I love taking pictures. If you’re friends with me on Facebook—or friends with me, period—you know this. The only problem is that I’m often banned from using my camera, in large part because my friends don’t think they look “perfect” enough for pictures. I have friends who I’m not allowed to photograph until they lose those last ten pounds or who think they perpetually look like a hot mess, even when they’re all dressed up an, in my opinion, looking fantastic.
The majority of young women today feel self-conscious about their looks, and who can blame us? We’re constantly bombarded with images of “beautiful” airbrushed women. We’re told that we’re worth little if we’re not beautiful, and that we’re not beautiful unless we look a very specific way.
It’s difficult to remember that the images we see are computerized and unrealistic. I’ll even go out on a limb and speculate that many people don’t even realize how much images are doctored before they hit billboards and newsstands. To dispel some of this confusion, the founders of Off Our Chests, a feminist e-zine, have proposed the Self Esteem Act. If it becomes law, it will mandate that pictures in which a model’s body proportions are digitally tweaked must be labeled accordingly.
“Our intent is to help stem the epidemic crisis of low self esteem, self confidence and self loathing,” said Off Our Chests co-founder Seth Maitlins, who is pushing for this legislation with his wife.
To clarify, not every photoshopped image would have to be labeled. Maitlins doesn’t think it’s necessary to label a photo if a stray hair is airbrushed out or if the sky is made bluer, for instance. “We’re not villainizing,” he said. In fact, his magazine also uses photoshopped images, though they are labeled. The point is to make readers aware that what they are seeing in the images is unattainable.
I think the YouTube video, Fotoshop by Adobé, highlights this argument perfectly. The video is a spoof ad for Fotoshop, “the ultimate beauty product.” With Fotoshop, you can brighten your eyes, whiten your teeth, change both your figure and your race and make yourself look fifty years younger.
“It’s you, perfected,” champions one of the actresses.
The results “are almost unreal…istic,” exclaims the narrator.
Maybe that’s because the images are unreal. “We are so egregiously confusing the ideal with the real,” Maitlins said. “The images in these ads are as real as Darth Vader.”
National Organization for Woman (NOW) spokeswoman Erin Matson agrees, adding that there’s an epidemic of eating disorders and negative body image for girls. “We’re all sick of this,” she said.
Matson believes “labeling digitally retouched images of women and identifying clearly that an unrealistic image is being presented is a good thing.” Even just opening a discussion and raising awareness is helpful. “If media outlets are running harmful ads we need to let them know. We also need to communicate with women and girls,” she added.
In fact, the Maitlins were inspired to push for this legislation after an overly-airbrushed L’Oreal ad was pulled in the United Kingdom. “As we were putting it up as a news item, we started wondering who was looking out for women and girls,” said Maitlins. He explained that discussions about the media’s effect on women are primarily taking place in the UK and Norway, not here in the US.
But I have to wonder: If people are made aware that the images are unrealistic, and we’re told which ones are digitally enhanced, then what will be the point of tweaking photos at all?
“The dieting industry is making millions each year telling women and girls we’re not okay the way we are,” said Matson, adding that the beauty and fashion industries are also built around telling women that they’re not okay. “Selling insecurity sells products.”
That’s believable. Millions in this country suffer from eating disorders, and cosmetics are a multibillion-dollar industry. Not to mention that although over ninety percent of women have cellulite, models never have any in pictures.
So far, the Maitlins are still in the process of getting the Self Esteem Act sponsored by partners and getting Senatorial support. The National Eating Disorder Association is on board, and Maitlins are confident the act will get the support it needs.
Nevertheless, for all the positive feedback it has received, the proposal has seen plenty of opposition. Maitlins explained that some commenters on offourchests.com felt women should know better than to believe magazine images are accurate. Others argued that this isn’t a matter that should be solved legislatively.
“This is not about Off Our chests,” he said. “It’s about you. It’s about my wife. It’s about my daughter. It’s about my five-year-old son. It’s about all of us.”
With the negative consequences of low self esteem, “it’s a little bit mind-blowing…that there’s not a greater embrace of [the Self Esteem Act],” he said.
It’s so tempting to want perfect pictures. I know I get giddy when a thoughtful friend airbrushes my blemishes out of pictures. But maybe we’re missing the point of pictures. Originally, they were meant to simply capture us in the moment, to freeze us in an instant in time. So what if I’m a bit thick on the edges or I have a couple of scars? As a real person, I earned them. Realistically, maybe we should airbrush in scars and blemishes, because perfect isn’t always better.