Reading Comprehension Is Beautiful
Here at godlessharlotnet, we think Steven Waldman the editor-in-chief behind Beliefnet, needs to work on his reading comprehension (also, it's disturbing to see his personal editorial standards in action).
I'm guessing he's one of those who drank the feminist Kool-Aid about how horrible it is that women would make an effort to look attractive for men -- instead of letting their armpit hair grow until it can be corn-rowed and otherwise letting the "real" them hang out.
Here's his post, "Vogue's Visual Lying" (ignore his contention that Miller's head was stuck on somebody else's body and read on below):
Fashion magazines lie every time they manipulate photographs to make people seem something they're not.
Apparently, Vogue took Siena Miller's head and stuck it on someone else's body (presumably because Miller's actual body was so grotesque)
We're now at the point that even the most beautiful women in the world are deemed not quite perfect enough.
Is this a victimless crime? I don't think so. Each girl or woman who models themselves after ever-more unrealistic notions of beauty -- and dislike themselves when they don't reach that standard -- suffer from these lies. And each boy or man who thinks that that's what women are supposed to look like, and back themselves into loneliness through their own warped notions of female beauty, suffer from these lies.
The guy's entire blog item is based on an error -- probably based on feminism-driven, knee-jerk hatred of Vogue. I left a comment there, that's essentially this:
Here's the actual quote from the article in his link: "They then took one photo of her face and super-imposed it on a separate picture of her body." Her body, not somebody else's body.
I just did something like this for a comp which incorporates a shot of me. Why? Because the body looked better in one photo and the head looked better in another. Thanks to Photoshop, you can mix and match. This isn't sinister or horrible, it's pretty cool.
Also, what's with posting the bit about Miller's actual body being "grotesque." Famous people have feelings, too.
Also, what's wrong with "visual lying"? You're a man, so presumably you like attractive women. Any time a woman wears a slimming color, or red lipstick, or dyes her hair, she's "visually lying." Frankly, deodorant is a lie, but I hope many people continue to embrace olfactory dishonesty as well...don't you?
There are plenty of "unrealistic notions" in our lives -- like the notion promoted by chick flicks that the most implausible guy for a woman will ditch her (highly plausibly) and then come back at the end to get on his knees, apologize, and ask her to marry him. Take "Pretty Woman," for example. How many really rich industrialists decide to track down the hooker and marry her? Do you see or hear anybody mewling about the "unrealistic picture of human relationships" they're portraying?
As for "unrealistic notions of beauty," I'm taking a wild guess that those who succumb to an unhealthy extent of them are those with low self-esteem. What I see more of in this culture are unrealistic notions of ugly -- the notion, promoted by feminism, that looks don't matter, and shouldn't matter. Which is fine if you're dating the blind. If you're a woman who wants a boyfriend, you'd better take care of yourself, and wear clothes that reveal a waist (men like that).
I'm reminded of a woman I knew a little who once came up to me in a café and lamented, "Why don't I have a boyfriend?" I looked at her. She was dressed, as she always dressed, in big schlumpy clothes, with disheveled hair (and not in a sexy, bed-head way), looking like she was about to spend the day cleaning out the garage. "Um, you could wear a dress sometimes," I told her.
As I wrote in a column a while back, "If you want to trap a bear, don't go off into the woods with a Tupperware container of salad."