The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Are fashion shows giving off bad messages to younger females? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=340401)

twocows December 15th, 2014 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magic Christmas Lights (Post 8534093)
???

I admittedly don't keep up with MRA or feminism, but aren't they basically striving for the same goal: elimination of sexism? Just one focuses on men's issues, and another one focuses on women's issues. I always felt like being one implicitly meant you are the other.

Tacked on thought about the topic at hand: yes, they are. For the reasons a bunch of other people have touched on already.

That depends. I don't want to get too far off-topic here, but the definition of a feminist is someone who advocates for female issues and the definition of an MRA is someone who advocates for male issues. That doesn't imply that the end goal is equality or fairness, but likewise, it doesn't imply that it's not. And, in fact, there are people in either "camp" who aren't in favor of those things and (I like to think) many more who are in favor of one or both.

Pendraflare December 16th, 2014 6:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kura (Post 8533318)
Provide them some sort of income so the model can attempt to live in today's society instead of going on the doll? "It pays the bills." Thought that's a given.

Also I'd consider remembering that although celebs can get modelling bookings/ opportunities (again marketing and the agencies know how they look in front of a camera so they get hired for that reason), a celebrity and a professional model are actually two separate things here especially when it comes to social media. Also remember than many celebs have personal stylists.

Well it does help that the model gets her paycheck for what she does, but I don't think that really explains how she gets screwed over by the company she works for. And a regular celebrity might be someone in the works with, say, music, movies or television but that is indeed different from the job a typical model performs, so if the latter were more focused on that than they were their media related job they likely would put more passion and enjoyment into it. And while most do have personal stylists, some of those might work differently for who they have than others.

But you said that these are more "walking galleries", I know they're not exactly competitions but I don't think that's the "proper" term to define it.

Kanzler December 16th, 2014 8:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pendraflare (Post 8534776)
Well it does help that the model gets her paycheck for what she does, but I don't think that really explains how she gets screwed over by the company she works for. And a regular celebrity might be someone in the works with, say, music, movies or television but that is indeed different from the job a typical model performs, so if the latter were more focused on that than they were their media related job they likely would put more passion and enjoyment into it. And while most do have personal stylists, some of those might work differently for who they have than others.

But you said that these are more "walking galleries", I know they're not exactly competitions but I don't think that's the "proper" term to define it.

There's a big uproar about size zero and how it's so "unrealistic", but a fashion model's job is unrealistic. They're literally supposed to present the clothing. Male fashion models are the same way. That's why their bodies are slight and rather featureless, to keep all the attention on the clothing. That's also why I don't understand why their physical features are sought after by people who don't intend to display clothing.

Nobody harps of glamour models for being size zero because they're not. If the purpose of your modelling is supposed to evoke erotic feelings, you kind of need to have curves to pull that off.

Oryx December 16th, 2014 9:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 8534887)
There's a big uproar about size zero and how it's so "unrealistic", but a fashion model's job is unrealistic. They're literally supposed to present the clothing. Male fashion models are the same way. That's why their bodies are slight and rather featureless, to keep all the attention on the clothing. That's also why I don't understand why their physical features are sought after by people who don't intend to display clothing.

Nobody harps of glamour models for being size zero because they're not. If the purpose of your modelling is supposed to evoke erotic feelings, you kind of need to have curves to pull that off.

It's not simply fashion shows that push the idea of models as an erotic ideal. Video examples in spoiler so as not to stretch the page.


Model Izabel Goulart at 3:15 on Two and a Half Men, presented as a hot bunny on Charlie Sheen's arm.

""[Damon Wayans Jr.] jokes that this is by far his best episode yet because our time was spent hanging out with Alessandra and Ana Beatriz," Lamorne Morris (Winston) jokes about the high-profile guest spots. "My favorite moment of working with Alessandra and Ana Beatriz was the fact that they are just stunningly tall and gorgeous."


An entire episode centered around how sexy Heidi Klum is.

You get the point here. People try to reach that ideal because culture pushes it as an ideal. And as they reach for it, they push it on other people themselves by becoming part of the influential culture.

Lotus the Cat December 16th, 2014 1:04 PM

Calm down and put away the pitchforks and flaming torches; this isn't the monster you think it is.

I feel like a lot of this is social justice warrior first, understanding later.

I'm surprised at the very one sided argument in here. Fashion is not about making you feel bad about yourself. However, the industry does rely on presenting an ideal or an aspiration of what an individual wants to be. If I see a pretty dress being worn by an attractive model I want to wear that dress. That's how the marketing of fashion works and why models will always be beautiful. Take away the aspiration and the appeal to have the product dies.

Also, I'd like to make some points.
1. Plus size models exist, as do petite (i.e. short) models.

2. While the fashion industry has in the past been guilty of using under size models throughout the last decade there has been a big internal push to use healthy sized models. Now this next part is very important: healthy is not overweight. What is considered thin is actually biologically healthy. The widespread obesity in western countries is warping the view of what a healthy size is to be larger than it truly is. Replacing current models with overweight models doesn't exactly help portray a healthy body either.

As an example I am 163 cm tall and weigh 56 kgs (no where near underweight) and when I shop online on ASOS (for example) I am the same size as the models. I also wore a size 2 bridesmaid dress to a wedding once and had it taken in slightly. If that's one size up from 0, then that's not much to worry about, imo.

3. High fashion and commercial fashion are different. High fashion is more artistic and they generally book models that are unique and different. There is definitely no "specific beauty", theirs is entirely unconventional. Where you get the more conventional beauty is commercial modeling (e.g. target or something).

4. A model's job is to display the clothing to make it look it's best. As mentioned previously this generally requires the model to be in good shape and attractive. Even plus size models aren't particularly fat. The reason being that rolls of fat etc. will affect the appearance of the garment they need to display.

5. Beauty pageants aren't fashion and the two shouldn't be mentioned as though they are the same thing.

6. "Glamour" modeling and fashion aren't the same and also shouldn't be mentioned otherwise.

To finish my response, I find the fashion industry boosts my confidence, which is the opposite of what the majority in this thread are commenting. When I look good on the outside I feel more confident, and thats the purpose of fashion.

