The point is this. It's like you have to choose between these two people:
'that girl' VS 'NOT that girl haha'
|crap 'appleworks paint' skills by me|
if you think this is great you should see my friend's artistic genius on paint
watch this space
yes maire i'm talking to you
OK, here is the most INCREDIBLE MIND BLOWING THING YOU WILL EVER HEAR:
'that girl' DOES NOT EXIST!DOES NOT EXIST!
DOES NOT EXIST!
'But the photos!' you say. 'The tumblrs, instagrams, the girl at school, the girl I saw at the gym!' Really? You're going to base someone's entire existence on 1. what they look like 2. what they tell you? Ever considered they don't tell you everything? Ever considered that actually, you have no right to judge them and class them into a specific 'type' of person? Especially on the internet. That's the funny thing about the internet, a person has complete control over whether or not to click 'post'. The whole stupid thing about this is that girls think skinny=healthy. And worse, not eating=healthy.
'But slim does equal healthy!!!'
Well, I don't know if you knew this, but you can't tell whether or not someone is healthy just by looking at them.
Watch this Laci Green video for more:
I'm not going to do some 'you're beautiful on the inside' 'everyone's beautiful' etc shit because I don't think that's the problem. I actually hate 'everyone's beautiful' because it's like 'OOOH okay now that I'm the same as everyone else I can FINALLY stop worrying! woohoo!' Today, we have an obsession with beauty and the sometimes ridiculous social standards that are attached to the word. Maybe that's always been the case, I don't know. It just seems like it's reached an extremity.
Some magazines are under fire at the moment for presenting unrealistic images of women and using models that are 'too skinny'. (~if you want to escape from this and take a nice relaxing bath in glitter and radness and girl power, visit rookiemag.com~ p.s that was not spam I seriously love Rookie) People are saying, 'oh, I wish they used real girls in their magazines'. DOLLY Magazine already does this. They use their readers in the magazine and have 'retouch free zones' which I think is great.
You can put as many real, plus-sized, every-day, un-retouched girls in the magazine as you want and it's not going to make a difference to the way we view them. Some may celebrate 'NORMAL GIRLS IN VOGUE!' 'REAL GIRLS MAKE A COMEBACK'. (note: real, normal... again, all we're doing is classifying one 'type' as normal and the other as abnormal. There is no normal!) Girls will still flip through magazines. They will look at the shoots, and they will still compare themselves to the models. I guess after a while we would get used to looking at girls that don't have legs as long as the Yarra River, and maybe the comparison and desire to look thin would diminish. What I'm trying to say is: it's not the magazines that need to change, it's our attitude and our awareness about this issue. That might seem a heck of a lot harder, but it's probably easier than convincing Anna Wintour to... well, to do anything.
There is a great article written by Helen Razer about Vogue and this issue, and I think the last sentence sums up it up well.
"If Vogue aspires to make long-lasting change, then it is no longer Vogue."
Don't let magazines (or anyone, in that case) tell you how you should look or how you should feel about yourself. You're the one with the brain, and the body. That means you have control.