Originally Posted by HSG
"It possibly would be helpful to teen girls if their mothers didn't have those types of magazines around," van den Berg said. Parents also should discuss magazines' messages with their daughters, she said.
I agree that this would be "helpful," but to expect
it puts an impossible burden on parents.
What chance do parents have to protect their daughters from popular culture, which is everywhere, and all around them -- today more than ever?
Remember, the mother of Ana Carolina Reston (the model who died of anorexia) begged
her daughter to get help, but her daughter brushed her off, and refused to acknowledge that she had a problem. Short of tying her down and feeding her intravenously, what could she have done?
While "parental responsibility" is
important (Kate Winslet bans magazines from her house, for this very reason), this is a too-convenient way for the publishing industry to evade its responsibility. Magazines shouldn't be publishing these harmful articles in the first place.
And of course, there is zero
chance that these findings will influence the diet industry in any way -- the industry without a conscience, the industry whose very existence depends on destroying the self-esteem of all women. Even the fashion industry might
begin to acknowledge its responsibility to cultural health, but the starvation profiteers never
Therefore, the publishing industry may be even more
in need of external regulation (in this regard) than fashion.
What would be a good first step? No more diet articles. Period. That would do more good for women than just about any cultural development that anyone could imagine.