SHOCK horror: nude supermodel has dimple on thigh. In a move labelled daring and revolutionary, this month’s edition of Marie Claire features nude photos of Australian model Jennifer Hawkins airbrush-free. The shoot reveals “brave” Jen with all her flaws.
And what exactly are these impediments? A tiny crease in Hawkins’s waist, a slightly dimpled thigh and “uneven skin tones”.
Quelle horreur. As if this isn’t enough, Hawkins notes an additional flaw: her hips. She has them. Miss Universe 2004 is really the Elephant Woman.
According to Marie Claire editor Jackie Frank, the Hawkins images were inspired by a survey of 5500 readers that found only 12 per cent of women were happy with their bodies. That’s right, nude pics of a woman considered one of the world’s rarest beauties are supposed to cheer the rest of us up. The pictures will be auctioned this month, with proceeds going to eating disorders support group the Butterfly Foundation.
That Hawkins has been enlisted in the cause of girls who hate their bodies and are, in many ways, victims of the dominant ideal of female beauty kind of messes with my head. How can these pictures possibly help women feel good about themselves?
Labelling hips, a little dimpling on the thigh, a small waist crease (which looks like what happens when any woman sits down) and supposedly uneven skin tone as flaws is already problematic. Who decided these were flaws and not part of being a woman? And if these are flaws, then how are other women supposed to feel feel?
And what about all the other flaws Hawkins, 26, will accrue if she has kids and when she ages?
The problem is the emphasis on physical attributes over any other qualities a woman might possess. And a freak-of-nature body that gets 24-hour-a-day attention and the best of care to earn its owner an income. Most women will never have a body like this.
Why would an editor and an organisation concerned about body image choose a Miss Universe title holder as the pin-up for the love-yourself-just-as-you-are campaign? The images attract comparisons and judgment, and provide more opportunity for objectification. They have already prompted a rash of emails from self-appointed male judges who said Hawkins was pear shaped, that her bum was unappealing, that her breasts were too small, that she should have kept her clothes on.
More worryingly, the images have prompted women to compare themselves with Hawkins. “She wants to make [women] feel more comfortable about how they look, gee thanks, I now feel worse! I’m a size 10 and I still have more rolls than her!” wrote one.
Another email included a bulimia reference: “If anything is going to have me running to the toilet with my finger down my throat it’s a picture of Jennifer Hawkins naked.”
And who exactly is going to bid for the photos, you wonder.
Perhaps the Melbourne man who posted this comment on the Herald Sun website : “*Pant pant pant* OF COURSE Jen should’ve stripped, what a silly question to ask!”. Or Kit Walker of Geelong, who asked: “Where and how many of these magazines can I get!!!”Or perhaps the charming Darren of South Morang, who referred to his imminent Hawkins-inspired sexual arousal: “It’s likely to have a very positive effect on my body, that’s for sure.”
The whole PC beauty shift is for so many just a hilarious bit of theatre. But there is nothing amusing in mocking or encouraging the anxieties that cause untold misery and suffering to so many women. And the hypocrisy is everywhere, rising up to hit you in your flawed face. In the same newspaper promoting Jen “flaws and all” in a banner headline on its front page were three full pages of “Best bikini bodies: How 10 celebs got the perfect figure”. And who is featured there? Hawkins for “best overall body”.
“Our former Miss Universe easily has one of the most envied bikini bodies in the world,” it says, and Hawkins provides advice on how to “get a bikini body quickly”. (Other celebs are given accolades for “best bottom”, “best post-baby body”, “best tummy”, “best thighs”, “best boobs and abs”, and so on.)
Women are expected to believe that enlightened advances are being made in this quite monotonous and unimaginative regime.
This has been identified elsewhere, in regard to the tobacco and alcohol industries, as air cover: giving the appearance of social responsibility while really not doing much at all.
Marie Claire and Hawkins and her flaws, which aren’t really, will do nothing to lessen body dissatisfaction. Because it’s not really about celebrating a diversity of women’s bodies, as advertisers in the magazines spruiking body improvement products well know.
