Photoshopping Away the Feminine

Fri, 06/14/2013 - 08:03
Submitted by Carlin Ross

Several magazines in the UK are pushing for an end to photoshopped models.  I say hallelujah.

This young model is thin and beautiful but they have to reduce her small frame even more.  What's left is something that doesn't even look human.  And I think that's the point.

If you want to objectify a woman, then you make her look like a blow-up doll.  Dimples, stretch marks, curves, and creases humanize a woman - make her real.  Just what message do we think we're sending men about women's role in the culture? 

We exist to excite and relieve...watching this video reminded me how hard it was to be a teen girl navigating a world where my body is not my own:

Editor in Chief & Keeper of All Things Betty Dodson

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

thank you, carlin

Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:11

Thank you for posting the video -- it was very powerful. The worst thing we can do is remain SILENT. I've been lucky, in general men have been kind to me on the street, but when they haven't, I've turned and confronted them, making them the object of my derision for their behavior. It doesn't hurt to be physically strong and formidable.

I think I know what might be going on

Fri, 06/14/2013 - 14:47

Models who look like the picture on the right cost more money (£600) than people who look like the pic on the left (£250), and the photoshopping time is a tiny cost (£6.50).

Why are fashion models so thin?

An A line skirt in size 0 has a 23" waist 
and in size 6 a 30 inch waist. 

Across a whole collection you save 30% in material costs by going for size 0.and as all your models must be able to wear any of the garments in the collection they have to be the same size. Creating a collection isn't cheap, and there's no guarantee of success, and no copyright on your designs and people tend to gravitate towards solutions with the lowest costs.

Jake - I hear you on the

Thu, 06/20/2013 - 07:29

Jake - I hear you on the whole lets-use-less-fabric-and-make-more-money argument.  However, in this case they photoshopped her already tiny frame after the fact.  It wasn't about saving money because she already posed in the lingerie.

This wasn't about economy.  It was about the ideal feminine which doesn't exist.

Carlin it's about both

Thu, 06/20/2013 - 10:41

Economy is why I think the shape has evolved as the ideal, and why the producers changed the photo to what is for them the only credible and commercially viable end result. If we have an understanding of why  something happens, we have a better chance of changing it. I've been posting here long enough that I assumed it's a given that I think the shape is an ideal of feminity that doesn't exist.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.