Don’t buy into mag land’s body image spin

oldskool says:

06:44am | 04/01/10

Advertising is means of promoting a product. Putting females in scantily clad outfits - or even males (on the rarer occassion) doesn’t say anything about the product.
The existing advertising laws should be expanded to limit the use of humans - male or female, young or old - and specifically state what can and can’t be done; even if it’s just to limit the exploitation of the ‘subjects’ being _used_ in the advertising material.

Saintsister says:

07:00am | 04/01/10

I don’t feel an ounce better about my body image for having seen Jennifer Hawkins bare her “uneven skin tones”.  How does the poor girl sleep at night?  This is not some great leap forward for feminism - merely a cynical marketing ploy dressed up as social progress.  My flabby, dimpled body and I will hang on to our cash and resist the temptation to purchase this magazine.

John says:

07:14am | 04/01/10

Lol, I was horrified to see Jen’s real body.  Arrrrk! all those lines, cellulite and uneven skin tones.  Frankly,  And if you look real closely you see a blemish on Jen’s right butt cheek.  It’s a great marketing tool - I can imagine how many people will buy the magazine just for a more detailed look.  I’d have thought that this type of token gesture would be a real slap in the face to many women.

John A Neve says:

07:41am | 04/01/10

Tory,

Contrary to popular opinion the greatest exploiters of women are women.

Bill says:

08:02am | 04/01/10

Yes let’s encourage obesity instead.  People who overeat and don’t exercise, that’s where we should be, it’s so much more ‘natural’.

KaW says:

08:17am | 04/01/10

I’m glad someone else thought this! I saw some of the photos yesterday, and apparently some complete rubbish about how the money raised will go to an eating disorder charity… Wonderful, so in order to make young girls feel better about themselves and hopefully avoid eating disorders, we’re going to print a picture of a naked, young, MODEL.

I love how these pathetic magazines will now sit around congratulating themselves on making some kind of breakthrough for women’s self esteem and blah blah blah ... You have done nothing to help, kindly stop publication.

Great article from Punch.

Magazines are meant to make you want it... says:

08:26am | 04/01/10

Nice artice Tory, thanks. I was thinking the same thing myself. It annoys me that magzines would ever claim to be selling reality - why bother?

We all know ‘those kinds’ of magazines are a means to sell product (they are FULL of adds with the occassional ‘article’) and they try to make the models look as wonderful as possible. There is nothing “normal” about those women and/or men! I certainly wouldn’t be using them as a bar by which to judge myself and anyone that is is not informed and rather silly, to be honest. 

Any change we try to enforce on these magazines is like forcing McDonalds into having a ‘healthy-range’ menu! Why can’t we just accept that magazines don’t sell reality, educate people about it, and enjoy them occassionally, if we want to? If people wanted reality, they could just look around them. People know that, right?!

james says:

08:45am | 04/01/10

she’s natural, no surgeries, no airbrushing, I get it.
sounds like a bit of jealousy and a lot of overweight and depressed women wanting to push their standards onto others, stop wingeing and do something about your condition, i exercise on a regular basis and have been doing so for 16 years, it’s logical: if you wanna look fit and healthy, then be fit and eat healthy, stop complaining about your unhealthy state and trying to make healthy , exercising people feel bad.
I love woman of all shapes but the worst in a woman is when they’re not happy with themselves and bitch about every other woman’s body. get a life or instead of wasting time here, go and exercise and change your poor eating habits

Davy says:

08:50am | 04/01/10

Totally agree that the mags are terrible and that women through the ages have been oppressed incredibly. I know that all women everywhere really want to see big fat porkers nude on the front of the covers. Come on girls, vote with your money. You are after all the ones buying these mags.

Strangely its you girls who then talk about it, emulate it, buy the shoes, wear the clothes, do the diets, then next week buy it again and do the next must haves all again.

I think its time all mags had on the covers people who are no good at what the magazine is about. I want to see sports mags with fat beer swilling idiots who just cant quite work up the energy to actually run a triathalon. Self help mags with a picture of an indentured servant. Religious mags with a picy of an atheist.  Womens mags with fat lardos eating cream donuts. Why do I want this…..because I dont like being challenged and I would rather bask in obscurity and believe that everone else is there with me.

It makes me feel safe.

Anthony says:

08:53am | 04/01/10

Sadly young women have brought this crock of magazine pulp and ran with it .  Some groups of young women all look the same because of this ,footballers partners seem to be at the head of the table.Ladies you have been conned by your sisters in the glossy media .Ture beauty is always on the inside.Unlike these magazines wich are full of .....

Tim says:

09:02am | 04/01/10

KaW,
These magazines are there to sell a product, not help you feel good about your body.
Jen Hawkins has what some would say the perfect natural body. She is a “real” woman.

John says:

09:10am | 04/01/10

Bill says:  09:02am | 04/01/10 You say: ” Yes let’s encourage obesity instead.  People who overeat and don’t exercise, that’s where we should be, it’s so much more ‘natural’.”

I agree that obesity is a major problem, but so is the fact that so many young women (and young men - believe it or not ) are so obsessed with achieving an ideal body image that they’re starving themselves.  And unfortunately this obsessesion effects their mental health to the point where they develop a distorted view of their own bodies and what is realistically possible and what is not.  Ironically, many who suffer from anorexia are terrified of being obese - simply because ‘fat people’ are considered by so many who push the beauty myth to be misfits in society.  What’s needed is balance and perpsective.