If Frank and fellow editors are serious about the body image problems their magazines have helped to create, will we see less airbrushing, less attention to the “thin, hot, sexy” cult and more real women, rather than insulting and meaningless token gestures?
See Melinda’s article as published in The Australian
22 Responses
Well said- I could not agree more with your comments Melinda. It is pretty well documented in research that looking at skinny models increases body dissatisfaction (which is a huge risk factor for diets and eating disorders). Using Jennifer Hawkins as a poster girl for “loving your body” is paradoxical and completely outrageous.
Observationally Jen seems to have become increasingly focused on body image since she was Miss Universe. I have lots of friends who believe that she has lost weight since she became more of a celebrity- and her persona changed very much from “girl next door” to someone who pushes diets and fashion. Good on her for doing something for charity but what she is doing is also profile raising for herself.
I am disgusted by the Butterfly Foundation. They should know better and their response to criticism has been very dismissive- not dissimilar to Frankie’s approach in one of your other blogs. They should be aiming to change culture rather than conform to it. If they dont try, who will?
The issue is not just the use of Jennifer Hawkins for body image- which seems completely farcical- but the explicit objectification of her- nude on the front cover of a magazine? What are they thinking? There are so many other dignified ways that someone like Jennifer Hawkins could raise awareness about body image and eating disorders- or raise the profile of the Butterfly Foundation. Really, between this and using Dove’s programmes which we know they know don’t work, the Butterfly Foundation is becoming a charity that just gives lip service to its cause. It seems they are more interested in raising their own profile and becoming an empire than focusing on the quality of their work. I do appreciate their position as a relatively unknown charity with limited funding opportunities however think they are going about it the wrong way. Some may argue that at least this is a start. However they should be starting on the right foot rather than from a position of such significant compromise.
I am appalled.
I was particularly struck by what an interviewer pointed out to General Manager of the Butterfly Foundation here – http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/body-image-foundation-defends-nude-jennifer-hawkins-cover-20100104-lox9.html?autostart=1 – and what her response was…
The Interviewer points out that to a man, all they are seeing IS a flawless, naked woman.
Julie Parker notes that that’s exactly the point – that women will in fact notice all the numerable flaws on Jennifer and feel better about themselves!
HAHAHAHA!!! 🙁
**Shouldn’t Julie know that women with body image problems feel even WORSE that people like Jennifer ‘naturally’ exist??? I mean – her biggest ‘flaw’ is a natural crease in her hip…come off it! It’s a LOT to live up to!!!**
Hmmm … I don’t know about other women out there but, when I modelled, it was lights, smoke and mirrors but it was all about the flawless person themselves … which Jennifer truly represents here.
I also don’t see the point of the nudity apart for doing the usual objectification of the female body as we all become voyeurs.
There is much talk of this being a ‘step in the right direction’. How will seeing semi-naked shots of Miss Universe / the host of Make Me a Supermodel help the average Australian women feel better about their bodies?
There are a spate of magazines at the moment that are offeing a token celebrity shoot that is not air brushed to the enth degree. They then pat themselves on the back, and go back back to business as usual – with the camera always lying and the peddling of messages that convince women real beauty can only be found via starvation and botex. If we are serious about turning attitudes around, and we should be, we need to send consistent messages.
We must not be seduced by such tokenistic, insulting offerings.
Mia Freeman has an interesting read on this:
http://mamamia.com.au/weblog/2010/01/marie-claire-im-confused.html
I’m also very dismayed at the sentiment that this is a step in the right direction. There’s no “step” here, more like a stumble and faceplant in the mud! They’ve missed the point entirely and they are terribly inconsistent. Turn the page of the magazine and see what’s inside! I’m guessing more of the same old crap. I don’t know a lot about the Butterfly foundation, but how on earth can they have any credibility now as an eating disorders organisation when they use MISS UNIVERSE (!!!) as the face for feeling good about yourself?
