The Social Body

Scrolling through social media, it's easy to become lost in comparisons. Envy over this model's looks, that influencer's lifestyle, his wit and their bank account. But as we continue to spend more time on our phones and are exposed to this freely available content, I'm wondering what the cost of this is. In particular, questioning how our reliance on social media, and the content we are exposed to, might be affecting our perception of body image? Social comparison is highly magnified online. This is a sociological phenomenon where we evaluate our own abilities and self in relation to others. In the age of social media, this is only amplified and there is growing evidence of the negative association between greater social media use, low self-esteem and body image concerns.    

In some ways, our online social media driven world doesn't feel that different from the pre-digital era. Physical beauty has long been lauded and valued in women. Instagram provides a platform that both exploits our physical attractiveness and allows us to exploit our physical attractiveness as a means of generating success. This success is driven by following and likes. Now a commodity, our bodies are promoted for online consumption and advertising. We are the brand that is being sold. But this system is built on external validation and our sense of self is quickly becoming based on how others see us. To in some ways battle this and reduce pressure to perform, Instagram has suggested publicly removing likes so that we alone can see how our content is performing, but surely the emotional impact of not achieving engagement goals will continue. We have become Pavlov's dogs. 

I joined social media relatively late. I remember very clearly being praised by a close school friend for not having created a Facebook account and how very different this made me from my peers. Perhaps it was this very awareness of variance that prompted me to join the next year just before my sixteenth birthday, much to the disappointment of my friend. By being different, I was worried about missing out, despite there being, at the time, not much to miss out on - definitely not the scintillating status' and horribly edited sepia Photo Booth images. Ten years on, social media and the content we post online has changed drastically. 

Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and Pinterest all have age restrictions of 12+, but there are no real age checks. If you can do basic maths to allocate a new birthdate for yourself, you're in. I have friends my own age who have just celebrated their 30th Facebook birthdays having McLovin-ed their way onto the site. Their maths may not have been up to par. Astoundingly, the photo editor Facetune's minimum age is just five years old. The app allows you to not only correct photographic aesthetics such as lighting and background in pictures, but also your own aesthetics by allowing users to alter their appearance. Need to whiten your teeth? Remove blemishes? Adjust your face shape, height, waist? Facetune has you covered from a young impressionable age and much of the content people are putting out on social media sites today is highly edited. The problem with this is a distortion of reality, expectation and in turn comparison. 

In August 2020, a heavily edited image of Khloe Kardashian trended worldwide. Khloe looked completely different from her other Instagram images and it was widely contested that this was the result of plastic surgery. However, reality tv detectives unearthed an original still of Khloe filming in the same outfit and changes made in the Instagram image were absolute. Facetune, filters and Photoshop had obviously been employed to manipulate the photo to fit an unrealistic perfection. Khloe was both condemned and praised by fans, but although in comments she joked about her #NEWFACE, no acknowledgment was made that she modifies her photographs. Although in this case, it is clear when content is obviously edited as we have proof, sometimes it isn't. In the UK, a proposed Digitally Altered Body Images Bill has been put forward. If passed, this bill will require advertisers, broadcasters and publishers to display a logo on images that have been digitally altered. Signposting editing can only be a good thing, especially considering the rise in Snapchat and other forms of social media dysmorphia.

Earlier this month, Khloe made news again when an unedited photograph was posted online without her consent. In response, Khloe movingly lamented the pressures of fulfilling media beauty standards and the judgement she has faced over the years. What could have been a powerful statement of body acceptance and authenticity, however has fallen somewhat short. The unedited image has been scrubbed off the interwebs at an unparalleled speed (perhaps her team might next tackle child pornography) and it is clear that these crushing beauty standards have won again. 

Instagram and other social media sites work on an algorithm of exposure. Popular posts that have high engagement will be shown to you far more readily than those that aren't performing well. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that those influencers with the current ideal 'Insta-baddie' body will perform better than those influencers not in this minority. We are therefore more likely to view these bodies more frequently on our feeds.  

