*bangs head repeatedly on desk*

This is nuts. Give a body time, nutrition, and exercise as feasible, and you get your muscle tone etc back. Sure there are some permanent changes, but... so? That's natural. Having babies is not a disease or a deformity that needs to be "corrected." This plastic surgery crap is way out of control!

This is similar to the "Should women go gray?" article I read in The Week a few weeks back. The mainstream media seems to be asking a lot of questions that should not occur to a sane woman in the first place.

It figures Dr. Stoker practices out of Marina Del Rey. L.A. is ground zero for this kind of insanity. Last thing we need is for this collective dementia to spread, though.

As perhaps a product of society's views on these things I'm pretty grossed out by a lot of natural stuff. Like stretch marks, and general ... sag.
But that is my problem, and I would never go calling people ugly because of my problems. No one should not be telling these women they're ugly. If they think they're ugly, and they are happier for their surgery, fine. It is a shame that our society makes them (and me) think this though.
Keep in mind that knowing your body changes are perfectly natural doesn't mean you like them, and that knowing it's society's fault you don't like them doesn't make you like them either.
With that in mind, if I ever decide that babies sound fun for me, I'll probably have some surgery after. But that's my mental issue, not anyone else's.

If this collective dimensia spreads I will off myself. While to the new mommies it may seem like "it's not hurting anyone!" it DOES hurt ALL women because soon enough we'll all be expected to look like a 17 year old cheerleader post-pregnancy or go under the knife to achieve that look. Men will begin to expect it from us. If this hasn't happened already, that is...

"Give a body time, nutrition, and exercise as feasible, and you get your muscle tone etc back."

That is simply not true in many cases. The fat deposits you see in the photos of the women who have had tummy tucks does not respond to exercise and diet. A woman could be anexoric skinny and she will still have that pouch of hanging flab.

Personally, I would love to have a tummy tuck and when I get an extra $7-10K, I probably will.

Before everyone starts ragging on me let me say this: I am a raging feminist who just happens to be tired of looking like I'm five months pregnant. I will gladly let a certified board plastic surgeon cut that crap off of me.

The crazy thing is, the women's bodies actually look better BEFORE the surgery. The very first comparison "after" shot looks so sickly. And it would be more desirable and attractive to have visible scarring for what reason?

The ironic thing is, despite all the 'embrace your womanhood' through surgical alteration crap the site is slinging, there is something distinctly masculine about the fat distribution in the "after "shots. Sure it flattens her tummy, but the overall result is worse.

i don't know what to say. it's fucking frightening that women are no doubt going to be subject to even more pressure to look like the aforementioned 17-year-old cheerleader even at middle age and after popping out a few kids.

the problem is that i'm totally conditioned to fear aging and to think that a lot of this natural stuff is gross. i'm sure if my post-pregnancy body was changed much i would feel really bad about myself. i know it's bullshit, but i'm not immune. :(

to be honest, i've kind of been looking forward to getting older in some respects, namely that as everyone eventually gets less attractive (mostly anyway), personality has to matter more, right?

Dee, what you have may not be fat -- it may be muscle dysplasia. I found out from my doctor last week that the reason my stomach looks like I'm six months pregnant and I suffer serious pain anytime I or someone else presses on it is that my stomach muscles are actually running up and down the sides of my abdomen, having been permanently shoved out of the way by my babies as they grew, and now, 15 months after giving birth, my bowels are only held in by my skin.

It's important to note that exercise, at least standard crunches, *will not fix* dysplasia. Nor will becoming an anorexic. There's a woman who wrote a book on a technique to fix dysplasia through special exercises, but since she says that you have to relearn how to sit up and one wrong move could set you back months of exercise, that does not seem practical.

I am probably going to have to have surgery, not because my post-pregnancy body has stretch marks (it does) or saggy breasts (it doesn't), but because my post-pregnancy body cannot sit up without me grabbing onto something to haul myself up with, suffers terrible pain when my little boy head-butts me in it, and embarrasses me and other people on a regular basis because they ask when I'm due and I have to tell them I'm just fat. But that's not cosmetic surgery -- there's something *wrong* with me caused by pregnancy, not just the way I look but the function of my body.

