Apologies and Songs With Mixed Messages

First, let me start with an apology.
To our readers, supporters, and people who accidentally visited this page while trying to go to a different blog --- we are terribly sorry for the neglect the blog has received over the last four months. The one month hiatus that we planned to take in October turned into a four month hiatus. Many of the reasons for this include the word "homework".  This is my attempt to get the ball rolling again.  We are very sorry about this long and unintended hiatus! Here is a picture of a baby wombat curled up in a hat to make up for it. We will also discuss the possibility of running the blog a few months longer than we had originally planned.

Awwww...
 Don't you just love wombats?
(I do not own this, or any images in this post)

Now to my post:

While lamenting the many hours of homework that I am behind in, I often listen to music. And while listening to music, I've started to notice that a lot of popular songs that seem to have a nice message, often actually have a mixed message if you listen to the lyrics. What am I talking about? 

Well, take the song "All About that Bass" by Meghan Trainor. I quite like the message that people come in different sizes, and to not be ashamed if you're not a size two (though I always feel odd singing that line because I happen to be a size two). However her reasons for this are that "...don't worry about your size, because boys like a little more booty to hold at night". I don't quite like that message. The only reason to feel good about how you look is if boys like you? That doesn't seem quite right. I don't like her endorsement of placing your self-worth on what someone else thinks. The song has a mixed message. The positive message: bodies come in different sizes, don't hate yours. The negative message: Base how you feel about your body on what others say and think. So, don't hate your body if boys like it. What seemed a feminist song, now doesn't seem very feminist anymore. 

Some of Meghan Trainor's other songs have mixed messages too.
Take "Dear Future Husband", a song about what the singer's "future husband" has to do to be her future husband. A lyric with a positive message: "...so don't be thinking I'll be home and baking out the pies." She's saying don't expect me to stay at home while you go to work, which implies that both will be working to support each other.  But another lyric "After every fight, just apologize... Even if I was wrong, you know I'm never wrong. Why disagree?" implies that the singer is never in the wrong, and will never have to apologize. That goes against the lyric about an equal relationship. This new lyric implies that the man will do all the work in the relationship (apologizing, negotiating, etc.), and the woman won't do any and always get her way. This goes against the previous lyric of both people working for the relationship. Overall this song is a fun song, but I don't enjoy the lyrics, because in the relationship the singer is not taking an equal share of the work or responsibility, but leaving all the changes that need to be made for their relationship to work to her "future husband".

Another song with a mixed message is "Daughters" by John Mayer. I like the melody and sound of the song, but I have a problem with the lyrics. He starts out with a lovely message for fathers to treat their daughters well. He goes on to say that girls will eventually become mothers, so mothers should be good to their daughters too. I'm a little bothered by the first bit of that, because not every girl has to be a mother, but the overall message is still fine: parents should treat their daughters well. But what really bothers me is when he gets to this part: "Boys you can break. Find out how much they can take. Boys will be strong, boys soldier on, but would be gone without warmth from a woman's good good heart." Um, what? So be nice to your daughters because they are weak, but go ahead an mistreat your sons because they are tough and mistreating them will make them strong and manly? Huh?
First of all, be good to all of your children. Not just the girls. Second of all, girls are not inherently weaker than boys, and boys are not inherently stronger than girls. Third of all your decision about whether or not to be nice to your children should not take their gender into account, and fourth of all don't mistreat any of your children. Even if they're boys. Those lyrics almost ruin the song for me. The message in the song: Be nice to girls, but mistreat boys because they are stronger than girls.

It seems that in a lot of songs, just as they have a nice social message going, they insert a lyric with a negative social message and end up neutralizing the song. But yet we keep listening, because we like them, and if you ignore the one lyric or two, they're nice songs. Still, I wish there were more songs with lyrics you don't have to ignore to enjoy the song.

-- Captain Sarah Jane

Somebody's Got To Wear A Pretty Skirt

And Other Reasons Us Women Are Here

"God Made Girls." The title to a new popular country song by previous "The Voice" country pop star RaeLynn, suggests an old fashioned view on why us women have a place on this earth, and why these particular reasons make us women "important."

