The Fashion Industry Thinks We're Stupid: Ugly Betty, Britney, and Beauty

The recent appearance of Ugly Betty actress, America Ferrera, on the covers of fashion magazines -- Cosmopolitan (February 2007), W (May 2007) and, most recently, Glamour (October 2007) -- makes my brain hurt.

The show revolves around the hypocrisy of the fashion industry. Betty is (relatively speaking) ugly and lovable. The take-away message: You are more than your looks. Yet all three covers proudly and loudly announce that America Ferrera is, in fact, beautiful. Why bend-over-backwards to make Betty a bombshell after all? Is the fashion industry scared?

An early episode revolves around the excessive re-touching of a starlet who is to appear on the cover of Mode, the fictional magazine in the show. In one poignant scene, Photoshop is used to make her thinner and thinner until she disappears. Weight is a metaphor for power***. The take-away message: The fashion industry wants women to be insignificant in all ways. Less is better. What does it mean when America Ferrera beams, heavily re-touched and with a fake skinny body, from the covers of fashion magazines? Doesn't she feel just a little bit sheepish about the whole thing? Shouldn't she?

And, most perplexing, why aren't we pissed off?

A gorgeous Britney Spears appeared on the cover of Allure (September 2007) in the midst of the most public deterioration in recent memory (talk about ugly). It's no longer a matter of do-they-or-don't-they re-touch cover girls. We know she doesn't look like that! Do any of you feel just a little bit insulted? When do we say enough is enough?

We are allowing fashion magazines to make a mockery of the sweet message of Ugly Betty. We are allowing them to make a mockery of us. Where, exactly, are we going to draw the line?

***Thank you to Susan Bordo for this insight.

Comments

[Maplebird]

In my mind, these contradictions only exist if we acknowledge them. I will not buy fashion magazines because I will not give my time or money to an industry that is constructed on the basis that we have to look a certain (often fake) way to be considered acceptable or beautiful. Of course, I am not entirely free of the influence of the fashion industry, in that I wear some makeup, style my hair, and buy and wear clothes. The difference, however, is that I do not need to lose weight, obtain "perfect skin and hair", or have the latest "look" to feel beautiful (also, I do not Photoshop any pictures of myself, no matter how tempting it might be to do so).

In short, there is too little time in a given day to be wasting it on looking at or listening to messages that tell me I'm not good enough exactly as I am, zits, cellulite and all.

The real issue is that women are too focused on the superficial - and on talking about it - to even take notice of what is going on inside. What REALLY matters is that we do things that feed our souls, our hearts, and our minds. The day that we learn to do that instead of worrying about how we look (or how others look) will be the day that we change ourselves as women and change the world around us.

[dadw5boys]

NO ONE HAS THE POWER TO INFLUENCE YOU UNLESS YOU GRANT IT TO THEM.
SO DON'T GRANT THEM ANYTHING AND YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO COMPLAIN THEY ARE USING THAT POWER WRONG.

[Philippa]

We should be pissed that we allowed the fashion industry to dictate what beautiful is and what it isn't. Society has become "looks" obsessed. "Beauty is beyond skin deep" has become obsolete. "Don't judge a book by it's cover" has been shelved.Society has to re-asses its perspective and place brain and values before looks.

[nunzia]

I have never understood how the "fashion industry" endures anyway. Why does anybody give a shit about what somebody else says she should wear? Why do women buy the new trendy thing? Talk about giving away your power.

[kellygrrrl]

You're only allowing them to make a mockery of YOU if you purchase the magazine or rush out to buy the items listed in the "Must Have" page.

America making her own choice to be on the cover in all her photoshopped glory is HER choice.

Britney is just straight-up VICTIM in every sense of the word so just eliminate her from the equation altogether.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

The problem may be that fashion illustrator are trained to draw women to a proportion of 10 heads tall. Even women that are freak show giants aren't as much as 8.5 heads tall! Wonder Woman and other comic book superheroines, by comparison are drawn at 8 heads , and a 'normal' woman would be closer to 7 1/2-7 3/4 heads.

The only women that can come anywhere close to their sketches are these bizarro, super tall, anorexic body types. No wonder normal women can't find any of these overpriced getups that will fit them anyway!

[Bruupo]

Illustrators are only taught that style of exaggeration because fashion designers have always idealized a body type which showcases their clothing design without detracting from it by being recognizably real or human. They essentially seek an animated wire hanger with no flesh bulging out to ruin the lines and dead eyes, and if you look at what is supposed to be an ideal "catwalk strut", it's right there.

The women and men of the fashion industry end up being some of the most genuine mysogynists anyone could ever find (and god forbid if anyone suggests that the prevalence of gay men in women's fashion might be related to this in some way).

It all started in the Twiggy era, when the designers figured out what skinny could do for them, the look of their clothes, and how it could prey upon the self image of 99% of other female body types and drive consumerism. It all started because of the ways a camera could be used to lie. It all started because what heterosexual men were and are actually attracted to in the female physical form was and is too empowering to drive that consumerism.

The ancient greek sculptor Polykleitos increased the proportion of the male head to the body from what is actually found in nature in order to make his idealized male nude form, but the ideal sought was a more human ideal. Women have slightly smaller heads compared to their bodies than men on average, and drawing a woman ten heads high, as well as being drawn to dress the gender which can be more readily dehumanized through such exaggeration are examples of a dehumanizing ideal.

[JScott]

Oh please this is NEWS?????
Photoshop only makes it easier now.
Again I say back in the 50's they photographed the Lincoln for it's adverts and bend the photo plate so when the pic was taken it looks longer.

I wonder myself why the still do it because now eEVERYONE knows it and can do the same----ah the magic of photoshop take a look here-
actual before photoshop:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a85/alexeichler/misc/22359before.jpg?t=1191965021

after the miracle of photoshop:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a85/alexeichler/misc/22359concept.jpg?t=1191965093

what the new owner actually did-no photoshop
(not bad really)
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a85/alexeichler/misc/22359FAWNSKINREVIVED.jpg?t=1191965149

[eaglecapri]

JScott,

You gotta love the photoshop.

The fashion industry knows EXACTLY what they are doing! No one wants to see these starlets in their natural, un-photoshopped state - acne, bad smile, yellow teeth, not-so-full hair, a belly pouch, cellulite, flat butt, sagging breasts, slight love handles, fat under the arms....should I go on? They wouldn't sell magazines. We are obssessed with seeing perfection although we know it is impossible to obtain.

Why are we even having this discussion? Ugly Betty is about the bottom dollar, not heeding to the message of each episode. That's crap!