Comments on: “Elle” makes a mockery of Gabourey Sidibe’s cover girl moment

By: World Spinner

World Spinner — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:42:58 +0000

A B O U T â€“ F A C E â€” blog Â» â€œElleâ€ makes a mockery of Gabourey ……

Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……

By: They’re on the right track! « End the Era of Airbrushing

They’re on the right track! « End the Era of Airbrushing — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 23:01:12 +0000

[...] got to me not because of the model, but because of what airbrushers did to her. Read the full story here. Gabourey Sibide gets the Photoshop Treatment in a big [...]

By: curly

curly — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:35:43 +0000

I can see where the author is going with her critique. In a sense yeah she got the cover, but Gabby was not given the same cover opportunity as the other women. It only creates controversy and speculation. Besides the only time her entire figure would have been captured is if she advertises for slim fast, jenny craig etc….. Promoting the thiner image will get her a full body cover.

Besides this just enables the public with a vail of equality when in reality what’s behind the veil is the promotion of a slim figure.
it’s all about the subscriptions and giving the public a manipulative taste of equality.

By: michellek

michellek — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:43:06 +0000

Very much appreciating all the thoughtful comments, thank you.
But SBinSF, I don’t consider the post to be “pissed off and negative.” I consider it a critique. Just because a media outlet is not overtly tearing women down does not mean it is building them up.
And Megan, it is not an issue of making Gabby “look more white” – as Ashley Vincent pointed out in her comment on our Facebook post, racism is not always an issue of black vs. white – it is not uncommon for people to be discriminated against because the SHADE of their skin (whether it is black, brown, OR white) is not the one their culture deems “beautiful.” I don’t see this cover as “celebrating” Gabby – I see it as altering and manipulating her true appearance beyond the “norms” (if we can call them that) of how women’s images are typically manipulated on magazine covers.

SBinSF, I don’t think I’m making a mockery of the cover (and I’m sure neither do the numerous other sites that wrote about this controversy before I did). If anything, I’m hoping to make a mockery of a magazine that seems so eager to pat itself on the back for including a cover subject not typically seen in the fashion world, and then proceeds to crop out and modify the things that make her an atypical choice in the first place. What’s the point?

And Kim, I was never actually under the impression that readers would LITERALLY not be able to recognize Gabby as an African American, plus-sized woman. I just have a hard time recognizing the same Gabby who I’ve seen in the media before – the image on that cover doesn’t do the real person justice.

And C.K., yes, I do often speak in hyperbole, but I don’t think accusing Elle of making a mockery of Gabby’s cover qualifies. In my opinion, featuring a woman on the cover of a FASHION magazine often indicates: 1) she will be showcasing some sort of garment (which she is, we just can’t see it) and 2) that she is representing something the magazine values as beautiful. I don’t see Elle valuing much in Gabby’s true appearance.

Phew, okay, thanks for reading. Seriously, differences of opinion are what make these blogs worth writing. Just please don’t allow my posts to ever sway your confidence in the amazing work About-Face does.

By: Ashley Vincent

Ashley Vincent — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:20:29 +0000

Hmm… I’m looking for the right way to say this to the people who can “tell she is obviously black and heavy” Yes, to a person not of color this would be the only factoring issue.

But as a person of mixed race, I see exactly why it IS a big deal that Gabby’s skin was lightened. I am treated with so much more respect and consideration than family members that just happen to be a few shades darker than me.

Companies that wouldn’t dream of appearing “OMG!Racist” here in America affirm in other countries what they can only imply here through things like this magazine cover: that if you HAVE to be a person of color, being lighter is “better.” Consider the skin lightening and whitening creams and procedures widely available in India and other Asian countries. They aren’t no name brands, but major companies with holdings here in America: Vaseline has a recent men’s line, Dove has Fair and Lovely – both UniLever products, actually.

By: C.K.

C.K. — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:04:26 +0000

I’m in agreement with Megan and SBinSF here and think that you’re a bit off-base in your harsh criticisms of this cover. The language you use in the title “makes a mockery” seems hyberbolic and in my opinion weakens your argument further. If you’d just said something along the lines of I wish Elle had gone all the way with this and given us a shot of her body like they most often do in covers I could see where you’re coming from. I agree, though, that the creative director’s remark about Gabby being “180 degrees not the character of Precious” was plain silly.

By: SBinSF

SBinSF — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:08:47 +0000

One other thought, and I am saying this from a place of admiring your mission but feeling you’ve stepped in the wrong direction here, I think you should change the title of your post, because in your choice of words it is actually you that is making a mockery of this cover. Imagine how Gabby would feel reading this post, if she was foolish enough to have felt happy and proud of her cover moment.

By: Megan

Megan — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:01:44 +0000

I’m in agreement with SBinSF- I can absolutely see how lighting in a studio may make her skin appear lighter in colour than it may look in a differently lit arena. I don’t think this was necessarily intentional as a ploy to make her look more “white”. I feel they tried to make her look glowing, just as they would any other cover star.

I think it’s fantastic to see her celebrated on a magazine cover.

By: SBinSF

SBinSF — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:56:17 +0000

I visit your site often and read your blog because I love what you do on a lot of levels. I have to say that this turns me off, though. I thnk your strength lies in helping women/adolescent girls see that overly prettified images (like Lauren, Amanda andMegan above, or most fashion magazine covers in general ) are unattainable — not in tearing down the attempts media companies make to put their toe over the line ot the other side. (I think it’s a really week argument that bright studio lighting was meant to downplay Gabby’s skin. good photography requires light …) This gets too esoteric and philosophical — how many women and girls with bad body images are going to look at Gabby’s image and think OH NO WHY DIDNT THEY SHOW HER BODY? Please, help us/them by giving us the tools to resist the over-objectified skinny/beautiful images — not by encourage us to find reasons to be pissed off and negative even when a beautiful, voluptuous black woman is featured.

By: teresa

teresa — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:45:50 +0000

Though it was great seeing her on the cover, she absolutely deserves to have the rest of her big beautiful body on the cover. Otherwise it sends the message that being a BBW is not sexy or sexually acceptable. That’s a disservice.