One Small Step for Womenkind

In class we have talked about how the media plays a role in setting the standards of how we think. Most of the time we don’t even realize or question what the media says in these regards because it is so engrained in us to just listen. So instead, I am stopping to asking questions. There has been a lot of chatter during the last few days about Sports Illustrated magazine because they are featuring, for the first time ever, a plus size model.

This is monumental for their swimsuit issue without a doubt but I think people are still missing something. All this coverage and the spotlight of this plus size model who has made history is supposed to make women feel more empowered to be confident in their own bodies and not starve themselves to look like twig sized models. But has anyone stopped to notice anything about this plus sized model, or others that appear in the modeling industry? Lets look the cover.

She is beautiful and her body is beautiful and since she is the first plus sized model everyone is simply in awe. But lets talk about what is missing here. Yes, she is a “bigger” sized woman but where are her stretch marks? Where are her pores? Where is her little tummy pooch? Where is her belly button? She is seamless. Seamless is not reality.

While this is a win for the plus size modeling industry, is it really a win for women? It is undoubtedly a step in the right direction but can we really call it a win?

Plus size models have regulations just like “regular” models. Although they are a set of models who wear bigger sizes, they can only be in the range of sizes 10/12-14/16 and have to be 6 ft tall. This category of “plus size” models does allow for a more realistic body type, but it still only accepts a small percentage of women who are the perfect formula of what the industry says “plus size” is. Plus size models, like regular models, must have good skin, teeth, hair, and nails. They can’t have tattoos, piercings, and must have natural colored hair.

There are companies who are making the effort to take the next step: using real, un-photoshopped women. Aerie, the lingerie brand of American Eagle, has started "The Real You" campaign with a vow that they will no longer photoshop or supermodels. 

That is inspiring. Seeing these real girls makes me feel good and confident about my appearance. I feel more empowered in my own skin and realize that its ok to have a little stomach pooch and that their thighs look bigger when they are sitting down too. Because that is how human bodies are built. I don't feel bad when I try on their lingerie in the store anymore because I am not surrounded by images of an unachievable goal. 

A few years ago, I was an avid reader of Glamour magazine and I bought the issue that featured a picture of “the woman on p.194” (without knowing that was part of the issue). The issue came out in 2009, which means I was about 14 years old. At the time I wasn’t really interested in articles beyond makeup and fashion advice so I’m not sure if I even actually read the article that went with the picture but I remember seeing the picture as I flipped to another story in the magazine and I remember thinking that the picture must definitely have been part of a story and not an ad because no company would put her on an add. I didn’t mean that in a rude way, I just knew, even at age 14, that that woman could never be a model for something because she didn’t fit the “perfect” mold. 

At 14 I knew that I didn’t want to look like that woman because she wasn’t skinny. Now, I’m a 20-year-old college student and that picture speaks volumes to me. She is beautiful. Not “model” beautiful, but real life beautiful. She has little rolls and normal sized thighs and most importantly, she looks unbelievably happy. That is what I want and what I want for my younger sister and my friends and our future children. I want the women of the world to find happiness and joy in their bodies. I hope that these movements are just the beginning and that the next generation of girls wont have to starve themselves to feel good in their skin.

Formation *EDITED*

It's only been a few days since its release but I am already late to the Formation party. Beyoncé aka Queen B released a new song before her Super Bowl performance and people everywhere can't stop talking about it. I am not incredibly musically inclined, I'm not a snob, I have eclectic taste and I let people listen to whatever they want to listen to because what people do in their own free time doesn't affect me one bit. So basically, I don't get the hype other than it being a new Beyoncé song. Really what has people talking is her message in the song and depictions in the music video for it. 

While I agree that the words were written with meaning, I think its ironic that Beyoncé is being praised by many for a politically charged song while not even a month ago, Macklemore was criticized for the exact same thing. He was "capitalizing on race inequality and banking in on those who suffer" while Beyoncé is "bringing awareness to issues"...and still making a boat load of money off it...

I don't think anyone should make money off the suffering of other people but lets face it, that’s the world we live in. So why, if both singers had good intentions, is Beyoncé given a pass and Macklemore chastised? Just because she's black? As a Jew I obviously have the right to write and sing about the strife that Jews have faced and still faced but should I get angry at a non-Jew for also bringing attention to discrimination against Jews just because he isn't Jewish? If it is all for the same cause, why is one sinful and the other a powerful act?

