ATTENTION: features conference amendment!
The Real Women policy paper which we’ll be discussing on Saturday afternoon at Lib Dem Federal Conference is, on the whole, a very good one. It contains lots of proposals which will help make women’s lives better, covering issues like safety, childcare, health and discrimination.
But there is one significant part of the policy motion which is flawed and that’s in the sections covering body image. Basically, the problem is that it seeks to use state legislation and regulation to tackle issues which can only really be addressed through processes of cultural change. As a result, its proposals are largely unworkable and will not make the promised difference to women’s lives.
First of all, section 3 of the motion seeks to require Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority to ‘mainstream’ gender equality into their regulation of the media. Now, apart from being completely ungrammatical – there’s no such verb as ‘to mainstream’ – what does that actually mean? What images or portrayals of women would be banned under this proposal? How on earth do you define what is and isn’t an acceptable level of gender equality? And how do you give effect to that in legislation? It sounds to me rather like a recipe for arbitrary censorship.
The other part of this section is equally unacceptable: to require all advertisements to declare the extent to which digital retouching technology has been used to create overly perfect and unrealistic images of women (and men). For a start, there’s an instant get-out in that last clause: advertisers can simply claim that the images they’re creating are not overly perfect or unrealistic. Again, how can you actually define that in legislation or in an advertising code of conduct? What level of unreality is unacceptable?
But apart from that, this proposal doesn’t even work on its own terms. A model used in an ad might have had a tummy tuck, breast enhancements and a nose job. She might have been on a diet of no more than a lettuce leaf a day. She might be using half a tonne of cosmetics. The photographer might be using special lighting, soft focus and filters on the camera. The location and costume may have probably been chosen specially to enhance the model’s image. But heaven help the photographer if he or she uses Photoshop to lighten skin tone a little or hide a tiny blemish!
Similar issues apply to section 4 of the motion, which seeks an outright ban on digital retouching on ads aimed at under-16s. Again, how do can you decide whether an ad is specifically targeted at under-16s? And guess what, girls and boys who aren’t yet 16 do read Cosmo, Vogue or FHM and can be influenced by the images they see there. In what way will a ban on airbrushing achieve its stated goals of making youngsters more comfortable with their own bodies? This section also contains a proposal for lessons in schools on body image, which I think is fair enough. However, given that we in the Lib Dems believe in slimming down the centrally-imposed national curriculum in schools, I believe that the decision on whether and how to provide such lessons is one best left for schools and local authorities to decide.
It’s for these reasons that I’ve submitted an amendment to the Real Women motion which seeks to ensure that the issues relating to body image are dealt with through processes of cultural change rather than through legislation or regulation. The state can not and should not be getting involved in this area. I hope conference representatives will support this.
I certainly don’t believe that issues relating to body image are unimportant – far from it. But they can only be addressed by people campaigning directly for the changes they want in the way women and men are portrayed in the media. I happen to believe that neither women nor men are such fragile creatures that they need the state to step in and do that on their behalf.
Bernard Salmon is a member of Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber Lib Dems and blogs at The Sound of Gunfire.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest general election voting intention opinion polls
Another seedy scandal hits Liverpool Town Hall
Are the Metropolitan Police in denial?
When the Walker Brothers lost their shirts in Market Harborough
Path from Tait's Lane to Peddie Street #dundeewestend
Cheers! Gin Palace to open at Ludlow Food Centre
Richard Gadsden
David Garlick
Anon
Mel Borthwaite
Jenny Barnes
70 Comments
As I have commented on before in regards to this amendment, how do you suppose we achieve this cultural change if we aren’t going to use any mechanism to encourage it? You can’t just sit back and hope that these cultural changes happen. I am not saying that regulation is the answer, but it will help. It will help tackle the unrealistic images of women plastered around in the media. It will provide information to women that these are not ‘real’ exepectations for women to achieve. That is how regulation can help. And through this we can help change cultural attitudes, as it will help relieve some of the pressure on women, that can come about partly from these unrealistic images plastered around everywhere. The process of drawing up the regulations will be hard, but it is not unattainable. But i stress, i don’t think these proposals will help in completely removing the pressure women face in society, it will just reduce it.
But as you know, we don’t really agree on this 🙂
Ah’m with Bernard on this one.
@Jane, “how do you suppose we achieve this cultural change if we aren’t going to use any mechanism to encourage it”
At a guess, I’d suggest direct involvement/contact with the modelling industry and/or the magazines would be a good place to start. Not easy, of course, but then nor is enacting legislation. I don’t know the industry at all, but surely if a group were committed enough they could find someone who did and could advise them on the best way to lobby. If not the bosses, has anyone thought of approaching the models? They vote too, some of them must have informed and perhaps quite nuanced opinions on the matter. There was one did an undercover documentary about the seamy side of modelling etc recently, which touched on some of the health issues. Wonder if she’d be interested in talking to campaigners?
Yeah, but surely that involves regulation???? I mean there is talking but if we had some sort of legal code then it would be harder for them not to keep to it. The industry aren’t going to do this out of their own free will. Actually showing women to not be the unrealistic people they make out, will actually lose them money, so it is not going to be easy to get them to politely change what they do. Models are controlled by the industry, you have to change the industry to change the models. They wouldn’t have a job otherwise. I agree talking to the models is a good idea, but it wont really lead to much in terms of change.
I was originally agin this part of the motion but after reading the evidence that was eventually presented, I support it. I don’t see that the motion proposes legislation, Bernard. Have I missed something? It just talks about working with the industry/ASA to define working rules. I have no problem with that. I was particularly moved by the surveys pointed to (by Jo Swinson) from GirlguidingUK and Beat.