Having the name: "God Made Girls," you'd think that it would prove a more modern and strengthening take on female rolls, but unfortunately, that is not the case. We're not asking for a feminist anthem or anything, but why is it ever so demeaning and stereotypical, as if the viewer is that out of the 50s, telling a women her place in life. Being a 2014 based song, you'd think this would be a great chance to see a fresh, new, endearing perspective of what purpose we serve, if that's what you want to call it. 

Here are the opening lines:

-"Somebody's gotta wear a pretty skirt/Somebody's gotta be the one to flirt/Somebody's gotta wanna hold his hand/So God made girls"

These lyrics kind of summarize the whole song, but here are some different ones:

-"To hold his hand"

-"To wear a pretty skirt"

-"To be the one to cry"

-"To teach him how to dance"

-"To be something fragile to hold him while he hurts"

-"To give him a reason to wash that truck"

-"To be the one to flirt"

-"To make him get dressed up"

-"To let him drive"

-"To put up a fight, make him wait on a Saturday night, to walk downstairs and blow his mind, so God made girls"

Now don't get me wrong, this is a very catchy and cute song, but the whole thing just suggests the minor, stereotypical characteristics of a female, and only emphasizes the weak "feminine" parts of us. Almost as if it only brings attention to the things that make us useful and valuable to men, as if we're tools. As for the video, it features, things like ballet, white horses, sparkles, flowers, and lots and lots of pink. Supposedly, this is supposed to be a "girl empowerment" sort of song, but it kind of takes a somewhat new-fashioned take on old-fashioned. Just to be clear, I've heard many country songs, and this sort of seems to be the norm in some way. I wouldn't know this firsthand, but it appears that many country songs have a more traditional outlook on life, but I may be wrong. Not all of the lyrics prove to be understating. Like "For dancing to our own beat." The song kind of has a whole goal to kind of balance out male/female roles in way that sort of sets men doing the physical burden of life, while females are here to help men understand themselves and feel masculine. But if you disagree with me, there's always another way to look at it. From a different perspective, you could see it as us women are here to remind men they don't have to be big and tough all the time, and they should take time to look at life differently.

This set of lyrics I'm not sure how to describe:                                                                                                                                                     -"He needed something soft and loud, and sweet and proud, but tough enough to break a heart/Something beautiful, and breakable that lights up in the dark, so God made girls."

This is a nice part of it, but it also seems like it's stating that the only tough thing a girl can do is break a heart. I think overall, the song suggests women are an accessory to men, and the big, but also very small and delicate rolls we play in society. It's kind of sad to think that the only thing we can supposedly account for is being soft, fragile, and delicate, and not be notable for being equal to men. This is a nice song, and I can see why it's currently climbing the charts, right now, but for now maybe we can focus on the strong, powerful qualities a women has. Like being capable of being herself, and being just as strong as she says she is. :)

Note: Even though the name of the song suggests religious belief, it does not mean I am speaking against anybody's religious choices. This is simply my opinion on the lyrics and representation, and not the singers belief, and affiliation with the suggested religion. 

~ Governess Bob

Gender Equality -- Why Can't Boys Have Dolls?

We've come a long way in this country when it comes to sexism. 200 years ago, women couldn't own property. Now we've come much closer to equality. Now, don't get me wrong, there is a ton of sexism out there still and it's not acceptable, but in this post I want to talk about the other side of sexism. Women can wear any color they want and society is fine with girls playing with what are considered "boys' toys", however if a boy touches the color pink, society freaks out. Girls can wear pants but boys can't wear skirts. That doesn't sound like equality to me.

There is this weird idea society has that boys somehow stop being boys if they wear, do or play with something that society associates with girls. If a boy is seen playing with a baby doll people don't think "Oh, isn't that sweet? He's going to be a great dad someday." Instead they totally freak out and take the doll away because it's "not for boys". Sure, we're not used to seeing boys wear skirts or pink and it seems kind of odd, but only because it's not what's been acceptable in the past. Remember, society used to think it was weird and unsightly if a woman wore pants. Now, I know many boys would rather have toy cars than dolls, but a boy should be able to play with whatever toys he wants without being criticized.

