don't fit the beauty ideal, but if you look more closely, you'll notice that such advice usually encourages readers to dress in a way that makes them appear closer to that ideal. Too curvy? Wearing X will make you appear slimmer! Flat-chested? A Y top will make you look bustier! Too short? These pants will make you look taller! On and on and on.
It's a cycle, really. Girls who are too short, too call, too skinny, too curvy, too busty, too flat, etc. feel the need to dress in a way that will make them look "better" (read: closer to the ideal body), so these articles fill their need. At the same time, girls will see these ads and think "wow, I didn't realize there was anything wrong with looking too short," and start to feel like crap about themselves, hence creating a greater need for the ads.
Now, I get it, it's okay to want to wear clothes that look good on you, and clothes that will give you a little boost of confidence. But if magazines really want to empower teen girls, articles like this do just the opposite, and pages upon pages of articles ordering girls to wear slimming clothes, cover their acne, make their nose look smaller, de-frizz their hair, tone up their butts, and tell them pizza is the devil, are not going to counteracted by one small page telling them to love their bodies. Most, if not all, of the magazine needs to encourage self-esteem.
Well yes, they're not outright condemning body types that don't fit the beauty ideal, but if you look more closely, you'll notice that such advice usually encourages readers to dress in a way that makes them appear closer to that ideal. Too curvy? Wearing X will make you appear slimmer! Flat-chested? A Y top will make you look bustier! Too short? These pants will make you look taller! On and on and on.
It's a cycle, really. Girls who are too short, too call, too skinny, too curvy, too busty, too flat, etc. feel the need to dress in a way that will make them look "better" (read: closer to the ideal body), so these articles fill their need. At the same time, girls will see these ads and think "wow, I didn't realize there was anything wrong with looking too short," and start to feel like crap about themselves, hence creating a greater need for the ads.
Now, I get it, it's okay to want to wear clothes that look good on you, and clothes that will give you a little boost of confidence. But if magazines really want to empower teen girls, articles like this do just the opposite, and pages upon pages of articles ordering girls to wear slimming clothes, cover their acne, make their nose look smaller, de-frizz their hair, tone up their butts, and tell them pizza is the devil, are not going to counteracted by one small page telling them to love their bodies. Most, if not all, of the magazine needs to encourage self-esteem.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
My Acne and Me
I got acne when I was in middle school, and still today I have to deal with it. Gotta love genetics, huh. Ever since the first onset, my parents took me to a dermatologist to get treatments. The dermatologist wasn't the only doctor trying to help, though - every doctor I've seen since age 13 has tried to give me something for my face. I've even had psychiatrists give me prescriptions and samples of various acne creams and washes.
I also had to endure some lovely stigmas. Mean girls and friends alike have assumed I don't wash my face - because some people just have to use the right soap to avoid acne, those lucky bastards. There's also the stereotype that people with acne don't take care of themselves. Right, I only have acne because I don't try hard enough.
Personally, my desire to clear up my face has been sort of on and off. Sometimes I'll really want it gone, sometimes I won't care, and usually it's somewhere in between. When I was 18, I decided to clear up my skin once and for all, and I saw a great dermatologist who gave me some medications and told me to avoid salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide treatments. She also told me to wash and moisturize with Cetaphil, or a generic version of it. Good enough. And it worked, for a long time. My skin wasn't perfect, but it was good enough, and I could easily cover up the few pimples I did have.
Last year, things changed. My dermatologist stopped renewing my prescriptions and I was on my own. That's when I discovered the tea tree oil treatments at the Body Shop. And I never looked back. Now I prefer to deal with my acne through lifestyle habits such as keeping hats, pillowcases, towels, etc. clean, getting enough vitamin C and other nutrients, avoiding certain skincare products, and keeping my hair out of my face; as well as using skincare products with naturally therapeutic ingredients such as tea tree oil and aloe. I have essentially de-medicalized my acne treatment.
I just wish doctors and peers would understand that.
A couple months ago, I went to a doctor who, literally first question she asked was "so Allison, what are you doing about your acne?" I explained that I use tea tree oil and I prefer not to use medical treatments as I noticed her hand reaching for a prescription script. She paused, not pleased. At one point during the exam, she told me, with a good amount of force "I am your doctor, you need to trust me and do what I tell you." Well, she's not my doctor anymore.
My friends haven't been helpful either. Even the guy I was dating said I should have been more open minded, she might have given me something that would work better. And for the love of god, if I hear one more person tell me to try Proactiv I don't know what I'll do.
