Sunday, July 29, 2007

More about role models

Last year I blogged about how atrocious some of the women on magazine covers look these days. Basically, I went off on a tantrum about the fact that the women who are "supposed to be" our role models, look nothing like any woman could possible appear naturally. It's ridiculous how thin some of these women seem - making it no wonder why women are overly critical about their physiques.

Well, a few days back, my co-author Lou Schuler posted a link about how Redbook drastically altered a photo of the beautiful Miss Faith Hill because they felt her almost 40 year old wrinkles, her wee-bit of loose skin, and normal sized arms were unapproapriate for a cover picture.

Please have a look at the link here and you'll be just as disgusted at how some people think women should look, just to be on a cover of a magazine. If the change in the size of Faith's arms is not enough to make you want to vomit, watch for her shrinking hips and disappearing smile lines.

If gorgeous Faith Hill isn't good enough the way she is to be on the cover of Redbook the way she is, you wonder who the heck really is?


Jaya Dixit said...

Talk about circles - I linked to you in my last entry. This was a very thought-provoking post and obviously I took it to a wild tangent, but...

Mariah said...

here's another good example, this company does photo retouching... check out that pic of Beyonce (under portfolio)... how nice to get rid of that little belly and have nicer calves so easily! :)