I thought this illustrated my point about colors.
(note: I do not own this image and I am not the author)

Another area where this is prominent is in color choices for boys' and girls' toys, clothing, etcetera. Our society has assigned different colors to genders. Girls can have pink or purple, and sure you can wear blue if you want, but boys can only wear red, black, blue and green. Maybe orange if society's feeling generous. I find this really weird. Why the heck does it matter? It's just a color. Why are specific colors limited to genders? How is it that if a girl wears a blue shirt to school nobody cares, but if a boy wears pink he gets beat up? How does that make sense? It's literally just different wavelengths of light. What makes it for girls or boys only?

In the past women's careers have been limited to domestic roles like raising children and doing housework. Today women aren't limited to that anymore, thankfully, so women and men can split up those duties. But society is still out of touch with logic here. In the media when a man is shown taking care of children, or cleaning houses, and it's treated like an odd and humorous thing. There's the idea that men can't sew, cook, or clean for a living, that some professions would make them less masculine. But I think that children should grow up thinking that they can do what they want, be who they want and that gender doesn't matter. Girls can be race car drivers, boys can open sewing stores. Gender should not determine what you can do, who you can be, or what colors you can like.

-- Captain Sarah Jane

On Representation and Sexism in the Media

So I'm sure I can't be the only one who's noticed that in interviews with celebrities, whether on the red carpet or on a talk show, there's an extreme amount of sexism that is obvious from the questions asked by the reporters. Men tend to get the interesting questions- about their career and their experience, their inspirations and motivations, or deep questions about the character they're portraying. Turn the camera on an equally talented female, and half the interview is spent gushing over her outfit- "Where'd you buy your dress?" "How many pairs of shoes did you choose from?" -and if they have time at the end, they ask about their friends, hair, pregnancies, and other things equally irrelevant to the reason she's there on that red carpet. Not that asking them about their personal lives is a bad thing, but I'm sure they're just as eager to share their career experiences with the entire world as the men are. And honestly? All the clothing talk needs to go. If they want to share where they got that disgustingly expensive dress, then by all means, ask them, but it's beyond unfair that women aren't taken seriously as far as slightly deeper questions go.
This is something that really infuriates me. Time and time again, men and women's roles are painted in our media- the men are the talented ones, the trailblazers and innovators, the ones to watch for years to come. The women? Oh, you can watch for that fashion line she's bound to release based off of that gorgeous cerulean ensemble she's wearing. Forget that she's talented and well-thought of enough to be at the Emmys or the Grammys or whatever it is. Apparently the only people interesting enough to talk about their careers and deeper thoughts and experiences are males. Over half of the world's population is female, and there's no reason that it's fair or right to depict women as the airheads whose only valuable contribution to society is whatever they're wearing today. That's not just a wrong perspective, that's destructive and I'd go so far as to call it evil. Cause honestly, I don't think that's too much of an exaggeration. The idea that women are unimportant and uninteresting and only appreciated for their appearances and similar things is an absurd message that is harmful to everybody.

After all, Melissa McCarthy wasn't invited to the Emmys because of that purple dress she wore. And Hayden Panettiere wasn't called in to the red carpet to talk about her pregnancy. Both of these women(and the many others who have faced sexist questions on a very public scale throughout the years) are fabulous actresses, hard workers, and modern innovators, and that is why they were there. Though you couldn't tell that by listening to their interviews. I'm sure they're frustrated by that. I mean, wouldn't you be? They've accomplished great things and worked hard to get this far and the first thing the interviewer asks them to tell the whole world is where they got their shoes.

This trope appears just about everywhere in our media. Almost any interview with an actress or other female celebrity will involve questions about their clothes, hair, workout tips, etcetera. Take this interview with Scarlett Jonhansson and Robert Downey Jr.- he gets asked the really interesting, deep question about his character, and she gets asked about how she got in shape. This just goes to show how unfair and ridiculous all of this is, because I mean, not only is this sexist in the extreme, but it's a missed opportunity- both for her to share some of her insights gained from portraying this character and to spice up the interview. The Black Widow is an endlessly interesting and complex
character and the reporter could've asked her an equally intriguing question. And I mean, if you want to focus on the actors' physical traits, why not ask RDJ how he gets his hair to look so fabulous?

