Objectification at whatever size

On the 7pm ABC News Sunday, June 27, a report on the Federal Government’s new voluntary body image code of conduct was illustrated by the story of size 14 model Laura Wells. Laura was proud of her body and very confident, even though she didn’t conform to the typical model body type.

That is a good thing of course. It’s positive to have women in the industry who challenge the thin ideal.

But the argument fell apart for me, because, as the ABC report informed us, Laura was so confident that she even took her clothes off for modeling shoots. And then we saw some footage of her squeezing her breasts together for the camera. She was naked.

This news item summarised some of my hesitations about the latest moves to address body image concerns.

Yes, of course it’s good to encourage body diversity. And of course it’s right to disclose when models have been airbrushed or digitally enhanced. Of course the fashion industry should be discouraged from parading stick-thin half-dead waifs down the catwalk.

But even when these changes come about - and face it, they are the most basic of essentials, and not even mandatory - the fact is the culture of sexualisation and objectification is not challenged or transformed.

Elsewhere it was reported of Wells:

Yesterday, as the 24-year-old recreated the pose of full-figured American pin-up Lizzie Miller - complete with her own “wobbly bits to rock” your socks off, boys - there was nothing to hide … Wiggling and giggling as she attempted to wrestle one [of] her E-cup breasts out of sight, Laura has clearly struck up a fabulously healthy relationship with her body …

It makes you wonder if Laura didn’t have the classic model facial features and an E cup, whether her “larger” body would be so desired by the industry.

It is no great advance when curvy women are presented in the same sexualised ways as their smaller sisters. I’ve written about this in regard to Rikki Lee Coulter’s dominatrix photo shoot for Ralph, which I described as “objectification in a size 14”. Simply using so-called larger bodies (discuss: is size 14 large?) doesn’t change the main goal of the advertising and fashion industries - presenting women as sexually alluring. The baring of female flesh - even when the flesh comes packaged as a size that isn’t a 6, 8, or 10 - is still the main game.

A lot of research tells us that sexualising imagery contributes to body dissatisfaction among girls and women, depression, anxiety, disordered eating and low self-esteem. Yet the National Body Image Advisory Group - whose report has contributed to the government’s latest announcement - doesn’t mention sexualisation or objectification at all. The industry is smacked with a feather. It’s all voluntary, it’s all about “encouraging” and being nice. (Take the ABC News heading “Fashion industry asked to adopt body-image code”. We hope they asked politely!).

The report has no teeth. There are no penalties for non-compliance for the recalcitrant’s who will continue to profit from their sexist and harmful practices.

As for disclosing digital enhancement, the message still sent is that women are not good enough on their own - they all need “work” done, they all need to be altered in some way.

Even where models haven’t been photoshopped, there is still hours of makeup, lighting, special lenses and creative camera angles to present the “best” image. Remember the Jen Hawkins “warts and all” non airbrush photo shoots for Marie Claire? (On Line Opinion “Shock horror: nude supermodel has dimple on her thigh”). There were no warts and all, just a dimple and some “uneven skin tone” on the former Miss Universe title holder. She still conforms to conventionally attractive notions of beauty.

In a blog post titled “No more frock watch Mia, please”, Natalie makes a great point:

Body image isn’t just about not retouching photographs of models who already enjoy the beauty privilege that most of us beat ourselves up about.

It doesn’t help much when the Advisory Group Chair has a section on her website encouraging body surveillance and judgment (is she beautiful or not? Does she look hot in that dress or doesn’t she?) as pointed out in Natalie’s piece above. It doesn’t help much that our Minister for Youth who announced the new code (and who I’m sure has good intentions) does a sexy photo shoot for Grazia under the guise of helping women and girls feel good about their bodies then avoids answering questions about whether the shoot was photoshopped. Would Grazia receive the government’s body image tick of approval?

Another member of the Advisory Group, Sarah Murdoch, is host and executive producer of Australia’s Next Top Model, which turns judging other women into an art form, using terms like “wild pig”, “Frankenstein” and “Yeti” to describe them. The show’s new promo shows women being released from racing stalls, running maniacally towards the “bait” - a modeling contract - in what could be read as a reference to female dogs competing for the prize, whatever it takes.

A May 16 Daily Telegraph story pretty much summed it up:

The claws have been sharpened and more back stabbing is ahead, with the search for the next modelling superstar well underway.

Should Sarah’s own show get a tick?

While in so many ways the code doesn’t go far enough, in one way it demonstrates remarkable naivety in regard to the beauty industry and the way it advertises itself. A section of the code has criteria for compliance with the “realistic and natural images of people”. As if the beauty industry is going to do that? It doesn’t want to use real and natural women who might have moles, freckles, blotchy skin and pimples. (And no one is fooled by Dove anymore, given airbrushing in the Real Beauty campaign, its skin whitening products for dark-skinned women and the company’s latest casting calls for women with “beautiful hair and skin”, “nice bodies” and who are not too curvy”. While Dove has put out a statement saying the casting call wasn’t correctly worded, it doesn’t say it didn’t ask the company to put out the call. Perhaps the casting company understood too well what was being requested?)

The code also “encourages organisations to ensure the messages in advertising do not contradict the positive body image messages that may be presented in editorial content”. You have got to be joking. The whole aim of beauty advertising is to make women feel bad about themselves, inadequate and in need of improvement. Making women feel good will defeat the whole purpose of what they do. Don’t expect any upbeat messages about how you are fine the way you are anytime soon.

Dr Samantha Thomas, a public health academic specialising in weight and body image writes:

Positive Body Image is not about creating an acceptable body “norm” or about trying to make yourself look thinner, more beautiful, younger, or whatever. It’s not about trying to “hide” or “make the best of” who you are. That is called “Marketing”.

Because where bodies are concerned, there is no norm. Because we ARE ALL DIFFERENT! Which is what makes us REAL. And celebrating that difference is what positive Body Image is about.

The government needs to stop advertisers objectifying women as well as narrowly defining ideas of female “beauty”. The equality of women - and their freedom from harm - depends on it.