View Single Post
Old 28th October 2009   #3
Kaitlynn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 2005
Posts: 633
Default Re: Toothless government ''charters''

Tamika is 100% right. The point is not to encourage "diversity," but beauty- Classical beauty; true beauty.

Another article about the Australian charter has some mixed messages, but contains at least one interesting section.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...91027-hiyp.html

The author is one of the people who were involved with creating the charter. She writes:

Quote:
There are many tired and repetitive arguments against reflecting a more realistic and diverse image of male and female bodies. All are all easily dismantled. Some say these industries are built on dreams and aspiration. That's fine. But who said dreams only come in size zero? Who said everyone aspires to be underweight?

Some say women are our own worst enemies, that we are the ones demanding images of airbrushed unreality. How would anyone know what women prefer when given little choice? How does anyone know we won't buy their magazines or products if they portray women more realistically?

It's time to give us a chance to prove those unfounded claims wrong.

Many people make a living from pushing the boundaries, but they need to realise that the boundaries can push back.

What's especially important here is the writer's pointing out that the arguments against using full-figured models "are easily dismantled." Yes! The posters on this forum have been dismantling them for years. Yet whenever these issues come up in the media, most commentators simply accept, uncritically, whatever lies and myths the fashion-industry apologists parrot.

She explodes two such myths, both of which have been exposed on this forum.

1. There is nothing wrong with "aspiration" and "inspiration," but a woman can be inspired by a gorgeous size-16 model rather than by a waif, and can aspire to be just like her.

2. Women have never been given an opportunity to choose plus-size models over straight-size skeletons. Mode was just one, single, short-lived magazine, and even Mode was only truly subversive at the beginning, before its editorial policy changed and it diminished its effectiveness. There is no proof that fuller-figured models aren't commercially effective. None.

Any claims that the promoters of emaciation make in support of their androgynous standard can easily be debunked, in favour of arguments for plus-size beauty.
Kaitlynn is offline   Reply With Quote