What it comes down to, I guess, is that our society needs to stop this ridiculous gender discrimination. People should be judged for their actions, the things they accomplish, and the way they present themselves, not for something they were born with. I hope someday we can get over this and start treating both men and women with equality and not assuming that an individual's potential is diminished or determined by something like gender.
--Oswin

The Pocket Crisis and a Vomiting Glitter Isle

Whenever I look in the girls' section at a department store, I always feel a sense of disappointment. What I see is an assault of color and glitter, so that it looks like a glitter isle vomited on that section of the store. A few things are actually cute, even if they do have bright colors and glitter, but there aren't just a few things like that, it's everything. There is nothing wrong with a sparkly shirt in bright colors, but if you want a more toned down shirt, then your options are pretty much athletic gear or school uniforms. The store Justice is a perfect example. Everything has glitter, ruffles, lace, blinding colors, or all of the above. Some of those things do look nice, but when I see the boys' section, I feel a bit jealous.

The store Justice, where everything is
in blinding colors.

Boys have shirts with planets, math, dinosaurs, or even just nice colors. I would like a shirt with the solar system or some other science- related thing on it, but there aren't any shirts like that in Target or other stores where I shop often. Lands' End recently came out with some space themed shirts for girls, and I was really excited. When I looked, however, I was disappointed. It seemed that they had decided to compromise between the other girls' shirts and space shirts by ramping up the glitter. Apparently, they hadn't figured out that (gasp) not every girl likes glitter. Astonishing, I know. Some of the shirts did look nice with glitter, but I don't really like the glitter, and I would have liked the shirts if they didn't have glitter. When I searched Amazon for “space” in the girls' section, I found a few costumes for little kids, not gender specific, and a few other space shirts for little girls. When I searched for space in the boys' section, I found shirts, coats, pajamas, and a whole lot of other cool stuff. This post wasn't supposed to be about how I like space, but I don't think that people should have to settle for wearing stuff that they sort of like because they can't find anything else. I, personally, would like a shirt that has a nice pattern but still doesn't scream glitter, and that's really hard to find in the kids' sizes.

Another thing that really bothers me about women's and girl's clothing is the lack of pockets. It's true that some jeans are too fitted to have good pockets and still look nice, but even on pants that aren't very fitted, there are hardly ever good pockets. Once I had a pair of black pants from Target, and they were labeled “essential pants”. Of course there were a lot of jokes about that, especially since there weren't any pockets. If you look in the boys' section you could fit a small book in those pockets, and here are girls without any pockets at all. It's annoying that girls apparently can't like science or carry anything that isn't in a bag, especially since men who carry bags are made fun of.

--Luna

Girl Gets Boy Gets Girl Gets Boy...and Vice Versa

No matter what time era it is, we're all still waiting for the typical high school girl to finally take action and ask her crush out. We're in the same time period for independent female movement, from famous female political figures, to women taking on male-dominated fields, yet we recoil in horror as your average teenage girl decides she's done waiting, and goes and asks him out instead. Why is that? And isn't speaking your mind all about what being a women is about?

It used to be that typically, men are supposed to make the first move when dating, yet over the years it has become acceptable for a woman to casually ask a guy out to a date, prom, etc, without being ridiculed. Even with a cheesy pick-up line, a male can still get a girl interested somewhat, yet us females are restricted to casual flirting and eye batting, in order to not scare the person away. It's nerve wrecking on either side to make the first move in dating, but somehow it's seems as though it's easier for a man to go up and ask a girl out, because that's the way we've been following for centuries. We've made so much progress over the years with female society evolution, that you would think we would be as aggressive in relationships as we are in our work environment. 