I do feel that this motion will be significant in giving a societal “steer” from a leading group (the party). I feel it is right to support those who are pushing for this.
Not necessarily true. It depends what comes out of the talking phase. What you’ve just described, i.e. a set in their ways industry, and models who are tightly controlled, is the status quo for sure. But we’re in the business of changing the status quo, right? There are a few murmurings from a couple of models brave enough to lead the way and speak up. There are some magazines occasionally publishing pics of “real” women – though it’s largely tokenistic and infrequent, I understand the consensus in the industry is that it’s “better than it used to be”. If things are changing in the industry, a determined lobby group with the right contacts and funding could try pushing on an opening door.
Suppose the industry is actually wrong about what makes women buy clothes? Suppose if we saw pictures of women like ourselves, we’d be more likely to buy the clothes and make-up they’re wearing? (I would, because I find it difficult to find skirts that look good. If I knew a model had more or less my body shape, I’d be more likely to buy skirts). Clearly, there’s no way the industry is going to voluntarily risk trying that out and discovering it for themselves, in case it all goes wrong. But what if you can lobby them to do it just once, or as part of a PR exercise, or put some other incentive in it for them? Then let the incentive – more clothes buying – speak for itself?
All this is the bit I’m hazy on, because as I say I don’t know the industry. This is where talking to models, magazine subs and other assorted underlings, as well as the top bosses, would really help. Maybe it’s nothing to do with the high street clothes – maybe it’s all run by the couture brands, or by the cosmetic giants. The people who work in different bits of the industry – especially, I reckon, the junior people, who often know better than their bosses what makes the latter tick – might have suggestions for a determined lobby group seeking to change behaviour, but we’ll never find that out if we don’t ask.
In addition, ‘to mainstream’ something is grammatically fine. It might not be fine in terms of vocabulary, though I have no problem understanding it.
I am not with Bernard or Alix, and I think Jane is right.
I’ll be backing the motion in full, because some honest regulation (working in a framework that already exists within the Advertising Standards Authority) will have a cultural impact where one has simply been impossible. Occassionally, action is needed, and whilst I agree this would hopefully be a temporary measure, like the ‘safe carriages’.
I think Ignatieff put it succinctly when he said of a Liberal view: “There is such a thing as society, and government’s purpose is to shape a society in which individual freedom can flourish.”
I would say that the changes, minor regulation, and small freedom-promoting would do just that: ‘Shape’ and nothing more, to allow individual freedom to flourish.
(It is a good speech of useful soundbites by the way: http://www.liberal.ca/en/michael-ignatieff/speeches/16008_isaiah-berlin-lecture-liberal-values-in-tough-times)
Sorry, the “Not necessarily true” etc was my answer to Jane.
@ Alix,
I agree with your idea that a determined lobby group could be a good idea, but the biggest, swiftest effect would be a temporary extension (not strengthening) of the ASA’s remit.
The cultural pressures are massive on every gender, and occassionally, some action is needed by society at large in the form of democratic government to get some real change.
I back the motion, but hope it is a temporary measure to resolve a problem.
On a wider note, the ‘safe carriages’ policy is great temporarily, but in the end risks creating more fear that we might like: Shouldn’t all out carriages be safe? I think these temporary proposals, to deal with Labour’s growing failures on gender equality, are spot on.
(I am aware the policy does not specify temporary nature, but we can always make sure we can vote on it again after a Lib Dem government has done somthing about it…)
@ Alix, dare I plug my former tutor’s book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0271033029/?tag=libdemvoice-21
“Focusing on choices by women in liberal cultures, she detects two troubling features – disadvantage and influence. When both are present, an injustice is likely to be done, warranting state intervention.”
A massive influence on my thinking, and critical in the distinguishing of an over burdensome communitarian approach (of the agressive illiberal kind pursued by Harman et al) from a political liberal approach of mild regulation only when seriously justified.
I think the Real Women paper comes under the Liberal heading, and should be supported in full, given the cultural failings, and the current backwards direction of equality in the UK.
“Focusing on choices by women in liberal cultures, she detects two troubling features – disadvantage and influence. When both are present, an injustice is likely to be done, warranting state intervention.”
I can get behind that, but I would differ on the nature of state intervention. The only state intervention I think is ever warranted is the kind that repairs the disadvantage in the first place and thus limits the potency of the influence. I.e. in this case, education, good mental health, or a combination thereof. This would, incidentally, start to solve some of the other problems associated with disadvantage as well. I wouldn’t dispute that it’ll take a hell of a lot longer than extending the ASA’s remit, but then sticking plasters never do take very long.
Of course, the irony is, Real Women is probably full of exactly the kind of long term stuff that I (and Bernard) love, it’s just that for some reason the party chose to undersell it by putting a sticking plaster in it AND showing the sticking plaster bit to the media as opposed to anything else, so that 2 weeks before Clegg publishes a pamphlet called “The Liberal Moment” we had headlines all over the press with “Lib Dem” and “ban” in close juxtaposition. And we did that to ourselves. Go figure.
BTW is anyone else getting “1 secret rule to a flat belly” advertising with this?
Yes me too. I have clicked through so you don’t have to. In fact I clicked twenty times to find out it’s a book. I then had to click about thirty times to get back out again.
“I discovered the truth about how your body works… and how— if you push the right button — it wants to burn fat all the time.”
So it’s easy you see. You just buy the book and find out what button to push.
All is solved then 🙂
It reminds me of a book I bought a couple years ago which promised vast weight reduction if you eat bacon and egg for breakfast every morning. I ended up putting on 1/2 a stone and gravely annoying the missus every morning with all the cooking paraphenalia.
