Jacob forgoes photoshopping (kind of)

This month, Jacob, popular retailer of very nice women's clothing, announced a "no-retouching" policy for photos of its models, to "promote an honest and realistic image of the female body."

Good news, but can you tell the difference between the three images below? The left is the original image, the middle an example of the kind of image Jacob will use for its campaigns moving forward (colour-corrected, scars and tattoos removed, etc.), and the one on the right is supposed to illustrate the degree of photoshopping in their past Jacob Lingerie campaigns.

The press release's title is a bit troubling... does it mean that other photos--those of non-models--would (and should) be retouched? And, as Jenna Owsianik pointed out on Shameless's blog, this lady doesn't exactly need a lot of photoshopping.

You rock, Martha Stewart!

Charlie Rose: "You used to be a billionaire"
Martha: "I know. It felt so nice. I remember driving up Madison Avenue thinking, 'I can buy anything.' But I’m not a spendthrift!"

Watch the video

No, I haven't actually read Freedom

... but I am loving the discussion that is happening around Frazenfreude! Franzen is trending online like a literary Lady Gaga--long after the discussion has gone stale, he's SEO gold! And yet, bloggers and commenters are still opening up a wider conversation about gender and writing -- I hope it goes on.

Inspired by the discussion about the male/female divide in American literature, Liza Mundy's piece on the Double X blog at Slate is one I wanted to share for its candour and hilarity.

Here she is on the gender divide on reporting trips:

"...in my experience, male reporters say something along the lines of "Bye, honey!" when they go out the door to the airport, while women reporters have to make 7,000 back-up plans involving not only spouses but primary baby-sitters, secondary baby-sitters, pet-walking services, and carpooling colleagues, just to make sure that while they are away, no child gets forgotten overnight at gymnastics practice. Women reporters take the earliest train trip to their reporting destination in the morning, and the latest possible train back, rather than spend an extra, leisurely night in a hotel room. Women reporters stuff breast pumps in their carry on bags and help with homework over the telephone."

--"Franzenfest"

Quoted: Women's Magazines

Back in the old MPub days (so long ago...), we had a conversation about women's vs. men's magazines (which, incidentally, led to an obsession with James Franco—another story for another time). We tried for a long time to get down to what it was about women's magazine editorial that makes them different and frankly, less intelligent than men's editorial (in general). This quote from Margaret Webb explains part of what I've been trying to get at:

The thing that's always bugged me about women's magazines—not all, but 80 percent -- is their prevailing editorial attitude toward readers, women, is that they're imperfect specimens in need of fixing or are so emotionally fragile they require constant celebration. Advertisers, then, are the white knights riding in with the fix or pat on the head -- hair product, lipstick, weight-loss plan, speedy supper remedies -- and editorial generally panders to them with an excess of service stuff as well as editorial that's as vanilla as it is earnest (no irony or risky humour, please, women are too stupid to get it). For example, a while back, Chatelaine did a service piece on how to cope with fatigue, offering tips such as power napping, what to eat to avoid afternoon slumps etc. Heck, shouldn't the story be about why women are so fatigued and offer strategies on how to kick the fat butts of partners and kids who are shirking their share of the domestic load?

On the other hand, men's magazines like Esquire respect their readers no matter how imperfect, flatulent or drunk. It's the world that needs fixing, not their readers. Their nudge-wink pact with the reader is that every man coulda been James Bond if only James Bond hadn't gotten there first, the lucky bastard.

/via Canadian Magazines

Related: Cover Lies, Jezebel

Sit down and stay a while

Required Reading:

• Clay Shirky's unfortunately titled post, "A Rant About Women" is another way of saying, how can you win the lottery if you don't play?
  
  Also, note that men in general were handed a ticket... might win, didn't even have to pay to get it. (Are you following me? Is this analogy working?)
  
  
• Feministing gives Mad Props to Hillary

Recommended:

• A letter from Satan to Pat Robertson (scroll down one)
  also via @cshirky
• A note on Disney Princesses: The new rule is a girl can be anything, as long as she’s hot
  NB: The Disney Princesses enterprise is GIANT money maker for Disney.
• Salon asks, "What would the supermarket celebrity magazines do without babies?" and offers some thoughts on Fox News' new hire.

This post is evolving....just arrived at procrastination station. It's going to be a while.

Get Real: Cover Lies

Maybe this issue is already off newsstands but this is still hilarious: Here's Jezebel's take on the June cover of Elle. It's funny 'cause it's true.



via Jezebel/Cover Lies

Just Sayin'

Can the press please stop talking about Michelle Obama's fashion and beauty?
As Lexington puts it, "It would be good to hear a bit more about what Mrs Obama thinks and a lot less about what she wears."[from "The Other Obama: Let Michelle be Michelle", The Economist]

There's also an interesting story behind the blog post image above. Read more about it here.

