A special guest blog posting by Lydia Jade Turner on the Jennifer Hawkins Marie Claire photoshoot controversy. Lydia is Director and Public Health Advocate with BodyMatters Australasia and an Allied Health Professional specialising in eating disorders prevention.
As an Allied Health professional specialising in the field of eating disorders, it has been interesting to observe the comments published in response to blogs regarding the issue of Jennifer Hawkins purporting a “healthy body image” in Marie Claire. While some of these comments are helpful, others appear to be based on myths. I believe that not only is positioning Hawkins as naked advocate for the cause, ineffective, it’s actively undoing the gains that have been made in the field of eating disorders prevention. Having said this, my response to this empowerment stunt is not an attack on Hawkins herself, but rather a critique of why using her image as a path towards healthy body image is actually harmful.
HAWKINS AS NAKED ADVOCATE
Just this morning, Hawkins was quoted as stating that she had no idea that her image was going to be used to expose her “flaws.” However in the Marie Claire article printed earlier, Hawkins stated that even she is unhappy with her body, dislikes her thighs, and is “not a stick figure.” It makes it a bit hard to believe she could not have possibly known this article was about promoting a healthy body image. The Butterfly Foundation has said that the reason why Hawkins was used was because an average-looking woman would not sell magazines. This is in line with an Online Opinion forum poster who commented that “women demand these magazines” and “like looking at these images.” Wow. So if dark-skinned people didn’t sell well in magazines, should we just leave them out altogether? Yet another reader mentioned that it was too difficult to find an A-list female celebrity who wasn’t “thin.”The difficulty in finding an A-list female celebrity who deviates from the prescribed beauty ideal highlights the systematic discrimination against women in the media and the intense monitoring of their bodies. Positioning a supermodel as naked body image advocate reinforces the idea that there is never going to be a good enough reason to use any image other than that which meets the prescribed beauty ideal.
DISCRIMINATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SHAPING OF ATTRACTION/DESIRE
What people like the poster in the Online Opinion forum don’t realise is that when people are systematically discriminated against (in this case, due to body shape and size), they often end up internalising the values of those in power, i.e. they learn to participate in their own oppression. For example, by buying magazines that continue to inform them that their bodies are not good enough. What is often overlooked is that what we find attractive and sexually desirable is significantly shaped by our environment. Hence the incredible variability in beauty ideals throughout time and cultures. Think about foot-binding, corsetry, 15-17th century voluptuous bodies… thin has not always been ‘in.’ To say models in this day and age are “genetically blessed” gives the impression that the promotion of a thin-ideal is, from an evolutionary perspective, both inevitable and desirable. The fact is that these models are only genetically blessed in that they naturally meet the beauty ideal of our culture, however to assume one’s genes are immediately superior due to the way they look is a very primitive way of screening for health. We can’t possibly know if someone carries the genes for schizophrenia, haemophilia, cancer, multiple sclerosis, etc just by looking at them. This privileging of those meeting the prescribed beauty ideal is not inevitable, but highly malleable to socio-environmental changes. By promoting images that portray a variety of body shapes and sizes, the ‘only-thin-sells’ phenomena would no longer be upheld.
UNDOING PREVENTION
There simply is not enough government funding put towards treating those suffering from eating disorders, which have the highest mortality rate out of any other psychiatric illness. Too often it takes vast sums of money to treat just one person with an eating disorder, while a shortage of services still exists . However, I strongly urge any eating disorders organisation to consider the impact of accepting funding from corporations that continue to promote a homogenised thin ideal. This is essentially like what we saw in the 70s where tobacco companies funded anti-smoking campaigns and prevention programmes in schools – with limited efficacy. When a charity depends on funding from corporations whose promotions are in conflict with the very issues that that charity is trying to rectify, it is immediately limited as to what it can and cannot advocate for.
Those with special interests in defending the Hawkins shoot promulgate the idea that eating disorders are not caused by the promotion of a thin-ideal. While eating disorders are not directly or solely caused by the reiteration of a thin-ideal, there is overwhelming international evidence demonstrating that these images significantly increase rates of body dissatisfaction, which in turn significantly increase rates of disordered eating, obesity, depression, and self-harm. To add confusion to the cause, Hawkins stating that she only did the shoot to “promote healthy eating and lifestyle” sends the message that all women who eat healthily and adopt a healthy lifestyle can look like her, and should aspire to look like her. This is ironic, given that the modelling profession pressures its female models to be around 20% underweight. This kind of thinking is exactly what leads to the development of poor body image, while increasing risk of developing disordered eating.