Doctors may be experts, peers may have my best interests at heart, and everyone has something to recommend. But only I truly know my skin and my kind of acne, and I have 8 years of experience where I know what works, what doesn't, what makes my acne worse, and what really irritates my skin. I may not be an expert either, but I know enough to make my own decisions about how to treat myself. If I want help, I'll ask for it, otherwise I really want everyone - doctors and friends - to kindly butt out.
I also had to endure some lovely stigmas. Mean girls and friends alike have assumed I don't wash my face - because some people just have to use the right soap to avoid acne, those lucky bastards. There's also the stereotype that people with acne don't take care of themselves. Right, I only have acne because I don't try hard enough.
Personally, my desire to clear up my face has been sort of on and off. Sometimes I'll really want it gone, sometimes I won't care, and usually it's somewhere in between. When I was 18, I decided to clear up my skin once and for all, and I saw a great dermatologist who gave me some medications and told me to avoid salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide treatments. She also told me to wash and moisturize with Cetaphil, or a generic version of it. Good enough. And it worked, for a long time. My skin wasn't perfect, but it was good enough, and I could easily cover up the few pimples I did have.
Last year, things changed. My dermatologist stopped renewing my prescriptions and I was on my own. That's when I discovered the tea tree oil treatments at the Body Shop. And I never looked back. Now I prefer to deal with my acne through lifestyle habits such as keeping hats, pillowcases, towels, etc. clean, getting enough vitamin C and other nutrients, avoiding certain skincare products, and keeping my hair out of my face; as well as using skincare products with naturally therapeutic ingredients such as tea tree oil and aloe. I have essentially de-medicalized my acne treatment.
I just wish doctors and peers would understand that.
A couple months ago, I went to a doctor who, literally first question she asked was "so Allison, what are you doing about your acne?" I explained that I use tea tree oil and I prefer not to use medical treatments as I noticed her hand reaching for a prescription script. She paused, not pleased. At one point during the exam, she told me, with a good amount of force "I am your doctor, you need to trust me and do what I tell you." Well, she's not my doctor anymore.
My friends haven't been helpful either. Even the guy I was dating said I should have been more open minded, she might have given me something that would work better. And for the love of god, if I hear one more person tell me to try Proactiv I don't know what I'll do.
Doctors may be experts, peers may have my best interests at heart, and everyone has something to recommend. But only I truly know my skin and my kind of acne, and I have 8 years of experience where I know what works, what doesn't, what makes my acne worse, and what really irritates my skin. I may not be an expert either, but I know enough to make my own decisions about how to treat myself. If I want help, I'll ask for it, otherwise I really want everyone - doctors and friends - to kindly butt out.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Endangered Species Women Reflection
This weekend I attended the Endangered Species Women summit in New York City. The summit, organized by Courtney Martin, author of Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, aimed to address the toxic body culture that encourages women to hate their bodies.
I gotta say, I had been looking forward to the conference for a while. I'd read Martin's book, and it's amazing, and I knew that Jean Kilbourne of the "Killing Us Softly" documentary series would be there as well, so it seemed like such a perfect way to spend the weekend. But of course, I had no sleep between getting off my overnight shift and boarding the bus to NYC, where I got very little sleep, so staying awake for the opening ceremonies and keynote was difficult. However, one presentation that night did resonate with me, and it was one of the best topics of the summit. A middle aged woman got up and told the story of how her doctor voiced concerns that her daughter had put on too much weight. The woman went on to explain that heavy women often face discrimination from doctors, who hardly ever support the Health At Every Size (HAES) approach to weight, and that this needs to change through education of healthcare professionals.
This struck a chord with me because my personal weight obsession has similar roots. When I was 14, and a mere size 5 (7 on a good day), my doctor told me I was gaining weight too fast and needed to cut back on the junk food. I remember crying after the appointment, and my parents trying to assure me that there was nothing wrong with my body. They stopped taking me to that doctor, but the damage had already been done. Ever since then, it was in the back of my mind, and even in college I've had the occasional fear of gaining too much weight. Sometimes it's an aesthetic issue, sometimes I believe WebMD's hips to waist calculator that tells me I carry too much fat in my hips and I'm probably going to develop diabetes. It also made me think about how every healthcare professional I've dealt with since age 13 has tried to throw some sort of acne medication at me, whether or not I wanted one, and despite any protests I might have had, but more about that in another post.
Later in the summit, in the last panel, someone mentioned that weight-related statistics are often manipulated in order for an organization to get funding, or for a company to sell weight loss products. It was also said that there isn't that much comprehensive research proving that being overweight is always unhealthy.
Aside from discussing how the healthcare industry exacerbates toxic body culture, another thought that resonated with me was the idea that women don't trust their bodies to work properly. People refuse to undergo home births and natural childbirths because they don't think their bodies will do what they're supposed to. Not surprising in a world where we're constantly told that our bodies need to be controlled through diets, unnecessary exercise, superfluous medication and supplements, etc. The message was clear, we need a world where women can trust their bodies AND can be trusted with them.
