Usually I hate those posts entitled "(blah blah blah) NAILS IT"

[shaayecanaan]

because its generally a desperate attempt to overegg some random riposte by a politician or talking head that is only witty by the standards of American political debate, which is a pretty low bar at the best of times.

But this woman nails it:-

Female correspondents — even good ones like Crabb — seem lately unable to resist communicating concerns about “body image”. This, I think, has less to do with an urgent need to remediate the male gaze and much more to do with an iron-clad guarantee of approval. Write about The Pressure to Look Good, and you’ll find a wide and uncritical audience.

Hold forth with any degree of earnestness about “body image”, and your thoughts will ricochet around the internet with all the speed and force of Oprah at an ashram buffet. You might even profit.

When the actress Ashley Judd last year wrote a piece about press interest in her appearance, she was hailed as thoughtful and brave. I found the jeremiad of a woman who’d long made her living through trade on a broadly acceptable appearance self-serving and craven. But I am not very nice and remained uniquely unmoved, too, when Britney Spears released “before and after” Photoshop images in a move intended to “empower”.

This is not empowerment. It is not, as it initially appears, a selfless move to reassure All Women that physical perfection is a damaging fiction. It is, rather, a prudent marketing decision that sells the idea of “self-esteem” to a mass audience while not actually risking the simultaneous sale of beauty.

To be clear, I have no real problem with the sale of beauty per se. Nor of the sale of sexuality, chastity or any of the other tedious feminine qualities the market reproduces. For mine, it is the mechanism of the market itself that is the problem, not the goods in trade.

In other words, it doesn’t matter if you’re Miley Cyrus selling your sexy sexual awakening, Ashley Judd selling your embarrassing first-year gender studies or McDonald’s selling charity, you probably need to fuck off and stop pretending that you care for anything but the success of your brand.

I have written fairly extensively about the sale of “body image” and self-esteem before. I have pointed out that there is no proven nor probable connection between media images of “perfect” women and dysmorphic disorders and that “real beauty” is as invented and as saleable as any other kind. I have critiqued government attempts to endorse a “real beauty” standard as hopeless and, to be honest, I thought I was pretty much spent on the topic.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/10/30/razer-dont-buy-into-self-esteem-feminism/

[BlueJazz]

1. While I generally agree with what the person says, I believe studies have shown that...

...there is a scientific human standard of beauty. (eyes a certain width versus face configuration along with other factors). I find that interesting as a scientific observer but I also fully agree with >

"In other words, it doesn’t matter if you’re Miley Cyrus selling your sexy sexual awakening, Ashley Judd selling your embarrassing first-year gender studies or McDonald’s selling charity, you probably need to fuck off and stop pretending that you care for anything but the success of your brand."

Good post.

[shaayecanaan]

2. Exactly

How many womens magazines feature a pious declaration about "body image" on one page and then devote the rest of their pages to flogging dresses and makeup? Probably most of them.

they sell you the poison and then they sell you the antidote...