I also appreciate beauty. When I see attractive models displaying clothes I don't compare myself negatively to them, instead I examine what they doing it and consider those points next time I select clothes or get ready to go out.

I think a lot of this is an attitude problem: it's only negative because that's all you're focusing on. Making comparisons between yourselves and others is never healthy, be it body or brains.

Also, as a final note. Western countries certainly do not have the worst attitude on beauty. I think South Korea wins that hands down. Any actor, TV personality, pop star and model is pretty much guaranteed to have had plastic surgery.

Pendraflare December 17th, 2014 8:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus the Cat (Post 8535189)
Calm down and put away the pitchforks and flaming torches; this isn't the monster you think it is.

I feel like a lot of this is social justice warrior first, understanding later.

I'm surprised at the very one sided argument in here. Fashion is not about making you feel bad about yourself. However, the industry does rely on presenting an ideal or an aspiration of what an individual wants to be. If I see a pretty dress being worn by an attractive model I want to wear that dress. That's how the marketing of fashion works and why models will always be beautiful. Take away the aspiration and the appeal to have the product dies.

Also, I'd like to make some points.
1. Plus size models exist, as do petite (i.e. short) models.

2. While the fashion industry has in the past been guilty of using under size models throughout the last decade there has been a big internal push to use healthy sized models. Now this next part is very important: healthy is not overweight. What is considered thin is actually biologically healthy. The widespread obesity in western countries is warping the view of what a healthy size is to be larger than it truly is. Replacing current models with overweight models doesn't exactly help portray a healthy body either.

As an example I am 163 cm tall and weigh 56 kgs (no where near underweight) and when I shop online on ASOS (for example) I am the same size as the models. I also wore a size 2 bridesmaid dress to a wedding once and had it taken in slightly. If that's one size up from 0, then that's not much to worry about, imo.

3. High fashion and commercial fashion are different. High fashion is more artistic and they generally book models that are unique and different. There is definitely no "specific beauty", theirs is entirely unconventional. Where you get the more conventional beauty is commercial modeling (e.g. target or something).

4. A model's job is to display the clothing to make it look it's best. As mentioned previously this generally requires the model to be in good shape and attractive. Even plus size models aren't particularly fat. The reason being that rolls of fat etc. will affect the appearance of the garment they need to display.

5. Beauty pageants aren't fashion and the two shouldn't be mentioned as though they are the same thing.

6. "Glamour" modeling and fashion aren't the same and also shouldn't be mentioned otherwise.

To finish my response, I find the fashion industry boosts my confidence, which is the opposite of what the majority in this thread are commenting. When I look good on the outside I feel more confident, and thats the purpose of fashion.

I also appreciate beauty. When I see attractive models displaying clothes I don't compare myself negatively to them, instead I examine what they doing it and consider those points next time I select clothes or get ready to go out.

I think a lot of this is an attitude problem: it's only negative because that's all you're focusing on. Making comparisons between yourselves and others is never healthy, be it body or brains.

Also, as a final note. Western countries certainly do not have the worst attitude on beauty. I think South Korea wins that hands down. Any actor, TV personality, pop star and model is pretty much guaranteed to have had plastic surgery.

Now, I do know that there are shorter ladies that will model, and it's also pretty important that they'd choose ladies they feel promote healthy, thin images as opposed to those that might be larger. So I get what you're saying when you claim there's a push for those. At these fashion events it sounds like high fashion is what they wear, and (as I mentioned) the models want to look physically attractive and promote a good image should they want to make their dresses look good.

For that matter, I don't think I said beauty pageants were the same as fashion shows, because the latter IS different and some people do not find it in good taste to have which women are chosen as prettier than the other. But as this thread has established, fashion shows are best exhibited for the clothing. And if by glamour you mean stuff you see in magazines, articles and the like, then that is probably not something I would compare to what we see in the major shows.

But I still don't know if I quite get how promoting these fashions are supposed to boost confidence, at this point I don't think I want to say that they're not good to it but what i'm getting is that you think people will display more confidence if they focus on the models' habits with their outfits instead of the fact that they feel inferior.

Lotus the Cat December 18th, 2014 2:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pendraflare (Post 8536866)
Now, I do know that there are shorter ladies that will model, and it's also pretty important that they'd choose ladies they feel promote healthy, thin images as opposed to those that might be larger. So I get what you're saying when you claim there's a push for those. At these fashion events it sounds like high fashion is what they wear, and (as I mentioned) the models want to look physically attractive and promote a good image should they want to make their dresses look good.

For that matter, I don't think I said beauty pageants were the same as fashion shows, because the latter IS different and some people do not find it in good taste to have which women are chosen as prettier than the other. But as this thread has established, fashion shows are best exhibited for the clothing. And if by glamour you mean stuff you see in magazines, articles and the like, then that is probably not something I would compare to what we see in the major shows.

But I still don't know if I quite get how promoting these fashions are supposed to boost confidence, at this point I don't think I want to say that they're not good to it but what i'm getting is that you think people will display more confidence if they focus on the models' habits with their outfits instead of the fact that they feel inferior.

I don't quite understand what you mean by that last sentence, so I can't respond to that. However, glamour modeling isn't what you see in magazines. It has a very inappropriate name because in my opinion it's the opposite of glamour. You know the girls that pose in skimpy clothes in front of motorbikes, etc? That's "glamour" modeling.

Pendraflare December 18th, 2014 2:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus the Cat (Post 8537155)
I don't quite understand what you mean by that last sentence, so I can't respond to that. However, glamour modeling isn't what you see in magazines. It has a very inappropriate name because in my opinion it's the opposite of glamour. You know the girls that pose in skimpy clothes in front of motorbikes, etc? That's "glamour" modeling.

What I meant by that was how you said the fashion industry boosts your confidence, which, as you said, is the opposite of what a lot of people in this thread are saying. You're saying that people only focus on the negative and feel inferior (which they do, if it hasn't already been established). It's also in how you mention when you see the clothing that attractive models wear, in that it helps you examine how you want to choose your clothing based on what they have.

