What’s the ideal body? Who says the media gets to tell us? A constellation of sociocultural factors that are making us sick.


We all know that gender roles in media affect people mentally, and consequently physically. During childhood and adolescence these media exposure events become part of a constellation of sociocultural factors that promote a thinness schema for girls and the muscularity schema for boys amongst other ideals.

Consider these facts about the development of body image which begins developing when we are just newborns. A child immediately begins to explore what his or her body feels like and can do. This process continues his whole life. A child’s body image is influenced by how people around her react to her body and how she looks. A pre-adolescent becomes increasingly aware of what society’s standards are for the “ideal body.”

It is long known that the media (television, movies, magazines, etc.) have, since World War II, increasingly held up a thinner and thinner body image, (and now ever more physically fit image) as the ideal body configuration for women. The ideal man is also presented as trim, but muscular.

the association of attractiveness and thinness was present in over 100 female characters appearing in 23 Walt Disney animated films (cel cartoons) produced over a 60-year period.

Thin female characters in television situation comedies were more likely than heavier female characters to be praised by male characters, and less likely to be insulted by male characters.

Since the 1980s magazines have increasingly depicted the male body in a state of objectified undress, such that a significant focus for the camera and viewer is raw, exposed (“chiseled” or “ripped”) muscularity. This might be the reason my oldest son was chomping at the bit at fourteen to gain permission to start working out. (He didn’t get that permission until he was sixteen, but at that juncture he jumped right into it, buying a gym membership and start working on a “six pack.”

Most working class adolescent girls are dissatisfied with their weight and shape. A study done by ‘Field, et., al in 1999, found that 70%  the girls stated that pictures in magazines influenced their conception of the “perfect” body shape, and over 45% indicated that those images motivated them to lose weight. Further, adolescent girls who were more frequent readers of women’s magazines were more likely to report being influenced to think about the perfect body, to be dissatisfied with their own body, to want to lose weight, and to diet.

Teen-age girls who viewed commercials depicting women who modeled the unrealistically thin (yet ideal by media standards), type of beauty, caused adolescent girls to feel less confident, more angry, and more dissatisfied with their weight and appearance. I wonder what the percentage is of girls that go on to form medical and psychological maladies like shyness, depression and others?

In a study on fifth graders, 10 year old girls and boys told researchers they were dissatisfied with their own bodies after watching a music video by Britney Spears or a clip from the TV show which showcased people thin “media ideal but uncommon in real life’ bodies.

In another recent study on media’s impact on adolescent body dissatisfaction, two researchers found that:

Teens who watched soaps and TV shows that emphasized the ideal body typed reported higher sense of body dissatisfaction. This was also true for girls who watched music videos. Reading magazines for teen girls or women also correlated with body dissatisfaction for girls.

Many children watch between two and four hours of television per day. The presence or absence of role models, how women and men, girls and boys are presented, and what activities they participate in on the screen powerfully affect how girls and boys view their role in the world. Studies looking at cartoons, regular television, and commercials show that although many changes have occurred and girls, in particular have a wider range of role models, for girls “how they look” is still more important than “what they do.”

In a 1997 study designed to study how children described the roles of cartoon characters, children (ages four to nine) “perceived most cartoon characters in stereotypical ways: boys were violent and active and girls were domestic, interested in boys, and concerned with appearances” (Thompson, 1997).

In another study, three weeks of Saturday morning toy commercials were analyzed. Within the sampling,
50% of the commercials aimed at girls spoke about physical attractiveness, while none of the commercials aimed at boys referenced appearance.
What are we teaching our young girls and boys?  Young males interacting with the toys or items being advertised, acted aggressively in 50% of the commercials aimed at them, while none of the girls behaved aggressively. Even voice-over for young male’s toys was overly presented with speed and aggression.

With regard to work roles depicted on television in a study doen by Sobiera in 1995, no boys had unpaid labor roles, while girls were mainly shown in traditional female jobs or roles of unpaid labor.

Dr. Nancy Signorielli, Professor of Communications at the University of Delaware examined the types of media most often viewed by adolescent girls: television, commercials, films, music videos, magazines and advertisements. While the study did find positive role models of women and girls using their intelligence and acting independently, the media presented an overwhelming message that girls and women should be more concerned with romance and dating (as it follows how they look and looks supposedly determine how successful they will be at their roles), while men focus on their strength, aggressiveness and occupations.

