Sunday, December 1, 2013
Apology
I went a little crazy with the photos and gifs tonight, but there was so much out there on "Girl Code"! I had to add this one on, just so you can see how blunt the show is...plus its pretty great. Sorry if this one is too raunchy for you. Opinions on whether that subject deserves a post?
Girl Code
So I have to flat out tell you how much I love the MTV show "Girl Code"! It is absolutely hilarious and I think the women on it are straight up honest. My friends and I wait for it to come on every week. I'm sure the reason we love it so much is because it relates so much to our lives. They talk about random subjects and they don't keep anything a secret. It almost feels like you're sitting around talking with your girlfriends on a night in. The show talks about everything from Walks of Shame, wine, blind dates, plus many more uncomfortable subjects. The ladies speak their mind and I think it gives women an edge. It is also important to note that the women on the show are pretty diverse, and sometimes there are men commenting as well.
There were a few subjects that really caught my eye while watching recently, the first being the episode on dieting. Most of the girls joked about how they've done every diet, they even defined a diet as "when you eat food that makes you sad". While I disagree that healthy food makes you sad, I like that they can put it out there that it is okay to not be stick thin! One of my favorite girls, Jessimae Peluso said, "You'll never look like the girl in the magazine; the girl in the magazine doesn't look like the girl in the magazine". The show is packed full of sassy things like this, but they are all so honest and realistic. She hits the point I made in my Victoria's Secret post on the head in one sentence. They continue to talk about how girls try too hard to look perfect, and make themselves miserable. They end on a note reminding you to be active, eat well, and love yourself!
I also love how "Girl Code" discusses hookups and relationships in such an honest way. They talk about sex the way that I would talk to my friends, or even the way Hannah and Jessa might on GIRLS! When they talk about making your walk of shame, they make fun of your outfit from last night, not the fact that you had sex and are being "slutty" or anything like that, its a casual thing that college girls relate to. The girls talk about how you should OWN IT! They have no reservations, and they shouldn't. If the amount of shows like this continues to rise on TV, maybe people will stop looking at female roles in such a mixed, messed up way.
Then we have "GUY Code", this show actually came first on MTV. The very first thing I noticed when going back and watching a few episodes was that some of the women from "Girl Code" are on the show, and they dress differently!!!
So here is Melanie Iglesias on "Girl Code":
and here she is on an episode of "Guy Code":
I mean, do I even need to say more?
She looks like a normal girl in the first photo and then in the second her and the other girl are wearing low cut shirts and (somehow I found this gif that fits perfectly) just grabbing herself. Anytime there is a girl on "Guy Code" she is sexed-up someway!
The ladies also get a little caption when they are on screen that says their name, yet several of them add that the girl is something like a "Maxim Hometown Hottie"--describing April Rose (seen below). It is ridiculous to me that none of the guys need titles like that but when a woman comes on they have to give her some sexy title!
Despite that detail, the show displays the same type of material except it is all from the male perspective. Its hard to say that "Guy Code" is a bad show since it is based on opinions, but I think it just reinforces a lot of what is created in the rest of the media. I definitely appreciate the honesty in the show. The first episode I watched talked about dancing at a club, one of the first guys says "the main motivation behind and man dancing is to have sex with the girl he's dancing with". I think this is probably true, not many guys go out looking to find their future girlfriends. However, the way they talk about women like they are objects throughout the series just gives everyday guys a reason to do the same. Just like they are shown with less clothing on, the women's main purpose in the show is to draw male viewers. This plays into how many series and movies, and even those music videos are made for the male eye. I can't say that I hate "Guy Code" though. Maybe that's because its just as honest as "Girl Code", and "Girl Code" is often guilty of talking about guys like they are a piece of meat also. :)
Some Visuals
I just wanted to include some visuals for my previous post. The first photo is Carrie Bradshaw and the second is Hannah Horvath (dressed in her best we've seen in GIRLS)
Then we have Jessa and Samantha. Jessa on top; this is probably her most extravagant outfit. Samantha is in the bottom photo...I don't think she needs much of a caption
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Hannah v. Carrie
"GIRLS" is often seen as the modern "Sex and the City". The shows are very similar in that both are based on four different women living in New York City. Both series focus on sex and relationships, as well as friendship. While they have their similarities they are also very different.