Where to Pass the Torch?

Michelle posted this essay, "Roe vs. Wade vs. My Boyfriend," a while ago. I didn't really know what to say about it but it certainly got me thinking again about reproductive rights. How far have we come since the 1970s? How much work is left to do? An article in the NYTimes puts everything in perspective... the outlook is not so great.

Would you put your life on the line to preserve women's right to abortions? (And is it your responsibility?)

Women's Bodies: the ultimate ping pong match

Hat tip: Aaron Leaf

On Friday, the new US administration reverse[d] rules on U.S. abortion aid. Obama rescinded the rules that "restricted federal money for international organizations that promote or provide abortions overseas, sweeping aside a pillar of the social policy architecture of George W. Bush’s presidency."

As promising as this news is, I look back at the history of this policy and I want to cry: "President Ronald Reagan first imposed the ban in 1984 when it was announced at a conference in Mexico City. President Bill Clinton lifted it a couple of days after taking office in 1993. Mr. Bush restored it a couple of days after he took office in 2001, and advocates on both sides expected Mr. Obama to lift it again."

So what happens four or eight years from now when Republicans take power again? Without a public debate, this back and forth continues quietly in the halls of power, as the fallout happens on women's bodies and reproductive rights.

Naomi Wolf on the Third Wave

Sex, Part III

Now, it's obvious that if you watch Friends or Gossip Girl, you love God (or pretend to), and you are a teen girl, you are pregnant:

Teenagers who watch a lot of television featuring flirting, necking, discussion of sex and sex scenes are much more likely than their peers to get pregnant or get a partner pregnant, according to the first study to directly link steamy programming to teen pregnancy.

The study, which tracked more than 700 12-to-17-year-olds for three years, found that those who viewed the most sexual content on TV were about twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy as those who saw the least.
....
Among the 718 youths who reported being sexually active during the study, the likelihood of getting pregnant or getting someone else pregnant increased steadily with the amount of sexual content they watched on TV, the researchers found. About 25 percent of those who watched the most were involved in a pregnancy, compared with about 12 percent of those who watched the least. The researchers took into account other factors such as having only one parent, wanting to have a baby and engaging in other risky behaviors.
....
Among the shows the teens watched were "Sex and the City," "Friends" and "That '70s Show." Chandra would not identify the others but stressed that they included dramas, comedies, reality shows and even animated programs on broadcast and cable networks.

"We don't want to single out any individual programs," Chandra said.

[Yo, Chandra. You just did]

--Rob Stein, Washington Post

So This Is Why Red-Staters Are So Angry

A colleague (I won't reveal his name) was up late last night watching "Thelma and Louise" on Lifetime. During a commerical break, an ad for Trojan's Vibrating Touch fingertip massager for women came on. Naturally, my colleague's journalistic curiosity was piqued and he rushed to the website mentioned for more info. (Hey, in these final stressful days of the campaign, a man's gotta do what he's gotta do to stay distracted.)

Reading the Vibrating Touch blog (this just gets better and better, doesn't it?) he noticed complaints from women living in Texas that they were unable to purchase the product. Probing further, he discovered that the sale of Vibrating Touch is prohibited in a number of states: Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. And apparently, the folks at Trojan have received their share of disappointed emails from frustrated women in these states, because, on the Vibrating Touch FAQ page, one can find this exchange:

Q. I can’t purchase the Trojan Her Pleasure Vibrating Touch fingertip massager in my state. Why?

A. We’re sorry, but some states prohibit the sale of products such as these.
These states are Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia.

Wow. How sad is that? In these stressful times, how cruel must a state be to refuse its female residents "products such as these"?

But, alas, it's true. As I promised my righteously outraged and perplexed colleague, I did a quick Google search on the matter and pulled up random episodes from the frontlines of sexual repression, including this strange tale of law enforcement run amok, in which a former fifth grade teacher and mother of three was busted in Texas for selling a vibrator to undercover cops posing as a "dysfunctional married couple in search of a sex aid." (Now there's a fine use of police resources.)

These are real laws, people--some of which have been tested and upheld in recent years, such as the Mississippi Supreme Court's 2004 decision not to overturn a state ban on the sale or distribution of “three-dimensional devices designed or marketed primarily for the stimulation of human genitalia.” As if life in Mississippi weren't hard enough. (And, yeah, I lived there for a time, so save your indignant hate mail.)

All I can say is, I know what I'm getting all my red-state friends and family for Christmas.

It seems blues really do have more fun.

--Michelle Cottle, The New Republic

Masterpiece Theatre: Kristen Wiig