Lifetime's show How to Look Good Naked (HTLGN) is a show that "teaches women of all shapes and sizes to go from self-loathing to self-loving without resorting to interventions like extreme dieting or cosmetic surgery" (Lifetime). Instead of working to change bodies, HTLGN focuses on changing minds. The participant is given new undergarments, new clothes, a new hairstyle, and new makeup techniques--all to help properly dress her body type. At the end of the show, the women have a full-on 'Hollywood' photo shoot--wearing nothing but a sheet. In the American version (I'm not sure how the British version ends), the final photo is blown up and displayed on a building, and the women feel great about it! They have a new-found confidence and are completely comfortable with their previously hated and distorted body.
Does it ever work that way? Can women really be convinced they're beautiful and have great bodies simply by putting on a new bra? As Naomi Wolf points out in The Beauty Myth, all women, regardless of their beauty, believe that "the ideal [is] someone tall, thin, white, and blonde, a face without pores, asymmetry, or flaws, someone wholly 'perfect,' and someone whom they felt, in one way or another, they were not" (Wolf 1). Regardless of how beautiful a woman is, she never feels it. It seems out of this world that in the amount of time that it takes to film an hour television show, a woman can completely turn her views of herself around. But it certainly seems like a good idea, considering how many women can't begin this process of finding self-love on their own.
In the clip below, a participant is shown how distorted her body image is. However, to do this, the host has her judge other women based on how large or small they are in comparison.
While the participant ends up feeling better about herself, what about the other women? They were selected simply because they tummies bigger than the show's target. The 'good' intention of making one woman have a more positive body image is overshadowed by the undermining of the other women's self-confidence. Wolf titled her book The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are Used Against Women, and HTLGN is a clear demonstration of this. As the host points out, the larger women are curvaceous and soft, and as the street surveys point out, many men appreciate this body type. (And, as a side note, the street survey definitely highlights the idea that the "beauty myth is not about women at all. It is about men's institutions and institutional power" [Wolf 13].) Perhaps they are among the women who "have a sense of a measure of freedom to dress up or down, put on lipstick or take it off, flaunt themselves or wear sweats--even--even, sometimes to gain or lose weight--without fearing that their value as a woman or their seriousness as a person is at stake" (Wolf 8). But here is a male host telling them that they are all inches larger than this woman who can't stand the way she looks, and they were chosen for this segment because they are attractive, but also because they are 'heavy.' How are they supposed to take that? It's a completely backhanded compliment. And they're receiving it in their underwear!
This idea of celebrating bodies at the same time as rejecting them is much more common than it appears. The term "plus-size model" feels as if the fashion industry (and magazines, television, etc.) is saying: "You're beautiful despite your size" instead of "You're beautiful." Period. End of story. The focus is constantly on the body shape of these women, which makes it seem that they are the exception instead of the norm. And are they even "normal sized"? A plus-sized model is used so a magazine/newspaper/etc. can boast that they are using "real women," but the average woman in America, aged twenty or older, "is 5'3" tall, weighs 164.7 pounds, and has a 37.6 inch waist" and wears a size 14 (Watson). By comparison, "the average model is 5'11" tall and weighs 117 pounds," and a plus-size model might be, for example, 5'9" and a size 12 (Watson). Things such as Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty (which we've seen a few times in class, CFRB) are making steps in the right direction, but we're still not there.
These women, from CFRB, are definitely a part of a diverse group of body shapes and skin tones. Some have tattoos, others freckles, and others wrinkles. By putting together a large group instead of one woman, CFRB is doing a better job of making women with real bodies appear as the norm. Glamour Magazine stepped on board with this idea of "real" or "normal" beauty in October 2009 by placing an image of a "normal," non-model in their magazine. They drew no extra attention to the shape or size of this woman--she was simply there, looking beautiful.
So why aren't we "there yet," as I stated above the CFRB image? On a supplemental article on Glamour's website, user "abby95" brought up that it is not enough to feature different body shapes. It is not enough to show women who are "average" sized. It is not enough to call these women beautiful because they are curvy. She writes: "I find it funny that although we have all this hype about how we shouldn't think we're fat and about eating disorders and so on. What about the women with bad skin? Braces? Bad hair? Scars? Major cellulite? Stretch marks? Where are they? Sure, these women are plus-size models (read: most of them average), but its not exactly helping the self-esteem of those who have other body image issues. We're practically ignoring everything except the fight of the "fatness" body image" ("Supermodels"). There is much more at stake than diet and exercise. Women put on makeup because they feel they have to--to look "normal." Foundation and concealer aren't accessories (I consider lipstick and eyeshadow to be more accessory-like), they are things we use to attempt to fix a beauty standard of smooth, blemish-free skin. Maybe mousse or hair gel are "hair accessories," but what happens when a woman with curly hair goes product-free? The standard of female beauty goes so much beyond fat and thin, and the media has yet to embrace all of these aspects.