Women like to put men up to the challenge of how they will approach them, as if they have to face their fears, man up, and use a state of the art  pick-up line to get our attention. Sure, everyone can be a little insecure and hold back for a while, and we all have the fear of being rejected. But when it comes to women, one might say it comes off as desperate, or needy. Men may also be fine with being asked by the opposite gender, it makes them feel wanted, and probably takes the load of their shoulders too. Then again, it may not be insecurity at all, it's possible, like I said before, that it's just plain tradition. As a shy guy/girl, the other person asking first is probably an instant confidence boost.

 One of my favorite comic series are the Archie Comics. They are based off a teenage boy and his fun adventures and situations in his high school life. His two friends/girlfriends, Betty and Veronica are always competing for his attention and he can't seem to chose between them. Anyway, oddly enough, Betty and Veronica are also best friends, but are very different. Veronica is rich, seductive, and sometimes selfish, while Betty is sweet, smart, and athletic, but extremely fond of Archie. Both girls are constantly after him, but Betty would always try her hardest to get his attention without luring him away with material goods. No matter how hard they try to get his attention, they set an oddly both good and bad standard for girls. They are constantly in a love triangle and can't seem to move on or find a way out, and they are persistent, and that gets his attention. They are always looking for possibilities, both good and bad. Even when in love, they still act as strong independent women.

Despite being pushy, Betty chased what she wanted, and stands up for herself, and as you can probably tell, this post is chalk-full of maybe's and maybe nots, but that's what love is about isn't it? Sometimes it's really about the comfort zone that we're in, and that you have to make sure you show your real persona, and don't come off as cheesy. We are all plagued with the task of being ourselves, but not bordering on fake. From the Sadie Hawkins dance, to the (hopefully), soon to be female president, being straightforward is beautiful in it's own way, and there's nothing wrong with a girl who's a little bit confident. 

Thank you for reading this post, this is only my opinion and you are always entitled to your own. I'm not here to offend anyone, and these views are just my own. :)

~ Governess Bob

Strong Is Beautiful

As we know, gender equality for sports has been a tough issue over the years, weather it's male cheerleading, or women's basketball, I think media has taken its toll, and so has the production behind it. 

Everyday, male and female athletes go about their same routines, getting up early, watching what they eat, and committing to their sports and training, they both have the same amounts of dedication to their sports, regardless of their gender. So why is it that we have so much more respect for male dominant sports rather than we have for women's? It seems as if females are seen as non-violent, emotional figures while men are seen as tough and aggressive.

It always seems that women get the shorter end of the stick when it comes to athletics. The Men's Olympic soccer team flies business class to their games, whereas the women fly coach. Apparently we don't play as well, sell enough, or overall look as good as men do in sports. We're 45 years into the title IX bill, and us women are still judged on how we look when we play rather than how we play. I feel like too many sports companies try to make women's sports more appealing. Companies are always looking for a way to feminize gear and make it more appealing to men. I play volleyball, and I want to feel good about how I look when I play, but not judged on how short my spandex is.

Clara Hughes, an olympic speed skater
participating in a mostly male-dominated sport

Even aside from the required wear there's the actual playing. Some sports require less contact and strength between women in the sports whereas the men are encouraged to push and shove and get aggressive. Many of these rules apply to baseball/softball, hockey, and lacrosse. Overall even more people are upset over the money male athletes make over female athletes. It is shown that men make a considerate amount more than their female counterparts when it comes to athletics, and that even male teams are more prone to having a larger budget increase than female teams. We have made great strides in the 21st century on showing more and more women athletes  on TV, yet we still see more male sports coverage on TV   than woman's.

It has also come to be that we have pushed certain sports into the specific men's/women's sports category, like labeling volleyball, tennis, track, gymnastics, and cheer, as being female sports, and basketball, wrestling, football, soccer, and baseball as male sports. Even though it seems that some of these sports appeal to a certain type of gender, it still doesn't mean we have to discourage kids from participating in the sport they love, just because of some silly stereotypes. On TV it bothers me that when portraying female cheerleaders, volleyball players, etc, it shows them as sexy, catty girls who are bullies, and have no faith in their sports. Whereas the males are dedicated, and ready to face whatever comes in their way. When the media focuses on female sports, it is usually on ones that society identifies as feminine. We stereotype the female gender in traditional female sports. Why are us women compared against each other in appearance, and not in performance, skill, and dedication? Masculinity comes in all shapes and sizes, and you can still be a pretty face while being a hard-working athlete.