BODY IMAGE CRISIS AND OBESITY
The expense of treating these illnesses should highlight the importance of prevention. Endorsing a thin-ideal by defending Hawkins as naked advocate and misleading statements about the link between media images and eating disorders, only serves to reverse the gains made in the field of eating disorders prevention. Some people have even taken the use of Hawkins as naked advocate as a ‘good thing,’ as they believe that to feature an average body size would encourage people to ‘let themselves go’ and ‘promote obesity.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. Pressuring women to be unrealistically thin does not motivate them to adopt a healthy lifestyle, it merely encourages them to lose weight.
Losing weight and adopting a healthy lifestyle are not the same thing. Many people are not meant to be thin. A meta-analysis of obesity research indicates that when we promote a thin-ideal (and therefore body shame) this actually increases rates of disordered eating, harmful weightloss methods, and discourages people to commit to regular exercise due to body consciousness (there have been recent reports about schoolgirls refusing to participate in PE because they were ashamed of how they looked in their sports uniforms). Promoting a thin-ideal, ironically, actually inflates both disordered eating and obesity rates.
SEXUALISATION AS FORGIVABLE IF DONE FOR A ‘GOOD CAUSE’
If you were genuinely interested in promoting a healthy body image, you would not choose a supermodel who naturally matches the socially constructed beauty ideal, and who has built her stellar career out of promoting a homogenised body shape and size. A model who, as one of the judges on reality TV show Search For A Supermodel, encouraged contestants to lose weight so they would make better competitors in ‘hotness’ stakes. And you would certainly not pose her in such a sexualised manner as to push her breasts together to maximise cleavage on the front cover, use lighting to enhance the cleavage, all with a ‘come hither’ look.
As ‘Ninaf’ astutely noted on the Online Opinion forum,
“…labeling these photos ‘untouched’ is horrendous as it seems to suggest they are totally natural. Um… hello? Natural would mean not sitting getting hair and make up done for hours, then setting up lighting and poses etc. These photos are HIGHLY contrived to make her look good. Just bc they weren’t photoshopped does not mean thats what she naturally looks like.”
SILENCING CRITICS
Some men have commented online that any woman who objects to the Hawkins image must be “fat,” “ugly,” “wrinkled,” and “a bitch.” To assume that all women who are disappointed with this body image stunt must be “fat and ugly”, and therefore acting out of jealousy, is typical silencing behaviour that has been used against advocates for women’s rights for decades. To label someone ‘jealous’ is a coward’s way of avoiding having to respond to anything contrary to their view. Interestingly many of the men responding to Hawkins’ claim that she did not know her body would be used to expose her flaws have taken the position of ‘knight in shining armour to save damsel in distress,’ as most of their comments reiterate the message that Jen is beautiful. Reinforcing the message that a Supermodel is beautiful and having men rush to Hawkins’ defence is hardly what I envision an effective start to a healthy body image campaign.
See also ‘Flawed logic behind images made to comfort the average woman’
25 Responses
Yes- talk about an image that epitomises disempowerment- a naked women! Come on Butterfly Foundation- what were you thinking?
showing a naked supermodel sounds more like pornography to me
Thanks for your comments, it’s essential to get this message out there because even the most intelligent and discerning of women are affected, more than they realise, by these images.
Like many women of my generation, I have body image issues. So when picking up a copy of Who Weekly magazine, the words “Half their size” was an appealing cover for the morbid fascination perspective and a questioning perspective. The cover displayed pictures of homegrown stars, as well as those from the US and the UK. It’swatch Victoria Beckham and others, even after giving birth to children, shrink down to their bones. I’m not sure when it became attractive to become tanned and lithe, with cheekbones poking out and chiselled calves…but, shamefully I have days of insecurity where I buy into it – and, like you say, unwillingly support an industry which perpetuates poor body image. And, I’m pretty sure much of my generation does.