Ha, yeah I remember that, the “carbs are evil” phase. Whereas everyone knows that carbs are God’s own plankton. Nomnomnom.
“You just buy the book and find out what button to push.”
Don’t most people’s bodies have only one button to choose from anyway?
Mortimer:
Well what do you think will come out of the talking stage that will be stuck to if it is not legislation or regulational framework? Yes we do need to change the status quo, but sitting back and doing absolutly nothing will not change anything. Yes but these ‘real women’ images are exactly what you said, tokenistic, and are more produced for the one off to get even more money in. It has to be a common practice to help change values, instead of being seen as something that is unordinary, when in fact it is ordinary!
That could quite possibly be part of the reform, but needs to be part of a package. One change, as i said in my previous comment, wont change everything.
I don’t know the industry very well either, but i can see enough to know it is a corrosive industry and needs ammending to addres the pressure it causes for women. I don’t understand however, how what you say ultimately means the regulation proposals are a waste of time? Surley it should just be part of the changes? Why not propose an amendment adding these proposals, to enhance not detract from the amendments we have?
@ Alix,
Indeed. I thought the focus on the media battle was wrong.
I think the paper is a “sticking plaster” (safe carriages, labelling of adverts, clear regulation) coupled with the real long term therapy (‘shaping’ is definitely my new favourite term) which – had it been in place for a while – would have made the world radically different already.
So oppose the amendment, and apologise on behalf of an overblown media coverage desire, downplaying the sticking plasters (but not removing them), and support the motion is my way forward…
I must get back to packing.
Thanks for the agreement Henry btw:D
Mmm carbs… (I say this because I want to keep track of this discussion and get new comments emailed to me, but apparently that’s too short a comment for this increasingly authoritarian website *shakes her crutches at the admin*)
“Basically, the problem is that it seeks to use state legislation and regulation to tackle issues which can only really be addressed through processes of cultural change.”
The idea that achieving change through legislaion and achieveing change through culture are mutuall exclusive is simply wrong. Very rarely can such a big issue be improved without changes in some degree to both law and culture, so opposing the proposal on the basis that it argues for legislative change is a non-starter.
@Mark B: I think you’re spot on. Legislative change is the “we mean business” part of the argument. Voluntary codes have again and again proved to be stalling tactics – about as useful as a piece of paper from Adolf Hitler saying “we’ll stop being naughty now”.
The key point for me is that yes, the overall aim is to acheive cultural change, but more often than not it takes a chunk of legislation to move cultural change along.
We would never have made the progress we have against racism if it had not been for the Race Relations Act and subsequent legislation. Clearly there is a lot further still to go, but the cultural change that has already happened would not have done so without legislative back up.
I agree with the latter posts.
It is almost like saying that magical fairy dust will lead to cultural change. This type of change needs action to help it happen. The amendment fails to recognise that the regulation itself is what would be used to change cultural attitudes, you can’t just sit back and hope it will happen.
“Well what do you think will come out of the talking stage that will be stuck to if it is not legislation or regulational framework?”
You’re all kind of ignoring my core point – that it’s only getting to know the industry that might point you towards other ways of exerting pressure. My guess would be, as outlined above, that incentives would have a lot to do with it. This is a big money industry. What incentive could a lobby group give a magazine, for example, to publish non-airbrushed models for a month? Now, I dunno, you dunno, but that’s because none of us have bothered finding out. But I would be prepared to bet that once the magazine did it, they’d look at their sales figures and not regret it. The whole industry, like many, is ossified into accepting one norm, and the first person to break ranks will see the benefit.
If you can have the vision to see that yourself (which we do, don’t we?), and have the persuasive capacity to suggest that to the industry, or part of it, then you will get somewhere. You will change a magazine. They will perceive the incentives to change. They will follow those incentives. Others will follow them. I’m not expecting the change to “just happen” as you seem to think, I’m suggesting change could arise from a catalyst you provide. It’s not an argument for you to say, “If you don’t know what the catalyst is then it must be because it doesn’t exist.” In my very first post, I said I didn’t know what the catalyst was. That’s because I don’t know the industry. If I cared enough to make this issue the thing I wanted to build a campaign around, I’d try and find out.
Yes, I agree with Mark B, Liberal Neil and Jane on this one. Cultural change doesn’t just happen like magic, it needs something to get it moving. Bernard’s amendment would leave us in the position of having a policy which says ‘yes, we recognise there’s a problem but we don’t actually intend ot do anything about it apart from hoping that it will change all by itself’.
Alix – I think it is good to do lobbying and have lobby groups but I think it is naive to think that they are a match for the opposing interest in this case. You’ve got to follow the money – the manipulation of images in advertising exists because it increases sales and revenue for large multinational organisations – it is in effect for profit. They wouldn’t do it otherwise; it’s not a social or intellectual movement!
I mean, yes, we all end up as shareholders by a function of having pensions but our ownership of lots of companies didn’t stop things like the banking crisis and stupid levels of bonuses – it’s a nice argument in theory but I find the practice unsatisfactory to say the least!!
There’s nothing wrong with profit, unless it actually harms people (and this is why these proposals are liberal) and there is plenty of evidence that the manipulated images do harm the self image of women and particularly young girls (i.e. children), their self esteem and with that their health.
So, and this is where I think Bernard just doesn’t understand the actual policy motion that he’s trying to amend: why not provide information to people looking at adverts indicating whether they have been digitally manipulated and the extent to which that is so? I’m sure there is some way of calculating the number of pixels that have been changed so you could easily put in a percentage.