As for glamour modeling, I kinda thought it was magazine stuff...but when you put it that way, yes, that and the fashion shows are definitely two different things. One of which is broadcast on television to the world, the other of which, as you said, is when girls pose for pictures at various locations. While it's not something that's generally attractive (at least not compared to doing it professionally for the cameras), that would be something I kinda see girls doing for enjoyment.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire December 18th, 2014 3:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pendraflare (Post 8531218)
This was something I wanted to post a topic on after seeing an article following the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show, which aired on CBS last Tuesday. Now, I didn’t watch the show, because one, I was busy making notes for my finals, and two, the TV in my dorm building was static-y so I didn’t really have a good opportunity to. But I did see an article on Aol.com that, aside from discussing the musical performances present that night, briefly mentioned how (just like every other year) there were viewers who "jokingly admitted sobbing into junk food" over the images of the women present.

Now, it feels a bit weird that this topic is being made by a guy, let alone one who didn't even watch the show, but this is something I felt was worthy of discussion because what I think those girls that tweeted things like that feel is that they feel they're inferior because they're not as "pretty" as the people they're seeing on their screen. There are many people who wonder why there are younger girls who always think they're ugly, and an event like this I think kinda tells me why.

Would you say that things like the fashion shows are influencing girls negatively in considering themselves ashamed of their image? Discuss.

There's fashion shows for guys too as well as magazines and a whole lot of ads. I think we guys are also impacted by how the media portrays men. I feel like most tend to forget about the anorexia, bulimia, or binge eating (without the forced vomiting of bulimia) some boys are going through to get the bodies shown in media to appeal to others. Actually I saw a news report in a Spanish news channel (Univision) saying that eating disorders among boys are growing due to the influence of these images of men.

I don't think all fashion though is bad. If fashions shows are tapped into and if one is made with less typically seen models I think it can offer a positive message to children and adults alike. I do think though that the "ideal" will always exist. Btw did you guys know that most Egyptian pharaohs and their wives/husbands if the pharaoh was a woman were fat according to analysis on their mummies? So the statues we have left of them are nothing more than ideal representations of men and women at the time...

Oryx December 18th, 2014 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus the Cat (Post 8535189)
As an example I am 163 cm tall and weigh 56 kgs (no where near underweight) and when I shop online on ASOS (for example) I am the same size as the models. I also wore a size 2 bridesmaid dress to a wedding once and had it taken in slightly. If that's one size up from 0, then that's not much to worry about, imo.

...

To finish my response, I find the fashion industry boosts my confidence, which is the opposite of what the majority in this thread are commenting. When I look good on the outside I feel more confident, and thats the purpose of fashion.

I hope you realize how interlinked these two statements are. It is not shocking in any way that you feel validated by the fashion industry that puts forward your body type as the ideal. The average American woman is a size 14. For those women, it would take years of strict dieting, exercise possibly starting from zero, and massive lifestyle changes to reach the ideal that you are already at.

"Women were more depressed (R2 = 0.745, p <.05) and more angry (R2 = 0.73, p <.01) following exposure to slides of female fashion models."

"Results indicated that exposure to the thin-ideal produced depression, stress, guilt, shame, insecurity, and body dissatisfaction. Further, multiple regression analyses indicated that negative affect, body dissatisfaction, and subscription to the thin-ideal predicted bulimic symptoms."

"Exposure to thin-ideal magazine images increased body dissatisfaction, negative mood states, and eating disorder symptoms and decreased self-esteem, although it did not cause more internalization of the thin-ideal. Exposure to thin-ideal media images may contribute to the development of eating disorders by causing body dissatisfaction, negative moods, low self-esteem, and eating disorders symptoms among women."

Sir Codin December 18th, 2014 4:20 PM

This isn't just a women's problem, it's also a men's problem.

I see all those guys on magazines with six-pack abs and chiseled features, then I look at my pot-belly and want to kill myself.

Kanzler December 18th, 2014 9:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oryx (Post 8538039)
The average American woman is a size 14.

The average American woman is also overweight. I don't think we should appeal to the "average" because the average has only been increasing for many decades. What is popular or common is not necessarily the ideal.

I don't think that a size 14 or so woman is outrageously overweight or unattractive but that doesn't really matter because people only care about what they think is popular. As conservative as it's going to sound, I think the core issue is with things like "family values" and teaching our children to find inner peace. Everybody should have thick enough skin so that they aren't swayed too easily by what others think. I mean, we teach media literacy in English from Grade 7 (probably it's earlier now) to help children understand media by identifying biases, messages, who the message is written by and for whom, etc etc but it's probably useless cuz nobody gives a **** about school anyways so the lessons fall on deaf ears.

I don't know how feasible or whether we even should interfere with the fashion industry. I think as families and communities we have a responsibility to teach our children the lessons they need to understand themselves and the world and not be swayed by slick images. We can put our best foot forwards where we actually have power to effect change.

Lotus the Cat December 18th, 2014 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pendraflare (Post 8537928)
What I meant by that was how you said the fashion industry boosts your confidence, which, as you said, is the opposite of what a lot of people in this thread are saying. You're saying that people only focus on the negative and feel inferior (which they do, if it hasn't already been established). It's also in how you mention when you see the clothing that attractive models wear, in that it helps you examine how you want to choose your clothing based on what they have.

As for glamour modeling, I kinda thought it was magazine stuff...but when you put it that way, yes, that and the fashion shows are definitely two different things. One of which is broadcast on television to the world, the other of which, as you said, is when girls pose for pictures at various locations. While it's not something that's generally attractive (at least not compared to doing it professionally for the cameras), that would be something I kinda see girls doing for fun.

They're not women taking happy snaps, they're paid publicity shots of women in skimpy clothing.

In realtion to your other comment, focusing on a models habits is not really the correct interpretation. It's focusing on the styling and why she looks good and taking that on board. For example, her accessories, hair and makeup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oryx (Post 8538039)
I hope you realize how interlinked these two statements are. It is not shocking in any way that you feel validated by the fashion industry that puts forward your body type as the ideal. The average American woman is a size 14. For those women, it would take years of strict dieting, exercise possibly starting from zero, and massive lifestyle changes to reach the ideal that you are already at.

