Feature
- Mental Health Screenings Not Necessary in Abortions
- The Burqa Ban is ON!
- Middle-Class Moms and Alcoholism: A Rising Epidemic?
- Murderous Moms: The Peters Tragedy
- Does Being a Pear-Shape Affect Long-Term Memory?
- Is Joan Rivers a Matriarch of Feminism?
- Mother-Murdering Teen Addresses the Media From Jail
- Forget Ron Burgundy ... Anchorladies on the rise!
- Celebrate! Argentina Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage!
- Saudi Group Using “Prophet of Four” Concept to Control Women
Jennifer Hawkins, an Australian model, recently posed nude for Marie Claire — sans photoshopping or airbrushing — and claims that all proceeds will be donated to the Butterfly Foundation, an organization to support healthy body image in individuals and fight eating disorders in women.
This sounds fantastic, right? A probably-imperfect model appearing nude on the cover of a magazine admittedly without digital alteration? And all proceeds from the shoot to benefit a foundation in support of female body issues?
Let’s take a reality check for a second. One, Jennifer Hawkins, if you’re not familiar with her, is a former Miss Universe. She’s also about one hundred pounds, soaking wet. The shoot, yes, untouched, was quite a feat considering all of these factors. Hawkins came out of the shoot looking, well … looking exactly what you would imagine a model to look like even without the photoshopping: perfect. Yes, she has a minuscule minuscule fold of skin at the waist, where she’s creatively bent her hip and an even more minuscule amount of dimpling on her opposite thigh — just because the majority of her one hundred pounds is resting upon it.
On one hand, I really applaud the 26 year-old former Miss Universe for promoting photo shoots that don’t facilitate alterations. The photoshop rage has gone entirely too far and I think over the past few months we, as women, have really made headway in abolishing the heinous practice altogether. Maybe. But … could they have picked a more perfect specimen of your “average” woman to plop on the cover of a magazine and say “Yep, this is what ‘real’ looks like!”
I honestly dig the sentiments that Marie Claire and Hawkins herself were trying to convey. I truly do. I just think that maybe they’ve been in the industry too long and have entirely skewed ideals as to what a “real” and “normal” woman actually is.
An ‘A+’ for effort but a ‘C-minus-bordering-on-D’ for outcome, guys.
-
-
10
var feedback_widget = new GSFN.feedback_widget(feedback_widget_options);
Well….I guess it’s a start?
She’s healthy and beautiful! And not photoshopped! We should be applauding this, not complaining because she isn’t necessarily “normal” or “average.” She isn’t disgustingly thin or overweight. So the average female weighs more than she does–does that make her any less beautiful and admirable? We can’t put her down because she doesn’t weigh 150 pounds (like I do), she’s worked her butt off to look great, I’m sure, and she’s confident enough to have her flaws on the cover of an international magazine. THAT is an idea I can get behind. It shouldn’t be a matter of her being “too ideal,” it should be about the strength she has to get her naked booty out there and tell women it’s ok to be themselves.
I think her size is strong and healthy. I would love to look like her, even with the mini-roll.
I agree. It’s not about the fact that she’s too perfect. She’s still so much more real. And in a society like ours it’s great that she dares – especially as a model. Now, with that tiny, tiny, basically not even existing fat roll, she might never be hired by Karl Lagerfeld (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,654945,00.html) :P.
We’re always good in bashing people. Either, they’re not perfect enough (look at the post about Jennifer Lopez) or the’re still too perfect…
Well said! I think it’s great to show that even the most physically perfect women aren’t actually perfect.
I would give her an A all around, she’s not skin and bones she looks healthy and gave to charity, what’s the fault in any of that?
As stated above, I think it’s a great start. Clearly, we need to ease people into a transition back to a more natural variety of body shapes.
In the future, I hope to not only see un-Photoshopped in-shape women with an average body shape. I hope to see skinny beanpole girls, curvaceous girls, chubby fat girls, short girls, tall girls, girls with big bubble butts, girls with no butts, girls with huge boobs, girls with no boobs, girls with scars who aren’t Padma Lakshmi, girls with not-perfect teeth, girls with natural unstyled hair, girls without tons of “natural” make-up on, etc.
Then maybe skinny girls and fat girls can stop lobbing insults at each other for 5 minutes, as the current fashion and social environment encourages, and work together for overall physical health, whatever form it takes on a particular woman’s body. (Then maybe we can work on getting Republicans and Democrats to do the same, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.)
I’m not trying by any means to step on anyone’s toes here, but looking at all of this from an advertising perspective, it completely depends on who the target audience is. I’m personally 100% for a healthy body image movement, but it seems to me the reality is that if an advertiser is trying to target teenage or even middle aged men, they are better served by using a makeup enhanced, digitally enhanced, “smokin’ hot” woman, then a natural, real woman.
She’s on the cover of a women’s magazine, one would hope that there aren’t many middle aged men buying it. When a magazine is claiming to be helping women to be their best it doesn’t make sense for them to have unrealistic models who will only make women feel bad about themselves. I love magazines that actually show real women. The other day I was reading Self and they had a workout by Jillian Michaels and shock-horror-awe it turns out that even she has a little fold of flesh when she’s bending over and doing certain exercises. Some magazines would photoshop that out, even in fitness features, and it’s just ridiculous.
I don’t think anyone expects the perfect Barbie doll models in ads to go away any time soon. Men who are looking at an ad for booze or a car or any other product typically advertised by perfect women want the illusion that buying that product will get them that woman even if she doesn’t actually exist. That’s where the fantasy woman belongs, not in a magazine aimed at women.
Did you ever see Farrah Fawcett’s famous poster? She was smokin hot in it and this is before photoshop was invented. Same with old Sports Illustrated issues from the 70’s and 80’s. The standards changed in a weird way in the late 90’s where suddenly everyone had to be some absurd notion of perfect. I hate photoshop, it’s really creepy. Just show people as they are!
Has anyone ever heard of good lighting? That photo looks like it’s been lit up to the wazoo. Maybe it’s not photoshoped, but they certainly got around that with a good lighting technician. As for using flawless, imaginary models to attract men. Maybe if men were to get accustomed to seeing normal women on the cover of their magazines, they’d actually start being attracted to the real thing, and they’d be happier overall, because they’d realize they’ve been surrounded by smokin’ hot women all along.