Caroline says:

09:11am | 04/01/10

Great article…I’m still deciding which part of the story I find most offensive…

The belief of Jackie Frank (or her counterparts at WW or Madison et al) that women in Australia would EVER look to a magazine for assistance with a healthy body image… OR… Ms Frank’s “outrage” at the Government’s lack of action! 
Hilarious….I think drug dealers should immediately berate the government for failing to stop people shooting up too!

Julie says:

09:17am | 04/01/10

Gee, Jennifer Hawkins and I look just the same with no clothes on! Thanks Marie Claire, you’ve proved what I suspected all along. I’m just as hot as Jen, therefore my life is ok. Pheeeew.

Sylvie says:

09:35am | 04/01/10

Jackie Frank is starting to believe her own publicity and that’s (frankly) dangerous. Might be time for her to step aside and let someone with a less-inflated ego to get this once-mighty global brand back on track.

I really get it says:

09:38am | 04/01/10

James - consider this for a moment.  Women are not born with the same genes.  Some women are healthy and fit - but will never look like a model.  They are not fat or obese or even unhealthy.  Yet they never make the front covers because they are not models.  This is the issue.  Only models (who are born practically flawless) make the front covers.  The balance is the issue here.  Appreciate all types of healthy bodies.  In fact, we should probably promote those who actively pursue healthy options - even though they don’t look like models.  Some models smoke, drink do drugs (some, not all) and yet you’re ok with them on the covers because it’s your media-contrived idea that they are what healthy women look like.  You’ve taken the bait for years my friend - and totally NOT gotten it.

AdamC says:

10:07am | 04/01/10

I agree that these magazines’ placing more ‘real’ women on their pages is tokenistic and commercially-driven, but it is a response to a genuine social trend. I am not exactly sure what the ‘positive body image’ trend is trying to accomplish, but it no doubt does exist. In any event, it is an interesting counterpoint to the whole ‘obesity epidemic’ stuff.

And, @Tory, the difference between Harpers and Vogue and the ‘real’ women magazines is that Vogue and Harpers are serious fashion magazines and the others are tacky general lifestyle magazines which, in many cases, are an embarrassment to their readers. Serious fashion magazines are unlikely to get caught up with all this ‘real’ women hoopla – they would lose all credibility!

PS, I note I have put ‘real’ in inverted commas. That is for a reason. The airbrushed waifs that usually adorn women’s general interest titles are no less ‘real’ than any other woman. Actually, I find the (mis)use of that adjective in this whole discussion ridiculous.

Henrietta says:

10:10am | 04/01/10

This is the kind of feminism I would expect from Marie-Claire - full of contradictions.

I don’t know how Mia Freedman can sleep at night now knowing that she has contributed (in no small way) to the self-esteem issues, depression and anxiety that so many women feel because of body image problems.

I wish feminists would start acting in the interests of women

kim says:

10:56am | 04/01/10

The reason magazines were blamed in the debate around body image is because of the ridiculous amount of airbrushing that goes on. (Magazines like Ralph and FHM are even worse.) I think most people would agree that when we say ‘real’ women, we mean what the women in the photos really look like, without having the bejesus photoshopped out of them.

Grant says:

11:21am | 04/01/10

All I hear is from women who believe they are victimised by men, the media and by various evil global corporations is:

I am a victim
blame someone else
I have no responsbility
I cannot change
No self respect

Rinse and repeat…

Jeez, grow up and own your problems.

Chris says:

11:41am | 04/01/10

Really interesting to see the difference in comments on this article between Men & Women.

It is quite simple though. If you don’t like the way women are portrayed in these magazines, don’t buy them. Vote with your wallets (or purses).

Katherine says:

11:49am | 04/01/10

I am a petite woman but even I look at these photos and know that Jen Hawkins figure isn’t the norm. Although I have nothing against her, I would love to look like her!  However, I dont think it is ok to promote excessive “curves” (obesity). But women are all shapes - short/tall, naturally petite/naturally fuller, small/big boobs & bums, all within the ‘healthy’ range. These are the kinds of women who need to be on covers, because besides models, we all have something that we dont like about ourselves and isn’t perfect. Let’s embrace that and embrace being healthy and exercising!

Deson says:

12:09pm | 04/01/10

Great column Tory.

I remember when Marie Claire ran some tv debates a few years ago now, at one of the press calls for the debate on “The Media promoting a false body image to women” . Someone asked Ms Frank “So, when will Marie Claire stop using “model” sized women for photo shoots?” (words to that effect) - i.e. isn’t Marie Claire contributing to the body image issue when will they start using real sized women in their magazine?

Ad all you could hear where the crickets in the background whlle Ms Frank tried to think of an answer for that one.

Maxie says:

12:10pm | 04/01/10

I really get it @ 10:38am | 04/01/10
Actually honey, you don’t get it at all.
Why should magazines, or the fashion industry, be forced to celebrate your physical mediocrity? Should the sports industry celebrate sporting mediocrity also? Should sports fans stop idolising genetically blessed sports people with above average ability, because Joe Blogs from Penrith might feel bad about his inability to complete a marathon?
Or perhaps we should stop rewarding intelligence, because David Citizen from Blacktown cant complete a Sudoku puzzle, and is tired of being made to feel bad about his intellectual inadequacies.
The fact is there are many, many ways to measure a person’s worth.
Women are their own worst enemies here, because THEY are the ones who judge themselves most harshly based on their weight and how they look in the mirror.