However, this increased exposure has a worrying impact. The mere exposure effect, otherwise known as the familiarity principle, is a psychological phenomenon where people develop preferences as a direct result of familiarity. Therefore in this instance, if we are increasingly exposed to a certain body type, it increases the likelihood of us assuming that is the model for bodily perfection and indeed the norm. The vast majority of us will consequently not qualify. An online equivalent I can think of is porn. Due to the proliferation of free online porn, erectile disfunction in 18-25 year old males, has gone up by 1000%. A large reason for this is that real women's bodies do not look like they do in porn and the expectation that they will, is raising (or not in this case) issues. Porn performers bodies and their reactions to boot, are regarded as the norm, thus rendering 'normal' women's bodies and reactions abhorrent. Like with Instagram, this unattainable standard of perfection becomes the norm, making the true norm subaltern. 

Recently Tiktok came under fire when it was revealed their policies allow for the removal and suppression of content from body positive, disabled, queer and minority creators over worries they might become vulnerable to bullying or harassment. Instead of shutting down abuse and abusers, this instead silences a victim. By suppressing content, it falsely shows viewers that there is something wrong with it. Looking at this in terms of body confidence: if all body types aren't displayed and some are hidden from view, how will people begin to view their own bodies if they can't see themselves depicted online? Preemptive action like this only stands to streamline diverse and divisive content, made so by lack of visibility, and alienate audiences. 

We must remember that social media is an echo chamber. In the same way that we need to be looking for diversity of opinion, to ensure exposure to counterarguments and a reduction in misinformation, we also need to be looking for the same with images. At the end of the day, social media is driven by advertising and engagement. The ideal is sold as reality and although you'll see influencers are making moves to expose the reality behind their Instagram images, this is a trend. Glamour will always sell better. As the customer, we need to be increasingly aware of the sociological impact of our and future generations online engagement. 

Dating Dysphoria

A guest edit by Sophie Corke

Throughout the pandemic, I have become more aware of the fundamental issues with millennial dating, an area that so many of us find difficult to navigate (even at the best of times). Our modern approach to dating is such a dramatic contrast to previous generations in the not so distant past. Social media has increased the pool of individuals available to us, which has led us into developing arguably more superficial, short lived connections. We seem to have lost sight of, or perhaps no longer think about, what is required to actually build a lasting, meaningful connection with someone.

We all consider our phones to be our primary method of communication, and these hold to some, the same level of importance as an internal organ (certainly some people use them as a replacement brain). It is only natural that our relationships, like other areas of our lives, have also gravitated online. The ease of meeting people online echoes the immediacy of modern living. But instant messaging has also made it so much easier for us to end relationships. We can abruptly cut off communication, or initiate the 'slow fade' of taking longer and longer to answer messages in the hope that the other person will eventually 'get the message' and move on. I myself have been guilty of this in the past, and it's certainly not something I'm proud of. 

When I talk to my parents (now in their sixties) about the modern phenomenon of ghosting, they're horrified. In their generation, you couldn't simply end a relationship with someone by severing all communication (excluding stalkers and axe murderers). Imagine if this was how we ended face to face conversations or connections in real life:

Jack – "How are you?"

Amy - *swiftly turns around and walks away, never to be seen again*

The idea is so ridiculous it is comical. But, as it is so easy for us all to hide behind our screens, ghosting has now become an 'acceptable' way of ending things. You don't have to see or deal with the possibility of watching the other person's feelings be hurt. In reality, it is widely acknowledged that you actually end up hurting the person more and doing more damage. As millennials, we seem to have forgotten that we are all owed an explanation and the common decency of honesty – after all if the situation was reversed, isn’t this what we would want from the other person?