There was also a good bit of focus on the media's role in toxic body culture, but that wasn't much people hadn't heard before. Labiaplasty was also mentioned. But the inclusion of the medical field's influence was the most significant part for me, since that's hardly ever mentioned in the body image issue, and when it is, it's used to counteract the "love your body message" with a loud, hysterical "But what about obesity?! Diabetes?! Cancer?! Childhood diabetes?!?!? OBESITY?!?!" This conference's inclusion of the topic shattered that counter argument with a rather radical notion that the medical field shouldn't push dieting on all women who are overweight, but instead work with women, listen to them if they decide to practice the HAES approach.
I did enjoy the summit and I do believe it was a great step in the right direction. With all due respect, one thing I think summits like this in general need to fix is the fact that they have people sitting in one spot for long periods of time, all day. I can't pay attention for that long, I get distracted, fidgety, and sometimes start to fall asleep. Not fun for me, and I'm certainly not proud of it. If these conferences want to appeal to more people, especially younger crowds, they need shorter panels and speeches, and more chances to get up and move around. Just sayin'.
I gotta say, I had been looking forward to the conference for a while. I'd read Martin's book, and it's amazing, and I knew that Jean Kilbourne of the "Killing Us Softly" documentary series would be there as well, so it seemed like such a perfect way to spend the weekend. But of course, I had no sleep between getting off my overnight shift and boarding the bus to NYC, where I got very little sleep, so staying awake for the opening ceremonies and keynote was difficult. However, one presentation that night did resonate with me, and it was one of the best topics of the summit. A middle aged woman got up and told the story of how her doctor voiced concerns that her daughter had put on too much weight. The woman went on to explain that heavy women often face discrimination from doctors, who hardly ever support the Health At Every Size (HAES) approach to weight, and that this needs to change through education of healthcare professionals.
This struck a chord with me because my personal weight obsession has similar roots. When I was 14, and a mere size 5 (7 on a good day), my doctor told me I was gaining weight too fast and needed to cut back on the junk food. I remember crying after the appointment, and my parents trying to assure me that there was nothing wrong with my body. They stopped taking me to that doctor, but the damage had already been done. Ever since then, it was in the back of my mind, and even in college I've had the occasional fear of gaining too much weight. Sometimes it's an aesthetic issue, sometimes I believe WebMD's hips to waist calculator that tells me I carry too much fat in my hips and I'm probably going to develop diabetes. It also made me think about how every healthcare professional I've dealt with since age 13 has tried to throw some sort of acne medication at me, whether or not I wanted one, and despite any protests I might have had, but more about that in another post.
Later in the summit, in the last panel, someone mentioned that weight-related statistics are often manipulated in order for an organization to get funding, or for a company to sell weight loss products. It was also said that there isn't that much comprehensive research proving that being overweight is always unhealthy.
Aside from discussing how the healthcare industry exacerbates toxic body culture, another thought that resonated with me was the idea that women don't trust their bodies to work properly. People refuse to undergo home births and natural childbirths because they don't think their bodies will do what they're supposed to. Not surprising in a world where we're constantly told that our bodies need to be controlled through diets, unnecessary exercise, superfluous medication and supplements, etc. The message was clear, we need a world where women can trust their bodies AND can be trusted with them.
There was also a good bit of focus on the media's role in toxic body culture, but that wasn't much people hadn't heard before. Labiaplasty was also mentioned. But the inclusion of the medical field's influence was the most significant part for me, since that's hardly ever mentioned in the body image issue, and when it is, it's used to counteract the "love your body message" with a loud, hysterical "But what about obesity?! Diabetes?! Cancer?! Childhood diabetes?!?!? OBESITY?!?!" This conference's inclusion of the topic shattered that counter argument with a rather radical notion that the medical field shouldn't push dieting on all women who are overweight, but instead work with women, listen to them if they decide to practice the HAES approach.
I did enjoy the summit and I do believe it was a great step in the right direction. With all due respect, one thing I think summits like this in general need to fix is the fact that they have people sitting in one spot for long periods of time, all day. I can't pay attention for that long, I get distracted, fidgety, and sometimes start to fall asleep. Not fun for me, and I'm certainly not proud of it. If these conferences want to appeal to more people, especially younger crowds, they need shorter panels and speeches, and more chances to get up and move around. Just sayin'.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
"School is not a runway, girls"
Most girls hear it growing up - from parents, teachers, and principals: School is not a fashion show. You're here to learn.
