Times Haven't Really Changed: Airbrushing the Past

As of late, there has been a backlash against the airbrushing of models for fashion magazines and advertising.

Because models apparently aren't beautiful, slender or tall enough, the fashion world further slims their hips and waists, elongates their legs, and enlarges their eyes, hair and breasts.

The left picture is a more accurate representation of what a 29 yr old's bottom looks like.

"We're always stretching the models' legs and slimming their thighs," a Manhattan-based photo retoucher tells NEWSWEEK, speaking anonymously for fear of professional backlash.

See how she's so fat in the second picture? Obviously such flaws had to be fixed.

I'd love to tell you this is just a new fad, or something that our Evil Modern Society created. Unfortunately, "airbrushing" has been around for hundreds (thousands?) of years.

It used to take the form of paintings and sculpture.

Henry VIII (yeah, that Henry) famously demanded that since he had yet to see Anne of Cleves, that his royal portraitist must paint her accurately and not flatter her.
If all artists painted accurate representations of their subjects, then why such a demand? Because almost NO ONE did that. That would be poor business.

I don't know, she still doesn't look too bad.

Only since the invention of photography were we able to prove that the art was less than realistic, but it's been going on long before the 19th century.

The Princess Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse, in a lovely painting:

The Princess Alice in real life:

She's not ugly, but didn't naturally possess the mid-late 1800s female aesthetic Ideal which was extremely sloping, white rounded shoulders, plump arms, and round face having tiny nose over heart-shaped lips.

Queen Victoria in her wedding dress:

And here is the Queen in her wedding dress.

Here's another painting of her:

It doesn't even look like the same person in the face.

Not only women were "photo-shopped" in paintings. Here's President Andrew Jackson's photograph...

...which is far cry from paintings and money depicting him:

Note the strong jaw and expressive eyes that are required of all men.

Print of Andrew Jackson in his natural state of "kicking British ass." Still not my favorite President.

I agree that the media's depiction of models is not good for the self-esteem of the rest of us, particularly since the models have been altered so much that they are no longer real people. 

When a 5'9" model weighing less than 115 is not a "good enough" shape for Fashion, this is what we are left with after the airbrushing:

This is a real Ralph Lauren catalog.

But is it so much worse than this was?

1830s fashion plates. Notes the elongated necks, sloped but wide shoulders, oddly narrow feet, tiny high waists.

Sweatpants-Free Zone:

I own one pair of sweatpants. They were my mother’s University of Oklahoma sweats from circa 1975. I don’t own any other pair, and wouldn’t dream of wearing them more often than once each month, any where other my kitchen.

“Chicago Mail Order,” 1921

When I started college, I noticed that many of my fellow young scholars wore sweatpants to class. Instead of taking pride in their appearance, they schlepped around in flip-flops, grey sweats and some kind of t-shirt, completing the ensemble with hair that may or may not have seen a brush in the past 3 days.

“Butterick Fashion,” 1934

When I began to fly about once per month back in 2001, I noticed sweatpants on airplanes. No longer did people don their Sunday best to ride about the world with others; rather, I saw people of all ages in sweats lugging around bed pillows (which kind of grosses me out).

1940s Airline Advertisement

I’ve seen sweats in houses of worship, in office settings, out at bars… and I wonder where on earth these people found the information saying that this is acceptable public attire?

When I’ve asked for the opinions of others, I get one of two answers:

· Sweats are comfortable, and I dress for comfort.

· I hate that people can’t respect themselves enough to at least put on a pair of jeans.

“Vicara Fibers,” 1956

This is a very “me/now-centric” society. Rather than care about how we are perceived by others, we care only for and about ourselves at the present moment in time. Who cares if in 2 years I’ll want my professor to write a letter of recommendation? I only care about my comfort level in this 8am class.

“Arrow Shirts,” 1961

We don’t care about other people because other people don’t matter. So why stop at wearing sweatpants out to places formerly reserved for resort or business casual? Let’s wear those holey, sagging things to funerals. I mean, we’re so distraught at a funeral, so we might as well be comfortable.