But, what rocks me to my core is the hypocrisy of such images. There’s a point at which magazines will point at a woman, claiming she’s “Too thin” – yet they’re only slimming down as a result of fat images printed by these very same magazines. The problem with these images is not the focus on diet and healthy lifestyle…it’s about losing weight fast with crash diets and pills that lead them to often serious eating disorders.
32-year-old Brittany Murphy, made famous by her appearance as Tai in Clueless, and later starring with Ashton Kutcher in “Just married” . Her character in Clueless is proclaimed by Alicia Silverstone (who was famously mocked as too fat when reaching size 10 after appearing in Batman) as a “project”. The cute, artistic, alternative Tai is fashioned into a cookie-cutter glamour girl to fit in with the in-crowd at an LA highschool. Brittany Murphy’s recent death from a heart attack was suspicious, and there were suggestions that pills she was taking are linked with anorexia.
The Jennifer Hawkins front cover left my mouth open. Not because I don’t think she is attractive – she’s stunning. But so are women I know of all sizes, hair colours.The difference is all of them have a more realistic number of dimples of their thighs.
Thank you Lydia, that was just awesome to read, you sum up the concerns of many so well, which is important when those who share these concerns are accused of being “against Jennifer’s body” or “jealous” and “fat.” Anything to avoid addressing the issue! Thanks for sharing your extensive knowledge on this subject.
Uhmm and where is her pubic hair?? Photoshopped? or no doubt brazillianed…is that ‘natural’ or ‘real’?? Perhaps it was the ‘real pornified women’ look they were after?
Great Article Lydia! Initially I didn’t pay much attention to the Hawkins photo shoot- I just assumed she had posed naked in the FHM style. After realising this wasn’t the case, and, as you so correctly point out, this was done for quasi promotion regarding healthy body images I was really astounded. To choose Jennifer Hawkins displaying her ‘imperfections’- how ridiculous! She is anything but the embodiment of normality when it comes to women’s body shapes. This is unhealthy for women who look to fashion magazines as both descriptive and normative. It is also bad for men who will internalise these images as how women should look like. To say this is unhealthy is an understatement; it is downright deceitful and as you (Lydia) say, it actually promotes eating disorders. And the response by men, as stating women who complain are ‘fat’ and ‘jealous’ is indicative of precisely how dangerous magazine photo shoots like this are. Good work on bringing some of these ideas into the light Lydia! Thank you.
Extraordinary blog post – and rare to see such depth in the online arena.
My particular favourite was the subheading:
SEXUALISATION AS FORGIVABLE IF DONE FOR A ‘GOOD CAUSE’
This is precisely the sort of thing we need to avoid – the hypocrisy and THANKS for mentioning what we should/ could be alternatively doing for the cause instead.
having jennifer hawkins say that she dislikes her thighs and is unhappy with her body just reinforces a culture where women are continually encouraged to hate their own bodies. to say you actually like the way you look is perceived as arrogant. if a supermodel can’t like the way she looks, how are the rest of us supposed to?
and why would we want a supermodel who is going to continue giving tips on how to achieve the best bikini body, discussing issues to do with body image ?
i feel like i have just been slapped in the face!
Great point jamie: kids look up to jen hawkins, having her say she is unhappy with her body just pressures the rest of us to continue hating ours!
rushdi – not surprised you initially mistook the shoot for a lad’s magazine – the sexualised poses are precisely like what we see in those mags!
I have read so many views the last few days, many distasteful and disrespectful and not helping address the issue. We are more often than not conditioned to believe that being ‘average’ is not acceptable, it’s not sexy, and it’s not hot! But that’s because of the conditioning of society. What society in general considers attractive, hot and sexy is not always equivalent to what is actually healthy and certainly doesn’t help with body satisfaction and a healthy body image. The pressure to conform hits from many angles.
Maybe size 8 is fashion’s favourite sample size – but this doesn’t make it right, not for every girl anyway. I want to clarify that I am not having a dig at slimmer built women but many women are detesting their body shape because of the conditioning of society that is intolerant of anything that is over a size 8. This is what makes the debate around Jennifer Hawkins shoot for Marie Claire so significant and why questions about the Butterfly Foundation taking funds from the sale of photographs necessary to raise.
Marilyn Monroe was my size, it would be interesting to see if she would get any gigs now with the apparent change in society’s view and the continual onslaught of certain media images distorting minds. No wonder disordered eating is a pandemic among children, youth and adults.