There are two major differences between the shows; first off, "Sex in the City" is about older women, around their mid-thirties and older. This clearly brings about a whole different crowd of viewers. The characters are constructed around what is supposed to be real women living in New York City, just like "GIRLS" but for older women. Both main characters are writers, but Carrie Bradshaw becomes successful; she publishes a book and is on the cover of magazines and is well-known throughout the city. Not one of the characters every truly struggles with money. When Carrie goes through a rough patch she has all of her friends and Big to offer her the money she needs.
Another huge difference would be the time that the shows were produced. "Sex and the City" began filming in 1998 and lasted until 2004 (not including the two movies). GIRLS, on the other hand, began in April of 2012, just under two years ago. These differences make it hard to compare the series since they are vital factors. However, I think we can compare the progression of HBO instead.
While I absolutely love "Sex and the City", I do think that it plays into some of the roles our society expects the media to produce. All four of the women are, or can be, very independent, self-reliant women. However most of them turn to men when they start to feel alone. Carrie Bradshaw is a glamorous writer living in NYC. She has a pretty decent apartment and no doubt spends all of her excess income on designer shoes and clothes. That is her trademark! Have you ever thought about how she has the money to do that though? She has a new outfit every episode, multiple even. Yet she often struggles to keep steady income as a writer, just like Hannah! Carrie does write a book at some point in the series and writes for a high-profile fashion magazine, but it isn't clear how she has enough money to buy extremely prices clothes. This just shows women that if they want to be glamorous and score men like she does, they have to be overly focused on their appearance, even though it is clearly not as easy as the show makes it seem to earn the income that would allow any woman to do that. Now, Carrie is at least a decade older than Hannah, but I do think that Hannah is a much more honest representation of reality in this case. Hannah is striving to be a successful writer in NYC and she is constantly searching for a way to support herself; her struggles are made clear throughout the series. Hannah has yet to succeed in her ambitions, but maybe that is something we will see in a later season. Either way, I don't think Hannah would change herself to fit this glamorous ideal even if she became successful. If I had never seen the show GIRLS and had watched "Sex and the City", I would think that if I moved to New York City I would have a lot of self-adjusting to do. I might would go waste some money on some over-priced styles, because that is what "Sex in the City" shows you is reality. If you followed the series for all 6 years, you are likely to start forgetting that it is just a TV show, and start believing these women are real. If I watched GIRLS before I moved to NYC, I would be much more excited about the move and much more comfortable in my skin. This is one way I think HBO has progressed in the past decade. It is becoming okay to show a true reality!
We can't forget the other lovely ladies! Jessa could be seen as a modern day Samantha, despite the glamour. Samantha is one of the strongest characters on "Sex and the City", but also takes on this over-the-top glam aspect. She does have a better paying career as a publicist, but is never seen even remotely dressed down. She is always in a sexy outfit with bling and cleavage. I think this is an interesting contrast to GIRLS' Jessa. As I have talked about before, Jessa is much more conservative than Samantha in the way she portrays herself, yet she is probably equally as sexual. She is known to have a few crazy outfits, but they never make her look too sexy or slutty. This is the biggest difference between these two important characters. If we look back a decade, we find Samantha who scores bucketloads of attractive men, never without her overly sexual attire. This plays into everything I have talked about in this blog. She is the epitome of the male fantasy. She has the perfect body, she is blonde and experienced, she will talk dirty to any man that appeals to her, and take him home without a second thought. I don't think that her character was created to attract male viewers, so why have her in the show? She is supposed to represent sexual women in the city, but it is done in a way that satisfies men, which only tells women they should look and act like her if they want to be sexual. Jessa is a major progression from this. I think that if anyone told Jessa to dress a certain way she would laugh in their face. She is purely herself, guaranteed. Yet she doesn't act over the top, she doesn't change herself to attract men. I believe she is a much better representation of actual women. She shows how you can be as sexual as you want, but you don't have to change yourself for a man. This says a lot about how HBO has grown throughout the past decade. HBO is allowing producers to modernize, and speak the truth about reality.