I suspect that most people who have a pouch of fat in front that won't respond to exercise and makes them look pregnant are probably actually suffering some structural muscular problem such as dysplasia, but we're so obsessed with fat it never occurs to most people that a tummy sticking way out could have a reason *other* than plumpitude.

this is pretty sick. Coming from someone who plans to get pregnant in a couple of years, let me say, I weep for the future... If it becomes the norm that every time I have a kid, I'm expected to cut myself up to look good, then I'll have a lot of punches to throw! It's so typical. " you women get having those babies... but you know, don't look like you had one after, that just ewe" .

ack.

AlaraJRogers,
Yes, I believe you're correct, although I have no pain. I recently lost ten pounds and the baggy skin actually looked worse.

I do plan on having a tummy tuck simply because I think my gut looks horrible. I don't have these expectations that I am going to have a 17 year olds figure. I just want to look and feel normal.

Did anyone notice that their web site also offers labiaplasty? I'm not surprised. I googled the topic of mommy makovers to see just how prevalent this crazy idea is and found many places that offer the same thing. There is even a site that offers to fix the post-baby bellybutton (on the mom, not the baby). They call the new and improved belly button the Rodeo Drive belly button. Just how many ways can they find to "fix" women's natural bodies and the results of natural processes whether it's aging, gray hair, or post-baby bodies.

I find all of this incredibly depressing. After losing almost 20 pounds and nearing my goal weight, I find that no matter how good I may feel about myself physically or aesthetically, I'm going to be bombarded with messages and articles from well-regarded sources like the NYT telling me that I'm not good enough.

"i don't know what to say. it's fucking frightening that women are no doubt going to be subject to even more pressure to look like the aforementioned 17-year-old cheerleader even at middle age and after popping out a few kids."

...especially if they "opted out" and now fear "you're not the woman I married anymore, I want out!!!" reactions from breadwinners whom they had attracted by looking like 17-year-old cheerleaders.

I wouldn't be surprised if *avoiding* $10,000 surgery looks more expensive to some women in that situation.

"to be honest, i've kind of been looking forward to getting older in some respects, namely that as everyone eventually gets less attractive (mostly anyway), personality has to matter more, right?"

That applies in a setting which doesn't gain any younger people as the ones already in it get older, right?

"It's so typical. ' you women get having those babies... but you know, don't look like you had one after, that just ewe' .

"ack."

Ack indeed.

look at the scrutiny on Britney Spears body post babies as a glaring example of this phenomenon.

As a woman who has undergone two pregnancies 9 years apart, I can tell you that I got my pre-baby body back pretty fast after the first one, and it's taking longer for the second one- I wasn't very active during my second pregnancy. I'm not terribly concerned about it. I waited a year after the second one, tossed out the clothes I didn't fit back into, and concentrated on more important and interesting issues.

Becoming a mother changes you forever emotionally, spiritually, and yes, physically.

Wouldn't it be nice if instead of conning women into forking over money for mutilation we were pampering new moms, giving them time and resources to learn how to be a mother, bond with their babies, and treat their bodies with the same love and patience we would them to extend to their children?

And while I do agree that this plastic surgery issue is moot point for the vast majority of those of us who could never afford it, there's always a trickle-down effect.

Look at the percentage of women with body dysmorphia, anorexia, and bulimia...do you think those issues miraculously disappear during pregnancy? Not so much...

Frog Queen, you bring up a good point...what is the expectation of the plastic surgery industry for those who have multiple children? Keep going under the knife? They may have addressed this on that site, but I am not inclined to go peek.

In any event, rileystclair - I am with you when you say you know it's bullshit but you are not immune. I believe buggle was trying to tell me that on another thread. And I kicked myself for it a lot, placing the blame on myself for actually buying into the beauty industry even though it is beyond obvious that the ideal body type they force-feed us visually cannot be attained.

And then I had a conversation with someone who said that I don't buy into it - only part of me does. I never thought of it that way, but that makes a difference to me. I am only one person, going upstream against an onslaught that is supported by billions and billions of dollars. And also like you, I have been enthusiastic about getting older...not because my personality will matter more per se, but because older women seem so secure about their bodies. And...then I realize that is a fallacy. I keep expecting to have this gigantic moment of an epiphany when I am older, where afterwards I am secure about myself and fully accept my body, my thighs, my hips, my butt - and that is simply not going to happen. It's a hell of a war, but it is a war and one that I suspect will take many battles both won and lost. Now and when I am older.

