“Real Women,” a new policy paper from the Liberal Democrats’ women’s policy group, has proposed a set of measures to protect women and girls from body image pressure and to encourage healthier lifestyles.
These include:
· Children to be protected from body image pressure by banning airbrushing in advertising aimed at under 16s
· Adverts aimed at adults to indicate clearly the extent to which they have been airbrushed or digitally enhanced
· Cosmetic surgery advertisements to give surgery success rates
· Modules on body image, health and well-being, and media literacy to be taught in schools
· Schools to include greater choice in physical activity to stop teenage girls dropping out of exercising
· Money to be invested in improving school and community sports facilities to make them cleaner, safer and more female-friendly
Jo Swinson MP, who leads the group, said,
“Today’s unrealistic idea of what is beautiful means that young girls are under more pressure now than they were even five years ago. Airbrushing mean that adverts contain completely unattainable images that no-one can live up to in real life.
“We need to help protect children from these pressures and we can make a start by banning airbrushing in adverts aimed at them.
“The focus on women’s appearance has got out of hand – no-one really has perfect skin, perfect hair and a perfect figure, but women and young girls increasingly feel that nothing less than perfect will do.
“Liberal Democrats believe in the freedom of companies to advertise but we also believe in the freedom of young people to develop their self-esteem and to be as comfortable as possible with their bodies. They shouldn’t constantly feel the need to measure up to a very narrow range of digitally manipulated shapes and sizes.”
You can read more in the Telegraph.
The Real Women policy paper also contains sections on feeling safe, money, work and family issues.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1274
Gasping Local Government.
The Chagos Islands, Mauritius and the ICJ
Honouring the Real Thing and launching Black History Month in Liverpool
Starmer kills off Leveson two
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
Leon Duveen
Helen Dudden
Roland
Suzanne Fletcher
Joseph Bourke
51 Comments
How would the government enforce this ban? Is there any way that airbrushing on images can be definitively shown to have taken place?
I look forward to appearing topless on the cover of Men’s Health magazine so that the nation’s boys can see what Real Men who drink too much lager look like.
Good work all round.
Of course there is mate.
Have you ever done photography? Or used photoshopped? I’ve done both plus to boot have done this proff and within the realms of a magazine. I was all about natural lights but still good and they wanted spots, too much red blush on cheeks or not enough on cheeks…making the body longer a la Kate Winslet on GQ etc etc
You can tell. A lot goes into photography to make someone look that great, even if they DO look that great in ‘real life’ but I think they should have disclaimers like in cig boxes…then it’s your choice if you believe that x,y and z do really look like that…
Hmm..
@ Julian H
But you’d still get women..or men-actually no, gay men are really shallow..
No Women are all about character aren’t they?
This is a /fantastic/ idea.
And Duncan as to ‘how do you tell’ you can’t necessarily tell if a photo has been ‘shopped but the law mainly works through self enforcement. If people accept that this is immoral and illegal they will self-enforce the law and report people who break it. If people are worried about someone else reporting them they won’t do it.
Of course it might not stop all photoshopping of children’s adds but it should certainly reduce it.
No need to ban it – instead just require large text printed up shouting “These images are digitally altered”. That reminds everyone of the score.
Good point Mark Wright, an interesting idea. Sounds a bit like the large messages on cigarette packets. It would certainly ruin a few front pages of magazines and make them think twice about using airbrushed pics.
Isn’t Lembit making noises about the same thing? They should work together on this campaign.
So once airbrushing has been banned, does it stop there, or does any attempt by a photographer to manipulate an image get a warning notice? Will we ban the use of soft lighting and camera filters? How about models who stand or dress in a way that hides their blemishes or parts of their bodies they don’t like? Will every picture that’s not judged to achieve the necessary standards of documentary realism have to come with a long piece of warning text attached detailing all the methods the photographer and their team have used on it?
Nick, Nick, you’re failing to understand – people get their moral guidance from the government’s legislation, as explained by James S.
This law (if it happens) will make us better people, with children (not too thin, not too fat, but just right – and comfortable with themselves if they’re not just right) holding hands and skipping through rainbows.
Hope this helps clear things up.