Next, let’s wear our “leggings of shame” to weddings (but not white sweats, because you might compete with the bride).

The President should give his next State-of-the-Union in them.

“Levi’s Sportswear,” 1978

Or, you know, we could relegate sweatpants back to where they were intended, where they belong: The gym. Hence the name “sweat” pants. There’s nothing wrong with respecting yourself, and dressing to impress those around you.

As Jerry Seinfeld famously said in an episode of his show, “You know the message you're sending out to the world with these sweat pants? You're telling the world: "I give up. I can't compete in normal society. I'm miserable, so I might as well be comfortable."

Thankful For Foods New & Old:

When I lived in the Garden State, harvest season was the highlight of the year. The last tomatoes are brought to the farm stands, the corn finishes ripening, and the bright pumpkins swell in the fields.

The Harvest, Robert Zund (1827 - 1909)

Few people ever consider the historical circumstances that allow us to enjoy these fruits and vegetables around the world today. Most people know that Amerindians cultivated corn (maize) for thousands of years, and introduced it to the Europeans who arrived on America's shores in the 15th century. However, corn wasn't the only "New World" vegetable to impact Europe.

For instance, though tomatoes are today considered an integral part of Italian sauces, the British and North American British colonists refused to eat tomatoes for years because they erroneously believed them to be poisonous (only the leaves are toxic). Anyone who has been hiking or enjoys the outdoors probably has heard that brightly colored berries are typically bad to eat. The vibrant fruit of the tomato made some Europeans nervous, so when Spanish explorers brought back seeds from Tenochtitlan around 1519, the British only cultivated them as decorative plants. Obviously since the Spanish had seen the Amerindians eat the tomato with no ill effects, the fruit caught on quickly in Spain, with Italy following closely behind. The myth of the poisonous tomato persisted among the British and Americans until less than 200 years ago.

Ripening Tomatoes 4, Cindy Revell (Contemporary)

Were you aware that the Irish didn't farm potatoes until recently? Native to Peru, the potato is first mentioned by Spaniard Pedro de Cieza de Leon in 1540, when he writes that the native peoples have, in addition to maize, another "plant that supports a great part of their existence: the potatoes...." After making its way around Europe, Sir Walter Raleigh (1552-1618) first brought the potato to Ireland when he planted them at his estate near Cork. The new crop gained so much in popularity that "cooking any food other than a potato had become a lost art. Women hardly boiled anything but potatoes" [Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger: Ireland, 1962]. This dependence on the potato directly lead to the starvation of millions when the blight destroyed nearly all the potatoes in Ireland.

Gathering Potatoes, Jules Bastien-Lapage (1848 - 1884)

Perhaps the crop most associated with autumn is the pumpkin. We make pies and soups from it, roast the seeds, and even fry the blossoms. While pumpkins today are grown on every continent save Antarctica, they are believed to have been first cultivated in Mexico thousands of years ago. In addition to using pumpkins as food, Amerindians would pound the tough rind into strips and weave it into mats. Colonists first created the pie when they hollowed out a pumpkin and filled the inside with milk, honey and spices, then set the squash in the fire to cook.

Gathering Pumpkings: An October Scene in New England, ca. 1860

This was original posted at Mark & Stephanie's excellent and healthy blog, You Are What I Eat.

A Simple Matter of Etiquette...

Because I am of a certain age, I receive wedding invitations, wedding shower invitations, and baby shower invitations. This started about the time I turned 18, and downpour has yet to let up.

There are a few things that have never failed to upset me, and I can’t imagine why any self-respecting person would do them.

Don’t get me wrong; many of my friends have sent baby shower announcements and wedding invitations that were lovely, and even if I tried, I wouldn’t find fault. But there are always a few…

At a former job in Florida, a coworker had a baby shower for her second child. Everyone was invited, and had brought gifts. When a girl friend and I showed up, the mother of the mom-to-be handed us envelopes. She told us to address them to ourselves, as they were for the Thank-You notes to be mailed later.

wtf.

The interesting part is that nobody ever received any Thank-You notes at all. Some people even spent a lot of money on lavish gifts.