Last year I had a severe complication from a "routine" medical procedure. Luckily, we were able to get to the hospital on time so I wasn't ever at risk of death, but if the timing had been different, I could have died.

I can't see taking that kind of risk for plastic surgery, unless my quality of life was severely affected (think major deformity.)

I know others feel differently. I've known people who have lost a lot of weight through diet and exercise, and then had tummy tucks because that last bit wouldn't go away. I can understand how after years of hard work, it would be very frustrating to still feel like you didn't look like your goal.

But what particularly scares me about this so called 'mommy job' is packaging of multiple surgeries. "While you are here for the tummy tuck, let's do your boobs!" It's downplaying the additional risk for women, selling them more than they came in for.

"I've known people who have lost a lot of weight through diet and exercise, and then had tummy tucks because that last bit wouldn't go away."

I can relate but for a slightly different reason.

My belly's kinda flabby, but if I diet and exercise to lose weight my body will burn up all my breast fat (going from AA cup to completely flat) and some of my thigh fat before doing anything to my belly fat. I've already seen this begin to happen other times I've lost weight. So, maybe some women get tummy tucks because they want to tone up their abdomens and don't want to destroy their breasts in the process?

I remember reading an article last year which asserted that each increase in cup size (breast) equated to an additonal $50,000 a year in income. I'll try to find it. I guess we shouldn't be too shocked by the commercialization of women's bodies.

One of the most disgusting quotes in the article is this one from Sharlotte Birkland, a nurse in Sacramento:

"There is more pressure on mothers today to look young and sexy than on previous generations," she added. “I don’t think it was an issue for my mother; your husband loved you no matter what,� said Ms. Birkland, who recently remarried.

Um, yeah. I'm a single mom with a nice (or, according to the article, not so nice) pouch that used to house my daughter. I'll keep my pouch, thanks, and any man who loves me had better love it, too. Who wants to be married to a man whose conditions include no belly and socially-acceptable boobs?

Is it me or has anyone else noticed that many of the women on the site are very young mothers having the surgeries! Well, to ME they're young. That speaks to just how much pressure there is.

Is it me or has anyone else noticed that many of the moms on the site having the mom-special are rather young? Well, to ME they're young. That speaks to just how much pressure there is. I checked out the labiaplasty and the woman they show was 24 years old. I cease to understand this since I can't reall see the difference between the before and after pictures.

And, let's not forget that these are SURGERIES. Doctors offices are marketing multiple surgeries as a package - buy one, get one free.

I especially dislike the part of the profiles where they ask the moms how their kids react to their new bodies. Mom-tested, kid-approved.

Ew. Wrong.

Yeah, I don't ever see myself asking my child what he/she thinks of mommy's new labiaplasty.

And while it's true that only the wealthiest 1% of the population can afford this, it affects all us poor women because we'll be expected to adhere to those standards. At least Sarah Jessica Parker had the class to announce loudly and often after giving birth that "i only look like this because I can afford a trainer and a babysitter. Many women can't."

the world needs more sites like this instead, showing what real women look like after pregnancy, and supporting them in their new bodies.

"I remember reading an article last year which asserted that each increase in cup size (breast) equated to an additonal $50,000 a year in income. I'll try to find it. I guess we shouldn't be too shocked by the commercialization of women's bodies."

That simply, 100%, can't be true. Of all physical characteristics, height has the strongest association with income, even larger than the effect of gender on income. And that is something like an extra $500 extra per year per inch above average (varies based on the study).

So, maybe an extra $500 per year per breast size might be believable, but $50,000 is just out of the realm of believability. Even $5000 seems highly unlikely.

Nakedthoughts, thank you SO MUCH for sharing that link! The text and accompanying images are really beautiful- that has completely made my day.

I encourage the rest of you to check it out!