There are two major differences between the shows; first off, "Sex in the City" is about older women, around their mid-thirties and older. This clearly brings about a whole different crowd of viewers. The characters are constructed around what is supposed to be real women living in New York City, just like "GIRLS" but for older women. Both main characters are writers, but Carrie Bradshaw becomes successful; she publishes a book and is on the cover of magazines and is well-known throughout the city. Not one of the characters every truly struggles with money. When Carrie goes through a rough patch she has all of her friends and Big to offer her the money she needs.
Another huge difference would be the time that the shows were produced. "Sex and the City" began filming in 1998 and lasted until 2004 (not including the two movies). GIRLS, on the other hand, began in April of 2012, just under two years ago. These differences make it hard to compare the series since they are vital factors. However, I think we can compare the progression of HBO instead.
While I absolutely love "Sex and the City", I do think that it plays into some of the roles our society expects the media to produce. All four of the women are, or can be, very independent, self-reliant women. However most of them turn to men when they start to feel alone. Carrie Bradshaw is a glamorous writer living in NYC. She has a pretty decent apartment and no doubt spends all of her excess income on designer shoes and clothes. That is her trademark! Have you ever thought about how she has the money to do that though? She has a new outfit every episode, multiple even. Yet she often struggles to keep steady income as a writer, just like Hannah! Carrie does write a book at some point in the series and writes for a high-profile fashion magazine, but it isn't clear how she has enough money to buy extremely prices clothes. This just shows women that if they want to be glamorous and score men like she does, they have to be overly focused on their appearance, even though it is clearly not as easy as the show makes it seem to earn the income that would allow any woman to do that. Now, Carrie is at least a decade older than Hannah, but I do think that Hannah is a much more honest representation of reality in this case. Hannah is striving to be a successful writer in NYC and she is constantly searching for a way to support herself; her struggles are made clear throughout the series. Hannah has yet to succeed in her ambitions, but maybe that is something we will see in a later season. Either way, I don't think Hannah would change herself to fit this glamorous ideal even if she became successful. If I had never seen the show GIRLS and had watched "Sex and the City", I would think that if I moved to New York City I would have a lot of self-adjusting to do. I might would go waste some money on some over-priced styles, because that is what "Sex in the City" shows you is reality. If you followed the series for all 6 years, you are likely to start forgetting that it is just a TV show, and start believing these women are real. If I watched GIRLS before I moved to NYC, I would be much more excited about the move and much more comfortable in my skin. This is one way I think HBO has progressed in the past decade. It is becoming okay to show a true reality!
We can't forget the other lovely ladies! Jessa could be seen as a modern day Samantha, despite the glamour. Samantha is one of the strongest characters on "Sex and the City", but also takes on this over-the-top glam aspect. She does have a better paying career as a publicist, but is never seen even remotely dressed down. She is always in a sexy outfit with bling and cleavage. I think this is an interesting contrast to GIRLS' Jessa. As I have talked about before, Jessa is much more conservative than Samantha in the way she portrays herself, yet she is probably equally as sexual. She is known to have a few crazy outfits, but they never make her look too sexy or slutty. This is the biggest difference between these two important characters. If we look back a decade, we find Samantha who scores bucketloads of attractive men, never without her overly sexual attire. This plays into everything I have talked about in this blog. She is the epitome of the male fantasy. She has the perfect body, she is blonde and experienced, she will talk dirty to any man that appeals to her, and take him home without a second thought. I don't think that her character was created to attract male viewers, so why have her in the show? She is supposed to represent sexual women in the city, but it is done in a way that satisfies men, which only tells women they should look and act like her if they want to be sexual. Jessa is a major progression from this. I think that if anyone told Jessa to dress a certain way she would laugh in their face. She is purely herself, guaranteed. Yet she doesn't act over the top, she doesn't change herself to attract men. I believe she is a much better representation of actual women. She shows how you can be as sexual as you want, but you don't have to change yourself for a man. This says a lot about how HBO has grown throughout the past decade. HBO is allowing producers to modernize, and speak the truth about reality.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Frat Boys
So about that little form I showed you in the previous post. I went to my econ class one day and my professor came in and found a stack of papers on the podium...she was shocked. She put it up on the projector so we could all see what she found. It took me a second to realize what it was, but then I was shocked as well. Apparently members of some fraternity are sitting around in Showker hall filling out forms like this! One guy in my class owned up to it being his fraternity, Alpha Kappa Psi, A BUSINESS fraternity. Yet they are passing around this to fill out in their meetings? He insisted that it was nothing. I mean I can see a tiny bit of humor in this but that isn't even the point. How can you even lump preferred booze and "Specific comments about dress (stomach showing, legs, etc.)" together? I don't know what the intention of this was when it was created but the guy that created it seemed to have no problem lumping women and booze together. Why even call it "comments about dress" when they are talking about parts that aren't dressed? "PROP (would you like one)" that is ridiculous. I could be overthinking this, but I think it is easy to assume what that meant!