We have also invented an intricate set of rules when it comes to messaging. If we are interested in someone, we are encouraged to 'wait at least half an hour to text back' so as not to appear too keen, but not too long or they will think we aren't interested. This is despite the fact that we are all glued to our phones 24/7 and the person on the other end is likely to know you have seen the message. Again, this would be a ridiculous thing to do in a real life conversation if the person was opposite you. Keenness, or genuine affection, seems to be considered a turn off when in the past this would be what we were looking for and welcomed with open arms. I have been guilty of this too. When people have shown sincere interest in me it has left me feeling unsure or turned off. To appear aloof to keep the person guessing is somehow appealing to us, when maybe this should be a sign of emotional unavailability.

My housemate and I have recently raced through the entire 94 odd episodes of the 90s classic, Sex and the City. Although I'm not sure how Carrie Bradshaw and co pick up men on a seemingly daily basis (although hats off to them – any tips welcome), it has got me thinking on the accessibility of potential romantic interests today. In our parents and grandparents era, meeting someone they not only fancied, but who was also single and got on well with, was rare. You wouldn't expect to have potentials lined up for you everywhere you went. Therefore, when a friend introduced you to such a person, or you met them in a bar etc, you would think "I feel excited about this person, this is new" and really put in the effort to see where it went (provided they felt the same of course). They put in more effort, because they didn't know when or if someone like that would come along again.

Nowadays in comparison, dating apps mean we have a line-up of singles constantly available at any time of the day, from the comfort of our own homes. Even if we meet someone great, how do we really know when there are so many other options available to us? Are they the one or could we do better? Is there someone else out there who is a better fit, more attractive, or shares more of our hobbies? As millennials, we are constantly looking for an instant spark and wondering "if the grass is greener". When the initial excitement wears off, instead of putting in real effort to truly connect with the person on a deeper level, we end things and move on to someone else. In reality, we often find that the grass is not greener, and become exhausted by the constant search for something better, not really having built a proper lasting connection with anyone. Our thirst for instant validation has made us impatient and thus unwilling to work through issues within the relationships we do manage to form. We seem to have the skewed idea that true love should be effortless and having the tiniest of problems is a sure sign that we should ‘swipe left’ on another partner. The chase has become more exciting than the prize itself, but without hard work and dedication, we are unlikely to win it. You will find that statistically, the millennial generation is one of the loneliest out there, and this is no coincidence.   

Sex is similarly so available to us now, we have become obsessed with it and it seems to me to be the favourite topic of any conversation. One of the first questions I hear people asking each other after they have slept with someone is: was he/she good in bed? Whilst I suppose it is a valid question, surely in assessing whether someone is labelled "good" or "bad" we need to take into account factors such as: "did they ask me what I liked?", "did they put in effort?", "were they willing to try something new?", "how experienced are they?". What we don't seem to realise is that all of the above requires the old fashioned art of communication, and putting in real effort with the other person. We so often look for a 'quick fix', and expect everything so instantly we fail to realise people's true potential or even put in the effort to find out. A friend of mine has been told consistently that she is good in bed and when we discuss this, she says it's because she's very involved with the other person, will ask what they like and make sure they know what she likes as well. I am left thinking - surely this should be the norm, not the exception? Is the bar really that low?

After many years of resisting the mere idea of trying a dating app, as a symptom of lockdown boredom, I downloaded one. As I was scrolling through, I came to realise how we all seem to be waiting for this perfect individual to come along and sweep us off our feet. One man in his bio had written a list of all the qualities he expected in a woman he might consider: they had to be funny, smart, kind, naturally beautiful, independent (but not too much), sporty, low maintenance... The list went on. Looking into his profile a bit closer, all I found were three rather mediocre pictures and a peep show reference. I was left thinking he was expecting a five star hotel but was only offering this ideal woman a second hand tent in return. I admit that this was judgemental of me as I don't know him and he could have had plenty to offer, but it highlighted to me how much we expect from someone we would even consider dating. Surely to attract these amazing people with all the traits we are looking for, we should strive to become the best versions of ourselves in order to meet their level? Instead it seems we are expecting our dream man/woman to land at our feet without us having to lift a finger.