I was wondering when this was going to become a full blown phenomena. I'd heard (living in L.A.) a few years ago that doctors offices were offering tummy tucks to women who'd gotten C-sections (hell, it's already cut open! [/sarcasm]) and then with the boom of the celebrity mommy obsession, seeing women with trainers and nutritionists looking like they'd never been pregnant in the first place. I'd read this one blog that had photos of Tobey Maguire and his girlfriend at the beach with their recently born baby. She was wearing a two piece and the comments section ripped her a new one for having the nerve to not wear a one piece (or to have even left the house in that "condition"). There was even a comment by another recent mother who said she "knew better" than to expose people to her unattractive body. At that point I had to stop reading.

It's sad because for women it's hardly a win-win situation. If you get pregnant everyone thinks your pregnant body is "cute" but then like someone said above, once the baby is out she's expected to snap back into shape.

UCLAbodyimage,
I didn't make that up (cup size = $50,000). I remember reading it in the LA Times or SF Gate. Perhaps they were referring to entertainers....I'm still looking for the article.

"It's sad because for women it's hardly a win-win situation. If you get pregnant everyone thinks your pregnant body is "cute" but then like someone said above, once the baby is out she's expected to snap back into shape."

...and if you don't give birth or don't even get pregnant in the first place, some people still complain.

This is a gross thought, but when I know someone has had plastic surgery say getting breast implants, I think of their body just rotting away until two lumps of fake boob are just sitting on top of the dust pile. I understand changing your body to make yourself feel better, but not on the basis of pleasing everyone else. Society pisses me off so much.

I've known people who have lost a lot of weight through diet and exercise, and then had tummy tucks because that last bit wouldn't go away.

So, maybe some women get tummy tucks because they want to tone up their abdomens and don't want to destroy their breasts in the process?

But what's so wrong with having a slightly flabby belly in the first place? Why are these women driven to have surgery rather than be happy with the belly they have? If it weren't for the media constantly feeding us images of super-toned stomachs, would we feel the need to achieve a perfectly flat stomach, whether through diet, excercise or surgery? If a woman can't get her pre-pregnancy body back through diet and excercise... well, why should she? Why should a 30-something year old woman who's had two children look like a 16 year old girl? Never mind: "You should be achieving that body through diet and excercise rather than surgery", why do we need to have that body at all?

"That applies in a setting which doesn't gain any younger people as the ones already in it get older, right?"

well, that's true too, but what i really meant to say was that at least in dealing with women my own age, that the ones who skate by on looks alone now would be more susceptible to being judged on the merits of their character/personality/intellect/etc when we're all too old for wet t-shirt contests. the proliferation of a plastic surgery culture makes this less likely, of course.

and to whoever made the comment about men leaving their wives who "opt out" of expensive, dangerous procedures like this, i have no doubt that it would happen. any time the ante is upped with regard to female appearances, it's only a matter of time before the latest fad becomes expected of all.

"Why are these women driven to have surgery rather than be happy with the belly they have?"

In some cases, maybe they were happy with the bellies they had, miss those, and want to get those back?

"Never mind: 'You should be achieving that body through diet and excercise rather than surgery', why do we need to have that body at all?"

Now that we're not just talking about options for the rich, what about women who didn't want their pregnancies in the first place but couldn't get abortions in time? If someone diets and exercises to get her earlier figure back instead of celebrating how an unwanted pregnancy and birth warped her body, must we assume the media brainwashed her?

I'm also reminded a bit of this:

http://feministing.com/archives/007771.html

"This realization came up when Janjay, the black girl in question, said she didn't want to lay out so she wouldn't get darker. Not that laying out in the sun is such an important pursuit, but it's a shame she feels that way."

Maybe Janjay's just happy with the skin color she already has and wants to keep that?

Of course pressuring people to change their bodies to meet beauty conventions, instead of loving their bodies, sucks!

Now is complaining about people who do have conventionally-beautiful traits (whether a firmer gut or lighter skin or whatever) loving their bodies and wanting to keep even those traits a useful answer to the pressure?

"and to whoever made the comment about men leaving their wives who 'opt out' of expensive, dangerous procedures like this,"

That poster was me, and I should have been clearer. Oops. By "opt out" I was thinking more of another trend in an earlier one of these articles - "opting out" of wages and salaries to become a housewife (and possibly need a "mom job" to stay a housewife).

"well, that's true too, but what i really meant to say was that at least in dealing with women my own age, that the ones who skate by on looks alone now would be more susceptible to being judged on the merits of their character/personality/intellect/etc when we're all too old for wet t-shirt contests. the proliferation of a plastic surgery culture makes this less likely, of course."