I honestly find this extremely shocking and disappointing. These are guys in a business fraternity, the men that are going to wind up running businesses one day! This really says a lot about what men think is okay to think about women. Why would you fill this out anyways? Why ask each other these questions? If you look at it as a whole it looks like there is going to be a party or something and whoever is having it wants to know what alcohol to get and what kind of girls to go out and bring to the party so these brothers can use their little "props". That's probably a huge stretch but that's what it looks like. How can men even think its okay to sit down and write this stuff about women. It shows just how much women are seen as objects. This little joke makes me feel like they see women like toys. This whole thing is just NOT OKAY.
So the thing is, where does this come from? I'm definitely going to argue that this idea comes from the media. I immediately think back to the movie we watched in class about women in music videos, and at the end they showed riots where women were getting harassed. Its like men see women as so over sexualized in the media that they begin to think it is normal and that it is okay to think of them as objects. The media so often portrays women in that light, sexual toys for men to keep around, or loving girlfriends who will do anything to keep their man happy. Its all for the man, always. That is just not reality, and until this stops being shown on TV and in music videos, men AND women are going to keep seeing those roles as realistic. We all know this is a problem by now, but seeing it show up in my everyday life in such a socking way just really makes you think how bad the problem is.
Let's look at a few specific music videos:
Now if you know me, you know I absolutely love Drake. It pains me to have to write something negative about him, or even think about the fact that he's not perfect. I've always thought, and still think, that Drake loves women...but this video couldn't feed into this post any better. I chose to watch a Drake video because I don't typically think of him as having slutty women surrounding him at all times like other rappers, I thought he might be an exception. Go ahead and watch the whole thing before you read on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxgqpCdOKak
So the first thing you probably noticed was the fact that this girl just looks like a male fantasy the entire time. She looks plastic and she is half naked.
Mainly, this video just goes beyond the necessary level of violence. This has probably been my favorite song for a few weeks now, and I've thought it was about Drake being with some girl and them wanting to go home together....but no, its about a woman getting kidnapped in her home and then having a war over her.
The white man that threatens her says that "he took what was mine, so I'm taking what's his", exactly like she is an object. Like they can just pass her around as a bargaining chip, even out a deal. Women are just not objects in any way, and even if someone would capture your girlfriend to get revenge, why advertise it in a music video? Why promote it?
The whole time I was watching I was just thinking about all of the ridiculous video games that guys play where all they do is shoot people. This is what that looked like to me, plus the sexy woman standing in the middle of it. The whole thing is a huge male fantasy, and it is produced loaded with violence like it is normal and okay. It's like if you are rich and famous like Drake, you should also have a shed full of guns because you will probably get into a minor war once in a while over a naked woman. The media just continues to feed into this fantasy like there is no problem with it, but it is embedded into the minds of everyday men.