That way, people looking at the adverts are not themselves been manipulated into thinking that the use of such a product will result in the same effect as a couple of hours digital enhancement. I imagine that companies and products that have to provide that information will soon find that scorn is poured on them for their attempts to manipulate and it will no longer be in their interest. There, you have the cultural change! But, without requiring advertisers to provide the information in the first place you don’t get the cultural change.
So, we give people the choice and the information that they need to make a purchasing decision. I cannot see what is illiberal about that! You could argue that such a policy could be part of consumer policy as much as it is part of a women’s policy.
And meanwhile, women (and boys) don’t feel under so much pressure with regards to their body image and maybe the UK can raise it’s sorry self from the bottom of the table of Children’s happiness in Europe!
So, whilst lobby groups are required and welcome they will never be a match for the influence that large corporations like Nestle & Gesperal – who will always be able to employ more public affairs and press consultants. This just redresses the balance by providing information to those of us who are the targeted recipients of such media messages.
Goodness me, if we can put the energy efficiency of fridges and TVs on display to help people make up their mind about the purchase of a white goods because it is good for the environment and their pockets, why cannot we provide information about bodies to young men and women for the good of their health? We’re not saying you can’t airbrush (apart from adverts aimed at children*) but that if you do, you have to say so!
I find in this great policy paper and the conference motion that we will be debating, the very essence of why I am a liberal and why I am a liberal democrat. I am very proud that we are putting forward such a policy. The Tories wouldn’t do it, because they have aligned themselves with the vested interest of such organisations as Nestle and Labour couldn’t do it in such a neat and liberal way – they would bugger it up with some sort of introduction of a big database, no doubt – and besides, they too have aligned themselves to the vested interests of such organisations as Nestle!
And I was struggling to get started on my speech!!
*There are all sorts of ways that you can set parameters for what constitutes advertising aimed at children – time, channel, context. Whilst children will still get hold of media not aimed at them it allows parents to make decisions about what they want to expose their children to. Rather like film classification, again, it is information!
Sorry, Alix, we were obviously writing at the same time!
Hoping my use of html tags works but not holding my breath – you say:
<blockquote cite"it’s only getting to know the industry that might point you towards other ways of exerting pressure. My guess would be, as outlined above, that incentives would have a lot to do with it. This is a big money industry. What incentive could a lobby group give a magazine, for example, to publish non-airbrushed models for a month? Now, I dunno, you dunno, but that’s because none of us have bothered finding out. But I would be prepared to bet that once the magazine did it, they’d look at their sales figures and not regret it. The whole industry, like many, is ossified into accepting one norm, and the first person to break ranks will see the benefit."
That all sounds a bit convoluted to me – why not, as I suggested just provide consumers with the information and let them make the decisions – no need to provide 'incentives'!
Are you saying that the manipulation of images in advertising doesn't actually work and that un-manipulated images would lead to increased sales and that if only one company would do that, then they'd have a big increase in sales and it would be all right?
I disagree and I think you're underestimating the work that people do in media and advertising departments to find out what works.
The manipulation of digital images works alright, otherwise they wouldn't do it – they're in the interests of making money and that is the only incentive they need (or should, in the interests of their shareholders) be working to!
One of the reasons that it works so effectively is that it is not obvious that it's been done. Believe me, I've just had some wedding photos done, some of which were photoshopped by the studio – mainly to deal with dodgy shadows etc, but it took me some time to identify where there have been more cosmetic changes have been undertaken and that's with my own body! I've got no chance at understanding the extent to which a picture has been manipulated of a stranger.
So, vital to the efficacy of digital manipulation, is the fact that we don't know to what extent it is there; provide us with the information that the photo is more or less a fake and you don't need lobby groups providing incentives to corporations and magazines to change their ways, the market (improved, through the provision of more perfect information) has done the job for you!
Now, what could be more liberal than that?
@Jo “You’ve got to follow the money – the manipulation of images in advertising exists because it increases sales and revenue for large multinational organisations – it is in effect for profit. They wouldn’t do it otherwise; it’s not a social or intellectual movement!”
Which is precisely why my suggestions revolve around exploring financial incentives. It would be a lot easier if you’d all read my posts rather than assuming you know what they say.
I’m sorry, Jo, that was a little uncalled-for. My frustration isn’t directed particularly at you. But seriously, why will no-one engage with me on the possibility of changing the incentives?
I have, but the comment seems to have got lost in the ether – it’ll come up eventually as I haven’t been allowed to duplicate post – I think we’re suffering from the comment posting version of satellite delay!
@Alix
Yes, i agree. But talking to the industry must lead to codes, frameworks for regulation and the like to make them stick by what they say! Yeah, but again, your illustrating what I am saying. Non airbrushed women for a month is a gimmic, it isn’t putting the women on the magazine because they want them for them, its because they want them to make money for a while until they replace them with a fake unrealsitc woman.
Legislation would help break those ranks though?
Well this amendment appears to suggest that change will just happen. Talking to the industry is useful if there is a concrete end result, not just discussions. Well in my opinion, legislation and regulation is part of the catalyst for change.
Sorry, Alix, we were obviously writing at the same time! I am subtlety changed it so that it will get through without being rejected as being a duplicate comment – EVEN THOUGH THE FIRST ONE HASN’T COME UP!!
It was probably my useless attempt at using html tags to block quote!