Well said , Melinda. Many women’s and girls’ magazines continue to publish images that contribute to body dissatisfaction, despite Senate Inquiries and the institution of self-regulatory Codes.
And with seeming disregard for the consequences, these magazines continue to push the “you need to be thin, hot and sexy” message at adolesecents, and at children from an early age .
And leave it to parents to try to deal with the constant repetition of ” You must be sexy. To be sexy you have to be beautiful. To be beautiful you have to be a certain shape, wear these clothes, that makeup, this hair stuff , buy, spend ….. You are not OK as you are”.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing about this and taking it on in your usual no nonsense style.
I completely agree that there was no reason for putting her naked on the cover except to sell magazines and create the controversy and stir which it undoubtedly has…
On Monday afternoon there were already over 78 stories on this available online and the Sun Herald story alone had 103 posts when I saw it, and the magazine isn’t even for sale until Wednesday…
It is the same old objectification of women but spun in a way that it seems there is a social conscience to it… that we are meant to feel better about our bodies… I read one comment of a woman who stated that at least if she knew it (the images) was fake she would have felt better than lifting up Hawkins as a tribute to “untouched” beauty.
3AW radio talk show host said it well when he said shame on the magazine for using Jennifer in this way.
I was glad to see however that on the Marie Claire website at least there were women stating they would not purchase the magazine again. Indeed, this is the response we should have. Yes, putting out un-airbrushed images is part of what the Government Inquiry into Body Image desired in their voluntary Code of Conduct, and Mia Freedman may rejoice over the first step, but let’s be real, how could we not feel worse about our bodies when, as you wrote: “the images have prompted women to compare themselves with Hawkins.”
Reminds me of “The Birthmark,” a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne. The focus on physical perfection keeps all of us from enjoying the person as a whole entity in herself/himself. Not to mention that it has little to do with reality. Sure, people (women & men) should take care of themselves, etc. But the current quest for physical perfection exceeds reality. It’s the stuff that can only exist because of a virtual world or an active imagination. In Hawthorne’s story, the husband becomes so fixated on a minor physical flaw in his wife’s appearance he destroys both his wife and himself. Tragic, but it’s also a lesson to all of us.
I recall the first time I visited some of the famous museums in Italy. I almost breathed a sigh of relief when I saw paintings of women with average bodies. The fixation with the physical perfection of women in particular does nothing but make us objects, as evidenced by some of the male comments in Melinda’s article.
Great work as always, Melinda!
Can someone please find me a direct quote from Jennifer Hawkins, her management, Marie Claire or the publishing house stating that Jennifer Hawkins is actually representative of “the norm”?
Yes, they shouldn’t have used the word “flaws”. Yes, they shouldn’t have used a sexualised image. Yes, a token gesture. But so was Maddison’s naked photo shoot and I don’t see everyone getting up in arms about that. I find this (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/fashion/if-youve-got-it-dont-flaunt-it-us-marine-tells-aussie-women/story-e6frfn7i-1225816449311) more upsetting than the Marie Claire article.
But my understanding is that this article and photo shoot isn’t about sexualisation of women, or about “their flaws” or even about comparing women to Jennifer Hawkins. It’s solely about promoting an un-photo shopped image on the cover of a magazine.
Maybe I’m missing something really epic here. But I’m not understanding why everyone’s so upset about this. Surely the time spent being upset about this could be spent on;
a) Debating why Butterfly *needs* donations from Marie Claire in the first place – because they receive limited government funding.
b) Why eating disorder treatment is so difficult to come by in Australia and how this can be fixed.
c) Why programs such as that run by Dannielle Miller’s Enlighten Education aren’t funded by the government as body image issue/eating disorder/self esteem crashing through the floor prevention programs? and why there’s so little in place for health and PDHPE programs to prevent this low self esteem.
I guess, from where I’m sitting there also comes a bit of personal responsibility. Just like Eleanor Roosevelt stated “no one can make you feel inferior without your consent”, no one can make you feel crap about your body without your consent either.
Anyway, that’s just my 20 cents.