I would like to extrapolate out the conversation and ask you to consider the lasting effects of this ‘body image / gender moulding pre-occupation”. Can the high incidence in male and female dissatisfaction and deprssion be linked to these practices in our media or in a larger context, in our society?

Can we further say that physical maladies such as bulemia, anorexia and a host of anxiety disorders are a result of such seemingly unbalanced ideologies? I have to venture a ‘yes.’ Don’t forget about the boys.   Consider the boys who are twelve and thirteen and already asking for ‘muscle building supplements.’ or ‘chin up bars.’ All you have to do is visit any  MySpace profile pics for young boys and we see them flexing their muscles, which have yet to even finish developing!   Our society is sexualizing, under contextualizing / and gender moulding our children into very narrow roles causing them to see a narrow purpose that is connecting attractiveness with general personal worth.  These are dangerous times.  Kids are worried that they don’t fit in. Worried that they don’t measure up.  Some of them have acquired negative mental and physical manifestations of these anxieties and are killing themselves slowly or in a quick and deliberate way.

What can we do at a grass roots level? I invite discussion.

Chrissylong

Advertisements

What about “thin” makes us feel “whole?”


What makes us value thinness?

What makes us value thinness?

Do American women really want to be “model thin?” Is “model thin” becoming “too thin?” there was an outrage at the “thinness” of Calista Flockhart back in the early ’90’s but now I dare to say she would be lost in the crowd. The photo above is not real, the model was fired for being “too heavy” at 120 lbs on her 5’11 frame! When R.L. Used a photo from her very urproarious shoot, she was aghast at how R.L.’s graphic designers Photoshopped her to a near-death depth of thin. What I ask you is where in the world did R.L. get the idea that American women either identify or pine to look as thin as the model whose image is represented in this photo?  I say “represent” because 99.9% of all photos of either celebrities and / or models, for clothing or couture, are “Photoshopped” in some way.    Most usually they are modified to correct “normal” things such as small sun-spots, blemishes, smile  lines, discoloration of the skin, and increasingly the larger lines of form around the body that are seen as crucial as they define the “value of the woman” as in the angle of the curve of her waist, the breast-to-hip ratio, the width of the thigh in relation to the arms and the torso, are Photoshopped as well.   Some popular “shape profiles” are  “waif”  “statuesque model” “boy shape” ” hard /fit” or “thin but curvaceous” (which by the way is still extremely thin, but the model retains some more normal looking curves) Any of these “profiles” can be achieved with photoshop and most are.  The models provide the basic ballpark figure and for sure the hair, eyes and teeth, but the neck can be elongated, the torso also as other parts can be radically changed by the same process.  What interests me is a psychological question.   Is this seemingly increasing hunger for thinner and thinner icons of beauty a reaction to something that we recognize in our culture that we want to distance ourselves from?  Is it the entropy that American people are seen as embracing?  As diabetes reaches alarming levels and appears more often in poor, lower or even middle class Americans, could it be that we fantasize about setting ourselves apart?  Does 120 lbs at 5’11 scream  un-popular, overweight, and underachieving?  I should think not, but the Ralph Lauren people thought that this weight / height ratio would not send the right image.    It is my theory that by contrasting the shapes of women when shown in print as extrememly thin, the idea of elevated class and superiority within the culture is achieved. During the Roccoco era of American and European Art, women were portrayed as not only voluptuous, but somewhat chubby, no doubt healthy, but not fat by any means. It was widely thought that women of that time who were “fleshy” were more desirable. This was also due to the perception that women who were “thicker” were more sedentary as a result of not “having to” work in a physical vocation. This “women of leisure” or “perceived women of leisure” was in turn sexy to men, either innately, or the idea of a “higher class woman” resulted in feelings of finding them “sexy”   Maybe they just felt better than a bag of pointy bones?  Women of the time wanted to keep that “more than a modicum of thickness” would thereby strive to have the few extra pounds. It’s all tied to class and how our society perceives the body shape of the poor en masse.  For us women with “some extra padding” which even nowadays could mean only  3-4 pounds, we long for the attitudes of the Roccoco period.  Oh what a world that would be!