SO:
You (Alix) say:
“it’s only getting to know the industry that might point you towards other ways of exerting pressure. My guess would be, as outlined above, that incentives would have a lot to do with it. This is a big money industry. What incentive could a lobby group give a magazine, for example, to publish non-airbrushed models for a month? Now, I dunno, you dunno, but that’s because none of us have bothered finding out. But I would be prepared to bet that once the magazine did it, they’d look at their sales figures and not regret it. The whole industry, like many, is ossified into accepting one norm, and the first person to break ranks will see the benefit.”
That all sounds a bit convoluted to me – why not, as I suggested just provide consumers with the information and let them make the decisions – no need to provide ‘incentives’!
But, are you saying that the manipulation of images in advertising doesn’t actually work and that un-manipulated images would lead to increased sales and that if only one company would do that, then they’d have a big increase in sales and it would be all right?
I disagree and I think you’re underestimating the work that people do in media and advertising departments to find out what works.
The manipulation of digital images works alright, otherwise they wouldn’t do it – they’re in the interests of making money and that is the only incentive they need (or should, in the interests of their shareholders) be working to!
Jane is right, the interest in the editorial about photshopping over the last couple of week, I don’t believe will be enough to make a lasting change in advertising imagery. Although, any discussion is better than nothing and Jo Swinson’s press work and the existence of this policy paer at all has helped in that.
But, I think one of the reasons that digitla manipulation (or enhancement as it’s often called) works so effectively is that it is not obvious that it’s been done. Believe me, I’ve just had some wedding photos done, some of which were photoshopped (or enhanced!) by the studio – mainly to deal with dodgy shadows etc, but it took me some time to identify where there have been more cosmetic changes have been undertaken and that’s with my own body! I’ve got no chance at understanding the extent to which a picture has been manipulated of a stranger.
So, vital to the efficacy of digital manipulation, is the fact that we don’t know to what extent it is there; provide us with the information that the photo is more or less a fake and you don’t need lobby groups providing incentives to corporations and magazines to change their ways, the market (improved, through the provision of more perfect information) has done the job for you!
Now, what could be more liberal than that?
“Non airbrushed women for a month is a gimmic, it isn’t putting the women on the magazine because they want them for them, its because they want them to make money for a while until they replace them with a fake unrealsitc woman.”
But that’s mad. If they find it makes more money to have non-airbrushed women on the front cover (which I think they would), they’ll go on doing it and we get our result. That’s the whole point of incentives. Of course, if you disagree that non-airbrushed women would sell better, then that’s a different matter, and if so, let’s hear why.
“Talking to the industry is useful if there is a concrete end result, not just discussions.”
Yes, and what is it I keep on saying about how you don’t know what interesting concrete end results the discussions might lead to, because you haven’t tried? A good concrete end result for you would be the eradication of airbrushing from model shoots, right? So, supposing there was a way of achieving that result without legislating? That’s all I’m trying to get you to envisage.
Jo, I’ll go and look in the spam…
So sorry to everyone about the bad grammar, the typos and the over use of the word ‘interests’!
@ Alix
Whilst I’m not convinced that “airbrushing”, or digital manipulation (which I imagine is what we’re really talking about) is the key to this, and I do think we should be a lot more certain of the effectiveness of this sort of intervention before making it — I am entirely unconvinced by your suggestion of exploring financial incentives. You seem to imply (in your 9.37 post) that the fashion industry just haven’t thought of how they could make more money, and if we could just get them to try this out they’d find it was in their own interests. Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood you, but can they really all be that stupid? Has no one attempted to make money out of modelling real clothes on normal-shaped women? If the market was the answer to this one, I can’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be happening already.
Obviously, there is a difference between front covers and advertising. I think we need to be clear that this policy only effects advertising images not editorial and front covers.
The regulating authority would be the ASA not the press complaints commission!
So, one could argue that the efficacy of putting the level of digital enhancements onto adverts is diluted by the fact that there’ll still be photos of photoshopped models all over the magazine – if you can’t regulate them all, what’s the point of regulating any?
But I think, given the business models of such magazines are based around advertising revenue, that editorial photos are the tail not the dog when it comes to wagging!
Can you imagine advertisers who have had to cut back on their use of digital retouching (because otherwise they have to admit that the photos in their adverts are fakes) being happy with loads of models in the editorials looking so much better than the models in their adverts.
I think the advertisers will require the magazine editorial to tone down the digital retouching so as not to show up the advertisers, who are, after all paying everybody’s wages!!
Everyone wins – just through a requirement to provide information! That’s how you deliver a cultural change, in a liberal and democratic way!
Aha, there it is!
“I disagree and I think you’re underestimating the work that people do in media and advertising departments to find out what works.”
Then I think we’ll have to agree to disagree there. The more I see of media and PR, the less I am convinced that many of its practitioners have a fart of a clue what they’re actually doing. The very fact that, as Jane correctly describes, the fashion magazine industry is ossified into one way of doing model shoots, and the very fact that the modelling world in particular is so closed and secretive, does not suggest to me a freethinking, evidence-based research environment for what works. On the basis of how much discussion one tiny image of a model with a tummy roll in Glamour generated a couple of weeks ago, I simply can’t imagine a magazine with that model on the front not flying off the shelves. There’s my catalyst. Of course, after a while, the novelty wears off, I totally see that. But by then, you’ve got your new norm.
I’m all for some kind of information portal to provide data and maybe stick up the “real” photos, like the ones that have been going round on Twitter this week. But with warnings we run into the original problem cited by Bernard – the reductio ad absurdam will be that a warning will have to state “This model is wearing lots of make-up, pretty clothes and is well lit and being shot by a professional photographer. She also has exceptionally good genes.” How do you draw the line between “fake” and “real”, and who determines what is unrealistic for most women?
@Malcolm “Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood you, but can they really all be that stupid?”