At the end of the day, if you don’t like what you see on a cover of a magazine, don’t buy it. Funnily enough, i worked on a magazine featuring Real Women, in conjunction with ACP a few years back. It lasted 4 issues, because NO ONE BOUGHT IT, and the advertisers pulled out. So spare me the “we want to see real women” bullshit, because if it were really true, these magazines would be in abundance already.

jim says:

12:19pm | 04/01/10

I saw megan gale at Martin place posing for DJ’s some 3 years.

A few points I found interesting.
1. She’s taller than I thought
2. She has veins sticking out of her legs, very noticeable even when viewing 100metres away
3. She looks better in reality, she has quite the muscular build.
4. I was 100metres away because of the crowd. The crowd consisted of 90% women, 5% men and 5% children/pets

Go figure. Most men were just walking past to get home or riding their bikes to get past. I didn’t stay too long, but I found it funny there wasn’t that many men interested.

Bruce says:

12:45pm | 04/01/10

Ah !! I have seen better ! Very brave of Jenifer to show off such a flawed figure. Guess she needs to go on a diet and loose that excess wait.

Liz says:

12:48pm | 04/01/10

Yer right, the magazine industry is one of the most cynical of exploiters of women and their fears, dreams and worries.

Sick of it All says:

12:59pm | 04/01/10

I recently made a ‘vision board’ where I cut out empowering pictures and statements from magazines along with aspirational images to collate and use to keep me focused and on track in my personal and professional spheres.
Imagine my surprise when I found that magazines like Cleo, Marie Claire et al did not supply too many positive images for me to reflect on. It was magazines like Women’s Health that provided the truly uplifting and empowering content. This caused me to reflect on what exactly it was I was then purchasing monthly and the kind of impact a magazine full of negative imagery or advertising was having on my life.
The glossy women’s mags had already put me offside with their constant fascination with ‘real women’ who are, apparently, twenty kilos heavier and two inches shorter than I am. I’m either a bad influence for looking more like a catwalk model than an obese office worker, or I’m not a ‘real woman’ (which is highly offensive) because you can’t see my cellulite and I look hot in short shorts. It’s been ages since I’ve bought a magazine because of these mixed messages and because I’m through with the divisive tactics their marketers use: pit us against other women and ‘help’ us to ‘win’ by selling your magazine. It’s pathetic.

Voxpop says:

01:07pm | 04/01/10

I don’t buy any of these mags - not one, they’re nothing more than junk mail to me.  But I’m a 40 yr old and don’t have the body image hang-ups that the young women and impressionable teenagers have who are the main consumers of theses mags.  For these young girls magazines are both a guide on how they should look as well as behave which is why we see such a large homogeneous dumb blonde trend al la Paris Hilton et all.  Honestly a lot of these girls don’t even suit the blonde hair they’ve chosen and wear clothes that are totally unflattering to their shape. 

The mags I used to buy as a teenager had more of the helpful tips to enhancing your own look with positive reinforcement eg styles to suit different body shapes and what works best for you (because you can be a size 10 but have a pear shape etc), colours to suit your skin tones and hairstyles to suit the shape of your face etc.  It was more about enhancing your own look and knowing what suits you as well as what doesn’t rather than trying to copy some unrealistic image.

For sure a little maturity and experience means you can take these mags with a grain of salt and understand the marketing/motivation behind them - but it’s the 12 year olds etc that read them and don’t have that awareness that are being affected.  All you have to do is pick up any of the ‘tween’ mags to see it and they’re directed to 8 year olds, by the time they’re 12 they’re onto Dolly, Cleo and Cosmo.

6clegs says:

01:14pm | 04/01/10

The more things change - the more they stay the same…

the only time i see “Womens Magazines” is in doctors waiting rooms, or if i veg out in a coffee shop and flip through one for *entertainment* i.e a laugh!
i seem to be able to dress myself do my hair/makeup so i don’t look like a blind person dressed me…

People need proper hobbies. If your spending all your time & money on yourself to impress other people or ‘yourself’,  IMHO ‘you’ need to take some serious stock, perhaps ‘you’ need a psychiatrist!

BTW, who is Tiffany Wood?

Dave says:

01:26pm | 04/01/10

I wholeheartedly agree that more ‘natural’, which I believe is the correct marketing term for ‘fat’, women should be put on the cover of magazines. If the idea of fat naked chicks on magazines frighten me they should scare the bejesus out of the children and then there would be less kids reaching for lollies beside the checkouts…....

Callie says:

02:01pm | 04/01/10

Bianca’s reaction is the exact same one that me and my mates and the women in my office have had over the last 48 hours.

I don’t know what is more offensive - being told that Jennifer Hawkins’ body is supposed to inspire a sudden wave of affection and comfort towards my own, clearly non-supermodel (but not unhealthy either) body, or Jackie Frank’s feverishly self-congratulatory publicity push.