On a more superficial level, romantic films, tv shows and social media have encouraged us to expect a perfection which, shock horror, doesn't really exist. Many celebrities (and indeed many others) post pictures on social media which have been edited to within an inch of its life, brightening their eyes, blurring over that spot on their cheek and any other noticeable imperfection. They may have recently stepped out of the BOTOX clinic, and caked another layer of fake tan on the night before, the list goes on. It never ceases to amaze me the value which both men and women place on these "ideal" versions of individuals, seemingly not realising they are fantasising over a person who isn't real. In fact, in many cases if you saw the real person you might be in for a shock. We idolise these people and see them so often that we come to think this is what a normal person looks like and expect this when it comes to dating. Our imperfections have become a turn off instead of what they should be seen as, part of our individuality. 

The result of these Millennial dating trends and ways of thinking, is that many of us are sadly unsatisfied in our love lives. We are waiting for a perfect individual to come along, sweep us off our feet whilst sitting at home swiping endlessly on dating apps. We are not putting in any effort to truly connect with someone, because we expect everything to happen as quickly as casting a spell in Harry Potter. Modern dating trends have many advantages, it has made it easier for us to meet new people and widened the pool available to us. However, the cost of this is perhaps that we now have too much choice, leaving a dating culture where we are constantly moving from person to person to get our next quick fix. Dating has therefore become, increasingly, dysphoric.

Sophie is a Trainee Solicitor, currently on secondment with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. A regular agony aunt, she is a close friend and one of the first people I go to for advice.   

Egg-tra! Egg-tra! Read All About It!

An excerpt is now published in Salad Days Magazine

How do you like your eggs in the morning? Poached, scrambled, fried, in pancake form; the list is endless. Since pagan times, eggs have been synonymous with Spring. An important season for food production, animals are also coming out of their winter dormancy and are beginning to nest and mate. Eggs represent new life and the regenerative power of nature. Traditionally, eggs were prohibited during Lent alongside other animal products as a fasting penance. Today they remain pivotal to the Easter narrative with egg hunts conducted by children (and adults!) around the globe.    

We don't often spend the time thinking about how our food gets into our shopping baskets, aside from perhaps a cursory glance at whether a product might be healthy and marginally ethically produced. With Easter fast approaching, chocolate eggs are everywhere, but what about the boxes of eggs we consume and purchase every day? In Britain, 13 billion eggs are eaten every year and during the Covid 19 pandemic, demand soured to new heights.    

In December 2020 a highly pathogenic form of Avian Influenza was detected in the UK. All bird keepers regardless of size of flock or commercial use were instructed by the government to isolate their birds indoors. This will no doubt have lasting effects on the avian and egg industry, especially considering the already anticipated impact of both Covid and Brexit on British farming. Unable to contact the Easter Bunny due to scheduling issues, I've instead chatted with self-confessed egg fanatic Harriet Smith, a Poultry specialist who was willing to answer my calls.    

 

I had to... What came first?

Chickens are descendants of Dinosaurs, but if we're looking only superficially into the science of this, then the egg came first. Whatever animals came before the chicken, mated and laid a 'chicken egg' which then hatched a chicken.  

What effect has the Covid 19 pandemic had on the egg industry so far?

Initially, the global egg market was anticipated to decline by 2.4 billion from 2019 into 2020 as a result of the Covid 19 economic slowdown. However an unanticipated benefit of the first lockdown was the rise in home baking, with eggs becoming an integral commodity. Sales of baking products were up by over two-thirds. Demand for eggs in supermarkets went up by 100% in the first lockdown and remains at 30% above normal volumes. In terms of the wholesale market, the pandemic has been less kind with restaurants closing. Before the pandemic consumers were price conscious and as a general rule of thumb bought large brown eggs. However, during the lockdown, people didn’t care what size or colour egg they bought, they just needed an egg. People are just now beginning to return to their old egg buying habits. 

