Lily

I found this passage in the article that Meredith recently posted to be especially important.


The rubbish about "perfect" bodies is offensive, but in case anyone thinks that he's just randomly conjecturing about computer-generated bodies, he's not.

In a case that attracted a fair bit of media attention late last year, the retail chain H&M was outed for doing just that.

It actually Photoshopped models' heads onto fake, computer-generated bodies.

Minus-size models' emaciated frames are so artificial-looking anyway that I suppose this was the next, inevitable step toward complete media insanity:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/..._n_1129864.html


Another source:

http://jezebel.com/5865114/hm-puts-...-on-fake-bodies


The results are truly grim. The models look like they've been manufactured on an assembly line. The Judgment of Paris has often talked about how dehumanizing androgynous modernity is -- well, here's the physical proof that it literally is dehumanizing, as human beings have been replaced with synthetic replicas. This is the kind of Kafkaesque horror that a person would expect to read about in a dystopian novel.



For me, the worst part isn't even that these Frankenstein bodies are so cookie-cutter uniform. This inhuman extreme is where the fashion industry has been trending anyway. The absolute greatest insult is that in choosing the template body, H&M chose a frame without any trace of feminine fullness. It's not just that the body is artificial and inhuman, it looks artificial and inhuman, due to the complete absence of feminine flesh.

This article includes some pithy put-downs of the practice:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...dels-feminists/


Thankfully, at least one commentator has the sense to point out that not only is H&M propagating curve-o-phobia and body hatred, but that, far from being perfect, these Photoshop horrors are visually repellent:


Therefore, she adds, this is not only colossally unethical, it's bad for business:


Precisely. What kind of clothing does H&M think it's selling, if it's unfit to be displayed on any actual living women? So who is supposed to wear it?

It's not the luscious curves of plus-size models that would be "distracting" from the clothing. It's the freakish emaciation of these android frames that actually is distracting. ALL minus-size models distract from the clothing by their horrific, corpse-like appearance.

So in reference to Meredith's article, yes, I think a warning label on such a flagrant case of false advertising would be most welcome. Laws like the one under consideration in Arizona need to be passed, and nationwide.

And this practice of trying to foist cadaverously skinny frames -- whether computer-falsified or achieved through starvation -- as the normative look for women must end.

M. Lopez

God help me, this seems to be a trend.

Pointing out the appalling abuses of the minus-size fashion establishment is always a mug's game, as it simply gives publicity to the offending brands, which is exactly what they want. But the following is such a noxious case that it demands to be condemned.

In a typical practice whereby so-called "diversity" (the most mendacious word in the modern lexicon) means anything except actual variety, Levi's has now published an ad claiming that "Hotness comes in all shapes and sizes," while showing - you guessed it - just one, single, underweight body type - a body type, in fact, with no shape and no size.



At least this absurdity is earning some condemnation.

http://global.christianpost.com/new...troversy-70155/

The salient points:


With the case of H&M's computer-generated fake body fresh in everyone's minds, I came to the same conclusion that North did:


Two important conclusions can be reached from this situation, apart from the obvious and well-known truisms that (a) advertisers hate and suppress plus-size bodies, size 14 and up, and (b) that they consciously generate outrage in the media to garner free publicity.

The more important conclusions are these:

1. Parroting cheap, lazy platitudes such as, "Women come in 'all' shapes and sizes," or "'All' sizes are beautiful," or "We need to see models in 'all' sizes," will yield ZERO results. The media will simply co-opt the slogan and produce the same cookie-cutter, assembly-line, uniform body frame it always has.

Ask for "all," and you'll get none. Ask for plus-size to be just one of many, and it will be nowhere. Invisible.

Instead of this, the emphasis needs to be on plus preference. The emphasis needs to be exclusively on the full-figured body. That's the only way that any representation for actually curvy women will be achieved at all.

Forget hazy universalism. Focus your attention particularly and specifically on representation for the plus-size body.

2. Asking for "diversity" is nothing but a distraction. As the H&M example shows, advertisers have no problem colouring a synthetically created size-0 frame a different skin colour. All they care about is that the frame looks sufficiently anorexic. They have no problem with older models either.

The one thing that they do not permit, that they truly exclude, is the plus-size body. Therefore, vague "diversity" pleas give the media too easy an opportunity for an easy misdirect. "We're being diverse," they can claim, by shading their corpse-like waifs many different hues.

What must be asked for, exclusively and specifically, is greater visibility for actual plus-size body shapes, if they are to be present in the media at all.

Maureen

Just as robots replaced human workers on the automotive assembly lines, robot-like digital images have started replacing human models. We cannot let companies get away with this. Contact retailers and let them know what you think of their abuse of retouching and digital technology. Demand that companies carrying plus-size clothing display those items on plus-size bodies. If enough of us speak up, we cannot be ignored.