"Women were more depressed (R2 = 0.745, p <.05) and more angry (R2 = 0.73, p <.01) following exposure to slides of female fashion models."

"Results indicated that exposure to the thin-ideal produced depression, stress, guilt, shame, insecurity, and body dissatisfaction. Further, multiple regression analyses indicated that negative affect, body dissatisfaction, and subscription to the thin-ideal predicted bulimic symptoms."

"Exposure to thin-ideal magazine images increased body dissatisfaction, negative mood states, and eating disorder symptoms and decreased self-esteem, although it did not cause more internalization of the thin-ideal. Exposure to thin-ideal media images may contribute to the development of eating disorders by causing body dissatisfaction, negative moods, low self-esteem, and eating disorders symptoms among women."

So it's okay to demonise perfectly healthy women for the sake of the self esteem of the overweight? Then what, you make all models size 14 and all the obese women will still feel bad about themselves. This argument holds no water for me.

Oryx December 19th, 2014 7:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 8538366)
The average American woman is also overweight. I don't think we should appeal to the "average" because the average has only been increasing for many decades. What is popular or common is not necessarily the ideal.

I don't think that a size 14 or so woman is outrageously overweight or unattractive but that doesn't really matter because people only care about what they think is popular. As conservative as it's going to sound, I think the core issue is with things like "family values" and teaching our children to find inner peace. Everybody should have thick enough skin so that they aren't swayed too easily by what others think. I mean, we teach media literacy in English from Grade 7 (probably it's earlier now) to help children understand media by identifying biases, messages, who the message is written by and for whom, etc etc but it's probably useless cuz nobody gives a **** about school anyways so the lessons fall on deaf ears.

I don't know how feasible or whether we even should interfere with the fashion industry. I think as families and communities we have a responsibility to teach our children the lessons they need to understand themselves and the world and not be swayed by slick images. We can put our best foot forwards where we actually have power to effect change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus the Cat (Post 8538493)
So it's okay to demonise perfectly healthy women for the sake of the self esteem of the overweight? Then what, you make all models size 14 and all the obese women will still feel bad about themselves. This argument holds no water for me.

1. Both of you made the same incorrect assumption that I mentioned the average size of women to imply that that should be the average size of models. I mentioned the average size of women as a counterpoint to Lotus' "I'm the same size as models and they make me feel better about myself, therefore it's an attitude problem, not an actual problem" - because the majority of women are very emphatically not the same size as models, and thus have a very different experience when they see them.

2. Lotus, I'm not sure why you assumed that disagreeing with having all models identical sizes that are in a practical sense unachieveable for most women is "demonising perfectly health women for the sake of the self esteem of the overweight". I would like to point out that all I'm talking about is wider representation of body types, and you've turned it into being demonized. How is not having every single straight-size model in existence be within 2 sizes of you imply demonization?

3. Why do we even need an "ideal"? The "where should we set the ideal weight to make women who don't match it feel terrible about themselves" argument is bunk from the start. Instead, we should remove the idea of an ideal. It's very clearly based in societal norms and not based in some base human nature that loves skinny women, considering in the past overweight women were seen as more attractive due to many societal reasons that differed by culture.

This also rests on another bunk argument - that if the media shames overweight women by making sure they know that they are not beautiful, they are not the ideal, and they need to change to match it if they want to be beautiful, those women will change. Studies have shown that women feeling shame about their weight do not work to change it, on the whole - they eat more, they're more depressed (which causes weight gain), they're more sedentary. I know from my own personal experience that I began to lose weight when I began to love my body and want to take care of it. I did it from a place of comfort with myself, not shame. When you hate your body, why would you take the time to make it healthy? The focus on health regardless of weight and the focus on loving your body go hand in hand.

This is a bit of a side note that was brought up with "everyone else just has an attitude problem" and will likely be brought up by that previous point - blaming a sociological trend in opinion on the people is willfully ignoring the point of sociology. There is a reason why a majority of people in a certain culture share the same opinion about something. When there's a crack in the dam and the river is getting through, you don't tell people to start trying to collect the water coming through and throw it out to solve the problem; you find the crack and fill it. There's a reason why when an entire class is failing, people look to the teacher and not the students. We are all influenced by our surroundings, well before we can even talk or fully understand what we're seeing. Sociological studies on opinions that don't make sense in your personal worldview are not there for you to say "well I think that opinion is stupid so I'll just get the 90 million people to be less stupid and solve the problem!" It's there to point out that there is a root cause for all of this, and if we find the root cause and fill the crack, then opinions will naturally shift. In society, the "cause" is much more complex and multifaceted. Models are certainly not the only cause, and allowing women of all sizes to be put up as desirable will not overnight cause people to change their opinions. However, it does contribute and stemming one crack is better than telling the river that it shouldn't flow.

Her December 19th, 2014 7:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 8538062)
This isn't just a women's problem, it's also a men's problem.

I see all those guys on magazines with six-pack abs and chiseled features, then I look at my pot-belly and want to kill myself.

that being said, the scale that men are targeted either by the fashion industry (or whatever industry/lifestyle you're referring to in your post, it's 4:30am so you'll have to forgive me) is not close to the level of targeting women face by the same industries
men most certainly do have problems when it comes to body expectations and ideals and feel the same amount of stress as many women do, but it's important to remember that men aren't targeted with the same... how do i put this, vigilance as women are

do you get what i'm saying? i'm not attacking i just feel like the 'and men too' thought needed to be... reevaluated

Corvus of the Black Night December 19th, 2014 8:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aphrodite (Post 8538854)
that being said, the scale that men are targeted either by the fashion industry (or whatever industry/lifestyle you're referring to in your post, it's 4:30am so you'll have to forgive me) is not close to the level of targeting women face by the same industries
men most certainly do have problems when it comes to body expectations and ideals and feel the same amount of stress as many women do, but it's important to remember that men aren't targeted with the same... how do i put this, vigilance as women are

do you get what i'm saying? i'm not attacking i just feel like the 'and men too' thought needed to be... reevaluated

I disagree here. While men don't really have as much of a fashion presence in comparison to women, men are portrayed extremely unrealistically in most modelling positions, probably even moreso than women. Most male models are chiseled to the extreme and have very good proportions and the like, while most female models are thin but not particularly body-built. It's far easier to attain and maintain a thin body than a muscularly pronounced body.