Banning is illiberal. Mark Wright’s idea is both liberal and sensible.
How very illiberal, ban airbrushing or label it. For goodness sake just tell the kids how ads work, issue over. Nothing new in this, airbrushing has gone on since the portrait painters left off the mole or wart on the noblewoman’s portrait.
Warning! This image has been airbrushed
It’s an interesting point about self-enforcement but it would be in the photographer’s interest to get better at manipulating photos. I write a lot of blogs on photography and many of them defend airbrushing. I pick up litter or take out weeds. There are signs on some but with others you don’t know unless I tell you. I have a website at http://www.gradwellphotography.co.uk and you can see some changes on the ‘secrets’ page. I have yet to find a bride and groom who don’t appreciate the changes. Could it be that banning manipulations means that only ‘perfect’ models are used. If you have the most expensive photographer with the most expensive studio and the best make-up artist then you may not need one click of a button on the computer.
Jeez, and we wonder why people don’t get what liberalism is all about. I’m surprised at Jo Swinson. Usually it’s Don Foster going off on one about banning insert-unbannable-commercial-activity-here.
I’m rather concern over a call to ban such images, especially coming from the Lib Dems (I became a Lib Dem voter precisely because of the illiberal behaviour of the two main parties).
Flagging up such images would be more than sufficient (and in line with rules for commercial advertising where the viewer may be misled).
How broadly would this apply? My understanding is that manipulation of images is rather common – we’re not just talking about making a woman look thinner, but rather its use to correct issues in the photograph. I mean, is something as trivial as adjusting the lighting going to be banned? If not, how is the line going to be drawn? It seems unworkable. Even as far as flagging images, there’s a good chance that all that’ll happen is that every advert will continually say “this image has been manipulated”, making the whole thing pointless anyway (similar to “This product may contain nuts”).
Is this official Lib Dem policy? The media (e.g., the BBC) are reporting it as if it is. It’s unclear what position the “women’s policy group” has in the party, and whether their proposals are likely to become official Lib Dem policy (if not already)?
Is there a link to the paper online?
And what happens if a bar chart in a political leaflet has been edited to make some of the bars longer and/or shorter than they should be? Should that bar chart be banned altogether, or should it just have a caption saying “This bar chart has been digitally manipulated”?
I’m a liberal, and I’m against this sort of thing.
…just running with Mark’s last point there, I think there is a wider question needs to be asked about to what extent individuals in the party can campaign on issues that aren’t Lib Dem policy. It would be a bad thing if the party became dogmatic about what Lib Dems can and can’t say, and against everything the party stands for. However the media have widely reported this as a Lib Dem proposal, rather than a Lib Dem MP’s opinion. IMO we certainly shouldn’t allow shadow cabinet members to directly conflict with our settled policy, but outside of this, is it ‘anything goes’, and anyone who makes an arse of themselves saying daft things will find their front-bench prospects vanish? Or do we need to be more cautious about protecting brand Lib Dem? Dunno.
has jo not got anything better to do with her time…and our money???
I don’t doubt that there are people out there who feel the social pressure that you describe, and that it is miserable for them. But it does not logically follow that the government should step in. Yes, there are people who feel bad about themselves – that’s life. And getting past those insecurities and realising what’s really important is part of growing up. Governments have no more of a role in shaping a society’s notion of ‘beauty’ than they do in shaping its understanding of sartorial style or sofa design trends.
As I argued previously, Ms Swinson’s proposal would, in any case, be utterly ineffective (even if, as you suggest, it is extended to all publications). Visual media will continue to use actors and models who look attractive; they will continue to use make-up, lighting, costume and photographic techniques to make those actors and models look even more attractive; and that will continue to apply the social pressure that you describe. Perhaps you think there should be a government censor on every film, TV and photo set to make aesthetic judgements on whether or not the cast are ‘excessively’ attractive?
Governments can, should and do promote healthy lifestyles. They can and should ensure that our education systems help to instill a healthy sense of self-confidence in our children. They can, should and do provide counselling and other services for when individual insecurities become severe. But in a free society (Ms Swinson supposedly belongs to a ‘liberal’ party), governments should not be interfering in the minutiae of creative industries.
