In her August 13 column in the Washington Times Communities section, Rebekah Kuschmider declares proudly, “So here’s the thing: I am not embarrassed about my stretch marks.” It’s a great message. Women should love their aging skin and reject the impossible Photoshop beauty standards that make us hate ourselves. Kuschmider describers herself as, not a Barbie Doll, but a “Velveteen Rabbit, so worn and loved that I’ve become real.”
Two curious images, however, accompany this story about a (presumably) wealthy white woman’s stretch marks. The two women pictured with Kuschmider’s column are actually a Thai woman from a village near Burma and an Indian laborer from the city of Diu (according to the Flickr pages from which the photos were captured). The old Thai woman’s face is a shrunken apple; tattoos cover the younger Indian woman’s neck, and the whites of her eyes are yellowed from exposure to the sun. Both women are beautiful.
But why don’t we see, not to get too invasive here, the stretch marks of which Ms. Kuschmider is justifiably proud? Why do we instead see haunting portraits that seem to come straight off the pages of National Geographic? The underlying message from whoever chose these photos (the author? an online editor?) is that wrinkles look exotic on poor women whom privileged Americans love to gawk at. We don’t expect them to be attractive by our standards – they’re so lovely in their way, so tragic. But wealthier white women?
Comments 31
Lyndsay Wilson — November 22, 2011
This is quite an interesting post. I think it definitely points out some connections between privilege and the "indignity" of becoming old and unattractive. Kuschmider says "I really resent the implication that women are supposed to get through life entirely unmarked by it" so it's possible the pictures are just some more extreme examples of that "marking".
On a tangent, I also wonder if it's not problematic to just come out with "both women are beautiful". This "all women are beautiful" idea just seems wrong. Do these women have complex, meaningful lives and faces that reflect their individuality and humanity? Absolutely. Are they beautiful? I really don't think so. You can accept your body and others' without necessarily using the strongest adjective to describe them.
Kim — November 22, 2011
"haunting portraits...so tragic."
How did you come to that conclusion? Maybe the second one I could get: her expression could be read as sad yet hopeful, and the fade around her increases the focus upon her, but the first image just shows a woman looking at the camera face on. There's nothing inherently tragic about it: it looks more like a school/driver's license picture than anything else.
The author talks about several physical features of hers, including her 1) facial wrinkles and piercings/tattoos (maybe? It doesn't indicate where these are: I'm guessing the piercings are facial, but not the tattoos), 2) sagging breasts, 3) C-section (on the stomach), 4) wide thighs/butt and specifically those stretch marks on them.
A tiny picture of her is provided next to a contact link, and from it I can't see any obvious wrinkles or piercings (but then again, it's tiny). But you'll notice that the features under 3 and 4 would only be visible were she to wear a two-piece bathing suit/underwear. I interpreted her saying "I'm not embarrassed about my stretch marks" as saying "I won't use creams, I won't think of my body as terrible, I will love my body for what it is" NOT as saying "I will wear underwear in front of strangers".
It's okay if someone's comfortable showing other people a picture of themselves in a revealing bathing suit, but it's equally okay if they're not. That doesn't mean they're ashamed of their bodies.
Tom Megginson — November 22, 2011
I think you give whoever chose the pics way too much credit for thinking things through. Those are probably the results of a lazy image search on the first keywords that came to mind.
Andi — November 22, 2011
Brian Williams last evening complemented Betty White for always playing a role that portraits her at her real age. He also told her that she is considered (polling I suppose) the most trusted person in America. Betty is so attractive, and so wanted, at 80, she shows no signs of stopping.
What this article bring to me is the fact the we need to realize that our bodies change with age Why focus on physical beauty only for your entire life? Why not focus on happiness, on beings surrounded by loving people, on giving and feeling great about it? Instead of "I'm a knock out." Focus on other things, not on how you'll look if you played a role in a movie.
Shreen — November 22, 2011
Can't we also say that stretch marks are beautiful--not because they symbolize aging or what a person has done with her/his life, but because they are actually, objectively beautiful?
I'm only 20, but I had a few years of super quick growth when I was young, which left me with an assortment of stretch marks. Once, a friend noticed the faded marks on my calves. When I was embarrassed, she told me that she thought they were beautiful--like silver tree branches. I thought--and still do think--that this was an entirely new and refreshing perspective. :)
Byron — November 22, 2011
I'm confused by the conjoining of "beauty" with "physical attractiveness". One is a subjective aesthetic opinion. The other is a biological, instinctive response.
Yes, stretch marks can be beautiful in many, many ways. Typically however, they are not biologically attractive.
For example, the second woman I find incredibly aesthetically beautiful. I do not however, find her to be any more attractive then I would an elephant. There simply is nothing physically desirable about her. That isn't a judgement; At her stage of life physical desirability has little if any value so it's not a fair quality to judge her worth.
One of the issues people run into frequently (and especially on this blog), is the mistake of confusing beauty with physical attractiveness. A great many of the images presented are examples of attempting to exploit physical attraction. Physical attractiveness is valued more then beauty...because biologically speaking it is much more valuable.
Attraction is universal to the animal kingdom. Beauty is uniquely human.
Kunoichi — November 22, 2011
Okay, so I can agree about how strange it is to have those photos accompanying this story, but I found this a very bizarre leap of logic.
"Maybe the conservative readership of the Washington Times doesn’t want to see white women looking old or wrinkled"
Seriously? On what basis did she even go there?
Bizarre.
Lam — November 22, 2011
I followed the link to Kuschmider's article, wanting to like it, but it's just pap. It sums up to the tired old saw: "I lived, loved, and laughed, and I'm proud that it shows." The marks she praises are those that come from an upper-middle-class ideal of the life well lived, with appropriate marks racked up at developmentally appropriate stages. Many of us are marked by life in ways we did not choose or enjoy. Even if the experiences that gave us our scars, our fat, our wrinkles made us who we are, many of us would choose to have had it another way. What about scars that others have inflicted on us, wrinkles carved into us by early stress and poor diet and lack of sleep, stretch marks and wide bottoms we "earned" by having to live lives that didn't have room for yoga classes?
Anonymous — November 22, 2011
The photo choice is kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing -- a lot of editors are told to use more diverse images and stock models in photos accompanying articles, to avoid the "oh, story about health, here's a white guy wearing a stethoscope around his neck" thing. So the editor might have thought, "Oh hey, aging, women, I don't have to worry about negative stereotyping here, we all age."
rhea — November 22, 2011
What I notice most is her smile actually, a woman exposed to the sort of standards of beauty we are would react with, wait! let me get some make up on, I look terrible!! Its unselfconscious and deep, there's a story there. That's what I find beautiful. On the other hand however much one may love one's stretch marks, one might subjected to a lot of uncalled for ridicule with an openly available photo, why risk feeling shitty about what you're comfortable with initially?
Curiouser — November 23, 2011
I just found it interesting how the author of this post turned "rich white woman" into an epithet. I could almost her spitting it.
Anonymous — November 23, 2011
Wasn't this article posted a few months ago, or something? I could have sworn I'd read it before...this is very odd.
Aeon Blue — November 23, 2011
Stretchmarks = aging skin? I got my stretchmarks at the age of 15, when puberty decided to make me a woman overnight.
Brian — November 23, 2011
It's difficult to take seriously the claim that these women are being othered when they're being lumped together with the author in a pretty explicit way. "These women are just like me" is not among the most othering statements I've ever heard.