If this is about reassuring people and promoting positive body image, they picked the wrong girl. People feel comforted about their bodies when they see people who are like them.

This might come across as biased because I am clearly not Jen-like, but I don’t think girls/women that look like or can identify with Jen Hawkins were the target audience they had in mind (or are the ones most in need of a body image boost). Girls/women who look like and can identify with Bianca Dye are.

And don’t even get me started on the “Bianca is fat/unhealthy/promoting the wrong image/jealous and bitter” claptrap. The point of the article and shoot was not aspiration, it was about feeling OK to be in your own skin, whether it be flabby or dimply or uneven. Bianca is not fat. Not everyone who has a pot belly or is a size 14 is fat, or unhealthy.

I’m 25, I’m average height, I go to the gym or exercise at least three times a week, I eat very healthily due to food allergies and intolerances I have and I’m slim - but I have a pot belly, (not just one of those teeny ones that people roll their eyes at either, a proper one. Always have, even since I was a kid) flabby bits, cellulite, crease, rolls and all kinds of other things that mean I’d rather beat myself to death with a flip flop than head to the pool in a bikini this summer.

If you tell me I am fat I’ll punch you in the face. But there is no way in hell looking at that woman’s naked body makes me feel good. I’d prefer to see Bianca any day. I have fat, chubby, ‘normal’, skinny, tall, short friends and colleagues who all think the same thing.

Sure Tiffani Wood, who Bianca co-nuded up with in Madison, seems to have gotten away comparitively unscathed, but she wasn’t on the front page of the sunday papers and in the nightly news with her catatonic editor banging on ad nauseum either.

Chase Stevens says:

02:14pm | 04/01/10

“This is an industry that has been built on selling women the message they need to wax every inch of their beings, “detox” their bodies and strut around in shoes designed by masochists.”

So it’s an industry built for idiots then.

Adam says:

02:13pm | 04/01/10

I’m sick of this misleading “so-and-so bares all” garbage.

If that’s the promise, then aren’t I entitled to expect full pelt?

Or, Marie Claire et al should lead with something more accurate: “Jennifer bares a midriff, some shoulders and a tantilising bit of thigh”

H of SA says:

02:42pm | 04/01/10

Dear Tori, you wrote “This trend towards positive body image in the mags is a marketing tool not a social service”

Well….yeah they are after all a private company seeking profit. I mean if you have values of social justice, equality ect and want to demonstrate that in you professional life you would probably be working at a social service rather than a beauty magazine.

Shy do we expect much from magazines? It lowest common denominator entertainment and it revels in that. So why are we trying to turn it into a social service? It makes as much sense as trying to turn a cat into a fire engine.

If beauty magazines upset people or are not good for your body image here is a hot tip…...don’t buy them. Leave the hell of reading them for people who want that hell.

SM says:

02:56pm | 04/01/10

an inspired marketing ploy by Marie Claire - Hawkins naked + tap into predictably repetitive womens mag body image blah blah debate = circ up

6clegs says:

03:23pm | 04/01/10

I dunno, forgive me for not knowing (and for another post - was thinking on this topic /comments while checking the horses water) - The Punch is about as ‘mainstream’ as i go due to time/interest etc.,  but don’t any of the teenage girls who buy these rags have Parents, mothers, at least?
It really is a sad day when a society relies on a rag like WW/NI etal for guidance, and an even sadder day when the most commercial rag of them all *thinks* it’s Societies leader, WOW, the inmates have really taken over!

Or are there gunmen out there, forcing teens/women to buy these magazines; and I just haven’t seen it???

If critical thinking was really taught in Australian schools the children of Bogans might actually have a chance…
(note to) Kate Ellis, if a barely educated person such as myself can figure that out why are you not talking to Ms Gillard about Critical Thinking being taught across the curriculum??? Surely that would do more for teenage girls (&boys;) than Misses Frank & Hawkins etal could ever hope to ?
Of course really doing something for teenage girls behind closed doors won’t get you a free “makeover” with expensive stylists, but might just get you reelected. . .

[

Michelle Burgess says:

03:23pm | 04/01/10

Liz and many others are right the biggest exploiters of women are women themselves.
The Queen Mother didn’t look like Jen., so much for how to look good and live a long healthy life.
The Queen mother lived to 102, never scrubbed a floor in her life and probably didn’t exercise much either. Champagne and Gin???
Enough Already about how women , look, live etc etc etc.
Lets have a page 3 Man with a six pack everday day in the newspapers.
I Feel so sorry for all these young girls of today.

Radical Chick says:

03:39pm | 04/01/10

I think these magazines are evil and make you feel like you are somewhat awkward because you are past 15.
I no longer buy Marie Claire for a while now….since they published a poorly thought out piece in which they maligned Sarah Palin as not advancing women caus and in the same issue they put Lindsey Lohan in the Mag’s cover…
The message was loud and clear….we won’t tolerate Palin who is a woman but has conservative views but will extend the red carpet to Lohan coz’ she is somehow a model of…...........(You can feel the gap!)
I never again read Maire Claire.
Apparently I am not losing anything right?

stephen says:

03:42pm | 04/01/10

If I buy a copy of Marie Claire next week and there’s teeth marks on the cover, I’ll want my money back.