I am pretty happy with being Miss average.
The problem isn’t always what the eye sees,sees; it’s what the mind has been conditioned to comprehend as beautiful.
OMG!
just read an article revealing that jen hawkins has just signed major contract to become the face of Marie Claire Asia ! Could it be possible that this whole Body Image thing is just a very effective CROSS PROMOTIONAL MARKETING STUNT ?????
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26479376-5012980,00.html
Awesome, thought-provoking piece, Lydia.
I think you summed it up well when you said: “Losing weight and adopting a healthy lifestyle are not the same thing.”
I am extremely disturbed by how the language of health has been co-opted by the beauty industry, which explains why magazines like Marie Claire have produced ‘healthy’ body issues – these, as you highlighted, don’t really promote healthy body image but is rather promoting the same beauty standards. In short, it is more of the same thing once again. I really would like to see the day when women’s body types are ALL featured.
I also loved how you debunked the myth of genetics.
“losing weight and adopting a healthy lifestyle are not the same thing” – this article from the USA-
http://eatingdisordersshnl.blogspot.com/2009/12/eating-disorder-groups-join-forces-to.html
Interesting, Julie Parker of The Butterfly Foundation has stated on her blog http://www.beautifulyoubyjulie.com that:
Body Image Is A Feeling State That You Alone Create in Your Thoughts and Feelings About Yourself. No-One Can Make You Feel Less Than You Are Without You Letting Them.
I’m confused- does this meant that the Butterfly Foundation thinks that people choose to develop eating disorders or poor body image? Or is it saying that they are somehow weak or less discerning? It certainly sounds like that.
This is a concerning message to be provided by a charity that allegedly promotes eating disorder prevention. It is similar to public health messages that the media promotes around other serious health issues- such as obesity, smoking etc, where the attitude is to “blame the individual” and pathologise them rather than acknowledge the role in which culture, government decisions and various sectors of the community have an impact on the problem. For example, people who are obese are often passed off as being “morally weak”- ie lazy, slothful, greedy etc. Little acknowledgement is made in the media that there is a very predictable geographical distribution of obesity- where people who live closer to the beach are more likely to be slim. Does this mean that that people who don’t live by the beach are lazy, slothful, greedy etc? Or could it be a function of these peoples circumstances- such as limited access to fresh fruit and vegetables, difficulty in accessing safe opportunities to excercise etc etc that makes them more prone to obesity?
It is important that the Butterfly Foundation stop sending such simplified messages about eating disorders and body image. If you read Julies blog you be forgiven for thinking that her and her “followers” believe that eating diosrders are about beauty. And,contrary to the quote above, people do not actually chose to develop them. These are two fairly obvious myths that the Butterfly Foundation should be working on challenging rather than upholding.
So the big question is why are the Butterfly Foundation maintaining messages that are not backed by research? Could it be a funding issue? Could they have made conscious decision to utilise a compromised and watered down message about eating disorders that dismisses the role of the media because it enables them to rely on places like Dove and Sportsgirl for funding? How ethical is this? Regardless of the ethical position they have chosen, I am sure if the Butterfly Foundation continue along this path way it will indeed cost the community any gains that have been made in the field of eating disorder prevention.
Lydias example of the tobacco industry is a good one- where the fat cat liars who ran these companies discovered that they could deliver “anti smoking” programs in schools. This was a great marketing activity for the tobacco industry for two reasons: 1. they could ensure that more efficacious programs would not be delivered; and 2. they had product placement opportunities in schools. Does this ring any bells, Dove? Your school BodyThink program has limited efficacy and promotes product placement for your brand in schools. And it’s a good thing for you, Dove, that many people don’t realise you are owned by Unilever, and that Unilever not only promotes a homogonised beauty ideal but also the sexualisation of females in their advertising. If more people realised this they would realise that you really don’t care about them and would see you school program for what it is- a marketing exercise.
So who cares that it doesnt actually work? Obviously not the Butterfly Foundation. It is disturbing that they have turned a blind eye to these facts. It enables them to pay lip service to the cause by actually looking like they are doing something for people with eating disorders. Much like this whole Jen Hawko disaster.
I’m shocked the general manager of the butterfly foundation could publish this on her blog –
“No-One Can Make You Feel Less Than You Are Without You Letting Them.”