Frankly I don’t believe that either. It is bad at it. Liam Donaldson’s advice is frequently contradicted by other experts. Why should he have some kind of special place just because he is appointed by government? If my living an unhealthy lifestyle actually inflicts a real harm on someone else, you may have a point, but until that point it seems to me that parasitic government is a singulalry bad body to be preaching at me about good ways to live.
“The Real Women policy paper also contains sections on feeling safe, money, work and family issues.”
Then why on earth is the bit we choose to feature the airbrushing of photos? I can’t believe those four aren’t more serious concerns to women.
Hywel, all the topics will be published and discussed in due course.
If airbrushing is to be banned in order to avoid unrealistic representations of body image in magazines then surely, – in logic – we must also ban the following from photographic shoots for magazines:
– make-up
– artificial lights
– reflectors (used to achieve an ‘up-lighting’ effect
– camera filters
– breathing in.
Daft, daft, daft & dangerously illiberal.
Andy H is right. It is daft and illiberal. I don’t think it is dangerous because I think it is easy to see how daft it is, and it has inspired debate. I like Duncan’s wider point about what Liberal Democrats may and may not say. In our local party we have the very liberal policy of anyone saying what they want as individuals. If they mention a party title in a letter to the press then it goes through a committee. We don’t want to stifle debate. We don’t want to stifle speech or using the media. We want people to have opportunities to give their opinion and I believe in the inalienable right of every Liberal Democrat to make an arse of themselves (as Duncan puts it). We have to allow our MPs to make mistakes. If they don’t make mistakes then either they are doing nothing or they are told to do everything. My bigger concern is that all serious politicians wear smart clothes and are the sort of people who don’t need photo manipulations. Spin and image dominate politics. We need to emphasise substance over superficiality. Give me an ugly politician who says the right thing any day. I know that we don’t want Liberal Democrats to make fools of themselves but I would much rather be in a liberal party that allows for freedom of speech than in another party that dictates what can and can’t be said.
“Give me an ugly politician who says the right thing any day.”
Didn’t that idea die with Nixon in the 1960 Presidential debates?
(I’m not suggesting that Nixon was right but a people listening to the radio debates had Nixon as the “winner”)
And didn’t we dump Ming (who whatever else you say can’t be accused of lacking substance) for Nick?
@Helen
Fair enough – but I’m not convinced that we get a lot of coverage for the second release of a policy paper.
When Paddy Ashdown was elected leader I was reading the Guardian and the woman sat next to me said “he’s good-looking. I might vote for him”. I appreciate that the electorate may be shallow but the idea of substance over superficiality is not quite dead. Just think of… you’d better think of a politician yourself because I’m not keen on being sued.
Simply teaching visual culture and giving citizens a firm grounding in how media manipulation works is not enough – being flooded with images, whether believable/realistic or not, has both subconscious and conscious impact – face it, to stop airbrushing today is not going to sweep all the ways youth destroy their health in pursuit of idealized body shapes, whether we’re looking at eating disorders of steroid use. Would it be so outrageous to take an inclusive position and couple education regarding media manipulation, basic human physiology/health/nutrition AND curtail the bombardment of under 16’s (i’d suggest both female and male) with images that present unrealistic bodies as the norm and effectively denigrate the wonderful variety of human form?
Hywel: of those different parts of the policy paper, the one that looks to me most likely to get media interest is the one that’s been press released first. ‘Lib Dems say women should feel safe’, even spiced up a bit, doesn’t really have the same news value (it’s what lots of people have been saying for a long time). Whatever the merits of the proposal (and I’ll be interested to see Jo’s response on the question of why ban rather than label), it seems to me this is a good example of the party’s media operation working as it should – take something from a policy paper and get widespread media coverage for it.
A more general comment: one of the concerns behind the policy, it seems to me, is whether the false images of what women do/should look like add to the pressures which results in tragedies such as suicides. Comments such as “that’s life” and “has jo not got anything better to do with her time” do, at least on screen, read as rather a callous attitude to what should be an extremely serious issue, whatever we think the cause of it or the merits of possible solutions.