You tend to have a choice between large or medium eggs. Does size matter?  

Size does matter in terms of hen welfare. Egg size increases over time as a hen gets older; naturally a hen will lay a small egg first and their egg production will gradually increase in size over time. Egg sizing can be affected by many variables, including weather, diet, and lighting. However, as more consumers buy large eggs over medium or mixed weight boxes, this pushes demand for large eggs. To produce more of these larger eggs, some poultry farmers adapt lighting patterns in sheds to make their hens lay larger eggs, which mimics the natural change of the seasons, but this isn't natural. Unfortunately the cost of this is the risk of increased mortality and the amount of eggs these hens can lay, as essentially they can only produce so much egg mass, so the bigger the egg the less of them. This is driven by consumer habits rather than a desire by the farmers, although there is an incentive to provide larger eggs. The only discernible difference between a large and medium egg is the amount of white in the shell. You don't get more for your money, you actually contribute to affecting the welfare of hens. In the case of eggs, smaller is actually better. 

Our supermarket shelves are also generally populated by brown eggs. Why is this and what is the difference? 

White eggs generally aren't sold on UK supermarket shelves but are sold internationally and this is due to consumer perception. White eggs were popular in the UK up until the 1970's when shoppers began to switch to brown eggs. This was mostly down to the misconception that they were more natural or rustic. Unfortunately, this now means there are very few white layers in the UK- around 300,000 hens out of the 40 million UK hen population. Having said this, due to the first Covid 19 lockdown and the drastic surge in demand for eggs by consumers, Tesco has reintroduced white eggs to their shelves. This is a good thing as white eggs are often more efficiently farmed and more cost effective. The hens also lay for longer, eat less and are less aggressive than brown hens. There is no nutritional difference between white, brown or even blue/green eggs. 

Amid rising concern over animal welfare in world farming, what are the ethics of eggs?  

The majority of farms are lion code or laid in Britain assured and will be audited by the RSPCA. There is a lot of paperwork and hoops farmers have to jump through. Ultimately if bird welfare isn’t up to scratch they won’t perform, so farmers want the best for their hens as anyone. The hens are given a lot of enrichment in sheds, including toys and perching, and have freedom to perform natural behaviours such as dust bathing. 

Outsiders seem to have a lot to say about beak tipping. But it is honestly so important for hen welfare. I have seen a few flocks in my time that come under a tiny bit of stress, and start pecking each other. As chickens are naturally carnivorous, there is the potential that they will peck each other to death. Beak tipping massively reduces mortality as its much harder for them to hurt one another. It is also painless and is done on the day of hatch by an infrared ray. Think of it as cutting your nails. Essentially, the procedure ensures the top beak doesn’t overhang the bottom, so both beaks are in line. There is a misconception that the whole beak is removed and that is simply untrue. Some breeds who have full beaks are quite highly strung birds and in a bid to certify high welfare, by not touching the beaks, the opposite affect sometimes occurs. 

We are also considering the ethics of feed production in the avian community. Feed for hens must have good protein content and as a result generally include soya, which is largely imported. There has been a lot of research to go into protein alternatives. As an example, the black soldier fly larvae has been proven as a very sustainable and consistent source of protein. They can be grown on farms and fed direct into the feed or just spread in the sheds, decreasing food miles. Unfortunately European rules state that live animals can't be fed to other animals, despite hens eating worms when ranging. Bird welfare is as important to farmers as it is to our customers. 

Packed full of amino acids, vitamin D and B12, eggs are an excellent source of natural vitamins whether consumed for breakfast, lunch, dinner or in cake form. Take it from a true eggs-pert.

Want to learn more about eggs? Follow @the_poultry_diaries for egg-citing behind the scenes content