But, Melinda – well written article even if I don’t agree with it 🙂
I’m sure the Buttefly foundation is well intended, but the first time I came across their fundraising merchandise was in a sportsgirl shop. beautiful clothing that suits a whole range of women ranging from a size 6 to a (small) 14. They’re covering the whole spectrum here.
Melinda, I really appreciate your article. I picked up a copy of WHO magazine the other day, not usually my thing, but was interested in the cover “Half their size”. Inside its pages is a spread displaying before and after shots of stars such as Tyra Banks, Kelly Osbourne, Jennifer Garner, Dicko, Lily Allen and more. Also pictured on the front cover is the late actor Brittany Murphy, who died at the age of 32 of a heart attack connected with suspected anorexia. Murphy’s first appearance on the ig screen was in 1994 film Clueless, where she is considered a beauty “Project” by Alicia Silverstone – despite the fact that her character Tai, is a healthy, attractive adolescent with obvious personality. Over the years, as Muprhy appeared in movies, she appeared thinner and thinner….
Maybe if we keep dieting girls, we can disappear altogether. Is that the plan?
where do I find the contact for the editor of this mag so I can write to her? Have searched google but don’t any more time to give to it.
This shoot is not about helping people with eating disorders but about selling magazines, sex sells, nudity sells. I don’t want this for my daughter.
Who is going to buy these pictures and where are they going to display them? A lawyer in his waiting room or even a doctor………………………….um, this is low grade sending the wrong message to young women…………………………… I will never buy any Marie Claire products ever, no cook books or any of it.
Hi Melinda
Well said. You have a knack for saying it just right. Entertaining, interesting and challenging. What troubles me too is that the image of the ideal man is headed down the same destructive path. I saw a poster in a large store recently of a young boy, maybe 12 or 13, modelling board shorts. For goodness sake, he was better built than me! Clearly genetically he’s come from some pretty “solid” stock. He had the “mesomorph” body shape: muscular and athletic looking. I’m an “ectomorph” : tall and slim and so are my boys. I/we are never going to look like that, no matter how much we go to the gym, no matter how much “Muscle Mass Gainer” powder we consume. And just look at all the glossy mags aimed at men and fitness now! Have we learnt nothing? Are we going to take ourselves down the same destructive path that we’ve subjected women to?
Keep up the good work Melinda.
Geoff
Surely this article about Jennifer Hawkins is a joke, surely Marie Clair don’t believe this is representative of the average women.
If this is a flawed body, I hate to think how every young woman who sees this picture will judge her body.
This is not a step in the right direction as the emphasis is still on body image.
Wouldn’t it be far more valuable to focus on a woman’s intrinsic value as a human? perhaps Marie Claire could start having cover models who are accomplished Scientist, Doctor, Aid workers, Mothers, teachers, volunteer fire fighters etc.
Well done Melinda, keep up the fight…
I stopped buying magazines like Marie Claire years ago, as the focus is not on women, but on the marketing and advertising dollar…at any cost!
Another exceptional article on real issues women face DAILY!
We need to continue to keep the issue of the objectification of women in the forefront of public debate. I know that there are many people who care about this issue deeply and there are many women who are impacted by this kind of thinking and imagery immensely. This is certainly not an isolated view. There are lives impacted daily by this twisted view of how women should be and what they should look like.
With sexualized imagery on the increase and magazines continual emphasis on the ‘physical body over any other qualities’ I think regulatory systems and bodies need some serious review.
The Butterfly Foundation says it is “dedicated to a world that celebrates health, well-being and diversity”. They also say they are about “cultural change”. I’m not sure how using Jennifer Hawkins to raise funds helps achieve these aims.
There seems to be some mixed-messaging about what the Butterfly Foundation wants to achieve.
Good on you Melinda for highlighting this issue.
As a psychologist working in the field of body image and eating disorders, I thought it important to respond to some of the earlier comments:
BETH:
if Sportsgirl is as supportive of size diversity as their range of clothing sizes you listed suggests (sizes 6-14) – why are the mannequins in their windows always predictably smaller than a size 6 ? The vast majority of women would not be able to sustain menstrual cycles at that size! And why do they insist on using only very thin models in their advertising ?