Hehe. Yes! Seriously though, it doesn’t have to be stupidity. Groupthink and a monthly bottom line are quite sufficient to strangle profitable long-term experimentation, as many a frustrated middle manager will attest.
@Jo, yes, sorry, for “front covers” read “advertising images” and for “fly off the shelves” read “product sales”.
@Alix
“But with warnings we run into the original problem cited by Bernard – the reductio ad absurdam will be that a warning will have to state “This model is wearing lots of make-up, pretty clothes and is well lit and being shot by a professional photographer. She also has exceptionally good genes.” How do you draw the line between “fake” and “real”, and who determines what is unrealistic for most women?”
Because the photo is of someone who is pretty, wearing nice clothes with lots of make up, being shot by a professional photographer and has exceptionally good genes – and often the point of the photos is drawing attention to the fact that she’s wearing nice clothes or make up – that what’s it’s trying to sell. That’s all happened. We know it’s there – and someone at least, has achieved it, in real life!
All that exists; it is real.
But if the photo is then taken and digitally manipulated then it is impossible to achieve that level of perfection – because nobody has, not even the model, with the nice clothes, the nice hair, the nice make-up and the professional photographer. It is, a lie, none of the other things you have listed are a lie.
The perfection that the advertisers ask us to aspire to does not exist, nobody can achieve it – not ‘only a few people’, but nobody.
That’s the line and I don’t see it as a thin end of the wedge.
“Real” in what sense? In the sense that all women, even a majority of women, even a sizeable minority of women, can realistically aspire to them? Certainly not. And even if you, personally, are sure that that’s where you draw the line, what makes you think others won’t start defining other things as “unreal” and demand that they be regulated as well? But, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the slippery slope.
Perhaps it would be useful if I went back and said something I meant to say after Henry’s last comment. I am much more pleased by the idea that this is a “temporary” measure, as the report says – but as Henry pointed out, the duration of this temporariness is not defined. How long, in your view, will it take before the restrictions can be lifted, or can be said to have worked?
Real in the sense that they haven’t been digitally retouched – I have no wish to suggest someone with ‘good’ genes is less real than any other woman.
Of course they’re not representative of women in general but then representative is not the same thing as real and, going back to my previous post, the line I would draw is when things cease to be real and start to be digital.
Temporary measure, umm, I don’t know. I personally, don’t feel the need to put info on adverts particularly needs to be temporary: is the info that we put on fridges about their energy efficiency temporary?
But if you wanted to set some parameters, I guess you would look to the evidence that made you decide there was a problem in the first place to look at it’s efficacy. You might stop it because it had worked and research were now saying that young girls (& boys) no longer had the body image issues that they do now (although you’d also want to monitor changes), or, you might stop it because research tells you that it’s had no impact whatsoever!!
Sorry, didn’t respond to the other definitions that people may have of real.
Well, to safeguard it when the ASA where putting together the regulations (which would in effect be a statutory instrument – I think) then would be the change to define real – in fact you wouldn’t use the word real, you’d use the words digitally retouched or something legalese but similar – therefore it’s quite clear that what you’re talking about is creating something digitally that did not exist before – rather than choosing a model with nice legs or pretty fingernails.
An ASA rule..”statutory instrument”…I am not concerned by this. We’re not talking of The Great Reform Act here….
“I’m sure there is some way of calculating the number of pixels that have been changed so you could easily put in a percentage.”
This is actually a fantastic and simple idea of the sort that I wish I had thought of first. It would be very easy to create a program that would ‘diff’ two images and tell you how many pixels have been changed, and how much each has been changed, from which one could calculate a single ‘difference’ score to put on your adverts.
My personal worry is that this sort of regulation could lead to the modelling industry forcing its models to do the skinnying-down in real life *instead* of in photoshop, which could be problematic. However, considering how thin many of them already are, I’m not sure how much of an effect there would be.
“But that’s mad. If they find it makes more money to have non-airbrushed women on the front cover (which I think they would), they’ll go on doing it and we get our result. That’s the whole point of incentives. Of course, if you disagree that non-airbrushed women would sell better, then that’s a different matter, and if so, let’s hear why.”
Non airbrushed women are always used as tokenism to say you know what you don’t have to have big boobs and be size 10 to be attractive, which is absolutely right! However, I would be very surprised if the industry wanted to drop air brushing for just non air brushed women, and hire non airbrushed women as permanent models for the magazine etc. It just goes against what the images are setting out to achieve. They want to sell you this like unrealistic image to make you want to buy what they are advertising to look like this. It’s all about creating that desire, and i think without proper enforcement the non airbrushing would be a long distant fad.
“Yes, and what is it I keep on saying about how you don’t know what interesting concrete end results the discussions might lead to, because you haven’t tried? A good concrete end result for you would be the eradication of airbrushing from model shoots, right? So, supposing there was a way of achieving that result without legislating? That’s all I’m trying to get you to envisage.”
Well i say achieving that is an utopian vision, if you suppose we will achieve this without any guidelines or frameworks. I mean, i really don’t get the problem with having legislation if you actually support the banning of airbrushing?
It is the vague do-goodery which really gets my goat about the Real Women motion to conference. ‘Recruit and train more midwives and health visitors’ it says. Great. Speaking as someone who has waited all week to get hold of my health visitor I would love there to be more health visitors – but how many, pray, and how will they be paid for?
The female MPs who are wasting their time worrying about airbrushing would do better to do something concrete for ‘Real Women’ like supporting the Maternity Food Grant which the party opposes.