Yeah, if only it was that simple. The sad truth is, no matter what clothing or makeup you ban, and no matter how much you lecture girls on the fact that school is for learning, not dressing up, it's not going to do shit about the culture surrounding teenage girls and appearance.
The most popular magazine for girls tells them to look cute at school. The first half of the magazine instructs girls on how to dress, how to do their makeup, how to style their hair, and that they should do all that before getting on the school bus.
Guys expect girls to look good. Girls expect girls to look good. Most girls would feel naked and exposed without makeup, and many would feel ugly and self-conscious if they did not look good in school.
And of course this isn't good, something that needs to be changed. Ideally, how a girl looked wouldn't matter in school. In fact, one would argue that the focus on how a girl looks while in school is a huge distraction. Girls wake up earlier than they need to just so they can do their hair and makeup and pick out the right combination of clothing. Why aren't girls eating breakfast before school? Because they only have so much time to get ready in the morning, and most would rather spend that time grooming than eating.
I wasn't completely exempt from this. I went through phases where I'd wake up an extra ten or fifteen minutes each morning so I'd have time to do my makeup - other times I slept in and didn't really care how I looked at school.
The distraction is multi-faceted. The most obvious form is girls putting on makeup during school - either in the bathroom or at the locker, in which case they may risk being late for class, or in the classroom, where they focus on their face instead of what's being taught. Then there's the mental distraction, the worry that they don't look good enough, they don't measure up to the other girl - when a girl worries about how she looks, she's not absorbing the material, or taking notes, or thinking critically. This contributes to the gender inequality in education.
And then, girls who do look good in school are demonized for distracting their male classmates. The idea that attractive girls distract boys is what motivates dress codes. Dress codes are about keeping the boys focused, not the girls.
It doesn't help that in movies, the girls who are valued most by the student body are the ones who strut down the hallway, wearing high heels and toting purses instead of backpacks, often not even carrying books.
The question is, how do we tackle the issue? Policies that restrict dress and appearance don't change the cultural pressure to look good. Gender segregation only does so much, because girls don't just dress to impress boys, they also dress to impress their judgmental and competitive female peers.
Answer: the culture as a whole needs to change. If women are truly valued for their intelligence rather than their appearance, girls will focus more on their performance in the classroom than how they look walking down the hallway. But that change can't come from authority figures. As Mary Pipher said in Reviving Ophelia, adolescents tune out their adult authority figures, even their parents, and instead look to their peers and mass media for their cues on where they fit into the world. The media - magazines, TV shows, commercials, young adult literature, movies, music, etc. - becomes their guide on how to act, how to dress, and what their priorities are; and these toxic cultural values are passed among adolescencts, and teenagers enforce these rules on each other. Parents and educators who try to intervene are ignored. The media needs to change, and it's not as simple as calling up the editors of Seventeen and the producers of Gossip Girl - the change needs to come from new media that's devoid of junk values.
Yeah, if only it was that simple. The sad truth is, no matter what clothing or makeup you ban, and no matter how much you lecture girls on the fact that school is for learning, not dressing up, it's not going to do shit about the culture surrounding teenage girls and appearance.
The most popular magazine for girls tells them to look cute at school. The first half of the magazine instructs girls on how to dress, how to do their makeup, how to style their hair, and that they should do all that before getting on the school bus.
Guys expect girls to look good. Girls expect girls to look good. Most girls would feel naked and exposed without makeup, and many would feel ugly and self-conscious if they did not look good in school.
And of course this isn't good, something that needs to be changed. Ideally, how a girl looked wouldn't matter in school. In fact, one would argue that the focus on how a girl looks while in school is a huge distraction. Girls wake up earlier than they need to just so they can do their hair and makeup and pick out the right combination of clothing. Why aren't girls eating breakfast before school? Because they only have so much time to get ready in the morning, and most would rather spend that time grooming than eating.
I wasn't completely exempt from this. I went through phases where I'd wake up an extra ten or fifteen minutes each morning so I'd have time to do my makeup - other times I slept in and didn't really care how I looked at school.
The distraction is multi-faceted. The most obvious form is girls putting on makeup during school - either in the bathroom or at the locker, in which case they may risk being late for class, or in the classroom, where they focus on their face instead of what's being taught. Then there's the mental distraction, the worry that they don't look good enough, they don't measure up to the other girl - when a girl worries about how she looks, she's not absorbing the material, or taking notes, or thinking critically. This contributes to the gender inequality in education.
And then, girls who do look good in school are demonized for distracting their male classmates. The idea that attractive girls distract boys is what motivates dress codes. Dress codes are about keeping the boys focused, not the girls.