Many corporations have started speaking out of both sides of their mouths – pledging to assist in the development of healthy body image and yet continually upholding an unrealistically thin beauty ideal.
NOELLE:
I agree that more funding should be put towards prevention and treatment of eating disorders. So why do I have a problem with a charity like the Butterfly Foundation advertising corporations and role models who continue to promote a thin ideal as the only way to be beautiful?
Because there is an “overwhelming amount of evidence” demonstrating that the continual reiteration of a thin-ideal increases body shame, which in turn increases the rates of disordered eating and depression.
This reminds me of the early 80s when tobacco companies funded anti-tobacco campaigns and prevention programmes in schools… that’s right, it’s a joke.
OTHER POINTS:
If the Butterfly Foundation really want to minimise eating disorder rates, why do they continue to promote the very social structures / institutions that contribute to the development of them?
Another argument that has appeared on a few blogs is that body image crises might actually do well in preventing obesity. Actually research indicates that nothing could be further from the truth – dieting and sustained restriction actually inflates obesity rates as our bodies learn to slow their metabolisms in response to inadequate nutrition.
There needs to be more collaboration between both the eating disorders and obesity fields- and a focus on heatlhy lifestyle (eating well, and exercising) should be promoted instead of a prescription for thinness, as not everyone is healthy being ‘thin’
Just out of curiosity, if you really wanted to promote healthy body image, why on earth would you choose someone who is famed for matching the socially constructed beauty ideal, and who has further encouraged contestants on Search for a Supermodel to lose weight (not for health reasons, but to better market themselves as ‘models’) ?
Julie Thomson from Butterfly Foundation stated that the reason was because it was the only way to sell magazines, and that they wanted to *start* a discussion on body image. This is truly the biggest cop-out I have ever heard. Sorry Julie, but the body image debate was sparked years (decades?) before Marie Clare & Butterfly decided to pay lip-service to the cause.
But Sylvie, the article wasn’t about eating disorders or body image – it was about showing a non-air brushed image.
As for the debate being started years ago – I don’t agree. It was stagnant years ago. It’s only in the past year that it’s actually inched forward a tiny bit. Yes, I agree we should be making leaps and bounds, far more than we actually are, but the very idea that we’re actually getting a little tiny bit of the way is great.
Butterfly aren’t the body image police. They also didn’t approach Marie Claire (as far as I’m aware). The revunue made from this issue? Butterfly would be NUTS to turn it down. Do you have any idea how much treatment costs? The sales from the Sportsgirl items go towards treatment for sufferers – and while this issue isn’t going to wards that, to give you some kind of indication of the burden of disease, in 2009 I estimate it to have cost at least $150,000 to save my life. This isn’t including future; heart problems, liver problems, kidney problems, osteo-issues, future hospitalsation for depression, anxiety or my eating disorder which may be required, any emergency department visits, any ECGs, the countless hours of therapy which are either fully or partially covered by medicare, my bulk-billing dietitian whom I see weekly, bulk-billing GPs who I still have to see fortnightly, bulk-billing psychiatrist, pathology tests, x-rays, bone density scans (ideally completed every 2 years given how high risk I am for osteoperosis now), future medication subsidies, any future losses for work, I’ll be on youth allowance for studying longer than my peers because it’s going to take me longer to get my degree.
As well as all of that (which I’ve only made a DENT in – I’ve been actively “in recovery” for about 3 years, the average duration for RECOVERY is 7) we’ve got;
– 4 x months in hospital -$96,000)
– 1/2 x week on medical ward with 1:1 nurse (they often do that for mental health patients) – $4,800
– A&E visit 1: $1,000
– A&E visit 2: $1,000
– A&E visit 3: $2,300
– A&E visit 4: $4,500
– A&E visit 5: $700
Hmmm yeah. That’s a whole lot of money. Obviously figures are rounded and out of a fairly old textbook – but when you balance cost saving measures with inflation it’d be about the same.
