Tracy Clark-Flory, would you please stop being such a dishonest hack?

Here is Tannen's full statement:

Yet Leaper and Ayres observed an overall pattern of men speaking more. That's a conclusion women often come to when men hold forth at meetings, in social groups or when delivering one-on-one lectures. All of us -- women and men -- tend to notice others talking more in situations where we talk less.

I bolded the part that you removed because it makes feminists such as yourself, feministing and others that posted the triumphalism post of last week, look judgmental and downright stupid.

Clark-Flory, what the hell did you learn in college? To smear people, or to conduct research? In conducting research Tracy Clark-Flory, who taught you to hide facts that made you look mistaken or even wrong?

Shame on you, when you do this it makes feminists and Salon look stupid. It makes women turn away from feminist ideologues such as yourself.

Calling Joan Walsh, we need an intervention in Broadsheet. Is this the kind of hack journalism you want to be known for?

I am certain you must mean Playboy or Maxim or Hustler or Barely Legal.

Redbook? Why would redbook photoshop pictures of women?

Look at their staff. Notice how many of these are putative women, or perhaps patriarchal men ducking behind female names.

Who works at REDBOOK?

Stacy Morrison is the editor-in-chief. You can read her blog.

(Don't be fulled, Stacy Keach, Stacy Morrison, Stacy is a MAN'S NAME!)

Executive Editor: Alison Brower (Feminized form of Ali's Son, this is most likely a Muslim man!)

Creative Director: Tracy Everding (MAN'S NAME)

Managing Editor: Kim Cheney (MAN'S NAME)

Deputy Editor: Melanie Mannarino (Perhaps a transvestite named Mel!)

Special Projects Director: Lori Berger (Token Woman)

Director, REDBOOK online: Jillian St. Charles (Token Woman)

Deputy Editors, Features: Andrea Bauman, Jeannie Kim (Token Women)

With a staff of men, it is no wonder that Redbook stoops to the tactics of Maxim, Playboy, Hustler and Barely Legal.

I BLAME THE PATRIARCHY!!!!!!

One of the things I've taken away from Photoshop classes was to be subtle with your work. The shopped photograph is the fault of the staff person at Redbook who decided to do that work as well as the editor who okayed the work. Ms.Hill is beautiful in her own right and will now suffer the attacks that are sure to come. I hope she sues the crap out of Redbook.

Maybe it's just me, but the original photo of Faith Hill is not drop-dead gorgeous. She looks like she's snarling, not smiling. And has no lower teeth. And as for the over-the-top photoshop job, what do you expect for a cheesy magazine cover? It's a bad photo to begin with. The Jezebel animation sort of reminds me of when Troy McClure cracks a smile on the Simpsons.

I'm no expert, but it looks lik the fabric of the dress is folded in slightly different ways in the two photos. It looks like they took a photo of another woman wearing the dress and pasted Faith's head on.

http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/retouch/retouch/index.html

Photoshopping cover girls is nothing new.

The above link is one of many out there showing what can happen.

...that the cover subjects look like their skin has been replaced with vinyl finish and the photographer had to use a ton of filters to tone down that insistent skin-glow. These folks don't even look real anymore...

These folks don't even look real anymore...

No kidding. Many of us know this intellectually but these images still hit us on some visceral level. Although we know the person on the cover doesn't actually even look like the person on the cover, we feel bad about ourselves.

So even though Photoshopping is nothing new, it bears repeating: even the beauty ideals aren't beautiful enough. It's time we stopped buying into these ideals.

Queen used to put "No Synthesizers" on their album back covers (before they used synths).

"Ratatouille" has a credit stating "100% animated", as Pixar did no motion-capture photography, or rotoscoping, in the movie.

How short a list are the mags that can say "No Photoshop"?

do NOT equal "drop dead gorgeous".

And for any Campaign for Real Beauty-type feminists out there who object to my assertion, I ask: would a hairy back, paunchy gut and bald spot on a male celebrity equal "drop dead handsome"??

I thought so.

I think the crow's feet are beautiful.

I also love the file name on Jezebel's site...

You could "reverse-Photoshop" folks to make them look more real:

http://planethiltron.com/index.php

CHeck on your favorite celebrity for a *real* picture!

is not a new art form. Many years ago I worked at the Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts (NYC Public Library). The library has extensive photo files dating back 50-60 years and more - these are mostly B&W photos sent to newspapers for reproduction, and many of them are retouched - the retoucher used a paintbrush and white paint directly on the photograph to cover wrinkles, blemishes, etc. In some, men's bald spots have been filled in. The paint is still on the photographs. Some of them are rather elegantly done. Take a look at the Ethel Merman photos next time you're in there, someone put a lot of good work into those.

And before photography - when portraits had to be painted, retouching was simultaneous in the creation. Essential, too, as the patrons and patronesses wished to be flattered, the artist wanted to be paid and popular. Think of that famous bust of Cleopatra - do you think her neck was really that long? That portrait of George Washington - was his hair that white, his cheeks that rosy?

What is anyone who uses cosmetics doing but 'retouching' themselves?

I happen to find 'crow's feet' very attractive. My boyfriend's 'crow's feet' totally melt me - I think they enhance the eyes, like an extension of the lashes. They're like little smiles. Now can we have a better name for them than 'crow's feet'?