So umm.. should we just tell the 6 year olds who refuse to eat lunch at school that this is just their fault. clearly there’s no need to change culture, heck, why not just bring cigarette advertising back ?
the whole point of advertising, especially when it comes to the beauty/fashion/dieting industry is to make a person feel inadequate, so they will purchase the product being marketed to them. advertisers would not spend billions upon billions of dollars, if it was so easy to ignore this. it’s a rather utopian idea to think that we will ever have a world where everybody will have good self-esteem and not succumb to the bombardment of these ads, all sending the same message that our bodies are not okay.
tania andrusiak recently wrote a book “Adproofing your kids” where she talks about kids not having the cognitive capacity to understand how advertisers manipulate them in order to sell them products.
Cathy Gould, CEO of North America’s Elite Modelling Agency, stated back in 2006 that “dieting mothers are to blame” for eating disorders – the fact is that many women engage in harmful weightloss methods and loathe their bodies because this is what our culture promotes, normalises, and expects.
If grown-ups are vulnerable to advertising, how can we expect our children to not succumb to their messages?
to quote that “no one can make you feel less than you are without you letting them” grossly simplifies the genuine cultural problems that exist while letting corporations that continue to promote a thin-ideal, off the hook.
Thanks for posting the link to Julie Parker’s blog post, Simone.
I’m confused (to say the least) by her comment: ‘Body image is a feeling state that you alone create in your thoughts and feelings about yourself.’ As I understand it, there are a multitude of factors that contribute to our body image – many of them *outside* of ourselves, like:
* the way we are touched as infants
* the people we observe around us
* the culture and era we grow up in (and therefore, the inherent attitudes towards bodies we absorb)
* issues our own parents have/have had with their own bodies
* things people say to us about our bodies – including weight-related teasing and bullying
* and yes, media messages.
Is Julie’s quote meant to absolve media from any responsibility they have in perpetuating these problems? To suggest ‘we alone’ create our own body image would require that human beings exist in vacuums, free from any sort of social or cultural influence.
And just supposing Julie is right, then who/what does she think is responsible for creating/causing body image problems and/or eating disorders? If ‘we alone’ create own own body image, is the implication that it is the sufferers ourselves who are solely responsible for creating our own poor body image (and for some, our own eating disorders), rather than a complex interplay of social, cultural, environmental and psychological factors, as is generally understood?
Or is the implication that if we were simply enlightened enough, we could just ‘think ourselves’ out of it? That achieving ‘positive body image’ is simply a matter of ‘positive thinking’?
Is this seriously coming from an eating disorders ‘advocacy’ foundation?
Seriously?
As a hot blooded aussie male I would just like to say I love my wife curves and all. I just wish that the other 15mil Aussie women would wake up to the corporate make over and love themseleves, because we are all different. Just imagine the mess the world would be in if every woman was a Britteny Spiers!
Excerpt by Lisa Pryor in the The Age entitled “Flawed Logic Behind Images Made To Comfort the Average Woman”
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/flawed-logic-behind-images-made-to-comfort-the-average-woman-20100108-lyt3.html
“This is all so screwed up I hardly know where to begin.
Women already invest physical appearance with too much meaning.
Anorexia, the most deadly psychiatric illness, which disproportionately affects women, exemplifies this in that it involves annexing the territory of physical appearance to fight all kinds of separate psychological battles over perfectionism, anxiety, control and family dynamics.
Encouraging the idea that bodily flaws are a universal female concern…seems to be a misguided way to improve the way women feel about themselves. It’s still all about self-worth achieved through how you feel about how you look. It misses the point when it comes to negative body image: the focus on image is as much the problem as the word negative.
Perhaps we should not expect more from a publication such as marie claire. But still, you have to wonder, what is the Butterfly Foundation doing, lending credibility to such a flawed and publicity-seeking initiative?”
This pathetic stint has made international headlines
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2010/01/does_a_naked_unretouched_super.html
Thank goodness other magazines can see the irony
What frustrates me is not that Jen is naked…whoopdedoo on that front
what pisses me off (sorry for the bluntness of language) is that a woman, whose capacity to work depends entirely on whether or not she has a pimple is being use as a vehicle to make me feel good about myself! its completely counterproductive!
Thank You, good content. Helped me write some content on goji benefits. Added your site to my bookmarks.