I came across this article in Marie Claire Magazine which is obviously a magazine that is directed towards women, fashion and beauty. The article is titled, "Should Fatties Get a Room? (Even on TV)" and it talks about the new CBS sitcom Mike and Molly. This article truly upset me because not only does Maura Kelly contradict herself over three times in the article, but is rude and disrespectful to anyone struggling with issues with weight. By even titling the article with the word "Fatties" makes people that are overweight seem like complete outcasts and inhuman. She clearly states; "So anyway, yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room — just like I'd find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroine addict slumping in a chair." A sentence later she says "Don't get me wrong..." So the problem lies here that by making it seem like overweight people are undeserving of not only love, but anything really unless they lose weight, the "male gaze" subsequenly is further encouraged with images in media of what is a more socially acceptable body type. Because these people may be more "aesthetically displeasing" to look at to her and others arguably, it diminishes what is the common perception of regularly shown heterosexual couples on television. Therefore, a fetishistic view within scopephielia is not possible, and further encouraged. What bothers me is the fact that she is truly ignorant to many issues going on in America, including the present "food deserts" in certain underprivileged communities. She states that overweight people should simply get up and get moving, buy healthy food, and "stand" as much as possible. She is not aware though, that many times the socioeconomic status and location of individuals does not allow for this, because if a grocery store is not present within a 10 mile radius, chances are a gym isn't either. She may be lucky to be able to attend a gym in her high society fashion editor life style, but it is not fair to ignorantly publish an article pertaining to only a fraction of the population that can allow for the luxuries of the gym and healthy eating. Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Ignorance in its purest form.
I came across this article in Marie Claire Magazine which is obviously a magazine that is directed towards women, fashion and beauty. The article is titled, "Should Fatties Get a Room? (Even on TV)" and it talks about the new CBS sitcom Mike and Molly. This article truly upset me because not only does Maura Kelly contradict herself over three times in the article, but is rude and disrespectful to anyone struggling with issues with weight. By even titling the article with the word "Fatties" makes people that are overweight seem like complete outcasts and inhuman. She clearly states; "So anyway, yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room — just like I'd find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroine addict slumping in a chair." A sentence later she says "Don't get me wrong..." So the problem lies here that by making it seem like overweight people are undeserving of not only love, but anything really unless they lose weight, the "male gaze" subsequenly is further encouraged with images in media of what is a more socially acceptable body type. Because these people may be more "aesthetically displeasing" to look at to her and others arguably, it diminishes what is the common perception of regularly shown heterosexual couples on television. Therefore, a fetishistic view within scopephielia is not possible, and further encouraged. What bothers me is the fact that she is truly ignorant to many issues going on in America, including the present "food deserts" in certain underprivileged communities. She states that overweight people should simply get up and get moving, buy healthy food, and "stand" as much as possible. She is not aware though, that many times the socioeconomic status and location of individuals does not allow for this, because if a grocery store is not present within a 10 mile radius, chances are a gym isn't either. She may be lucky to be able to attend a gym in her high society fashion editor life style, but it is not fair to ignorantly publish an article pertaining to only a fraction of the population that can allow for the luxuries of the gym and healthy eating. 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am astounded at the fact that those words were actually published in a magazine. I mean I know Marie Claire is for teenie boppers and is pretty low grade to begin with but wow! I agree completley that's a horrible message to be sending out to woman of any age. Not only does this issue relate to hegemony and the placement of dominant and inferior groups, but it relates to societal norms and what it means to be beautiful. Its sickening that a size zero model is what we strive for, but those who are overweight are therefore discusting? that's unrealistic. Health is one thing, but belittling a person because of their weight says a lot about the person pushing the judgements.
ReplyDeleteI think this article is a perfect example of how the media does not accept anyone different from their own ideals of perfection. If a TV show, celebrity/person, or anyone does not fit the mold in which the media set it standards to, they are automatically thought of as outcasts, which is unfair. It also upsets me with how ignorant the woman who is writing the article is. As a journalist, you shouldn't be biased towards anything you write. In my opinion, she is not being ethical in this article because she is primarily stating only one side of the story instead of evenly stating the two.
ReplyDelete