...and the proliferation of younger women. For example, if there were no facelifts then someone couldn't compare a 60-year-old woman who didn't have a facelift to another 60-year-old woman who did have a facelift, but that someone could still compare her to a 30-year-old woman.

"UCLAbodyimage,
I didn't make that up (cup size = $50,000). I remember reading it in the LA Times or SF Gate. Perhaps they were referring to entertainers....I'm still looking for the article."

Hi dee - that sounds more plausible (effect for income of movie stars or something).

Here's the most relevant thing I could find:

TITLE: Attractiveness and Income for Men and Women in Management

ABSTRACT:
It is commonly believed that attractive people are more successful, but the empirical support for this belief is mixed. A number of role-playing, laboratory studies have demonstrated that more attractive men are more often hired, but the laboratory data for women are less consistent. Few studies have explored the effects of attractiveness on actual hiring and starting salaries for men or women. Even less work has been done on the impact of attractiveness once on the job. It was predicted that there would be positive effects for attractiveness and that the effects would be stronger as people worked longer on their jobs. To test this prediction, a sample of 737 male and female MBA graduates from the years between 1973 and 1982 was used to explore how facial attractiveness relates to starting and later salaries. Results indicated that more attractive men had higher starting salaries and they continued to earn more over time. For women, there was no effect of attractiveness for starting salaries, but more attractive women earned more later on in their jobs. By 1983, men were found to earn $2600 more on the average for each unit of attractiveness (on a 5-point scale) and women earned $2150 more. Implications for research in this area are discussed.

Now is complaining about people who do have conventionally-beautiful traits (whether a firmer gut or lighter skin or whatever) loving their bodies and wanting to keep even those traits a useful answer to the pressure?

I'm not complaining about the women who make those choices. I'm complaining about a system that makes them feel like they have to make those choices. If flabby stomachs and flat stomachs were treated as equally attractive by our society (or if the flabby stomach was treated as more attractive) would those women still be so driven to get their flat stomach back after pregnancy? (Or weight gain, or whatever?) Maybe some still would, because they were attached to the bodies they had, but I'm willing to bet a lot wouldn't.

But what particularly scares me about this so called 'mommy job' is packaging of multiple surgeries. "While you are here for the tummy tuck, let's do your boobs!" It's downplaying the additional risk for women, selling them more than they came in for.

That's how the woman who wrote the First Wives' Club died, right? She was a serial plastic surgery patient, and died getting one of her surgeries. It always makes me sad when I realize that our looks are more important than our lives.

"If flabby stomachs and flat stomachs were treated as equally attractive by our society (or if the flabby stomach was treated as more attractive) would those women still be so driven to get their flat stomach back after pregnancy? (Or weight gain, or whatever?) Maybe some still would, because they were attached to the bodies they had, but I'm willing to bet a lot wouldn't."

Yeah, good points here.

As for "if the flabby stomach was treated as more attractive," you might find this article interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3429903.stm

"...A generation ago, over a third of women in the country were force-fed as children - Mauritania is one of the few African countries where, on average, girls receive more food than boys.

"Now only around one in 10 girls are treated this way. The treatment has its roots in fat being seen as a sign of wealth - if a girl was thin she was considered poor, and would not be respected..."

One study showed that size discrimination is prevalent in hiring decisions, and affects women more:

Women suffer the greatest unfairness, she said. "They don't have to weigh very much for employment discrimination to kick in."

Rothblum once showed a set of identical resumes to a group of students. Half stated that the fictitious female job seeker was 120 pounds. The other half put her weight at 180 pounds. She asked the students to rate the woman's professional competence and suggest her appropriate salary range.

The 180-pound woman scored dramatically lower. "The amazing thing about that experiment," Rothblum said, "is that, actually, 180 pounds is not that heavy. Imagine what larger people experience. I think fat people underestimate how much of their daily encounters are different because of their weight."