“I would be very surprised if the industry wanted to drop air brushing for just non air brushed women, and hire non airbrushed women as permanent models”
I’m intrigued by the idea of “non airbrushed women”. Or indeed “airbrushed women”. I didn’t realise it was the women this was done to. I’m so naive.
@Maclolm
Well it is done to them in all sorts of ways. So there is the obvious makeup and stuff, but the real problems lay in the photoshopping and stuff.
Did you think they just looked like the images on the magazines? It’s interesting if you did, as makes the case out for changing the images as it would change peoples views of what is real and what is not.
“I mean, i really don’t get the problem with having legislation if you actually support the banning of airbrushing?”
Eh? I don’t support the banning of airbrushing, that’s the whole point. I don’t like airbrushing, I disapprove of it as a practice, but that doesn’t mean I think we should ban it.
@Malcolm, now that is an innovation I could get behind. No more make-up remover, just CTRL+F5…
Well why are you advocating that we should talk to the industry to talk about them stopping it then?
There can be a case where everyone agrees “No, we don’t want to do it like this”, but no-one wants to be the first to change. It would make you look wrong if you changed and no-one else did, so everyone carries on doing what no-one individually really likes doing. Ever had a “Christmas present pact”? This is where a group of people give each other Christmas presents out of habit, it’s become tedious, no-one likes the bother or really enjoys it, but no-one wants to be the first not to buy the others presents. So they all agree “let’s not buy Christmas presents this year”. It has to be done by a common agreement with some force to ensure all are confident to stick with it.
This little example may help illustrate why restriction of freedom due to conformity may sometimes need to be broken by what on the face of it appears to be an illiberal imposition. We are right to be so concerned about liberty that we should not use such mechanisms that often, but I throw the possibility in as part of the argument against crude “libertarianism”.
Unless I am weirder than I suppose, I think I am right in supposing no-one much really finds these extensively airbrushed images very attractive. Sure, there are good biological reasons why a young and healthy image is attractive, but ultra-thin isn’t healthy looking or attractive, and actually an image which is obviously of a real person is a more enjoyable sight than what might as well be a piece of plastic.
@Malcolm – don’t be mischievous!
Anyway, you’ll be interested to hear that occasionally women, and men for that matter (but not as often) do actually get airbrushed! When I do the telly my foundation make-up is applied using an airbrush!! They actually do airbrush me!!!
So there!
@Alix
The proposal isn’t to ban it, it’s to require advertisers to indicate when they’ve done it, and you know that!
The only ban is for images aimed at children…
@Jo, yes, I do know this because we just had a conversation about it. However, Jane is still (for some reason) arguing a general case for regulations banning airbrushing in general, and is under the impression that I like the idea of banning airbrushing. I was answering her.
“Well why are you advocating that we should talk to the industry to talk about them stopping it then?”
Because that’s not the same as a ban.
i didn’t mean banning as like get rid of it
i meant banning in terms of making it clear it is airbrushing
but it would be nice to just have like no airbrushing and just natural images everywhere, so i wouldnt be against banning it but i know that is not what this wants
I can think of a few practical problems with the ban idea:
1) Lots of pictures are retouched in ways that don’t really distort reality. For example, to make up for poor lighting, to remove glare, to remove (or add) something visually distracting to the background, to remove (or add) branding/logos from the shot, to change the colour palette and tones, to crop or resize the image, to move the primary figures in the shot closer together, etc. These effects are pretty harmless and I’m not sure how easy it would be to distinguish between ‘good’ retouching (which almost any image in a magazine will have had applied to it) and ‘bad’ retouching.
2) It might just lead to greater demand for genuinely freakish models, who can be presented as ‘real’ even though they’re increasingly abnormal and unhealthy. Not sure if this is better or worse than the status quo.
3) What about virtual models? Computer-generated images are getting pretty realistic these days; if there’s no ‘real’ women underneath the picture, would this be ok?
4) I assume that a lot of the content that features retouched images is not strictly advertising at all – it may be editorial/feature content. If so, would this avoid the remit of the ASA and would the ASA have to expand its remit to cover such content? I don’t know if they look at this already, but if they don’t then I imagine that there’s a cost associated with it.
I don’t really enjoy picking holes in these kinds of ideas, because they’re obviously well-motivated and I approve of the general principle. And even if the retouching ban would be only a small step, it’s true that any progress must be made up of such small steps. Nevertheless, I can’t help but think that banning symptoms of a problem is the kind of thing that we, as a party, are meant to avoid doing. There’s an underlying problem about misogyny and expectations, but I’m not convinced that banning certain types of images will be effective. There will be ways around it, and the underlying problem will remain. And there’s always the law of unintended consequences – we might end up seeing some perfectly innocent examples of image manipulation being punished wrongly.
All in all, I’d have hoped that we could do better than suggesting banning certain images as a policy to address the status of women in society. It’s not that it’s too ambitious or over-reaching, but that it’s nowhere near ambitious enough.
@Jo – Well, I learn something every day! I fear such analog airbrushing would do little to save me. I would require the full digital makeover. And even then, I doubt my wife would be convinced, so what’d be the point?
Anyway, isn’t it interesting that the only thing we’re talking about is airbrushing? I can’t even remember what else is in Jo Swinson’s paper now, but I’m pretty sure this wasn’t the most important thing. As an exercise in attracting media attention it hasn’t really worked, in that even in such a worthy sphere as LDV we can’t seem to get past it to the meaty stuff.
Good point. If anyone feels like doing a post on all the meaty stuff in Real Women (in between eating hotel sandwiches and running around with bits of paper), get in touch 🙂
To be fair to all of us, we’re talking about airbrushing because, Bernard’s amendment, which he is blogging about at the top seeks to remove it form the poicy.