BB says:

04:01pm | 04/01/10

I agree that Jackie Frank’s ‘the government isn’t doing enough’ comments border on ridiculous. And that it’s silly to think that seeing a near perfect (albeit natural) will make young woman feel proud of their flaws. It won’t. And yes, we all know it’s a marketing ploy. It will sell.

But I do like the fact its unairbrushed. It’s refreshing. Not because I am a “real women have curves” type crusader and think that someone else should take responsibility for my self worth (someone as in magazine editors). I read these magazines and often hate the pseudo-feminist crap and the hypocrisy inherent in them…but sometimes I just like easy reading and the not so bad aspects of them. And I am just SO BORED of seeing airbrushed to wax doll models in the pages. Just bored. The photos aren’t interesting anymore.

So anyway. A win here. But not because I care if Jen Hawkins body looks like mine.

T.Chong says:

04:17pm | 04/01/10

It is a PR stunt, and its working very well. It has all the marketers sincerity of the “Dove” campaign a couple of years ago, but , as far as the fashion mags and marketers are concerned, theres no such thing as bad publicity.
Why would anyone listen to Mia F. ? When she ran varios mags, they were full of stories playing on angst, and she appeared to have no probs using all types of air brushed and underfeds to sell the products. Her new found conversion seems a little late.

SLF says:

04:25pm | 04/01/10

Completely agree, I do not want airbrushed models on magazines covers, but at the same time I don’t want unattractive fatties on therr either, no matter how politically correct it might be. Sorry I don’t I want escapism, which is kind of the point.

There is nothing wrong with having a stylized vision of beauty, if you are mature enough to understand that is is escapism and not reality.  The issue only comes when people over anyalyse it and become ridiculously self critical about themselves because they don’t look as good as model x or y.

Do i have a perfect 6 pack, am I a vision of stylized modern masculine beauty…yeah right. Do i wander round the beach with my rippling muscles and powerful loins sheathed in a pair of budgie smugglers, of course i dont as i would look ridiculous, but I don’t criticise thopse who can and do because they have the genetics and put the effort in.  But I certainly don’t feel insecure because of it not being a modern Adonis.

Sorry, but negative body image sounds like an excuse for not being at ease with who you are. Just get on with it, there are worse things to worry about.

Brad Coward says:

04:27pm | 04/01/10

I feel so much better about my bulging belly thanks to this report.  I’m off to purchase a pair of budgie smugglers and then hit the nearest beach to celebrate my physical liberation !

Ian Harris says:

04:34pm | 04/01/10

Certainly is sexist. Why dont they even it up and put Tony Abbott in the picture. Let him make the men of Australia feel less inferior!

Jax says:

04:51pm | 04/01/10

Jennifer Hawkins is a real woman. She just happens to be genetically blessed with a lithe figure and fresh natural good looks. It’s normal for many girls to be lithe well into their twenties if they exercise moderation and common sense. I say this as woman who mainained a size 10 figure well into my thirties while still enjoying the culinary good life. Yet I was continually told by fatter women that I was skinny and needed to eat more although I had a healthy slightly atheletic figure. The fatties should stop treating them like freaks and work with with the material they’ve been given or just accept it. So your type is not considered beautiful enough to get on the front of a fashion mag… boo hoo there are millions of people in the world who wouldn’t cut the mustard either but they just get on with living. Education about body image is important and might even counteract fatties with narcissistic delusions.

Jason says:

05:09pm | 04/01/10

I’m lead to believe that women are actually quite intelligent so why do so many women make such uneducated and quite plainly dumb decisions about fitness (eg fad diets leading to eating disorders rather than healthy exercise?) It’s not the fault of the magazine, it’s the fault of the end-user not researching the best method of achieving their desired look.  Using your brain will make you fit, slim and attractive (plus, demonstrating that you have a brain will make you attractive to us cool nerds)

TonyM says:

05:12pm | 04/01/10

It’s a shame you weren’t asked to write the article Jax.

congrats Tory! says:

05:14pm | 04/01/10

Thank you Tory & thank you Bianca for being brave enough to say what the majority of the population thought! Another example of another media ploy, clutching at straws, thinking up another way to hype up publicity and sell more mags, and what an evil one it was this time - putting a naked supermodel on the front with the so called flaws n all which you would need a microscope to even detect the one or two that exist and then hiding under the innocent & ever so charitable & moral guise of doing our bit for charity & one that supports eating disorders at that! how insulting is that! it’s images like this & perfection like this that drives girls to have eating disorders in the first place, I am speaking from experience here. Jackie Frank and Jennifer Hawkins….hang your heads in shame! Self Promotion on both your parts is the true reason for this little stunt in the first place, not the charity and not helping women to feel better about themselves, you have had the adverse affect here. People like Bianca & yourself telling it like it is, brings it all back into perspective & we do not even buy the mags to have it thrust on us , it’s all over news how do we escape it?  Herald Sun & possibly every other newspaper in the country even bought into it,  running it on their front page,  - Jackie Frank must be smiling…mission accomplished!

Mike says:

05:16pm | 04/01/10

If Mia Freedman was offered enough money and went back to magazine editing she would jump straight back into it and models and retouching wouldn’t be an issue to her.