And that’s just me. I’m not perpetually critically ill. I’ve been critically ill 3 times in an 8 year duration. That’s pretty darn good. I’ve accessed the support groups run by butterfly – and while they’re good and they’re helpful, if I were Butterfly, I’d be doing anything I could do get my hands on as much money as I could to help as many people. Because there are always waiting lists. There are always more people who need help than can currently be helped. I’d be doing all of the above, regardless of the seemingly “immoral” implications of that, because I really think that we’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.
The real issues are;
– Sexualised pose (yuck, but not relevant to the Butterfly Foundation)
– Lack of funding that requires a magazine to be donating to a charity which should be completely government funded (dream on) to help people access services which should be entirely government funded and targeted towards early intervention (double dream on).
– Un airbrushed image.
It’s not about self esteem. It’s not about self worth. It’s not about how good someone looks. Or how good someone does look. Or whether they’ve got a leg full of celulite or a tiny little crease on their stomach.
Jennifer Hawkins is healthy. She’s not a poster child for anorexia. She’s not overweight or obese. Why are we so upset that she’s got less bumps than us. She’s a real person to. I’d hate to be on the recieving end of all of this. I imagine it would be very confusing!!! You’re too pretty to be modelling for this issue. You haven’t got enough fat around your waist, sorry Jen, we’re going to have to drop you. WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON’T HAVE CELLULITE ALL OVER YOUR LEGS? OUT! We don’t want you here.
Seriously?
Maybe not the best choice. But she’s not evil. She’s not ‘promoting anorexia’ or other eating disorders. She’s not skeletal.
I’m actually really disappointed about how Butterfly’s name is being dragged through the mud on this one. It’s so unnecessary.
Noelle, it’s all about body image. They didn’t produce an un-airbrushed image because their creative staff were on strike, they did it because as one article says:
“These “flaws” on her exquisite body represent a bid by Hawkins, 26, and editor Jackie Frank to promote positive body image in glossy magazines.” (see link at end of comment)
In an article titled “JENNIFER Hawkins has bared all in a magazine to promote positive body image.” Jennifer said “I’m not a stick figure – I thought it would be great to tell women to just be themselves and be confident,” Hawkins tells the magazine, which hits newsstands on Wednesday.”
The editor, Jackie Frank then goes on to discuss the recent body image initiative put to the government and then to blame the government for lack of funding etc. The lack of funding by government is a legitimate concern and nobody is suggesting that more couldn’t be done with funding, but that is a separate issue to whether using an “exquisite body” (ie. represents the thin ideal – a size 14 body is never described in this way) is a good way to promote positive body image.
I don’t think Melinda T R is suggesting that there is anything wrong with Jennifer Hawkins body either. But the bizarre method of promoting “positive body image” with nude miss universe and the important issue of funding are both separate issues.
More resources are needed to help people who suffer from eating disorders, but as with smoking, you can’t keep treating people without asking what is causing their illness. While cause is complex, the thin ideal is a significant contributor and certainly was the main contributor in my case.
i knew i’d forget the link, here is is:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/jeninfer-hawkins-strips-to-promote-positive-body-image/story-e6frf96f-1225815565901
Right on – I’d go further and say that the problem with mags like Marie Claire is that the message they are trying to convey is ‘all women are beautiful’, but the simple fact is that that is not true! There are plenty of ugly women out there (and men) – the point is, it is ok NOT to look like Jennifer Hawkins. Being ordinary, or worse, ugly, does not mean that you have failed in life, and in fact to view youthful beauty as ‘success’ is to devalue all the other virtues people have – such as kindness, generosity, compassion, intelligence, flair and talent.
Love this post! Thanks for this. I’ll be sure to come back again. P.S: I’ve bookmark your site as well.
Saw your blog bookmarked on Digg.I love your site and marketing strategy. Check out my website if you get a chance, just click on name. My Anxiety Blog – http://anxiousanxietychat.blogspot.com