But, it is one of the more eye catching parts of the policy and I see no problem with things being eye catching.
I think this is a great policy paper. It is the only one that I have attempted to show and discuss with my non-political female friends and they have all reacted very positively towards it.
@Martin – there’s a whole massive load of massive stuff in it. (I can’t remember either..;-)..well I can a bit actually)
@Rob “All in all, I’d have hoped that we could do better than suggesting banning certain images as a policy to address the status of women in society. It’s not that it’s too ambitious or over-reaching, but that it’s nowhere near ambitious enough.”
There is plenty in the document which addresses the status issue. An example is making easier for women/girls to vsiit the gym – a small simple practical example. There is a whole raft of other stuff some of which embraces existing party policy.
I think the thing is – and the reason why we’re talking about it – is that this “airbrush” proposal is totemic. For the first time, we, as a political party, will be making a very clear statement that we want to execute a small shift in regulations which will reasonate more loudly (than its practical scope) as an emblematic statement: “We’ve had enough of this nonsense – society needs to shift its thinking”. It is a nudge in the right direction. There’s a vast chunk of society which will heave a huge sigh of relief and say “Thank God/Dawkins someone has at last taken this seriously!”
I’ve read the UKGirlguiding surveys and other papers referenced by Real Women (Sotrry to repeat myself). I have also read testimonials on Beat. It’s time for us to pragmatically show our support for those in need.
I think the proposal has an importance which transcends its actual practical application. Its importance, in a way, outweighs the obvious nit picking (and I picked most of the nits above early on when the document was published) most of which is valid, but I’m convinced we need to see the bigger picture on this one.
Bravo Jo S and team say I!
Alix makes a very valid point. Indeed, my first instinct was to say we shouldn’t be banning such an indistinct thing. I got quite stropy about it and clashed swords with a couple people quite brutally. But I have been rather blown away by the passion of those advocating this and by the evidence provided, most especially that provided from GirlGuidingUK (sorry to go on about it but I have family in that organisation). You could say that I have been cowed into submission 😉 but I prefer to say that I realise how important this is to those who suffer and those (including myself as a father) concerned about those who suffer from, or are suceptible to, eating disorders.
I hate to say this, but that’s an awful reason to hold a policy. Laws/regulations are meant to be self-justifying, not there to ‘send a message’.
I hope the amendment debate is a quarter as good as this one has been!
@Rob “I hate to say this, but that’s an awful reason to hold a policy. Laws/regulations are meant to be self-justifying, not there to ’send a message’”
I think it is self-justifying. It is a very minor tweak of the ASA rules which is well justified on the grounds of the misleading and obnoxious effect of advertising to children using artificially altered images . End of story.
Exactly, Paul, to both your comments.
@Rob – it is a self justifying policy but it’s a super duper multi-tasking policy in that it also starts a debate about wider issues and what sort of society we want to live in!
@Alix – I was just thinking that as well!
Alix, you are aware that ‘Real Women” adverts are something ad agencies have actually done? It’s not a question of ‘group think’ stopping them doing it, Dove have run an aggressive “Real Women” campaign for bloody ages, even me in my no-TV, low-Movie life have bumped into them.
Well worth everybody watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U.
The end of the day there is a clear conflict of interest between people with stuff and people who want it. To prevent this getting out of hand we have property law which stops you taking it, then we have trading laws which prevent you lying about what you’re selling, or how much you’re selling. We need these laws because if they didn’t exist a pint would be more like 90% of a pint, a ‘beef burger’ might not contain meat let alone beef.
Making people unhappy is a pretty strait-forward way to manipulate them, advertising has strayed out of the realms of informing people on products and into the realms of manipulating emotions to further the goals of the sellers, how does this benefit anyone other than the seller?
Excellent synopsis, James!
In my opinion the `Real Women’ will not be passed unless it attracts the right tone and emphasis relationship in confronting real issues experienced by the majority of women from all walks of life, who will decide whether this proposed legislation or bill for change, will achieve any practical assist and help to their own lives,work and travel and maternity,childcare and health visitors etc.
As a Councillor in a Ward with some of the most deprived families in England and with health and housing problems as their primary concern, I am at pains to think how many women in Walthamstow, have time to seriously worry about `air -brushed models’ !
However the import for me in the `Real Women’ paper is to campaign for more London Crisis Rape Centres,to appreciate that many more women are being battered in the family often by partners and unable to get out of a suffocating violent situation,or face childbirth without enough visting midwives and increased health visitors.
An increased food maternity benefit and inclusion of key drugs during pregnancy like Folic Acid and for women to face less stress during maternity would probably be welcomed by younger women.
I support Malcolm Todd`s sentiments and the need for practical life improvement measures that will touch a chord in the daily round with most women from this keen `Real Woman’ debate, that will be challenging at Conference.
I support natural women and the character of a women speaks much more than her figure can ever do.I agree that the Modelling industry should be pilloried for insisting on `stick thin’ size zero models should n`t be banned on grounds of humanity but this element in the `Real Women’ surely is not going to be the main thrust of it-is it ?
My adopted 25 year old daughter has a beautiful natural engaging smile and would agree that `air brushing’ should be outlawed but to achieve it in a `corrosive industry’ is`nt very practicable.
2 Trackbacks
[…] a large volume of media coverage and much debate, such as the excellent thread of comments yesterday on The Voice, so this will be one of the votes to watch out […]
[…] note on the Real Women policy motion which will be debated this afternoon – Bernard Salmon wrote here yesterday about his amendment to this paper, and I do recommend you read the fiery-but-friendly discussion in […]