WTA's "Strong is Beautiful" campaign

This is just my opinion, and I can only hope that in the future, us women won't be cheering on the sidelines, or sewing the team uniforms, but actually playing the game, like we are now.

~ Governess Bob

Always' "Like a Girl" Ad

We've reached over 900 pageviews! Thanks to everyone out there reading us.
     I wanted to share this video with you guys that Always just put out. They use the ad to talk about the  "you __ like a girl" insult. I thought they did a nice job with it. It goes very nicely with what Luna was talking about in her April post: You ____ Like a Girl! I've put the video below.

You know, it is ridiculous that people use the phrase "like a girl" as an insult. If I do something like a girl, it's because I am a girl, and that has nothing to do with how well I do the thing. You never hear "you run like a boy" being used as an insult. Since when did being a girl become an insult?

Hope you enjoyed the video.
-- Captain Sarah Jane

Princess to Professor and the Pink Toy Aisle

Because we've had mostly negative posts, I'm going to write a nice, positive-ish post about something that all, or nearly all of us love: Legos. Recently, Lego came out with a female scientist minifigure. It makes me really happy that they came out with her, and didn't just have a male scientist.

Lego's Intergalactic Girl
in a pink spacesuit

It annoys me that in toy stores there's always the blue aisle with a bunch of really cool toys, and then there's the pink aisle that looks like someone rolled everything in pink and purple glitter with a few cool toys. In the girls' section, it's all about dolls and princesses and dress up, and there aren't many toys that encourage actual professions. There are barely any toys where you have to think, and build, and make new things. Lego in general has great toys that let you build and engineer, but there's still a section where everything is pink. One of their other minifigures is a perfect example. Just because an astronaut is a girl does not mean that the space suit has to be pink. There is a time for things being pink and girly, but everything a girl does does not have to be girly.

Lego's female scientist minifigure

What we see when we're kids can effect the rest of our lives. If all we see growing up are girls being princesses and waitresses and dancers, with nothing else, then that's all you're going to think of. You won't immediately think of an engineer, or a scientist as being cool. Yes, you can still change your viewpoint once you grow up, but why? Why not just encourage girls from the start to get good jobs that they like doing, without gender restrictions? The answer is simply because it's different, and no one wants to see if something new is going to sell as well as something coated in pink glitter. There is nothing wrong at all with going into a profession that is already in the girl toy aisle, but there is also nothing wrong with going into a different profession. When you see a cool toy or character or something, sometimes it has no effect on you whatsoever, but sometimes it makes you think “I want to be like her when I grow up!”. Princesses are nice, but you shouldn't really plan on just marrying a prince and living happily ever after as your career goal. It's possible, but you should definitely have a backup plan. People are getting better, but there are still a lot of problems. I said that this would be a positive post, but I kind of lied about that. To make up for it, I'll have a happy ending. Now, finally, Lego has a female minifigure that isn't doused in glitter, and isn't in some girly profession. I love that Lego is having an actual person, someone that you could actually be if you worked hard. You probably still won't have skin that yellow, and if you did, you might need to see a doctor or wash your face.

--Luna Lovegood

False Perfection- Unhealthy Images and the Real Problem

Hey guys!
Back in here for my third post already. Times flies, huh? I'm totally enjoying this little venture- it's so much fun to have a platform where I can express my views on this stuff, and to read the opinions of my friends and fellow authors on here. It's been absolutely fantastic so far.
Anyway, I had a hard time deciding on a topic for my post this week. Not because I wasn't sure what I wanted to say- exactly the opposite, actually. I literally have a page-long list of post ideas and it was so hard to choose just one. But that tells you that the one I did choose must be really important, right?