Outside Sources:
"How to Look Good Naked." MyLifetime.com. AETN, Web. <http://www.mylifetime.com/shows/how-to-look-good-naked>.
"How to Look Good Naked." MyLifetime.com. AETN, Web. <http://www.mylifetime.com/shows/how-to-look-good-naked>.
Watson, Bruce. "Glamour's risky gamble on full-sized female models." Daily Finance 11 Oct. 2009: Web. <http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/glamours-risky-gamble-on-full-sized-female-models/19190929/>
"Supermodels Who Aren’t Superthin: Meet the Women Who Proudly Bared it All ." Glamour.com. Conde Nast, Oct. 2009. Web. <http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/2009/10/supermodels-who-arent-superthin#slide=1>.
you bring up such great points in your post. I think your questions about assuring one woman's confidence by knocking or backhandedly insulting others is so true today. Full figured women often claim that "real women have curves," in efforts to reduce the value of the perfectly airbrushed supermodels. But there are many "real" women who are naturally petite with very small frames. because they don't have curves, are they any less real? And while I can understand the full-figured mantra in response to years of being suppressed for their bodies , isn't this approach the same as middle school cat fights? Where the means girls knock others down to build themselves up? And not to point fingers are which are the "mean girls," but my point is simply to emphasize that portrayal of any one body won't be fairly representative of every body, nor should calling one body "real" make any other body less so.
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoyed your video! it's amazing how we all struggle with body image—often inflating our perceived flaws to be much graver or "larger" or "smaller" than the really are.
I agree that the backhanded compliment is something that is common in our society today, and it reminds me of when Wolf talks about how "the beauty myth is always actually prescribing behavior and not appearance. Competition between women has been made part of the myth so that women will be divided from one another" (Wolf 14). I actually found the video slightly disturbing–it's making someone feel better by having them compete with other women, which is totally counteractive in a show that is trying to overturn the beauty myth. There was something very depressing about that comparison to me, and it made me wonderful if such competition is really the only way we can feel better about our own bodies.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that you brought up a good point when you said that plus size models are presented as beautiful DESPITE their size. I have been trying to figure out exactly what I found so unappealing about the recent "size" issues, such as in V magazine and Glamour, and you really summed it up. A lot of people have applauded these efforts to include plus size models in fashion magazines, but I found it so distasteful because of this "beautiful despite their size" aspect.
Finally, your post got me thinking about the dichotomy between ugly and pretty. If bad skin, cellulite, stretch marks, etc. are included in fashion magazines as examples of what is beautiful, what will be considered ugly then?
Like Julia, one of the first things that came to my mind was "what about skinny girls." I understand Dove's reasoning for leaving them out, most advertising revolves exclusively around them, but by leaving them out of their "real beauty" campaign basically saying they are not real. I am happy that Dove is thinking outside the box and including women that are closer to the average woman and not the stereotypical beauty portrayed by the media, but I agree there is a long way to go. You bring up good points about weight seeming to be the only issued talked, I would also like some others to be explored by advertisers.
ReplyDeleteAs for Renees comment above me about what is considered ugly, I think there is a difference between what is featured in a beauty or fashion magazine and advertising, especially advertising for a company like Dove. People buy fashion magazines to look at clothing and the people wearing the clothing so I can see how the industry could argue against featuring women with bad skin and whatnot. Advertising is different however, no one turns on their TV and says "I can't wait to watch some commercials and see what kind of people are featured." Dove is technically makes beauty products but they are things like lotion and soap so I do not see what it would take away from the product to feature someone with cellulite or bad skin (as long as it is not a facial produce).
First, I must state how truly disturbing that show is. I won't go on about it, but it's just really disturbing.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I appreciate the above comments regarding a challenge to this notion of what a "real" body looks like. It's almost become taboo to state that petite or small can be "real," too. The problem lies in the under-representation and shaming of more full-figured physiques -- which should not exclude smaller bodies from a claim to "reality."