Even the most healthy of men find it difficult to maintain that sort of body, while the "thin" look of women is not nearly as difficult to attain. I had a "thin" "model" body through my late teenage and early adult years without even really trying, and quite a few women can do this as well. The same cannot be said for the male expectation.

It almost kind of feels like you're claiming that one problem is more important than the other because of your own perception of its influence. Ultimately, both problems matter, and both can be lampooned in a similar way (portraying people as realistic as opposed to idealizations), so why even bother making the differentiation? Ultimately I think they balance out since while males are usually set up to a physically difficult to attain self image, women tend to be more photoshopped, which means that the "desired characteristics" can be in their cases unobtainable unless you have the proper proportions to begin with. Either way, it's extremely difficult and leads to huge self esteem issues, and telling people that their problems should be reevaluated in terms of whether or not it's genuine is only going to make problems worse.

Honestly, I find the fashion industry far less damaging than the modelling industry because of the fact that many fashion options are available to people of all sizes, and while it may not be advertised as much, there are plenty of great options for many sizes. The modelling industry on the other hand sets up both sexes for an unrealistic expectation of what they should be.

Lotus the Cat December 20th, 2014 3:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oryx (Post 8538835)
1. Both of you made the same incorrect assumption that I mentioned the average size of women to imply that that should be the average size of models. I mentioned the average size of women as a counterpoint to Lotus' "I'm the same size as models and they make me feel better about myself, therefore it's an attitude problem, not an actual problem" - because the majority of women are very emphatically not the same size as models, and thus have a very different experience when they see them.

2. Lotus, I'm not sure why you assumed that disagreeing with having all models identical sizes that are in a practical sense unachieveable for most women is "demonising perfectly health women for the sake of the self esteem of the overweight". I would like to point out that all I'm talking about is wider representation of body types, and you've turned it into being demonized. How is not having every single straight-size model in existence be within 2 sizes of you imply demonization?

Firstly, my body size is not impractical/unachievable. I eat things I want to eat and don't go out of my way to exercise and I maintain my weight. However, I don't have lazy habits (if I can walk somewhere I walk there), I don't over eat and I eat a varied diet. The only thing that stops overweight women from being my weight is the difficulty of breaking habit.

With regards to my comment about demonisation, by targeting the models for their body shape you are demonising it. This goes deeper than this debate, thin, healthy people are being attacked for being thin. Overweight women are bemoaning the fashion industry for making them feel insecure about themselves, so they go out an insult thin women for not being "real women" or their favourite catchphrase "Real men want curves, only dogs want bones". I have curves, thank you very much. How exactly is this behaviour and attitude helping?

If you want to take action against something in the fashion industry, perhaps focus on the post processing (i.e. photo shopping) done by the advertisers or magazines, which does have serious implications. This isn't contained to the fashion industry though, as a number of celebrities are guilty of doing this to their own photos.

With regards to your comment on model sizes. Fashion designers don't make multiple pieces of the same design to match all the potential sizes of model there may be. They will make one piece in one size and if you don't fit in it you can't model it. As a result the scope of sizes of women will be limited.

Where it is catalogue modelling, this is different as there should be enough stock of sizes to enable selection of different women. Whether they chose the same size because the bulk stock of bookable models is that size or because that's the size they want to display, I'm not sure. Either way, there are always plus size models which can range from size 10 to 18 to account for other sizes.

Quote:

3. Why do we even need an "ideal"? The "where should we set the ideal weight to make women who don't match it feel terrible about themselves" argument is bunk from the start. Instead, we should remove the idea of an ideal. It's very clearly based in societal norms and not based in some base human nature that loves skinny women, considering in the past overweight women were seen as more attractive due to many societal reasons that differed by culture.
I explained why the "ideal" is used. Everyone wants to be better than everyone else, so they're trying to sell that perception. Without the desire to be like what the fashion adverts show you, what's there to make you purchase their products? Clothing will be reduced to necessity. Even if you show women of different weights they're still going to be beautiful women.

I agree that the ideal of thin women is not ingrained. I discussed this previously in a thread this year. People want to be better than everyone else, today that means money and fame. The rich and famous dictate what is attractive. If you go through the past perceptions of beauty, you will find that they follow the general appearance of the rich.

Quote:

This also rests on another bunk argument - that if the media shames overweight women by making sure they know that they are not beautiful, they are not the ideal, and they need to change to match it if they want to be beautiful, those women will change. Studies have shown that women feeling shame about their weight do not work to change it, on the whole - they eat more, they're more depressed (which causes weight gain), they're more sedentary. I know from my own personal experience that I began to lose weight when I began to love my body and want to take care of it. I did it from a place of comfort with myself, not shame. When you hate your body, why would you take the time to make it healthy? The focus on health regardless of weight and the focus on loving your body go hand in hand.
I agree that media is the problem with women having body issues. I don't agree that the fashion industry is the problem. As an example, below is a cover from OK magazine (not a fashion magazine). Trashy women's magazines feed off your insecurity, and I think anyone with body image issues needs to stop reading this filth.



On the other hand, I looked through some Vogue magazine covers, which is a more fashion focused magazine, for comments on body shape and found the below. It does comment on model's great figures, but right below that it mentions an article about fashion to flatter "every figure", which is a positive article.

If you cycle through Vogue covers in general they focus on the new season looks and not on body shape so this isn't particularly common from what I saw. They look more like the second and third image. I persoanlly don't see how this is feeding body image problems.



On the other hand, here are some more OK magazine covers. These magazines are the ones sending the messages that make women expect they should be able to lose 7 lbs in 7 days, or even 10 lbs in 10 days.