But Laura, the price of the gift shouldn't matter.

You're right, but those people should have at least received the Thank-You notes that they had already addressed to themselves.

An out-of-state friend was having a wedding shower. The friend who was throwing it for her was someone I did not know. This person sent a wedding shower invite to me, and enclosed two different Registry Cards. In addition, there was a hand written note saying, “If you can’t make it, here is the address where you should send the gifts.”

Do I really need to go into detail about the obvious rudeness here? Needless to say, no gift was sent (I did bring several gifts to the wedding itself, and I paid a crazy amount in travel expenses, so I think I did the “good friend” thing sufficiently).

I take personal offense at Registry Cards.

Etiquette Fail.

I don’t mind if a person is registered somewhere, but proper etiquette dictates that I call a friend, relative, or the person throwing the wedding/baby shower to find out that sort of information.
(By the way, it is horrible etiquette to throw your own shower. It means you are pathetic, and have no friends.)

Registry Cards included in invitations means one of two things:

• “I am inviting you because I want a gift from you, and I don’t trust your crappy taste in picking out something nice for me.”
• “I know you are too cheap to bring a gift, so I’m reminding you of your friendship duties.”

It does not mean, “I enjoy our friendship, and I would love for you to share in my special day.” That’s what the original invitation meant.

Have you ever heard of the money dance? This is right up there with the money tree on my list of pet peeves. At another wedding*, men had to pay money to dance with the bride. Not only had the men paid money to travel to the wedding, paid money for hotel expenses, paid money for gifts, and paid money for tuxes, they now had to pay to dance with the bride? Woe unto those who didn’t have cash on them!

I could write a whole book on wedding/baby shower stupidity, but there are already several out there, as well as several reliable websites letting us know the proper way to behave.

Of course, I’m perfect, just as my blog readers are perfect, and none of us will ever do any of those things.


*I've been to a remarkable number of weddings.

Pictures of the Dead:

In olden days, when the child of wealthy parents died, the family paid to have a portrait painted including the deceased. The recently departed was depicted as alive, though might be staring off into the distance while the rest of the family faced forward. Other signs of a mourning painting are a child holding dead flowers, or dead flowers in a vase near the sitter.

 The middle classes typically remembered their deceased with "hair art," which could be a wreath made from the hair of their loved one, or a piece of jewelry created from hair.

Photography was invented in Paris, though there is some argument about that (the first photograph was taken in 1827 and took 8 hours to develop).  While having one's picture taken was costly, it was not nearly so prohibitively priced as having a portrait painted.  As one might imagine, being able to keep an actual image of the family member appealed to mourners greatly, so when photography became affordable and popular, Victorians had pictures taken of family members after they died. As with the earlier paintings, the mourning photographs intended to depict a "living" person.

Most of the time, the deceased was "asleep."

Sometimes the deceased was propped up along side living family.

I should point out that it is the young girl above who is being propped.

Taken 9 DAYS after she died.

There are some people today who feel that this old practice is "creepy" or overly morbid, and are glad that we now properly respect the dead. These people forget that not everyone had a camera back then, and mortality was much higher. That postmortem picture is all that the parents have left of their little boy or girl. Think about it - there's no other way to remember what the laughing child looked like before the sickness or accident. Parents don't want to just bury their baby and forget, so they have a picture taken as if their child was napping.

Today's occidental society is far removed from death.  Aging, Sickness and Death no longer take place among family in one's home.  Today we hide them away in nursing homes and hospitals.
In a time period when Death walked more frequently among us, such images weren't foreign and disturbing.  The were loving reminders of those who passed too soon.

A Discussion:

"I think still think... the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

-Senator John McCain, mid-September 2008.



"The fundamental business of the country, that is the production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis."

-President Herbert Hoover, late October 1929.

"The present administration has either forgotten or it does not want to remember the infantry of our economic army. These unhappy times call for ... plans ... that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the pyramid."

-President Franklin D. Roosevelt, early April 1932

This is why my grandfather, who fought in WWII and earned a Silver Star, firmly believes that FDR is the greatest President. Simply, he believes he laid the groundwork that got us out of the Depression.