It doesn't help that in movies, the girls who are valued most by the student body are the ones who strut down the hallway, wearing high heels and toting purses instead of backpacks, often not even carrying books.
The question is, how do we tackle the issue? Policies that restrict dress and appearance don't change the cultural pressure to look good. Gender segregation only does so much, because girls don't just dress to impress boys, they also dress to impress their judgmental and competitive female peers.
Answer: the culture as a whole needs to change. If women are truly valued for their intelligence rather than their appearance, girls will focus more on their performance in the classroom than how they look walking down the hallway. But that change can't come from authority figures. As Mary Pipher said in Reviving Ophelia, adolescents tune out their adult authority figures, even their parents, and instead look to their peers and mass media for their cues on where they fit into the world. The media - magazines, TV shows, commercials, young adult literature, movies, music, etc. - becomes their guide on how to act, how to dress, and what their priorities are; and these toxic cultural values are passed among adolescencts, and teenagers enforce these rules on each other. Parents and educators who try to intervene are ignored. The media needs to change, and it's not as simple as calling up the editors of Seventeen and the producers of Gossip Girl - the change needs to come from new media that's devoid of junk values.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Distracted by Beauty
Ah, my senior year of high school. I was an avid feminist, focusing on liberal politics and my goal of changing the world. I was so excited to go to school, major in political science, go to law school, run for office, and really make a difference. My appearance was a statement: band t-shirts, jeans, studded belts, skull necklaces, gothic skirts and tops; I wore no foundation over my blemished skin, just dark eyeliner and lip stick. Yeah, fuck beauty standards, fuck conformity.
And then something changed. In college, I began to worry about my appearance, I wore makeup to make myself look pretty or sexy instead of intimidating; I worried about whether guys liked me, I obsessed over my weight; and it suddenly mattered whether certain groups accepted me. And with all these new preoccupations, my studies, and my politics, took a back seat.
In The Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf argued that women's learned obsession with beauty is a distraction from holding power in society. If a woman spends all that time buying clothing and beauty products, styling her hair and putting on makeup, touching up her appearance, thinking and worrying about whether she looks okay, that's time and energy not spent on doing anything more productive or fulfilling.
And sure enough, when I was so busy trying to look good, and going to anime club hoping to win the affection of one guy, I was less concerned with spending time with students for choice; I went on dates instead of attending meetings of the feminist student organization.
When I think of all the money I've spent on makeup, accessories, and hair care products, I wonder what else I could have done with it. I could have spent it on more fulfilling experiences, trips, going to museums, buying books, going to feminist conferences. I could have saved it for after I graduate.
When women spend so much money on their appearance, they risk losing their financial independence. Magazines frame makeup as a financial priority, as if rent and food were to be bought on a man's salary - be it daddy's money or money from a boyfriend or husband.
Instead of thinking about my weight, or my skin, or my hair, or whether I'm accepted, worthy, loved, I could be thinking about the status of women, or political problems this country faces, and what I could do to help solve those problems. Energy is wasted on obsessing over appearance.
Well fuck that, I don't want to be known for being pretty, or thin, or sexy. I want to be known for my intelligence, for what I have to say, and for what I can do.
And then something changed. In college, I began to worry about my appearance, I wore makeup to make myself look pretty or sexy instead of intimidating; I worried about whether guys liked me, I obsessed over my weight; and it suddenly mattered whether certain groups accepted me. And with all these new preoccupations, my studies, and my politics, took a back seat.
In The Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf argued that women's learned obsession with beauty is a distraction from holding power in society. If a woman spends all that time buying clothing and beauty products, styling her hair and putting on makeup, touching up her appearance, thinking and worrying about whether she looks okay, that's time and energy not spent on doing anything more productive or fulfilling.
And sure enough, when I was so busy trying to look good, and going to anime club hoping to win the affection of one guy, I was less concerned with spending time with students for choice; I went on dates instead of attending meetings of the feminist student organization.
When I think of all the money I've spent on makeup, accessories, and hair care products, I wonder what else I could have done with it. I could have spent it on more fulfilling experiences, trips, going to museums, buying books, going to feminist conferences. I could have saved it for after I graduate.
When women spend so much money on their appearance, they risk losing their financial independence. Magazines frame makeup as a financial priority, as if rent and food were to be bought on a man's salary - be it daddy's money or money from a boyfriend or husband.
Instead of thinking about my weight, or my skin, or my hair, or whether I'm accepted, worthy, loved, I could be thinking about the status of women, or political problems this country faces, and what I could do to help solve those problems. Energy is wasted on obsessing over appearance.
