Hi Mel,

 

Yeah, what an interview! For those who didn't hear/read about Butterfly Organisation founder, Julie Parker's, comments (defending the magazine shoot on 3AW), it included her suggesting that... wait for it... "women could learn a great deal from men" when it comes to body image, because... it gets better... men, when looking at that picture of Hawkins, wouldn't even have noticed the dimples and crease, but just saw a beautiful woman, whereas women will "pick the image apart". Julie Julie, Julie. I just cringed, and thought, "Oh, dear, this is just getting all yucky". I mean, it's horrible, when you consider what's at stake here, and here is the head of this issue, as effectively appointed by - of all people - Jackie Frank, editor of Marie Claire, suggesting that the male gaze could actually help women in this issue. It's... yucky. You can listen to the interview here .

 

Aside from the naivety of her comments - and I think, ultimately, we are just dealing with a bunch of people who are not smart enough to be on the platform with this issue, unfortunately - I don't see why we should be at all surprised that they've defended this. Of course, they would. Not only are they hardly going to negate their end of the deal and criticise their business partner, but we must also remember that they did, after all, sign off on this whole thing and agree to it. These foundations are run by human beings, and they have the same subjective qualities that you and I may disagree with, as the next person does. Charity organisations are not spotless unquestionable entities just because they are charity organisations. It's why it's important to research the ones we give to and support - there is always a business of people behind them with all sorts of agendas. I'm all for helping starving kids in Africa, for example, but I would never give to Mission Australia or Wolrdvision, because they are both Christian organisations, and you're partly funding missionary work, beyond just the simple idea of feeding them - they're also trying to convert them to Christianity. And we all remember the Mercy Ministries fiasco, and where those dollars from our cappuccinos were going.

 

I'm not saying that the Butterfly Foundation is in that league, but let's just remember that all sorts of things lie beneath an organisation. Sometimes, it's just well intentioned dickheads. Sometimes, they're just... you know...not very smart. Which, hearing Julie Parker, leads me to think that it's a large part of all this. And sometimes - because despite the "non profit" label, let's not forget that these people are still paid and often answer job ads like any other job - they're given positions they don't really qualify for. I was involved, about a year ago, with a charity organisation, and I just answered an ad on Seek - nobody at any stage qualified what my position or relevance to the "issue" was, they were just happy to find someone to do it at their (rather low) pay. And this is such a complex issue - it's a medical and psychological issue - and perhaps those on the board of this foundation just aren't thinking on the level they should have been, when it came to this stunt. And they're desperate for cash, after all - at the end of the day, I can't see many organisations resisting deals like this one, for the chance to get their name out there in such a way. They're not going to be weighing up the ideology and the consequences much, because they probably honestly didn't catch on to what those would have been. And, considering ideas like Parker's, they probably didn't understand the consequences, because they don't understand that side of the issue, and, therefore, don't even really "agree" with it. It's bizarre, they know that body-image is a problem, but they don't understand the true nature of how and why. What a strange irony: the message is that people don't understand eating disorders enough, but neither do these people running the organisation seem to really grasp it. Not so long as they're telling women to take their tips from the male gaze (I cringe every time I think of that statement, I mean, Christ, you know?! It's just horrible).   

 

I had a look through The Butterfly Organisation's site, and a lot of it doesn't sit well with me. It begins with their list of "supporters" who include fashion designers and people from the cosmetics industry (?!). And their "Why Butterfly?" page is just bizarre - they use this metaphoric analogy of this man who tries to help a butterfly out of the cocoon, but actually kills it, as a way of suggesting that struggles are important in life... implying that we shouldn't try to help things when they struggle... which is... weird, considering it's an orgnaisation about helping young women with their struggles. Their messages are all very confused, I'm not sure what they're trying to say. I don't know if they are sure, themselves! And I'd finally had enough when I decided to see what they "do" - which is always what it should boil down to, when supporting an organisation - and one of their projects is the "Dove Body Think" programme. This is an educational programme aimed at high school students, to get them "media literate" and thinking positively about their body image. But it's sponsored and heavily branded by Dove!! A cosmetics company!! I think these organisations need to be very careful of how the beauty and fashion industries are going to try to get their nose in these issues as a PR exercise to counteract the growing social debate over what's so wrong with their industries. They need to make sure they're not getting screwed over, and corrupting their messages in the process - which is what this organisation has done. It's obviously well connected with these industries, and is using those connections - but at what cost? A body image programme in front of banner advertising for cosmetics?! A publicity stunt with a thin supermodel as their postergirl?? The Butterfly Foundation need a serious rethink.

 

And I hope they do, because we need organisations like this, and the tragedy is that there isn't any powerful alternatives, there isn't an organisation out there for this problem that is as well-funded and established as this one, and, from what I can gather, it's the only national one. If anyone knows of any others, please let us know. 

 

So, I do hope that Butterfly learn from all this, but I must be honest, I think it's sad for this issue, when it comes to the incredibly important role of these organisations in our society, that the people out there doing something about it are these people. 

 

Aaron