Quote:

This is a bit of a side note that was brought up with "everyone else just has an attitude problem" and will likely be brought up by that previous point - blaming a sociological trend in opinion on the people is willfully ignoring the point of sociology. There is a reason why a majority of people in a certain culture share the same opinion about something. When there's a crack in the dam and the river is getting through, you don't tell people to start trying to collect the water coming through and throw it out to solve the problem; you find the crack and fill it. There's a reason why when an entire class is failing, people look to the teacher and not the students. We are all influenced by our surroundings, well before we can even talk or fully understand what we're seeing. Sociological studies on opinions that don't make sense in your personal worldview are not there for you to say "well I think that opinion is stupid so I'll just get the 90 million people to be less stupid and solve the problem!" It's there to point out that there is a root cause for all of this, and if we find the root cause and fill the crack, then opinions will naturally shift. In society, the "cause" is much more complex and multifaceted. Models are certainly not the only cause, and allowing women of all sizes to be put up as desirable will not overnight cause people to change their opinions. However, it does contribute and stemming one crack is better than telling the river that it shouldn't flow.
Sure, but I still don't think the fashion industry is the problem, just the easy target.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daigonite (Post 8538893)
I disagree here. While men don't really have as much of a fashion presence in comparison to women, men are portrayed extremely unrealistically in most modelling positions, probably even moreso than women. Most male models are chiseled to the extreme and have very good proportions and the like, while most female models are thin but not particularly body-built. It's far easier to attain and maintain a thin body than a muscularly pronounced body.

Even the most healthy of men find it difficult to maintain that sort of body, while the "thin" look of women is not nearly as difficult to attain. I had a "thin" "model" body through my late teenage and early adult years without even really trying, and quite a few women can do this as well. The same cannot be said for the male expectation.

I agree with this. Men have it worse. The "ideal" body shape for a woman, as I mentioned above, is very easy to maintain. To keep the muscular physique men are portrayed with requires constant training.

Oryx December 20th, 2014 8:18 PM

Pleeeeeease try not to make your post by editing it seven times. Every single one is a notification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus the Cat (Post 8540728)
Firstly, my body size is not impractical/unachievable. I eat things I want to eat and don't go out of my way to exercise and I maintain my weight. However, I don't have lazy habits (if I can walk somewhere I walk there), I don't over eat and I eat a varied diet. The only thing that stops overweight women from being my weight is the difficulty of breaking habit.

Your metabolism, digestive system, area of living and many other things are not shared by many women. For example, where I live in Chicago, there are many things within walking distance, as well as public transportation I'd walk to. Where my family lives in New Jersey, there is a total of one convenience store within walking distance - and no sidewalks to get there. A single parent may not have the luxury of walking with two toddlers to the store. Someone with a slower metabolism may eat the same things you do and still gain weight or plateau at a higher weight/size. Programs that help impoverished families eat often focus on pasta and rice at the expense of fresh fruits and vegetables due to cost; I know when I was a poor child I ate a great deal of "garlic noodles" (plain pasta plus margarine, garlic salt and parmesan). Even if you can make healthy food out of some food, often the poor are poor due to lack of education, which contributes to obesity. This is why I used the word "practically" - while it is technically possible for the vast majority of women, it is impractical for them because their lifestyle and body structure does not match yours 100%.

Quote:

With regards to my comment about demonisation, by targeting the models for their body shape you are demonising it. This goes deeper than this debate, thin, healthy people are being attacked for being thin. Overweight women are bemoaning the fashion industry for making them feel insecure about themselves, so they go out an insult thin women for not being "real women" or their favourite catchphrase "Real men want curves, only dogs want bones". I have curves, thank you very much. How exactly is this behaviour and attitude helping?
Why does having more models of other sizes imply this? I get just as angry about those posts as you do, as a feminist. All women are women. Although smaller women have better job opportunities, are seen as smarter by default, and are the idealized standard of beauty, insulting them doesn't change that.

Quote:

If you want to take action against something in the fashion industry, perhaps focus on the post processing (i.e. photo shopping) done by the advertisers or magazines, which does have serious implications. This isn't contained to the fashion industry though, as a number of celebrities are guilty of doing this to their own photos.
I am capable of holding interests in both issues at the same time, fortunately.

Quote:

With regards to your comment on model sizes. Fashion designers don't make multiple pieces of the same design to match all the potential sizes of model there may be. They will make one piece in one size and if you don't fit in it you can't model it. As a result the scope of sizes of women will be limited.
This can be changed, this is not a problem.

Quote:

I explained why the "ideal" is used. Everyone wants to be better than everyone else, so they're trying to sell that perception. Without the desire to be like what the fashion adverts show you, what's there to make you purchase their products? Clothing will be reduced to necessity. Even if you show women of different weights they're still going to be beautiful women.
What's there is the idea that someone like you can also look beautiful in those clothes.

Quote:

I agree that the ideal of thin women is not ingrained. I discussed this previously in a thread this year. People want to be better than everyone else, today that means money and fame. The rich and famous dictate what is attractive. If you go through the past perceptions of beauty, you will find that they follow the general appearance of the rich.
That definitely applies to our countries based in capitalistic ideals.

Quote:

I agree that media is the problem with women having body issues. I don't agree that the fashion industry is the problem. As an example, below is a cover from OK magazine (not a fashion magazine). Trashy women's magazines feed off your insecurity, and I think anyone with body image issues needs to stop reading this filth.



On the other hand, I looked through some Vogue magazine covers, which is a more fashion focused magazine, for comments on body shape and found the below. It does comment on model's great figures, but right below that it mentions an article about fashion to flatter "every figure", which is a positive article.

If you cycle through Vogue covers in general they focus on the new season looks and not on body shape so this isn't particularly common from what I saw. They look more like the second and third image. I persoanlly don't see how this is feeding body image problems.



On the other hand, here are some more OK magazine covers. These magazines are the ones sending the messages that make women expect they should be able to lose 7 lbs in 7 days, or even 10 lbs in 10 days.


