Jennifer Hawkins nude on the cover of Marie Claire - it's not exactly shocking is it? I mean, she's a lingerie model which means she's pretty much naked most of the time she's in the spotlight. The cover doesn't show her with her legs wide open or even her nipples exposed - yet it has created as much heated discussion it might as well have.
The issue is this; Hawkins is being applauded for appearing "untouched" on the cover. There has supposedly been no photo-shopping or digital manipulation of the image. Well, well, well; golf-claps all round. How very daring for a woman who, besides having a fabulous figure and being only 26 years old makes a career out of strutting the cat-walk in barely-there lingerie.
Here's a news-flash; she is PAID to keep her figure in brilliant condition. It is her JOB to look amazing and to have a trim and terrific body. So HOW exactly does she represent the "average woman"? If I didn't have to work 50 hours a week and was paid squillions of dollars to be glamorous I might go to the gym more than once a year and look as awesome as her too*.
How exactly is this image supposed to promote good body-image in "normal" women? It makes me want to stick my fingers down my throat and buy a bottle of peroxide.
Good on Marie Claire for getting all this free publicity for a shot that might as well have been photo-shopped; as if anyone would have noticed had it not been pointed out. Oh, dimples on her thigh you say? Uneven skin-tone?! Call the nip/tuck team stat!
On channel 9's Today show this morning radio host Bianca Dye spoke about baring all for Madison magazine in November. She pointed out the glaringly obvious that Hawkins is hardly a "normal" girl. The irony is that the ninemsn.com.au article had a link to a Zoo Weekly story about photo-shopping that referred to un photo-shopped pics of celebs as causing "vomit at the back of your throat". Way to prove a point that "real" women is the way of the future ... classy as usual.
The Madison issue actually had average sized women in the buff and was actually trying to make a point about body image. But it didn't have Jeniffer Hawkins nude on its cover - so actually went unnoticed.
The editor of Marie Claire, Jackie Frank, has blamed Australian women's negative body-image on the government. Well of course! Damn those attractive back-benchers and their enviable lighting and make-up at parliament question time! It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the unrealistic images that are thrust upon us at every supermarket check-out line and on every billboard on every corner.
Who would have thought a magazine like Marie Claire, dependent on advertising and profit, would be so devious in its sales tactics? *insert sarcasm here*.
* I say "might" because going to the gym probably won't make me 6 foot tall or white.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dye-v-hawkins-a-fatuous-argument-over-slim-women-20100104-lq1h.html?autostart=1
ReplyDeleteThis article by feminist Clem Bastow is a wonderful take on the issue. So does The Beauty Myth. All of this stuff, whether it's the Madison shoot where they use 'real women' or your average issue of Cosmo is designed to market and package what it is to be 'a woman'. Unfortunately, you can't be a woman unless you are paying someone...for make-up, or for graphic design (all of that photoshop work doesn't render itself), or for hair care or skin cream or...
There's no point lambasting Marie Claire...it seems to me that all parties are pushing their idea of what it is to be a 'real woman'.
It's a shame, but it's also why we can have Obama as U.S President but not Hillary.
Sorry...so is The Beuty Myth...not does. It's difficult to type well with 20 screaming children running about the classroom.
ReplyDeleteI was not suggesting that Hawkin's isn't "real", simply that she is far from ordinary. Bianca Dye annoys me just as much and for altogether different reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe question of "real" is something completely different and seeing as I'm on a beach in Lorne I'd rather not get into existentialist theory.
My point was that Marie Claire (or any magazine/media) trying to justify themselves with an "ordinary" girl and using a former Miss Universe are a pack of fucking idiots - and I'm not buying it.
I 100% agree with you. I thought I was seeing things when I read that naked untouched jennifer was on the cover to promote "healthy" body image. I nearly choked on my chocolate bar. How is someone who excersizes hours per day and eats only salads relatable to the everyday Australian woman who has to work 8 hours a day at a desk. It is impossible to compete. I won't be buying marie clair ever again.
ReplyDelete