Well fuck that, I don't want to be known for being pretty, or thin, or sexy. I want to be known for my intelligence, for what I have to say, and for what I can do.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Hidden Toxins: Dissection of Teen Magazines
As a teenager, and even into my college years, I loved reading magazines. I read J14, YM, Cosmo, Teen Vogue, and of course the big one: Seventeen. Being completely uninterested in fashion and conventional beauty ideals, I typically skipped over the first half of the magazine and only read the health articles, relationship advice, real life stories, sometimes the embarrassing moments, and the horoscopes.
When I was 18 I began reading Cosmopolitan. A year later, I realized how toxic it was and put it down.
Over the recent years, I've realized the hidden dangers of these magazines, especially the ones aimed at adolescent girls. We can point out the skinny models all we want, that's not news. What people don't usually pick up on is the amount of articles on how to look good versus empowering articles on how to be confident, smart, and awesome. People fail to notice that the relationship advice subtly convinces girls that getting a guy means taking on a false self, and that once she has a boyfriend it's better to please him and try to resolve conflicts than to walk away when a relationship doesn't make her happy and hold out for someone who will love her for who she is, not who she is expected to be.
To go into greater detail, here is a breakdown of the messages in a popular teen girl magazine:
Before she sees even a table of contents, she is bombarded with in-your face advertisements for clothing and makeup. There is also a letters to the editor, which used to feature dissent from women unhappy with certain articles, often politically or morally motivated, and that was wonderful because it indirectly encouraged girls to have opinions and think critically about what was presented to them - now, however, all the published responses are those that praise the magazine for articles in past issues.
1) FASHION SECTION
The first section of the magazine commands the reader to go out and buy new stuff, update her wardrobe, and keep up with the latest trends. Labels are often heavily used to describe different looks (girly, classic, preppy, glam, grunge, sporty, rocker, etc.). From this section, girls may learn to subscribe to a certain label, or to dress to fit whatever style of clothing is in season rather than dress according to her own unique tastes. They also learn that they need to keep buying new clothes, accessories, shoes, etc., and that those are what they should be spending their money on.
2) MAKEUP AND BEAUTY
This section focuses on makeup, skin, and hair (both how to style it and keep it healthy). Headlines do not begin with "how to" or "ways to" but instead read like commands: "GET CLEAR SKIN NOW," "TAME YOUR HAIR," "LOOK CUTE ALL DAY." As with the fashion section, girls learn that they must keep spending money on cosmetics and hair accesories and products. From the bulk of these sections, which take up almost half the magazine and usually dominate the front page, girls learn that their appearance is extremely important and should take priority in their lives. There's usually an article every year on what makeup to wear to the beach or pool, as if women are merely supposed to appear at those places and look cute rather than actually go swimming.
3) HEALTH
This section does offer useful articles, such as those on sexual health and how to be safe on the beach. There's often even an article on loving your body. However, before any of that there's a section on how to eat (specifically, what foods to avoid because they'll make you fat), and a two-page pullout on fitness that boasts yet another commanding headline like "TONE UP YOUR THIGHS" or "GET A BIKINI BODY." While it's important to encourage healthy habits, these articles focus on how fitness and eating makes girls look rather than how such habits can make one feel. This introduces the mixed messages of the magazine: work out with the goal of slimming down and toning up and never eat fattening foods (boasted in big letters over multiple pages, reinforced with images of skinny girls throughout the magazine), BUT don't obsess over your weight (something whispered on one page, if at all).
4) DATING ADVICE
This section may cover all aspects of dating: from trying to get a guy's attention, to how to behave in a relationship, and finally how to get over a breakup. Sometimes there are empowering messages, but most of it is how to please a man. Articles list his turn-ons, what he expects in a relationship, what makes him cheat, and how to avoid a breakup. The message here is that dating rituals and relationships should be done on a guy's terms. Wear what he likes to see on you; act the way he wants you to act; don't say "I love you" first or press for a commitment, let him do that when he's ready; plan dates that he'll like; he only cheats if you're not good enough for him; and finally, getting dumped is a mark of failure, it means you didn't try hard enough. Women are under constant pressure to maintain good relationships with those around them, and in relationships with men, they're often expected to be self-sacrificing caretakers in charge of making the relationship run smoothly.
5) REAL LIFE
I always liked this section. Honestly, I don't have many complaints - it brings important issues to girls' attention and educates them about real-world problems they may face. My only issue with this section is when the story is about any kind of sexual issue (rape, sexting, etc.), there's always at least an undertone of victim blaming. Any time women are instructed to refrain from certain activities or take precautions to protect themselves, there's the unwritten reverse notion that if something bad does happen to you, it's because you put yourself in a bad situation where that could happen and therefore shoulder part of the blame.