The studies I'm referencing do not show magazine covers that say "lose weight!!!" They're talking about just looking at the models that are all the same size and shape. Did you notice that every single cover you posted were young, thin celebrities? You're looking at things from an extremely surface level perspective; everyone is like you so if they're not thin they're not trying hard enough, as long as magazines don't say "you're fat" on the cover they don't send the message that thin is ideal through their choices in covers and models. Unfortunately, society is full of subtext, and if you just gloss over it like that you ignore the vast majority of the message society sends. I don't have to tell someone "I think you're fat" if I suggest they might want to pick the vegetables over the potatoes every lunchtime.

Bounsweet December 20th, 2014 10:36 PM

Fashion itself is SO separate from what is giving people - let's be real, mostly women - bad self-esteem or low body confidence. Fashion can be really empowering, it flatters our favorite features and body parts, and can be used to subtly downplay our least favorite parts. Fashion really is SUCH an amazing art, used to accent our bodies and convey our personal taste and style. Ugh, honestly just typing this makes me want to go clothes shopping lmao.

Anyway, fashion shows are definitely not giving off bad messages to young females. The models in a fashion show are only used to showcase the designer's piece. That's literally it. The model isn't the centerpiece, it's what she's wearing that is going to attract attention.

That being said, there is definitely a serious issue of self-esteem and self-confidence in Western society - particularly with women, and particularly with young women. Fashion is not the cause in any way, though. Media and advertisements are what's to blame here, companies make a lot of money telling their consumers that they aren't good enough and won't be good enough until they have "this latest, greatest new product!" It's all a big marketing ploy and women are targeted to become oh-so desirable by looking 10 lbs lighter than they already are and 10 years younger.

(Glamour) models usually take a ridiculous amount of criticism because of their use as imagery of what is the "ideal" shape or look. It is a look that takes a lot of effort for most people in today's society to obtain, and if you're genetically predisposed to that body shape then lucky you, because not everyone is. It's all just a nasty cycle of media/advertisement taking advantage of the innate desire to be the best that you can be. Bettering yourself in any way is a beautiful thing, but if the message is being conveyed in a tone that implies that you're not good enough or worthy enough as you already are, then that's when it becomes malicious.

Her December 21st, 2014 1:37 AM

i think a lot of you are getting confused between the fashion industry and fashion/glamour itself

Kura December 21st, 2014 6:46 AM

Really bothers me when people say that I shouldn't have any problem finding clothes because I'm a small size. Like as if people who are a size 0 are just automatically written off as being the "ideal." I actually have MORE of a difficult time than those who are bigger because of my stature.

I wear a 00 or a UK size 2 now. I used to wear a UK size 10-12 or so, which is US size 14, at my heaviest. I'm 4'10" tall. A lot of people would say "oh you're underweight now" but I'm not (I've checked with my doctor, I have semi-annual full blood counts because I like to make sure I am getting all my micronutrients and that my hormones are all in check, I eat extremely healthily now and I exercise regularly.)

But sorry, I digress... going back on topic:
A lot of things that I see on the runway, I can't wear because of my body shape. I have small shoulders, many straps and shirts are too big and unalterable. I have hips but a small waist so I can't fit into kids clothes, and the waistline on many coats, skirts, and jeans are too wide and baggy. XS is often too big. I always have to shorten hemlines of jeans, sleeves, etc. It is actually really hard for me to find clothes that fit 'properly.' (Shoes are even another story because I wear size UK2/ US 4.5) I'm just petite.

So it really bothers me when people say that we have to "ban size 0" because then I'd literally have nothing to wear.. and I'm 100% healthy. I'm not a "rail thin" model. I have curves. I have breasts. I'm just pocketsized and I think it's unfair to lump a lot of women together just by a number size and that's why I agree with Lotus that a size 0 is not some sort of unachievable thing. If anyone has seen my posts in the picture thread I would think that they would agree that don't look unhealthily thin.

All in all yeah.. I reiterate what mochi says. Models aren't the centerpiece.. and at least for me.. I always focus on the clothes.

Just wanted to expand my thoughts :3

Lotus the Cat December 21st, 2014 2:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oryx (Post 8541035)
Pleeeeeease try not to make your post by editing it seven times. Every single one is a notification.

I know that, but I'd rather my post was error free than to save you closing out a few extra notifications. :P

Quote:

Your metabolism, digestive system, area of living and many other things are not shared by many women. For example, where I live in Chicago, there are many things within walking distance, as well as public transportation I'd walk to. Where my family lives in New Jersey, there is a total of one convenience store within walking distance - and no sidewalks to get there. A single parent may not have the luxury of walking with two toddlers to the store. Someone with a slower metabolism may eat the same things you do and still gain weight or plateau at a higher weight/size. Programs that help impoverished families eat often focus on pasta and rice at the expense of fresh fruits and vegetables due to cost; I know when I was a poor child I ate a great deal of "garlic noodles" (plain pasta plus margarine, garlic salt and parmesan). Even if you can make healthy food out of some food, often the poor are poor due to lack of education, which contributes to obesity. This is why I used the word "practically" - while it is technically possible for the vast majority of women, it is impractical for them because their lifestyle and body structure does not match yours 100%.
This discussion is getting a bit off-topic, but I do still want to respond...

Some thin people have metabolisms that allow them to eat excessive amounts of food with no impact on their weight, but a lot of thin people don't have overworking metabolisms. I certainly don't. I went overseas for work for two weeks once, and gained 6 kgs (13 lbs) in that time frame.

All of your excuses for people being overweight are just that: excuses. Unless you have a rare disease/disorder that makes it impossible to lose weight, the only thing stopping them is themselves. The moment people stop making excuses and do something about it is when things will change. People need also be aware that losing weight isn't necessarily hard, but it's not an overnight process and you need to hold commitment.

To add, 60% of Australian adults are overweight or obese. I don't know what it's generally like in the U.S.A. but in Australia:

1) There are footpaths everywhere, and where there aren't footpaths is generally in rural or residential areas where you can easily walk on the road or the side of the road. I live on a hill that has limited flat land for roads. The main road to get to many houses is a two-way single lane road with no shoulders or footpaths. People still walk up it to get home. Unless your cousins in NJ need to walk on a busy highway to get to their convenience store, I don't see why they need the footpath in the first place.