Discuss.

The Hemp Car - Myth Busted

A friend of mine told me about a car by Henry Ford that was made almost entirely of hemp. It was unveiled as a prototype, and proclaimed to be the car of the future. Unfortunately, World War II and the DuPont corporation killed what would have been a lighter, safer and more cost effective car. I was asked to research the validity of this claim.

I had not heard of this car, so I googled it. Nearly every pro-hemp website mentioned it, but didn't give sources. Even YouTube has a video of this "hemp car" from 1941. It sounded like a good idea, and Henry Ford was certainly a visionary, but I really wanted the truth (I'm not anti-hemp; I'm pro-facts and anti-myth.)

So I went as close to the source as I could without calling the Henry Ford Museum: Period Newspapers.

Turns out that Henry Ford loved the farmers, and wanted to help them during the Great Depression. He knew that cars were always increasing in popularity, and if he could make plastic cars out of farm products, he could benefit Americans twofold:

• Cars would be safer and more affordable.
• Plastic cars would help the struggling agricultural industry (the War was already beneficial to the steel industry).

An all-plastic car 300 pounds lighter than comparable models built of steel and having ten times the impact resistance of steel is near completion in the Ford plant at Dearborn, Mich., Popular Science Monthly announced last week. In a special interview, it was said, Henry Ford predicted that his test car, made of plastic body, hood and fenders, would be lighter, safer and less expensive. He added: "It will be a car of darn sight better design in every form. And don't forget the motor car business is just one of the industries that can find new uses for plastics, made from what's grown in the land!"
-New York Times, 2 Feb 1941

...Although it [the plastic] uses the same time of binder employed in some well-established plastics, which are not a Ford development, the remaining portion, that is, the fill, comes partly from the farm, in the form of strong fibers, such as hemp or ramie, and partly from the forest...
-Iron Age Magazine, 1941, as cited by Herbert Chase, Society of Automobile Engineers in 30 March 1941 New York Times.

We see that Ford was considering hemp as an element of his bio-plastic car. But was the car almost completely made of hemp? The hemp websites claim anywhere from 70% hemp to 100% hemp.

Let's search further...

[article continues]  Mr. Ford tested the pliability of the plastic panel by swinging on it with an axe. The panel was unchanged after the blow, but a similar experiment on a steel panel cut through the metal. ...Needed materials, he said, would include 100,000 bales of cotton, 500,000 bushels of wheat, 700,000 bushels of soy beans and 500,000 bushels of corn. "Plastic raw materials may cost a little more," he said, "but we anticipate a considerable saving as the result of fewer fabricating finishing operations."
-"Ford Shows Auto Built of Plastic - Strong Material Derived from Soy Beans, Wheat, Corn is used for Body and Fenders," New York Times, 14 August 1941.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that the car was not comprised entirely of hemp; not even 50%. Nearly all of the websites are either misleading, or flat-out wrong. Does this mean hemp is not a useful material? No - there are many uses.

I just like checking the validity of claims to historical facts. Oh, and the part about DuPont probably being responsible for killing the bio-plastic industry? This is likely true.

Other sources include:
"Plastic Car in Making: Colorful, Paintless Body May Replace Steel for Defense," 2 Feb 1941.
Washington Post, Various Articles, 1941, accessed via ProQuest Historical

Disability Awareness Week: Why ADA Matters

Let's have a discussion...

Imagine a world not so long ago, a world before 1990.

"Sara" is an active grad student. One day, while driving back to her apartment from her part-time job, a drunk driver runs a stoplight and hits her. Sara is very lucky - her car is totaled, but only her left leg is broken, and her right ankle is cracked. She will eventually make a full recovery, but she needs to use a wheelchair for several weeks.

