About
Search for content
Feminism to blame for obesity? Fat chance
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/21/feminism-and-home-cooking
“I’m no Barbie doll
I’m not your baby girl
I’ve done ugly things
And I have made mistakes
And I am not as pretty as those girls in magazines
I am rotten to my core if they’re to be believed
So what if I’m no baby bird hanging upon your every word
Nothing ever smells of roses that rises out of mud” - Why do you love me, Garbage
This study is consistent with the work of University of Padova researchers. They found that when women were dressed sexually (compared to when they weren’t), people implicitly associated them more with animals.
Other research has found that merely focusing on a woman’s appearance (fully dressed) is enough for people (men and women) to dehumanize a woman. Specifically, we found that people assign female targets less “human nature traits” when focus is on their appearance. These traits are perceived by humans to separate people from machines, automata and objects.
Another study found that these women are seen as less moral (sincere, trusting) and less emotionally warm (likable, warm).
These findings are also consistent with a wide range of work showing that objectified women are perceived as less competent. Interestingly, research even finds that when men view sexualized pictures of women, they subsequently view a female experimenter as doing a worse job. In other words, men “carried over” their views of the sexualized women to another woman, who was not scantily dressed.
And lastly, research shows that men and women view sexualized images (of both men and women) as lacking “mind,” which is basically a denial of thoughts and emotions. In this work, people even had less concern for the sexualized people’s pain, compared to when they were fully dressed.
(via nudecency)
This is a collage I made from an old issue of “Cosmopolitan” magazine. All of the text you see was taken from inside the magazine, cut out and pasted onto the cover, to give the reader a more accurate idea of the magazine’s contents.
As the owner of a style/fashion/beauty website, I hate women’s magazines like this. Style should be about discovering, inventing and expressing yourself. At the very least, style (as something to learn and explore) should make you feel good. But the messages sent by these magazines lower the reader’s consciousness and increase her myopic self-absorption, at the expense of self-awareness and deep thought.
Another problem I have with these magazines is their scattershot approach to self-improvement. It’s bad enough that they do harm; they ought not to pretend to do good as well. Their so-called “helpful” articles (“Food for Healthy Breasts,” “Your OB/GYN and You,” “Binge Drinking”) have a few facts, taken out of context and endorsed by an anonymous doctor at the Mayo Clinic or somewhere like that. No one can remember these tidbits for more than a few minutes, at best. It would be better, and more honest, to recommend a series of nonfiction books which present this information systematically, such as “The Young Woman’s Guide to Her Body,” “Healthy Food, Happy Life” or “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Alcohol and Drugs (But Were Afraid to Ask).” (These aren’t real books, just examples.)
I would like to make a webpage about body image and the media on Enjoy Your Style. If you like this collage, please make one of your own and submit it. If you’d like me to make a few more of these, or develop this a bit more, please consider donating so I can buy these magazines and spend time improving their covers, to say nothing of doing the research.
(via enjoyyourstyle)
"Idealization: A love object is overvalued and idealized."
"How wrong it is for a woman to expect the man to build the world she wants, rather than to create it herself."