Maybe you watched it with a different eye, and saw it as Drake loving this woman so much that he will start a war over her, risk his life for her. I can see that side being great, I'd love for Drake to love me that much! Either way, it's like the woman is just reliant on the man here. There really isn't even a way to show anything positive about women at all in the entire video. The more this goes on and is seen by the public, the more realistic it seems and the more it becomes a very serious problem for women.
I don't want to just focus on Drake, so I forced myself to watch this next music video. It was also pretty painful to watch, but in an entirely different way. I'm going to apologize right now that I'm making you watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbEoRnaOIbs
First of all, Miley should never attempt to rap, or shake her non-existent butt anywhere near black cheerleaders.
This video didn't have much violence like the last but Miley does a perfect job in showing you exactly how the media expects women to act. She's going through this desperate phase of wanting too much attention, and she knows how to get it: over sexualize herself! I'm going to try to stick to the video specifically and not rant about Miley, but in my opinion she is doing everything wrong. She has acquired this huge amount of power in the media recently that she could channel into a positive image of women, but she is pushing it in the opposite direction. The entire time she sits with her legs wide open, or touches herself, or licks something. This is clearly made for men, 100%. No straight woman is going to choose to watch this video to watch her dance around like that for entertainment. Don't forget the cheerleaders, who wear way less clothing than any real cheerleader, and shake their butts in the camera or on each other. This whole video is just a prime/recent example of everything we saw in the movie about women in music videos. It is still a huge problem. The whole purpose of every girl in that video is to look sexy and get male viewers. It just reinforces this terrible image created of women. They are always dancing around the rappers, showing off.
If you think about the fact that you just watched two top videos right now, you might wonder what's in all of the other videos you haven't seen. I can probably guarantee that most of them are just as bad. There is a strong combination of oversexualization of women and violence! That is not a good pair. It is stuff like this that makes men think it is okay to sit around and talk about women like these frat boys are doing. Living in a society that sees these videos as okay definitely provides reason for this guy to think his paper isn't a big deal. These videos, and other types of media show women as objects regularly, so why should these guys even be expected to think otherwise? It has been so ingrained in them! I don't think this will change until there is a substantial change in the media.
Of course I argue that GIRLS is a great start to this change, but lets be honest, what men watch this show? The programming made for men continues to show women in this way, and until that changes men will continue to think of women this way. These music artists are definitely to blame for setting these standards. So next time you think of supporting someone like Miley, think of what you are really standing for.
I honestly find this extremely shocking and disappointing. These are guys in a business fraternity, the men that are going to wind up running businesses one day! This really says a lot about what men think is okay to think about women. Why would you fill this out anyways? Why ask each other these questions? If you look at it as a whole it looks like there is going to be a party or something and whoever is having it wants to know what alcohol to get and what kind of girls to go out and bring to the party so these brothers can use their little "props". That's probably a huge stretch but that's what it looks like. How can men even think its okay to sit down and write this stuff about women. It shows just how much women are seen as objects. This little joke makes me feel like they see women like toys. This whole thing is just NOT OKAY.
So the thing is, where does this come from? I'm definitely going to argue that this idea comes from the media. I immediately think back to the movie we watched in class about women in music videos, and at the end they showed riots where women were getting harassed. Its like men see women as so over sexualized in the media that they begin to think it is normal and that it is okay to think of them as objects. The media so often portrays women in that light, sexual toys for men to keep around, or loving girlfriends who will do anything to keep their man happy. Its all for the man, always. That is just not reality, and until this stops being shown on TV and in music videos, men AND women are going to keep seeing those roles as realistic. We all know this is a problem by now, but seeing it show up in my everyday life in such a socking way just really makes you think how bad the problem is.
Let's look at a few specific music videos:
Now if you know me, you know I absolutely love Drake. It pains me to have to write something negative about him, or even think about the fact that he's not perfect. I've always thought, and still think, that Drake loves women...but this video couldn't feed into this post any better. I chose to watch a Drake video because I don't typically think of him as having slutty women surrounding him at all times like other rappers, I thought he might be an exception. Go ahead and watch the whole thing before you read on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxgqpCdOKak
So the first thing you probably noticed was the fact that this girl just looks like a male fantasy the entire time. She looks plastic and she is half naked.
