Is it possible to ignore the inevitable? The same thing that’s constantly staring at us and every day reminding us that we’re not good enough to be seen as beautiful is also telling us to not pay attention to our very own looks. Can it be true that I am the vain one that allowed society to place standards and ideologies of beauty upon me? Buzzfeed editor, Amy Odell writes, “This is what we’re becoming and it needs to stop”.
From protein shakes to low carbs diets with friends. This friendly competition of losing weight has become more than getting bodies toned up for summer, but rather a reason to promote industries to degrade females down to their waist size.
Odell states under her headline that, “What’s worse than retouching is how many OTHER ways the world is telling women how important it is to be thin — and how much women let those messages influence them”. However, these images are bombarding our daily life and it is impossible to simply tolerate their visibility. To say that photoshop isn’t a big deal implies that young women are not strong enough to view the media and disregard messages being sent to them.
Odell also states, “Why does Bethenny Frankel get a free pass to shill as much Skinnygirl this and that as she can manage to license? That whole brand sends the message that other food and beverage and lifestyle brands are, by default, Fatgirl brands”. However, food industries are only complying to further demean women that photoshopping is okay and to measure up to these standards means changing your lifestyle habits and incorporating new “health tips” to stay skinny and appear as models and celebrity endorsers.
Companies are taking advantage of human insecurities and lies showcased by magazine covers to gain product revenue. Not to mention reiterating men’s perspective of how women should eat, dress, and behave.
Here at Honest Action, we recommend women not ignore this issue, but critique the media for shaming audiences into regulating their health habits to fit a more accepting shape. At Honest Action we respect all perspectives and honor truthful views to the public to not misconstrue their body image with unachievable preferences.
In today’s society, social media plays a vital role in day to day life. Many people use it to share personal experiences, photographs, thoughts, and other private details about their lives. It gives people an opportunity to connect with other individuals around the world; individuals that they otherwise would not have met in regular life. Social media presents a great spectrum of opportunity for people, whether it be job opportunities or even free business promotion. But good as it may, social media can also pose a major problem.
Online media has limited restrictions, where individuals are free to post almost anything they want. This topic has always evoked mixed feelings, some agree with limited restrictions and some do not. One of the many that agree with these limited restrictions also advocate for even more freedom of speech. According to The New York Times, “The monitoring and restriction of even violent content can have dire consequences, despite being well-intentioned.” This means that they believe not having freedom of speech will result in negative consequences. Even though they believe this is the case, they still accept the government’s flawed regulation policy, stating that “it provides checks and balances between the site and its users”.But on the contrary, Honest Action believes that we should have more regulations on the amount of freedom individuals can have on social media.This is all due to numerous negative outcomes resulting from lack of restrictions being put into place on social networks. Outcomes such as cyberbullying, terrorists threats, livestreaming suicides, and people creating false identities on personal profiles. If you really think about it, if the current regulations put into place were that “effective”, would we be dealing with all of the issues we have now?
Other numerous sources have mentioned alternative ways for censorship without evoking the first amendment right. The Huffington Post mentions the idea of “self- censorship”, where individuals keep a mindful eye on their postings. But although this is a smart sounding idea, it still would not stop people from posting certain things. In a nutshell, people are going to do what they want, self-censorship can only help but so much. This is why we believe that more restrictions need to be put into place on the internet. It will greatly affect some of the violence and negative content you see on the internet today.
When you’re walking through the grocery store and you spot your favorite magazine, there is nothing there more aesthetically pleasing than our favorite celebrities. We have a developed a mindset that places these individuals in entertainment above ourselves in the ways they are publicized along with their appearances. Here at Honest Action, we believe that photoshopping is to hide imperfections from viewers that can often result in timidity from target audiences. Photoshopping is also the publication of falsehood to viewers.
An article by Frank Multari from PetaPixel.com article entitled, “Why I’ll Photoshop Your Face and Why I Believe It’s Okay” believes that these images of celebrities are completely justified. The article understands “A lot of people feel that it pushes unrealistic expectations of beauty in society.” Multari’s Article views this idea from a different perspective; he explains that “ …we naturally focus on a person’s most identifiable parts, the features that are most quintessentially human.” This stands behind the belief that within a picture lies the whole person and not their imperfections. Multari pushes the idea that if people focus on the actual person instead of their flaws it is ok to alter their appearance. While the logic seems noble, it has its flaws. Reasoning along these lines are why people see celebrities as perfect and above themselves because they are edited and marketed in this manner. Audiences would appreciate realistic features displayed on celebrities to relate to them more.
Multari states that “ temporary pimples, bumps, and blemishes are not the essence of a person.” However, capturing a true person is capturing them as a whole including the good and bad. Not editing them into your superficial ideologies of beauty. True fans are accepting to their favorite artist for their creativity and passion, not for their compromised authenticity. Not to mention that this view completely overlooks those that are self-conscious about their own face and it could help millions to see people that look just like them may have the same insecurities.
So why continue a culture of deception and fraudulent for more generations to witness and compare themselves to? By removing any disfigurement or flawed element Multari claims we can focus on “elements of a picture that are sharpest.” Everyone defines beauty in their own unique way so why force your beliefs on their images. Honest Action would promote the use of regulations to state under an image whether or not a picture has been photoshopped to notify audiences to use discretion.
So the next time you see your favorite artists on the cover of a magazine ask yourself, Who is the real them? And write your magazine editor to post before and after photoshop photos.
According to The First Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, “Congress shall make no law….abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Here at Honest Action, we believe that restrictions should be placed on the media to control their misleading views of the public.
The Patch posted an article titled “There is No Reason to Limit Freedom of Speech,” In this article, the author Ray Newman discusses Freedom of Speech and argues that there should be no limitations on what people can say. His fueling his argument was that citizens are mature and are able to “express their opinions without being censored.” Newman believes in people sharing their own opinions and looks at freedom of speech from the people’s perspective. He also believes that individuals should take it upon themselves and do their own research when reading anything. While part of this philosophy fits the Honest Action mold we simply do not agree with all of his views.
In regards to seeing all citizens as mature and able to make their own rational choices when it comes to free speech in many situations, this standard cannot be set for all of the US. Every year we see countless citizens create chaos and senseless violence that occurs in various parts of the country. Newman mentions that the government sets limits already; one example being people that cannot yell “fire” in a compact build. While Newman sees this as unnecessary this is a restriction that makes sense and enforces safety. In a world where anything can happen, why would it be irrational to believe someone yelling “fire” even if you did not visually see one? This can cause chaos and injuries, crushing and trampling. This is an extreme example of what can happen in this situation, but a realistic possibility. Dangerous and false statements harm our society. It would be naive to attempt to censor all statements of the sort just due to lack of resources to do so alone, especially due to the “Internet age,” but some speech and press are harmful to society as seen in the previous example.
Honest Action believes that people should be able to say whatever as long as it is not reckless and can possibly endanger the lives of others. Freedom and safety for all!