Lisa says:

05:22pm | 04/01/10

Who cares about hypocritical fashion magazines, and the lemming-like compulsion to buy they induce in lonely girls?
Well, I do, because I have two girl children myself.
Thank you, fashion magazine editors, for doing so little with the intellects and opportunities your mothers and grandmothers fought for.
Airbrushing needs to be credited, at the very least.
Jen Hawkins is a cheerleader living off her looks. Some role model.

Jeremy says:

06:23pm | 04/01/10

So if a woman is thin and a model we are licenced to attack her for her body image?  She doesn’t represent the ‘natural’ woman so you can now criticise her?  What if that is her natural body?  A fat woman can’t be criticised for being fat, but you can criticise a thin woman for being thin.  Where’s the difference?  Just as you can’t criticise the natural body shouldn’t you also not ciriticise the unnatural body?  Seems like one rule for the fat and another rule for the thin.

Ed says:

08:07pm | 04/01/10

I’m a man. I think Jen is lovely. I like looking at pictures of her. That’s all.

Azar says:

08:24pm | 04/01/10

It’s discouraging to see that people have such misconceptions about what is healthy and what it is to be a woman.

After looking at the photographs of Jennifer Hawkins, I was horrified and uncomfortable. Not at the photographs, as she’s undoubtedly nice-looking and she has earned it - no, what worried me is that this kind of body is what is being advertised as ideal. For most women, a body like that is not attainable, and it’s not a matter of laziness - it’s genetics. No matter how much certain women exercise, it won’t make them look anything like Ms. Hawkins - not if they have naturally wide-set hips, which are optimal for child-bearing and therefore what a *natural* woman is supposed to look like.

(No, this isn’t whinging from a whale trying to defend herself. I’m one of those women who is lucky enough to be naturally slim; size eight/ten, slightly-below-average BMI, a waist-hip ratio of 0.68 - the works.)

Don’t get me wrong: featuring a size fourteen/sixteen woman like this in a magazine would be just as bad. That’s also an unhealthy body to strive for and one that far too many women are content to maintain is ‘normal’, choosing to cling to that fantasy instead of accepting the reality that they are overweight.

I will never pass up on an opportunity to promote healthy eating and regular exercise, but the fact of the matter is that Ms. Hawkins’ body is not an ideal that young women should think is attainable or normal. Her lifestyle - her diet and exercise schedule - is certainly one that more people should adopt, but it’s not her lifestyle that’s posing nude on the cover of a magazine.

I am disgusted that Marie Claire would make such a beg for publicity as this. There’s a difference between a natural, average woman and someone who makes their living out of looking unnaturally nice.

I look forward to the time when women don’t have to feel ugly next to women like this; when it is perfectly normal for healthy, truly normal size ten/twelve women to pose like this on the cover of a magazine without it being a publicity stunt.

WK says:

09:14pm | 04/01/10

Sadly, some people on here are really missing the point!!
Hawko is not the problem here. Plenty of men & women like her, and considering the nature of her industry, the cover was a brave thing for her do.
It’s the comments from jackie frank that are the issue. Deflecting the blame to the govt?? Come on!! We can blame the govt for many things, but that is hilarious. I think both Tory & Mia Freedman are spot on with this.

Lara says:

09:16pm | 04/01/10

To Jeremy @ 7:23PM

Why do people like you bother commenting on articles that you clearly haven’t read? I have noticed a fair few of these comments (made mostly by men) talking about how all the women here are whinging about Jennifer Hawkins and how she is not healthy because she’s slim, etc. Seriously, please read the article properly or don’t say anything at all.

The author is NOT attacking Jennifer Hawkins figure in any way shape or form. She is also NOT suggesting that being obese is healthy. She is suggesting that these magazines have made perfectly healthy and normal looking women feel bad about themselves repeatedly for years. These same magazines now think they should be applauded for featuring an international model on the front cover of a magazine and saying “look at us, we promote healthy body image”. Give us a break.

I don’t read these magazines, but I’ve seen them in the past (in our GP’s waiting room) and they make me sad that this is the state of the world today.

Leon says:

09:57pm | 04/01/10

This whole body image malarkey is about as positive as the Beijing franchise was for the ‘status of women’? In summary, women who complain about seeing hot babes in magazines are just fat or jealous. Or either. Or both. The body image ‘dabate’ helps nobody, and women should simply stop buying these crap magazines, stop listening to ‘feminists’ like Ms Freedman et al and empower and appreciate THEMSELVES simply for who they are.  FFS complain about something really important for a change…

Gary says:

07:14am | 05/01/10

I really don’t mean to sound nasty , but l think a lot of the criticism towards this photo shoot stems from jealousy.How is it fair that because Jen decides to spend time at the gym and generally look after herself she disqualifies herself as being a “real woman”?She certainly sets a better example than Bianca Dye having botox treatment.I know Jen has help from nature and has more time to spend at the gym than most people so it is not a level playing field, but that just reflects life in general, and it is not something she should feel guilty about.lf more people spent more time on their own wellbeing they might be surprised at how much better they look and feel. l would rather see less of these trashy magazines promoting “hollywood bodies"with their photo retouching and dangerous fad diets.We don"t shield our sporting children from Nick Reiwoldt , Stephanie Rice, Harry Kewell or Roger Federer , so why shield anyone from a good looking and healthy body like Jennifers?