There are smaller articles as well, that help girls with college, finding jobs, and navigating tough friend situations. The college advice is usually fine, though it does have an awful lot of focus on how to dress and date while in college. Aside from articles about possible summer jobs, the ones about internships and careers typically feature feminine career paths: designing clothes, planning weddings, or working in mainstream entertainment. Rarely does this section try to inspire girls to consider careers in math, science, politics, law, or finance. Articles on how to handle situations with other girls reinforce the deeply entrenched notion that girls should be nice to everyone and do whatever they can to avoid conflict.
6) EMBARRASSING MOMENTS
This isn't inherently a bad section, I used to read it with great amusement, and there's nothing wrong with being embarrassed by some of the material. However, a lot of these stories have to do with farting, or in some way revealing the fact that you're on your period. The message: passing gas is shameful, and having your period is something gross that should be hidden from view.
These messages are dangerous because the messages girls receive in childhood and adolescence often stick with them for the rest of their lives. The earlier and more often a message is hammered in, the harder it will be to reverse later in life. You cannot expect women to live by one set of societal rules and then automatically become strong, autonomous adults the second they turn 18. In fact, many girls who read magazines like the one dissected above usually go on to read adult versions, which are typically just as bad if not worse.
When I was 18 I began reading Cosmopolitan. A year later, I realized how toxic it was and put it down.
Over the recent years, I've realized the hidden dangers of these magazines, especially the ones aimed at adolescent girls. We can point out the skinny models all we want, that's not news. What people don't usually pick up on is the amount of articles on how to look good versus empowering articles on how to be confident, smart, and awesome. People fail to notice that the relationship advice subtly convinces girls that getting a guy means taking on a false self, and that once she has a boyfriend it's better to please him and try to resolve conflicts than to walk away when a relationship doesn't make her happy and hold out for someone who will love her for who she is, not who she is expected to be.
To go into greater detail, here is a breakdown of the messages in a popular teen girl magazine:
Before she sees even a table of contents, she is bombarded with in-your face advertisements for clothing and makeup. There is also a letters to the editor, which used to feature dissent from women unhappy with certain articles, often politically or morally motivated, and that was wonderful because it indirectly encouraged girls to have opinions and think critically about what was presented to them - now, however, all the published responses are those that praise the magazine for articles in past issues.
1) FASHION SECTION
The first section of the magazine commands the reader to go out and buy new stuff, update her wardrobe, and keep up with the latest trends. Labels are often heavily used to describe different looks (girly, classic, preppy, glam, grunge, sporty, rocker, etc.). From this section, girls may learn to subscribe to a certain label, or to dress to fit whatever style of clothing is in season rather than dress according to her own unique tastes. They also learn that they need to keep buying new clothes, accessories, shoes, etc., and that those are what they should be spending their money on.
2) MAKEUP AND BEAUTY
This section focuses on makeup, skin, and hair (both how to style it and keep it healthy). Headlines do not begin with "how to" or "ways to" but instead read like commands: "GET CLEAR SKIN NOW," "TAME YOUR HAIR," "LOOK CUTE ALL DAY." As with the fashion section, girls learn that they must keep spending money on cosmetics and hair accesories and products. From the bulk of these sections, which take up almost half the magazine and usually dominate the front page, girls learn that their appearance is extremely important and should take priority in their lives. There's usually an article every year on what makeup to wear to the beach or pool, as if women are merely supposed to appear at those places and look cute rather than actually go swimming.
3) HEALTH
This section does offer useful articles, such as those on sexual health and how to be safe on the beach. There's often even an article on loving your body. However, before any of that there's a section on how to eat (specifically, what foods to avoid because they'll make you fat), and a two-page pullout on fitness that boasts yet another commanding headline like "TONE UP YOUR THIGHS" or "GET A BIKINI BODY." While it's important to encourage healthy habits, these articles focus on how fitness and eating makes girls look rather than how such habits can make one feel. This introduces the mixed messages of the magazine: work out with the goal of slimming down and toning up and never eat fattening foods (boasted in big letters over multiple pages, reinforced with images of skinny girls throughout the magazine), BUT don't obsess over your weight (something whispered on one page, if at all).
4) DATING ADVICE
This section may cover all aspects of dating: from trying to get a guy's attention, to how to behave in a relationship, and finally how to get over a breakup. Sometimes there are empowering messages, but most of it is how to please a man. Articles list his turn-ons, what he expects in a relationship, what makes him cheat, and how to avoid a breakup. The message here is that dating rituals and relationships should be done on a guy's terms. Wear what he likes to see on you; act the way he wants you to act; don't say "I love you" first or press for a commitment, let him do that when he's ready; plan dates that he'll like; he only cheats if you're not good enough for him; and finally, getting dumped is a mark of failure, it means you didn't try hard enough. Women are under constant pressure to maintain good relationships with those around them, and in relationships with men, they're often expected to be self-sacrificing caretakers in charge of making the relationship run smoothly.
