View Single Post
Old 20th February 2012   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2010
Posts: 188
Default Airbrushing warnings in Arizona

In a rare example of a positive effort by government, the Arizona state legislature is considering a bill that would mandate advertisers to identify when images have been Photoshopped, airbrushed, or otherwise distorted.

All I can say is, it's about time:

House Bill 2793, proposed by Rep. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, would require advertisers who alter or enhance a photo to put a disclaimer on that ad alerting customers that "Post-production techniques were made to alter the appearance in this advertisement. When using this product, similar results may not be achieved."

Sounds good so far? Now here's the bad news:

The bill has little to no chance of success. But Hobbs said that's okay.

"We just wanted to bring it to the table and start a discussion," she said. "We need to bring attention to these body-image issues, especially with young girls. Girls need to know that they don't have to look 'perfect'."

That's simply pathetic. The time for "discussion" is over. People keep having "discussions" and nothing gets done. These "discussions" are useless, and worse than useless, as they create the illusion that something is happening, but nothing is.

If this bill were to pass, that, at least, would be a beginning. It's not nearly enough, though. The bill should be banning underweight models altogether and mandating the use of fuller-figured models, size 14 and higher. Or at least altogether banning size-related airbrushing. Simply creating a law requiring that airbrushing be identified would be the tiniest of victories, the most basic nod to common sense. That such a law is still deemed impossible to pass is a devastating condemnation of the democratic system.

Also, I can't believe that anyone is still duped enough to call airbrushed bodies "perfect." There's nothing "perfect" about them. They look gaunt, emaciated, and synthetic. They are actively unattractive. Step one would be for people to dispense with the idiotic notion that there's anything "perfect" about size-0 frames. Quite the opposite. Perfect is a figure like that of Katherine Roll, or Shannon Marie, or Mayara Russi. Perfect is size 18+.

Still, at least it's a movement that has traction:

Arizona appears to be the first state in the nation to consider such a bill. There are ongoing efforts to get Congress to take up the matter. Several other countries also regulate or are considering regulating such advertising.

Traction, and support:

Hobbs said YWCA Maricopa County brought the idea to her.

Sam Richard, who serves on the YWCA Maricopa County board of directors, said the bill is modeled after laws in the United Kingdom.

"As an organization, we are all about empowering women and eliminating discrimination," Richard said. "We want to make sure that young women get a better start and better self-image."

Seth Matlins, co-founder of Los Angeles-based online women's magazine Off Our Chests, supports Hobbs' effort, calling it "extraordinary."

He said manipulated photo ads create unobtainable beauty ideals.

"People are left feeling worse about themselves because they don't look like something that actually nobody looks like," he said. "We're trying to help the makers of culture understand the relationship between what they do and how people feel."


The truly infuriating aspect of the article is not the fact that the Arizona legislature won't pass the bill, though. It's the insufferable excuses peddled by the advertising industry to justify their corrupt practices and why they should be allowed to keep warping girls' minds:

But Louie Moses, creative director of the Phoenix-based Moses Anshell advertising agency, said the advertising industry should be allowed to police itself.

"I don't like legislation that tells us what to do and what not to do in marketing," Moses said. "I know what's right."

Pardon me while I retch. They know what's right? This industry that promotes anorexia, glamourizes drug use, and sends starving (sometimes fatally starving) models down the runway, excludes full-figured women, and shames natural plus-size bodies, they know what's right? That's like saying that a drug dealer knows what's right and should therefore be allowed to keep peddling his wares.

Rather, the media should be prosecuted for the damage they inflict on society. They neither know nor care what's right. They simply seek to generate as much self-loathing among women as possible to maximize their profiteering.

This part is especially rich. I'm amazed anyone could say it with a straight face:

Moses also said people often blame advertising agencies for too many of the evils of society.

"People are always screaming about the images out there, but I think they are overlooking the easiest way to dispel those things," he said, suggesting parents strive to be their children's role models. "We don't want our media raising our kids."

Oh, my God. So for the past half-century, advertisers and the media have done everything in their power to wage an ideological war against the family, against family values, and against parents' influence on their children. And now they say that the parents should be responsible?

A century ago, before the media was hijacked by the degenerate establishment that runs it today, which hates all forms of tradition and traditional family structures, sure, then you could have expected the family to be able to counter media influence, to a point. But now that mothers are in the workplace instead of at home, and that kids grow up learning to rebel against all forms of authority, especially their parents, now it is hypocritical in the extreme for any member of the media to try to foist the responsibility for childrearing on parents.

The media has aggressively and deliberately destroyed the traditional family, so now, the media must be regulated as the overweening influence on children and youth that it has become.
Meredith is offline   Reply With Quote