Jeremy says:

07:19am | 05/01/10

Lara:

‘She is suggesting that these magazines have made perfectly healthy and normal looking women feel bad about themselves repeatedly for years.’

Why do women feel this way?

Maxie says:

09:52am | 05/01/10

Azar says: 09:24pm | 04/01/10
You have completely missed the point, and your comments smack of hypocrisy.
Jen Hawkins is real, that is something overweight ladies have to deal with.
She was born with slim hips, and she is no less “normal” than a lady with what you call “child-bearing hips”. A women is not supposed to look like anything other than the way she was born. A woman is no less a woman if she doesn’t have child-bearing hips. Hell, a woman is no less a woman if she can’t have children.

At no point, EVER in this issue has ANYONE suggested Jen Hawkins is what women should all aspire to look like. The issue the Butterfly Foundation was attempting to draw your attention to, was retouching. A fat, plain, unattractive woman on the front cover would NOT have drawn attention to this issue. This is what the Butterly Foundation’s spokesperson has repeatedly said.

I am so tired of fat women everywhere hijacking the body image debate to make themselves feel better about having 3 slices of cake for dessert.
Fat women are not asking for equality, they are asking for the beauty goal posts to be moved. Binaca Dye and people like her don’t care about anything but themselves. As long as someone is telling her she is hotter than a skinny model, she couldn’t give a shit about how other women feel.

Bitten says:

11:16am | 05/01/10

Interesting points made. I for one am tired of fashion magazines attempting to push a social-policy perspective. I don’t want fat people on my Vogue cover, just like I don’t want a feature article espousing the challenges of single-parenthood. Vogue and other fashion magazines should do fashion well and stop trying to be all things to all people. If I want to read about obesity, I flick through my copy of MJA, if I want to read about breast cancer, I’ll check out Elsevier’s publications, if I want to hear about some political issue, I’ll get a newspaper. Fashion magazines are supposed to do fashion and I think much of the fluff (political statements, wails from freelance writers on their latest life experience such as an abortion, a fight with a new partner, a failed dinner party, ‘real-body’ photo shoots) are all an attempt to disguise the fact that most proclaimed Australian ‘fashion’ mags are in fact total crap at their supposed niche area - FASHION. Get on with the original shoots, quality feature articles on upcoming designers, impact of the GFC on the luxury market. Leave the rest of this dribble alone.

Nicole Knight says:

11:33am | 05/01/10

What a crock, seriously. Women are hurting very badly on a daily basis, unnecessarily, due to body image, why has this become a money spinner for someone? Disappointing beyond words.

Mike says:

12:11pm | 05/01/10

As a 35-year-old male whose reading tastes run to, shall we say, more direct and honest appeals to the groin, I regarded the photos as a bit ho-hum.  What got my back up (so to speak) was Hawkins’ comment that “I’m not a stick figure - I thought it would be great to tell women to just be themselves and be confident.”  Personally that riles me up because it’s either highly disingenuous or highly ignorant of Hawkins to say that, though my suspicion is that it’s the former.  See, Hawkins is basically saying “Doesn’t matter what size or shape you are, just be confident about yourself and go out there; I have flaws and I’m confident.  Even if you have flaws, you can do the same.”  That is, Hawkins seems to be saying she’s on a similar level of physical attractiveness to much of the Australian female population, or at least Marie Claire’s readership.  If Hawkins actually believes that about herself after being a cheerleader, “competing” in and winning a Miss Universe beauty pageant, and working as a catwalk model, she is fulfilling the stereotype of the dumb blonde.  If, which I posit, she doesn’t in fact believe it and is simply saying it out of false modesty—out of some desire to try and portray herself as “one of the girls”—that’s a hell of a lot more contemptible than getting your kit off for a magazine cover.  She should’ve had some moral courage and just said “I know I’ve got a good body, but even with genetics on my side, I didn’t keep it this way by sitting around and doing nothing.  I exercised, I ate right, and I looked after myself.  All women should do that, regardless of how their body looks, simply because it’s healthy and you’ll live longer.”

Lisa says:

12:37pm | 05/01/10

The fact is Jen Hawkins ‘lifestyle’ is more like a job description, revolving around maintaining ‘Brand Jennifer’.
An appearances-based brand necessitates a never ending and expensive process of fake tan, beauty treatments, hair appointments and dental visits (bleaching, anyone?).
And that’s not even accounting for the hours and hours of DAILY exercise many of the women in this industry are expected to participate in.
Jen Hawkins might be a glamour model, but she’s really an advocate for the fitness industry, judging by those abs.
I haven’t got the time, or the tax-deductions, to allow for such a use of my time.
‘Brand Lisa’ is expected to hold down the type of job where aerobics, pilates and yoga are paid for by me, and done in my ‘spare’ time. Also, I have three young children to consider.
My body is not my job, therefore, I will not be emulating Jen’s lifestyle.

Do a round of leg squats and have a face massage for me, Jen. but please do not presume to ‘represent’ me. Although I don’t think Jen actually does presume.
I think she is being forced into the glass slipper of ‘role model’ by the magazine editors, striving for ‘relevance’.

Pia says:

03:26pm | 05/01/10

Marie Claire has no guts when it comes to the entire body image issue.  For real leadership, great role models and proof that real women (with actual curves) are smoking hot check out the latest V Magazine shoot.