Where is our even playing field? It seems as though minorities just want equal rights. Women, gays, blacks, immigrants, etc. just want to all make the same wages as white men, right? So if one side is asking for equality, shouldn’t that same side offer equality?

https://apoliticallyincorrect.com/2016/02/07/dear-fellow-white-people-formation-is-not-for-us/

This article basically says, if you are a white person you might not like this song and you shouldn’t and it’s not for you. While I realize the song and video have caused political conversation, why is it such a big deal if some people don’t like it and some people do? And why is it specifically white people who shouldn’t like it? The obvious answer to that is “DUH you are the white man and this song goes against you” but maybe I just like the tune. Who gets to dictate what music I like or don’t like based off my skin color? Does that mean Italians aren’t allowed to like country music and Asians can’t like jazz music too?

My skin color dictates only one thing: how I am treated on an individual level. My birth certificate does not say white aka hates trap music. If people keep talking about songs like this, the idea of stereotyping will only be further enforced. Saying “white people can’t like this song” pushes the playing fields of the world even farther apart. We should be coming together, not widening the gap.

Am I Pretty Yet?

Our discussion in class after the TED talk by a model got me thinking about what it means to be beautiful. In class, the discussion of course turned in to a race issue (how is it that everything seems to turn into a race issue?) and about skin tone. It is interesting to talk about the perfect skin tone in a diverse class room like ours because most white women (not all) want to be beautifully tanned with a sexy Brazilian glow while it seems all other ethnicities want the white skin we wish was darker. Where does this come from? Is it a part of the white supremacy "problem" or does it stem from something else entirely?

Dark skinned people wanting lighter skin is not something that came about with the slave trade that turned in to all the black rights issues we have now. Cross culturally, the desire for lighter skin goes back thousands of years. Being darker meant you spent time in the sun which usually meant you were working in the sun which therefor created a division between those with light and dark skin. Women of royalty in places like Egypt would spend almost all of their time indoors to keep their skin untouched by the sun and as light as possible. 

Even today, cultures around the world do what they can to stay away from the damaging rays of the sun to maintain their pristine light skin. This also stems from a history of their own culture and not white supremacy. This article (http://www.vagabondjourney.com/white-skin-a-chinese-obession/) discusses the ideal of lighter skin being more beautiful in China and East Asian countries in general. The journalist notes that the Chines are not trying to look American, they are trying to look like fair skinned Chines people. He also notes that:

"White skin is a very long-honed determinant of beauty in China, and spans back to a time long before the first white dude ever set foot in North America. To read through old Chines literature you'll find that skin tone is mentioned often and is usually used to reference class or character. In point, skin color is used to show where someone comes from and the type of life they live."

This shows that the beauty sought after in light skinned people is not simply a complex created by evil white people. As our discussion in class often turns to how awful privileged white people are I begin to wonder where these issues actually stem from. That is not to say that there is no discrimination in this country because that would be a blatant and ignorant lie but I feel as though a lot of people in my generation tend to construct issues that don't stem from where they think they do. 

For example, lets talk about Barbie. I was more of a Bratz fan growing up but I of course had a few Barbie dolls and played with them every so often. I have heard a lot of people criticize the company because of their long history of producing white dolls. While I understand that in this generation, that is not an accurate representation of our country, it reflects the history of our country. The dolls were made for Americans, which in originality where descendants of white people from Britain (if we ignore the actual "Native Americans" who were the real first Americans). Is it bad that the line produced dolls that looked like its target market? 

There is a line of dolls under the "Positively Perfect" brand name and none of them are white because they focus on the niche market of minority children who want dolls that look like them. Is that also discrimination? Yes, over the years the Barbie brand has been ignorant for not expanding their products lines more in to these niche markets but that is their own downfall in sales. So how does it become a commentary on our society?

One of my worst and best qualities is that I can argue both sides of any argument so here I must argue against myself and say that yes, it is bad because that is how we get the results we do from the Clark doll test. I feel like at the end of the day, the real problem we face is our own insecurities. I am a white woman and I wish I was tanner, taller, thinner, and had straighter hair. I suppose that is because society tells me beautiful women are tall, thin, and naturally pretty. But I also notice that when I think of beauty, "white" isn't a qualification I think of unless someone of "another color" says white is what is beautiful. Again, maybe that is me being unaware of my ignorance or me being programmed to think that way but how can we really know?