It is. I decided to write about body image in the media, specifically for girls and the way we get  pressured to be absolutely perfect 100% of the time. One of the things that really gets on my nerves is when models for magazines or photoshoots or advertisements or anything are photoshopped to a beyond-attainable point of so-called beauty. I mean, when conventionally gorgeous women have to be retouched and airbrushed and just completely redone with computer fakery, what sort of message are women and girls getting? That they're never going to be beautiful enough, because the images of "beautiful" women that they see are so fake and unrealistic. The amount of digital retouching that models receive make them literally impossible and set a just as impossible standard of beauty for girls.

A couple months back, Lorde tweeted these pictures of herself with the following statement:

"I find this curious- two photos from today, one edited so my skin is perfect and one real. Remember flaws are ok :-)"
I found it really impressive that not only did she feel comfortable enough in her own skin(literally) to go into the public eye big time without trying to be as perfect as possible, but also enough to point out her own flaws under said public eye. However, I also think this just goes to show how twisted society's image of women has become. After years of fake and unrealistic images, this concept of literal perfection has become so ingrained in people's minds that some idiot out there felt the need to take a picture of a confident, gorgeous-without-computer-fakery 17-year-old girl and then edit it to make it perfect, therefore sending her and other girls that what we can be on our own is never going to be enough.

Another example of this idealized concept of complete perfection was found in a controversy with Target a few months ago. On their website, an image of a bikini model was photoshopped to give her the trendy thigh gap that people are being told that they need nowadays. The picture, though, was messed up in an almost comical manner so that the cut that was made to make her legs perfect went up too high and it was obvious that it had been photoshopped. Target responded by saying "it was an unfortunate error and we apologize."

Yeah, right. If you take a close look at the photo above, you can tell that the thigh gap fail was not the only edit. Her arms and legs were also whittled down to toothpick proportions and her waist was edited to be thin and perfect.
Their intention was to photoshop this model and fix every so-called imperfection. They were intending to do the thing that upset everyone, which was to give this model a thigh gap. The only "error" they made was that they accidentally tipped off the public that their swimsuit model wasn't completely and utterly perfect. Their "error" was revealing to the public that, guess what, even their attractive swimsuit models haven't reached the unattainable standard of beauty that society has set up.
In a way, this goof could be viewed as a good thing. It taught everyone who saw it that hey, even this conventionally gorgeous woman isn't perfect. Even this woman who gets paid to pose for the camera in a skimpy swimsuit isn't naturally capable of the beauty standards that we're told to live up to, and that probably means that those standards aren't all that attainable.

The main part of this issue that bugs me is that it's not just in the heads of the advertisers and photographers and other people who take roles in this horrible promotion of absolute perfection. When someone is trying to sell something, either a product or a movie or a magazine, they use what they think will appeal to their audience. And then through some form of trial and error they figure out whether or not that really does appeal to their audience, and if it doesn't seem to, they try a different tactic. But if it does, they keep doing that same thing over and over and eventually even amp up the level a little more.

And that's the main problem, isn't it? In a way, it's really just a vicious cycle that no-one's been able to end through all these years. Media makers pick this image of perfection that they think will please their audience, and whether it pleases everyone or not, it's what they see and it gets stuck in their heads. But then the media makers do the same thing again and again and again, because they think it's what pleases us- and even if it doesn't appeal to all of us at first, how can it not? Maybe some of us still don't love it, but because it's what we see over and over, it becomes the norm. We get used to it. And so the media makers never stop, because their job is to sell, and after all these years, perfection has become the thing that does sell. It's a cycle that repeats itself and that will continue for a long time until somebody sticks their foot in the door to stop it. It'll go on until somebody says "no more" and puts a bump in the road. And maybe, just maybe then things will improve. Things might look up then and maybe people will attempt to change the ways that have become so set in stone over the years.

I just hope that, even if all of this doesn't change for years and years, people will start to see the error of these ways and begin to see the true meaning of beauty- the real things we should look up to. Like kindness and generosity and other things that are a little more attainable. And that, I think, is when things will start to change. I just hope it changes before too much damage is caused.

I hope I've managed to inspire you a little bit with these wild opinions of mine and that I haven't been too dreadfully boring. Until next time, lovelies.
~Oswin