There are plenty of magazines which have the chutzpah to style for the ladies on the street.  They just don’t have the mastheads that everybody recognises.  There’s a reason that I don’t read Marie Claire, Madison, Cleo…etc anymore.  Women need to vote with their consumption.  If you don’t like a magazines depiction of women, don’t buy it.  Simple.

http://www.refinery29.com/under_the_influence
/plus_size_v_magazine_curves_ah.php

Penny MacDonald says:

04:56pm | 05/01/10

Can I just say that the June 2009 edition (or was it July?) of Women’s Weekly had Olivia Newton-John on their cover with her daughter was the last time I bought that magazine. Olivia is gorgeous and she is 61, but the photo had her looking.ike she was younger than her daughter. I wrote to the WW pointing out that this kind of image was not going to do much for older womens self-confidence…..I mean I’m 59 and thought I looked ok, but after seeing that shot I realised all hope was lost.
Still they made up for it I guess by putting Sarah Murdoch on their cover ((3.5 wrinkles and all) which should have made all women over 50 feel great. about not beinjg afraid to age gracefully.
I have three grandaughters 16, 14 and 11 and you know what even they have flaws (although I don’t tell them that)

Lauren says:

05:28pm | 05/01/10

Really enjoyed your article Tory.

The thing that gets me upset is the whole “magazines with skinny models are causing our girls to develop eating disorders!” aspect.

Firstly, the majority of teenage girls with eating disorders have obesity (Yep, obese girls do get hospitalised as ‘eating disorder patients’).

Secondly, eating disorders are a disease of the mind. My younger sister almost died from Annorexia, and has been hospitalised over half a dozen times for it. She didn’t look at various magazines and decided right then and there to starve herself. Its a little more complicated than that!!!

ANYWAY, I do believe a lot of women (and men) need a good slap in the face. You are buying a product, don’t expect Average Joe to be gracing the cover. You wouldn’t buy a car that hasn’t been washed and looks like it is not taken care of, would you?

Also, this ‘real’ women thing is utterly STOOPID! Jen Hawkins is a real woman. I’m a 22 year old who exercises daily yet still has a bit of a gut, and guess what, last time I looked I’m a real woman too. You can only make the most out of what you got, and that’s what I’m doing, and also what Jen Hawkins is doing.

Sitting around for the government or a magazine loaded with social conditions to tell you you are acceptable isn’t going to make things any better. Either love what you have, or DO something about it.

Argh, this makes me so angry….!

Elka says:

06:05pm | 05/01/10

damn….this was a great article until the last two paragraphs.

Lauren…..i starved myself as a direct result of looking at these magazines. These images may not cause the disorders all by themselves, but the research shows they are a significant contributer to the problem.

no-one is against “skinny” girls, just the idea that one unairbrushed sexy image of Miss freaking universe will make us all feel good again after years of messages telling us we’re not good enough.

Darren says:

06:25am | 06/01/10

Maxie:
‘I am so tired of fat women everywhere hijacking the body image debate to make themselves feel better about having 3 slices of cake for dessert.’

LOL…hit the nail right on the head!

Bill says:

06:29am | 06/01/10

People who believe what they see in magazines or other form of media as being the way things are in real life seriously need to get some idea of reality.  These days, the Media is a delivery vehicle to sell advertising and nothing else.  If you honestly look at a magazine and wonder why you’re not good enough then you need to seek medical assistance.

Ray says:

08:11am | 06/01/10

i would like to see what would have been the end product of the “editted” image had it been used.  Then we can see how much the industry has conned us to believe how women look like.  It is not just people how are re-touched, but anything which is used to sell something.

cats says:

10:25am | 06/01/10

I think you make a good point about healthy bodies not only being model’s bodies. Healthy bodies come in all shapes and sizes.

However (this is not in relation to the article) i am sooo sick of being told i’m not a real woman because i’m a size 6. It’s really started to get to me. Size 14 may be the average for an aussie female but that does not mean it is the best one for all women. 25% of Australians are obese and about half the population is overweight. If everyone was their ideal weight (fat to body ratio), then i’d imagine the average size would be size 10. Keeping in mind that average does not mean normal. If we were all our ideal weight, we’d all be normal.

Jennifer is her ideal weight for her build. That means she is normal.

Rafe says:

11:20am | 06/01/10

Stop the press when the lads mags have untouched photos of middle aged radio celebrities on their cover. Until then society hasn’t moved on, its all just a publicity stunt.

Astrogirl says:

09:04pm | 11/10/10

I know this is an old artice but :
It’s interesting how not long after Jen posed for Marie Claire, she did that shoot for lovable with 25 per cent of the online sales profits to The Butterfly Foundation, which is a charity for eating disorders. The fact that she looks like she is posing for ZOO magazine not an ad targeting women to buy Lingerie , makes this all the more tacky. When will the media change?.

It was only a few days before that photo was in the Herald Sun that I glanced at a copy of Cleo magazine. The first 30 or so pages go on about makeup and fashion and how to used that to look great etc etc and then a few articles in next to all the ones about improving your sex life is an article saying how women are spending $100,000 on cosmetic surgery and how bad it is yet women spend almost the same on makeup trying to look good from the same magazines that is writing articles telling how to look great using that makeup… it such a double standard, no wonder girls are confused.