2) Fresh fruit is not that expensive, you can often buy 3 kgs of oranges for $3. In Australia the tax on purchases (GST) does not apply to "necessities", which include vegetables and fruit. You can even buy a cabbage for $4, which you can just keep eating steamed for a whole week (seriously, the veggie that just keeps on giving). Eating fruit and veggies isn't necessarily expensive so long as you make sure to buy what's in season.

3) 60% of the Australian population is not in poverty. I can't comment on the issues facing those that live below the poverty line, but that will not account for most of the cases of obesity.

Quote:

The studies I'm referencing do not show magazine covers that say "lose weight!!!" They're talking about just looking at the models that are all the same size and shape. Did you notice that every single cover you posted were young, thin celebrities? You're looking at things from an extremely surface level perspective; everyone is like you so if they're not thin they're not trying hard enough, as long as magazines don't say "you're fat" on the cover they don't send the message that thin is ideal through their choices in covers and models. Unfortunately, society is full of subtext, and if you just gloss over it like that you ignore the vast majority of the message society sends. I don't have to tell someone "I think you're fat" if I suggest they might want to pick the vegetables over the potatoes every lunchtime.
I understand that, but that doesn't mean the message is coming from somewhere else and being projected on to the fashion images. An interesting study would be to do the same thing on women that aren't jaded by all the media telling them that's the ideal and showing them the fashion images to see if they get the same response. I'd be very surprised if they went straight for the negative.

The magazine covers I showed are conditioning women to feel body conscious, so of course when they see other things in their environment they're going to have that in the back of their mind. Plenty of TV commentaries and other similar trashy magazines do the same.

I still don't think fashion is the villain here.

zakisrage December 24th, 2014 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pendraflare (Post 8531218)
This was something I wanted to post a topic on after seeing an article following the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show, which aired on CBS last Tuesday. Now, I didn’t watch the show, because one, I was busy making notes for my finals, and two, the TV in my dorm building was static-y so I didn’t really have a good opportunity to. But I did see an article on Aol.com that, aside from discussing the musical performances present that night, briefly mentioned how (just like every other year) there were viewers who "jokingly admitted sobbing into junk food" over the images of the women present.

Now, it feels a bit weird that this topic is being made by a guy, let alone one who didn't even watch the show, but this is something I felt was worthy of discussion because what I think those girls that tweeted things like that feel is that they feel they're inferior because they're not as "pretty" as the people they're seeing on their screen. There are many people who wonder why there are younger girls who always think they're ugly, and an event like this I think kinda tells me why.

Would you say that things like the fashion shows are influencing girls negatively in considering themselves ashamed of their image? Discuss.

The fashion industry is extremely damaging to young women. Guys can be ugly, but God forbid a girl is ugly. We basically use fashion to teach girls to be ashamed of the way they look. It's especially bad for overweight girls because some of the big-name brands don't carry clothing for plus-sized women. Victoria's Secret doesn't have plus sizes. Neither does Abercrombie and Fitch - the CEO is prejudiced against fat girls and made it clear that he doesn't want fat girls wearing his clothes. Luckily there are some stores that cater to heavier people. Models these days tend to be corpses - it's not normal for a 5'10" woman to be a size zero.

Entermaid December 25th, 2014 10:40 PM

What about beyond body issues?

The importance of designer clothing lending itself to overspending to achieve a higher status at a prices of debt/insufficient spending elsewhere or non-spending and feeling inadequate. Everything is "so last season" for a reason --obsolescence. Discard the "old" and buy the new with every season purchases of new blouses, dresses, pants, clutches, pumps, glasses, jewelry, dozens of creams, makeup, styling products, or some other shimmer gloss pump xtreme volume vitality burst.

Further, should art withstand the test of time, to an extent? Fashion comes and goes, there are no established elements of beauty, they are always changing. There is no purpose but to have change for its own utility, thus forging relentless transient relativism and beauty as one institution.

The art of fashion is not an art because of this underpinning of obsolescence of the clothes and the concepts behind the clothing. A garmet that is considered beautiful and interesting ubiquitously one day, is then considered out-of-style and unattractive the next day. Art involves itself with any institutions of which there are beautiful elements and methodologies to understanding and achieving that beauty. Painters adopt vastly different styles of painting, they admire other styles, adopt elements of their beauty, omit others, and develop artwork that adds to the underlying elements. The artwork that precede the artwork of the artist are also beautiful and inspiring, not in the contrived "retro" respect either. Artwork from the past remains beautiful rather than mere "vintage" trends.

Fashion is different in this respect and mainly because of the societal underpinnings of fashion throughout human history. Signifier of class/wealth, and an investment in personal social capital. Thus, obsolescence (uniqueness disguised as creativity) is a subconscious tool used to compete in social capital; either spend, change, and keep up, or don't.

I'd rather see other industries flourish in place of the wealth and talent invested into fashion, whereas fashion/cosmetics/jewelry I'd like to see contract as an industry. Social capital ought to transcend gaudy and unrealistic fashion designs, which are bizarre and different for their own sake.

I am not saying fashion is "bad" rather there is too much emphasis on appearance-spending and the time-investment that accompanies the emphasis.

Monophobia December 26th, 2014 12:35 AM

I think the sooner people realize that both men and women models portrayed in fashion modeling (or anything like it) are unrealistic for the average person to aspire to look like, the better off this society would be.

I don't look at a Ken doll or some guy on the cover of a magazine with ripped abs and think that I should try to be like them. It's unrealistic, and as soon as I realized that, the sooner I stopped feeling sorry for myself. Honestly, it's not the fashion industry's fault, so stop blaming them. It's all about an individuals mindset. If you think you have to look like a super model in order to love yourself, then I feel sorry for you. Everyone is unique, so trying to copycat another is ridiculous.

Anyway, I think the fashion industry is fine, and that none of this would be happening if parents taught their kids more about loving themselves.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:04 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.