Her school loans her a wheelchair, and she's getting pretty good at navigating her way around. One night, when she's been feeling a bit better, her friends want to take her to their favorite local Italian restaurant. They know this is the distraction Sara needs. When they arrive, they remember that there are several steps to get in, and no ramp. Sara's friends aren't strong enough to pick her up and carry her in. They give up trying to find a solution, and just go to a different chain place down the street. After a half-hour, Sara needs to make a quick trip to the restroom. Unfortunately, her chair can't fit through the door. Her friends end up having to escort her to the convenience store two blocks away to attend to this 'call of nature.' Needless to say, the night has been less than fun.

Sara will eventually get better and be able to go back to hanging out with her friends. Unfortunately, many with mobility impairment will not. Should they have to stay home? Should they not be able to go do normal activities with their friends, such as attending the theatre, eating out, or having a drink at a pub?

Rand Paul says that allowing equal access to a business is infringing upon the rights of the business.* Some people (on FB) have argued that the market will correct itself; i.e., if a business isn't accessible, then handicapped people won't go there and that income will be lost. Therefore, the business will choose accessibility without the government's intervention. This argument is ludicrous.
How do I know this? Because obviously businesses WEREN'T making themselves accessible, which is why George Bush Sr. had to sign the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. His son, George W., expanded upon the ADA in 2008 to further assist disabled Iraq War veterans.

Here is the recent argument against the ADA, including Rand Paul's ridiculous one:

What if a small business in a three-story building chooses to hire a guy in a wheelchair? The government will FORCE them to pay $100,000 to put in an elevator! We can't have that undue financial burden on small businesses!

This is completely bullshit false. The ADA clearly states (ADA 4.1.3 (5) EXCEPTION 1) that a building 3-stories or fewer does NOT have to install an elevator unless it is a shopping mall or a hospital. Giving the wheelchair user an office and restroom on the first floor fulfills the business' obligation. Also, the ADA states that the "reasonable accommodation" cannot cause "undue hardship" on any business.

Undue hardship is defined as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense when considered in light of factors such as an employer’s size, financial resources, and the nature and structure of its operation. Believe it or not, many cases have been tossed out of court for proposing 'undue hardship' on a business; in 2003, ADA discrimination cases failed 94.5% of the time.

But having the government tell a business what to do, even if it is the right thing to do, is government overreach! This is a free country!

If a building is open to the public, such a Wal-mart or your local pub, then logically the public should have access. A disabled war veteran and a women injured in a car accident have the same freedom to access those businesses that an able-bodied person does. Your home doesn't have to be accessible, but the local school or church must make a "reasonable accommodation." There are tax credits to assist with this.

What about what the Founding Fathers thought? You know, in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?

Have you read them? The part about the Interstate Commerce Clause, or the part about how all men are created equal, and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Hey, I'm not in favor of giving someone an extra advantage; I'm in favor of giving someone an equal opportunity in life. Yes, the government overreaches in several areas - providing a ramp at the local grocery so that a disabled war veteran can shop for food isn't one of them.

Anyone of any race/religion/sexual orientation could find themselves disabled - this isn't a "big government" issue or an "anti-business" issue. These people aren't welfare bums sucking off your tax dollar. These are people in college and the workplace, making a living and paying their bills.** This is a pervasive issue that could affect any one of us at any time.

So again, why should we get rid of the act guaranteeing equal access to goods and services in our free country?

While normally I like to cite both conservative and liberal media, all the conservative media focuses on the Civil Rights Act issue, and ignores the ADA aspect. Because of this, I've tried to keep all citations neutral.

*PAUL: You know a lot of things on employment ought to be done locally. You know, people finding out right or wrong locally. You know, some of the things, for example we can come up with common sense solutions — like for example if you have a three story building and you have someone apply for a job, you get them a job on the first floor if they’re in a wheelchair as supposed to making the person who owns the business put an elevator in, you know what I mean? So things like that aren’t fair to the business owner.

**Yes, of course there are disabled welfare bums, just as there are white welfare bums and black welfare bums. Again, disability affect everyone, just like laziness. We still let the lazy shop at Wal-mart though; that shouldn't change just because they are in a wheelchair.

Also consulted for this blog was "Assisting Law Students with Disabilities in the 21st Century: A New Horizon?" American University's Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, Vol 18, Num 1, pgs 1 - 162. Yes, I read every page.