Hannah

The latest ineffective half-measure to combat the epidemic of negative body-image that's assaulting society seems to be the government "charter" - a voluntary (and therefore useless) "suggestion" to the fashion industry to perhaps, if you could, please start being just a wee bit less discriminatory?

It's like asking a drug trafficker to please start peddling a tiny bit less crack. Good luck.

The intentions may be good, but the people who organize these things are naive about how fanatically committed the people who run fashion today are to promoting emaciation.

Here's an article about the character that was introduced in Quebec a week ago:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/s...ss.html?ref=rss

An excerpt:


I wish I could believe that this will have an impact, but past experience has proven that it will not.

On the other hand, the article is illustrated with a picture of a horribly corpse-like androgynous model. That alone should spur some readers into realizing that more stringent measures are necessary.

- - - -

The second such charter was announced today, in Australia:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...5013404,00.html

Says the report:


The words "required" and "voluntary" in the first paragraph are contradictory. More promising is the point in the third paragraph, that the guidelines "could" become mandatory if the industry fails to act (which it obviously will). Let's hope that they do become mandatory.

But is this actual progress? Hardly. Listen to this:


The word "diversity" should send warning bells. Anytime someone uses that politically correct term, it means that, at best, a lone full-figured model will be tucked into the corner of a magazine somewhere - typical tokenism - along with images of old models, or ethnic models, or homely models.

More offensive is the organizers' need to stipulate that they will not be promoting plus-size models - as if this is something to be proud of. This is like Brigitte's pathetic move to use so-called "real women" instead of full-figured models. So instead of size-0 models this charter wants size-4 "real" women? How futile.

This is no victory for size celebration, nor does it increase the likelihood of seeing any young, beautiful, plus-size goddesses in fashion. Ergo, the public will still associate "beauty" with "emaciation," and will still fail to rediscover timeless beauty.

Tamika

Actually, it's not about 'diversity'. It's about beauty, and until that change in thinking is made, no real progress will be made.

Teenage girls don't care about diversity, they care about being beautiful and attractive. Full-figured girls won't care if plus-size models are included for the sake of 'diversity', unless they are included in a beautiful context. This politically-correct idea of 'diversity' is almost insulting: 'We still think emaciation is beautiful, but we have to begrudgingly include a few plus-size girls for the sake of being inclusive'.

Not until people realise that using full-figured models is indeed about beauty, and openly state their preference, will there be a real change in thinking. Just as important is the slamming of ridiculous weight myths which cause people to wave the thin flag in defense of 'health'.

In fact, this could even be damaging to the cause of size celebration. When people look at the 'average' 'real' women, and compare them to the professional waif models, they will think the unattractiveness of the former is due to lack of starvation. This mindset is what needs to change, and fast, before more damage is done.

Bring us images of full-figured beauty, and then we might see a real change. Until then, the thin=beautiful falsehood will continue to prevail.

Kaitlynn

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:


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.

M. Lopez

Here's another article on the Australian charter:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opi...91028-hjbt.html

I like what the charter is against. What a shame that it's so wrong-headed in what it's for. (I.e., it should be for plus-size models, as a preferable alternative to the emaciation that it seeks to eradicate.)

The creators of the charter want fashion and the media


At least the writer acknowledges that straight-size models are "ghoulish," not attractive, as the degenerate fashion elites claim they are. It's just a shame that since the charter is voluntary, it will likely be ineffective.

More interesting, perhaps, is the other part of the charter, which focuses on social influences:


Apart from the distracting political term "diversity," this is a good policy. Schools, parents, and peers are, indeed, a major part of the problem when it comes to girls and weight. No mother should ever, ever deny her daughter food, let alone subject her to diet-starvation, or pressure her into torturing herself in a gym-prison. And preventing sadistic teachers from approaching the issue of weight in anything but a positive way would be a major benefit. The unthinkable abuse that some schools perpetrate of actually weighing female students must be stopped at all cost. (I still can't believe that this happens; but it does.)

So overall, this charter contains some good elements, at least in areas outside of fashion. What a shame that it is sorely deficient in addressing the most significant problem of all: the lack of glamorous images of beautiful plus-size models and celebrities.

Emily

Quoted for truth.

In many ways, the effort at "diversity" is actually a distraction that could do more harm than good for the aesthetic restoration. Size-celebration shouldn't couple itself with this approach.

I remember a New York Times article that reported on a study which concluded that "diversity" actually has negative social consequences:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/w...86248.html?_r=3

Pertinently, the study was conducted by a left-leaning researcher, and was published in the NYT, a newspaper with a similar political bent, so for even these entities to acknowledge the study's findings attests to their accuracy.

"Diversity" is why magazines like Girl failed. Full-figured girls don't want "diverse" magazines, with political agendas, that feature occasional token curvy girls tucked away in a corner somewhere, or merely in "before/after" shopping comparisons. They want all-plus fashion magazines in which full-figured beauty is the ideal; waif-free environments in which plus-size models who are gorgeous and genuinely full-figured appear in every layout, every image, photographed to look as chic and alluring as possible. In short, they want Vogue, but with a pro-plus/curve-adoring instead of pro-anorexia/anti-plus editorial philosophy, and with an aesthetic of timeless beauty (feminine fashions photographed in gorgeous natural and classical/historic locations).