5) REAL LIFE
I always liked this section. Honestly, I don't have many complaints - it brings important issues to girls' attention and educates them about real-world problems they may face. My only issue with this section is when the story is about any kind of sexual issue (rape, sexting, etc.), there's always at least an undertone of victim blaming. Any time women are instructed to refrain from certain activities or take precautions to protect themselves, there's the unwritten reverse notion that if something bad does happen to you, it's because you put yourself in a bad situation where that could happen and therefore shoulder part of the blame.
There are smaller articles as well, that help girls with college, finding jobs, and navigating tough friend situations. The college advice is usually fine, though it does have an awful lot of focus on how to dress and date while in college. Aside from articles about possible summer jobs, the ones about internships and careers typically feature feminine career paths: designing clothes, planning weddings, or working in mainstream entertainment. Rarely does this section try to inspire girls to consider careers in math, science, politics, law, or finance. Articles on how to handle situations with other girls reinforce the deeply entrenched notion that girls should be nice to everyone and do whatever they can to avoid conflict.
6) EMBARRASSING MOMENTS
This isn't inherently a bad section, I used to read it with great amusement, and there's nothing wrong with being embarrassed by some of the material. However, a lot of these stories have to do with farting, or in some way revealing the fact that you're on your period. The message: passing gas is shameful, and having your period is something gross that should be hidden from view.
These messages are dangerous because the messages girls receive in childhood and adolescence often stick with them for the rest of their lives. The earlier and more often a message is hammered in, the harder it will be to reverse later in life. You cannot expect women to live by one set of societal rules and then automatically become strong, autonomous adults the second they turn 18. In fact, many girls who read magazines like the one dissected above usually go on to read adult versions, which are typically just as bad if not worse.
SOLUTIONS
A quick fix could be to simply ban certain magazines, or regulate their material. I don't believe in censorship. Allow the magazines to exist, but try to drown them out with magazines containing more empowering material. If female empowerment and media literacy become more common among young women, they may be less likely inclined to buy magazines that put a huge amount of focus on appearance and relationships. Such magazines will have to either become more empowering to keep up with the trend, or fade into non-existence.
How do we do this? As of right now, there really aren't any empowering magazines for young women. The only publication that comes close is Bitch, which is not mainstream enough to be sold in drugstores, and is never displayed in the women's section of a newsstand - it's usually found in the special interest section next to the gay/lesbian magazines (I should know, I used to practically manage a bookstore newsstand single-handedly).
Adolescent girls need a magazine that encourages them to dress to express rather than impress. That they only need to be neat and clean, and that wearing makeup and perfectly styled hair need not always be part of that expectation. They need magazines that empower them to take care of their own needs in relationships, it's okay to be assertive (both with friends and boyfriends) and that it's okay to walk away from a relationship if they're not happy. They need to be told to love their bodies first, and only occasionally be reminded that eating fruit and taking a walk once in a while never hurt anyone.
Once such a magazine exists, parents and guardians should buy it for their daughters and encourage them to read it. Until then, parents should introduce other sources of positive influence to their daughters, and express concerns when they are viewing or reading negative influences. They shouldn't be simplistic or preachy - merely saying "this song is bad because it's about sex, and sex is bad!" they could say "this song is degrading because it defines a woman's worth based on her willingness to be sexual."
How do we do this? As of right now, there really aren't any empowering magazines for young women. The only publication that comes close is Bitch, which is not mainstream enough to be sold in drugstores, and is never displayed in the women's section of a newsstand - it's usually found in the special interest section next to the gay/lesbian magazines (I should know, I used to practically manage a bookstore newsstand single-handedly).
Adolescent girls need a magazine that encourages them to dress to express rather than impress. That they only need to be neat and clean, and that wearing makeup and perfectly styled hair need not always be part of that expectation. They need magazines that empower them to take care of their own needs in relationships, it's okay to be assertive (both with friends and boyfriends) and that it's okay to walk away from a relationship if they're not happy. They need to be told to love their bodies first, and only occasionally be reminded that eating fruit and taking a walk once in a while never hurt anyone.
Once such a magazine exists, parents and guardians should buy it for their daughters and encourage them to read it. Until then, parents should introduce other sources of positive influence to their daughters, and express concerns when they are viewing or reading negative influences. They shouldn't be simplistic or preachy - merely saying "this song is bad because it's about sex, and sex is bad!" they could say "this song is degrading because it defines a woman's worth based on her willingness to be sexual."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)