Mark, why would the party’s media operation be congratulated on getting publicity for the most nonsensical part of any policy paper? Anyone can do that.
If the idea that opposing Labour style micro-management of absolutely everything in society is callous I am extremely callous and proud of it.
I agree with kiki. Both advertisers and parents have responsibilities, to boys and girls alike.
Note: the policy paper is talking about banning airbrushed ads aimed at children. I think there’s a special case to be made for protecting kids: they’re visual, spontaneous, literal, often pre-literate. Still forming their self-image and developing their critical skills.
Ads aimed at children are by their nature intended to bypass adult interpretation and play directly to children’s desires. This crosses a line.
Parents have a tough job raising their children to be whole, healthy people – especially when outnumbered by media which are accessible, ubiquitous and hungry for the pocket money and pester power of the tween market.
It’s neither nonsensical nor micro-management to consider the vulnerable. Hell, I’m horrified that the number of girls under 9 who are being treated for eating disorders is now up 25%. Though I wonder how much of that is influenced by media aimed at adults but seen by children. So that’s a whole ‘nother censorship/choice issue…
According to Brendan Behan there was no such thing as bad publicity. I can’t help thinking that when Walter Wolfgang was removed from the Labour Party conference that it was bad publicity for Labour. There are many other examples of bad publicity for the Labour Party. Just do a search on the name Gordon Brown. So we do have to be careful about what we say as Liberal Democrats. It doesn’t matter what Walter was saying. People only remenber that he tried to say it and he was ejected from the conference hall. So let’s have discussions even if we don’t agree with the proposals although I am getting a little concerned that ‘dangerous’ may be a useful adjective if unworkable and illiberal opinions are defended so strongly.
“Note: the policy paper is talking about banning airbrushed ads aimed at children.”
How many of these are there? Surely many of these sorts of things are promoting beauty & clothing products and are aimed equally at adults and children.
“Hell, I’m horrified that the number of girls under 9 who are being treated for eating disorders is now up 25%.”
A bit of googling gives me the figures that they are up from 35 to 44 which puts the %age figure into a bit of context
Those are hospital admissions – presumably there are some being treated out of hospital.
@Mark
That may be the strategy but this story made it onto the BBC politics pages, the immeasurably more serious story on rape convictions hasn’t (at least as yet)
I was just thinking that if we set up the beauty police and the corresponding beauty courts we would have comments like “I didn’t remove a blemish Your Honour. Look, make-up does it”. I think George Orwell and Aldous Huxley wrote about this type of police state but I didn’t think it was a liberal one.
44% of girls under 9 have received hospital treatment for an eating disorder?? I’m afraid that’s a statistic that I find particularly hard to swallow. Cite, please!
(Incidentally, I think that banning photoshopping of body images of ads aimed at kids is entirely reasonable, and indeed that it should be editorial content as well as advertising. Most people here seem to have missed the point that it is for stuff aimed at children not at adults.)
“44% of girls under 9 have received hospital treatment for an eating disorder?? I’m afraid that’s a statistic that I find particularly hard to swallow.”
I think it’s “44 girls”, not “44% of girls”!
I hope that I haven’t missed the point about children sanbikinoraion, but is a child 15 or 16 or 17? What about vulnerable adults? I can’t see the difference between vulnerable adults and children so let’s include them. What about the definition of “photoshopping” which was previously “airbrushing”? Cropping, desaturating, and even putting words on saying “this photo has been manipulated” are all photo manipulations. Let’s define children because it’s different ages for different things, but mostly let’s define photoshop because that could take years.
Then let’s organise the beauty police.
It is indeed 44 not 44%
Source is a PQ referenced here
http://lesbonner.mycouncillor.org.uk/2009/05/27/eating-disorder-hospital-admissions-for-girls-up-47/
It’s not just girls who drop out of excercise. I would have done almost anything to be allowed to get out of PE at school (come to think of it, I did an extra GCSE that I neither needed nor wanted to avoid an extra half an hour of excercise). The problem with sport in schools is that, if you’re no good at it (I am dispraxic, and therefore hopelessly un-co-ordinated) it becomes a sort of ritual humiliation.