Mainly, this video just goes beyond the necessary level of violence. This has probably been my favorite song for a few weeks now, and I've thought it was about Drake being with some girl and them wanting to go home together....but no, its about a woman getting kidnapped in her home and then having a war over her.
The white man that threatens her says that "he took what was mine, so I'm taking what's his", exactly like she is an object. Like they can just pass her around as a bargaining chip, even out a deal. Women are just not objects in any way, and even if someone would capture your girlfriend to get revenge, why advertise it in a music video? Why promote it?
The whole time I was watching I was just thinking about all of the ridiculous video games that guys play where all they do is shoot people. This is what that looked like to me, plus the sexy woman standing in the middle of it. The whole thing is a huge male fantasy, and it is produced loaded with violence like it is normal and okay. It's like if you are rich and famous like Drake, you should also have a shed full of guns because you will probably get into a minor war once in a while over a naked woman. The media just continues to feed into this fantasy like there is no problem with it, but it is embedded into the minds of everyday men.
Maybe you watched it with a different eye, and saw it as Drake loving this woman so much that he will start a war over her, risk his life for her. I can see that side being great, I'd love for Drake to love me that much! Either way, it's like the woman is just reliant on the man here. There really isn't even a way to show anything positive about women at all in the entire video. The more this goes on and is seen by the public, the more realistic it seems and the more it becomes a very serious problem for women.
I don't want to just focus on Drake, so I forced myself to watch this next music video. It was also pretty painful to watch, but in an entirely different way. I'm going to apologize right now that I'm making you watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbEoRnaOIbs
First of all, Miley should never attempt to rap, or shake her non-existent butt anywhere near black cheerleaders.
This video didn't have much violence like the last but Miley does a perfect job in showing you exactly how the media expects women to act. She's going through this desperate phase of wanting too much attention, and she knows how to get it: over sexualize herself! I'm going to try to stick to the video specifically and not rant about Miley, but in my opinion she is doing everything wrong. She has acquired this huge amount of power in the media recently that she could channel into a positive image of women, but she is pushing it in the opposite direction. The entire time she sits with her legs wide open, or touches herself, or licks something. This is clearly made for men, 100%. No straight woman is going to choose to watch this video to watch her dance around like that for entertainment. Don't forget the cheerleaders, who wear way less clothing than any real cheerleader, and shake their butts in the camera or on each other. This whole video is just a prime/recent example of everything we saw in the movie about women in music videos. It is still a huge problem. The whole purpose of every girl in that video is to look sexy and get male viewers. It just reinforces this terrible image created of women. They are always dancing around the rappers, showing off.
If you think about the fact that you just watched two top videos right now, you might wonder what's in all of the other videos you haven't seen. I can probably guarantee that most of them are just as bad. There is a strong combination of oversexualization of women and violence! That is not a good pair. It is stuff like this that makes men think it is okay to sit around and talk about women like these frat boys are doing. Living in a society that sees these videos as okay definitely provides reason for this guy to think his paper isn't a big deal. These videos, and other types of media show women as objects regularly, so why should these guys even be expected to think otherwise? It has been so ingrained in them! I don't think this will change until there is a substantial change in the media.
Of course I argue that GIRLS is a great start to this change, but lets be honest, what men watch this show? The programming made for men continues to show women in this way, and until that changes men will continue to think of women this way. These music artists are definitely to blame for setting these standards. So next time you think of supporting someone like Miley, think of what you are really standing for.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Coming soon!
There are quite a few topics I really want to get into in the next week or so. Here is a little preview, which will also ensure that I get on the ball and write them:
This is the first of them
This is the first of them
This form was found by my econ Professor sitting on a podium in Showker! I'll let you read that and think about the things, apparently frat boys, are sitting around and discussing
-I'd like to touch on the differences between GIRLS and the classic "Sex in the City"
-The shows "Girl Code" and "Guy Code", and potentially the new MTV shows "Guy Court" and "The Hook Up"
-Also, I haven't discussed Marnie, the final of the main female characters on GIRLS
Hopefully this will motivate me to update more and will keep you interested!
|
Literally Blurred
This morning, as I was scrolling through my news feed on Facebook, I came across the latest post from Victoria's Secret, advertising new holiday underwear. Take a look:
Now if you can't zoom on the device you are reading this on, you may not even notice at all, but I made the photos as large as I could. How can you even possibly deny the amount of editing that has been done to these photos? I don't even know where to start, but for some reason I was just disturbed by this this morning. If you look at the outside of their legs, the lines are just blurred entirely, there is a fuzzy stop to their legs and butts. The blonde woman had her entire behind erased! If I were her, I would be highly disappointed with the way I looked! She actually doesn't even have a buttcheek, maybe has a slight pooch on the right, but that's it. Now look at where her thighs cross! Whoever edited that should be fired, both legs get cut off and squished together, but her legs are supposed to be crossed. It looks entirely too fake once you notice that. Then there's the fact that any tiny trace of a freckle, sunspot, or maybe a little dimple has been entirely deleted.
The girl in the top photo is trying to stick her butt out, but she doesn't have one and is just leaning forward. What is the point of that? Showing off that you don't have a butt? I just don't understand. The more you can zoom in the more you can see how very edited these photos are, every detail looks so digitalized! I mean, why do we even need models anymore if we are just going to change every single contour of their body? Why not just digitally create them? I'm sure that could be done.
I'm sure there are a few women out there who have bodies similar to this, but that is very uncommon. No one has an entirely flawless body. The question is, why does the media shove these images in women's faces? Does the perfection make women want to buy those panties? I'm not sure. I am definitely guilty of shopping at Victoria's Secret, and obviously I am subscribed to the Facebook page where I am constantly seeing their ads. Until now I've never really noticed HOW MUCH they are edited! Do we expect that when we buy these products we will look more like them? Why would we want to look like some of them?
So many women see these ads every day of their lives and compare themselves to them. Sometimes I think Victoria's Secret is awesome, the brand can be empowering for women! It makes them feel sexy, you just cant deny that, and I am ALL for women feeling sexy! The problem: Is Victoria's Secret cashing in on this by making this unrealistic body image? They photoshop women to be 100% flawless, so women see the ad and COMPARE THEMSELVES to these fake images. Then they feel like they have too much cellulite or their butt is too big, maybe even too small--either way you look at it, they are making beautiful women compare themselves to digitalized images. Then those women feel like if they buy that product they will be sexier. Victoria's secret is just commonly associated with sexy; if you buy it and wear it, it is likely you might feel more sexy. They are cashing in on this, big time! Think about ads you've seen for other brands of lingerie, maybe the models looked more like everyday women--did you want to go buy that product? I don't think so.
We fall for this, and even worse, I'm still going to shop there. That sexy feeling is not going to change, but women need to realize what they are comparing themselves to. What I want to know is if Victoria's Secret knows that they have this huge contradiction in their brand. They give women this power to feel like a sex goddess, but they give them false images of what that actually looks like. They lower self esteem in order to get a profit, but is this intentional? Maybe they just want their models to look perfect and they aren't taking into account the way they affect the consumers.
No matter what intention Victoria's Secret has, many brands use heavy amounts of photo-editing. Women need to be aware that the images they are looking at in all of this advertisement is extremely unrealistic. If we, as consumers, look at ads with a more critical eye, maybe we will think twice about the products we buy and the way the ads make us feel about ourselves.
Clearly Lena Dunham is not in advertisement or lingerie modeling, but she has every bit to do with this when she is shameless of her body image on her show. Hannah, as we have seen in a previous post, is often seen stripped down, and completely unedited and exposed. This is a sharp contrast to the thousands of other images women see on televison (and other media). Even Jessa and Marnie, who are gorgeous, have flaws that you can see throughout the show. If there were more producers, or actors that were willing to look "imperfect" on screen, the self-esteem of women everywhere could be increased dramatically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)