“Hywel: of those different parts of the policy paper, the one that looks to me most likely to get media interest is the one that’s been press released first. ‘Lib Dems say women should feel safe’, even spiced up a bit, doesn’t really have the same news value (it’s what lots of people have been saying for a long time). Whatever the merits of the proposal (and I’ll be interested to see Jo’s response on the question of why ban rather than label), it seems to me this is a good example of the party’s media operation working as it should – take something from a policy paper and get widespread media coverage for it.”
Except the media has reported this as “Lib Dems want to ban airbrushing”. With no caveats or anything.
Terrible policy, which is searching for a problem to fix which doesn’t exist.
Policies have to be practical and much as it may be desirable to ban airbrushing I wonder if it is feasible. I would like to see a draft bill which can be checked by leading lawyers.
i can’t believe you lot are still debating this minor point. has miss swinson and the party not got better things to do?
Based on a Google news search on Lynne’s quote in the rape figures story and the phrase “one in 16″/”1 in 16” that story has not been reported anywhere in the mainstream media.
If the strategy was a partial release of different aspects then it doesn’t seem to have worked.
My Google must be different to yours Hywel (actually, quite possible given the various permutation of options, search terms and data centres) as it throws up a decent clutch of local and regional coverage. But actually either way, I think this undermines your original complaint about the air-brushing story being pulled out to be press released rather than other parts of the paper because whilst we might think other parts of the policy paper are in a policy sense more important, it’s the airbrushing proposals which are of the most interest to the media.
Oh dear Mark – what’s of most interest to the media is knee jerk reactionism. So why not get rid of anything Liberal in our policies and simply regurgitate lowest common denominator bollocks that fuels the lick spittled prejudice of the Sun, Mail and Express? Or we could call ourselves Liberals and stop idiotic policy working groups chaired by self publicising MPs coming up with shite like this. In fact – lets get rid of self appointed, self interested, self seeking policy groups altogether – they always come up with stuff that either accepts ‘expert’ producer interest or lunatic ill thought out useless drivel like this. We might be able to save some money that might go some way to pay off the half a million defecit we ran up last year.
@Mark
The party’s own Real Women site collecting media comment on the policy paper only gives links to “airbrushing stories” and nothing on the rape convictions point.
On your second point, it could of course be true that the media are more interested in gimmicky and superficial stories than more serious ones….
Does on-one understand the media at Cowley Street? (i’m beginning to wonder)
Mind you, do they understand the voting public or party members?
I welcome this move and do not consider it illiberal at all. A ban on airbrushing / retouching children’s advertisements (and compulsory labelling for other advertisements) would merely complement the existing stringent laws against misleading advertising. I used to work in this area as a consumer lawyer at the OFT and (even though it is accepted market practice and has not been subject to regulatory challenge) there is a good argument that any retouching of a model’s image in an advertisement is unlawful. Using Snow-White in an advert would not be misleading, as she is clearly a cartoon character, but using a manipulated image of a person is likely to be misleading unless the retouching would be obvious to the average member of the target audience (e.g. the average girl aged 10-14).
As for what any ban / warning statement would apply to, I think we can clearly distinguish between make-up / lighting etc, which should remain legal (as it represents exactly what the camera captured during the shoot), and manipulation of a digital or printed image, which should be subject to control.
And on a moral level, what is the social harm in insisting that advertisers use unmanipulated images in children’s advertisements? I can see that this may lead to the adverts being very slightly less effective but surely this commercial interest would be strongly outweighed by the public interest.
I think the whole concept of “Real Women” is ill-conceived and offensive. The implication is that some women (usually, ones who are not thin) are “real” whereas other women presumably are not. At least that is always the impression given in the endless newspaper articles and TV programmes championing “real women”, which invariably include a torrent of abuse aimed at “skinny” and “skeletal” (i.e. not real) women.
The whole thing stinks. All women are real women, whatever size and shape they are, and it is simply crass to think that you can improve the confidence of one group of women by marginalising a different group of women. I’d be interested to know what the Lib Dem definition of a “real woman” is. If it is simply any woman, then what’s with all this “real” nonsense?