"I remember reading an article last year which asserted that each increase in cup size (breast) equated to an additonal $50,000 a year in income. I'll try to find it. I guess we shouldn't be too shocked by the commercialization of women's bodies."
That simply, 100%, can't be true. Of all physical characteristics, height has the strongest association with income, even larger than the effect of gender on income. And that is something like an extra $500 extra per year per inch above average (varies based on the study).
As a 6’1� tall woman with D-cup breasts, I can safely say that both of these ideas are 100% wrong. In my experience, that the “being tall gets you better jobs and raises� thing only applies to men.

Expecting women to look like they did before pregnancy is ridiculous. As another commenter pointed out, if, as a whole, we celebrated a woman’s post-pregnancy body, these types of surgeries would be few and far between. Sadly, we don’t and (to restate the what others have said) none of us are immune.

Am I the only one who is bothered by the description of Our Bodies Ourselves as seminal?

Main Entry: sem·i·nal
Pronunciation: 'se-m&-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin seminalis, from semin-, semen seed -- more at SEMEN
1 : of, relating to, or consisting of seed or semen
2 : containing or contributing the seeds of later development : CREATIVE, ORIGINAL

http://m-w.com/dictionary/seminal

The sad thing about this is the marketing of plastic surgery, like it's soup or a movie. Society in general, and sometimes, in my experience, moms in particular, seem to go out of their way to make other moms feel bad. As a mom, nothing you ever do is good enough, fast enough, creative enough, enough enough for your children, your husband, your family, your job, etc. And now we have a handy dandy website here to tell us that our bodies aren't good enough either.

Having a new baby is hard enough, whether it's your first or your tenth, and just putting the idea into a new mom's head that her body isn't good enough is just one more thing for her to worry about, when instead, she should be worrying about herself and her baby.

Why can't we ever just say to a new mom, "Hey, good job for pushing that baby out! And good job with the whole not-sleeping-and-still-functioning-like-a-human-being thing. Can I get you a cup of coffee? Glass of wine?" Instead we say, "Hey, good job pushing that baby out, but it's too bad your tits look like deflated water balloons - want a boob job?"

Sigh.

Mina: "especially if they "opted out" and now fear "you're not the woman I married anymore, I want out!!!" reactions from breadwinners whom they had attracted by looking like 17-year-old cheerleaders."

I am no proponent of mommy jobs, but I have to wonder, for the group you're talking about, if they indeed attracted a "breadwinner" by "looking like 17-year-old cheerleaders," should they be so surprised when he continues to be superficial? Anyone who goes into a marriage with the expectation that it's an exchange of beauty for security should not be surprised when it continues in that vein.

Personally, I think in the ideal world, we should be happy with bodies that are fit and healthy, no matter what pregnancy signs or marks there are. As men are often very fitness and looks-conscious, I don't know that it's antifeminist per se to care about these things. But the targeted shame-oriented marketing to women is awful.

For the record, though, while not the case for everyone, I found ab work and cardio exercise during pregnancy helpful in getting back to same general weight and shape after, and I was mid-30s when pregnant. I don't think we should tell women that we NEED to get back to same shape, but it's helpful to present non-surgical alternatives. And despite Sara Jessica Parker, floor work and running or speedwalking don't require financial outlay.

"As a 6’1� tall woman with D-cup breasts, I can safely say that both of these ideas are 100% wrong. In my experience, that the “being tall gets you better jobs and raises� thing only applies to men."

It actually applies both to men and women. Overall, taller women earn more than shorter women.

But I do think you are right in that there could be a curvilinear relationship for women as well. Specifically, that height is a bonus in terms of getting respect up to a point for women, but women who are very tall (i.e., 6'0+, or 3 standard deviations above the mean) face a good deal of stigma for challenging the standard male = bigger = more dominant social role.

PONIES: "One study showed that size discrimination is prevalent in hiring decisions, and affects women more. The 180-pound woman scored dramatically lower. "The amazing thing about that experiment," Rothblum said, "is that, actually, 180 pounds is not that heavy."

Sad but true.

I asked this in another post, but if I could trouble you... do any of you know of good readings on the link between sexual objectification (i.e., the male gaze) and sexual harassment/attitudes toward sexual harassment. I would appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction!

Also, Esther Rothblum kicks ass.

I suppose I should back up what I am saying.

The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: preliminary test of a theoretical model.
J Appl Psychol. 2004 Jun;89(3):428-41.

ABSTRACT: In this article, the authors propose a theoretical model of the relationship between physical height and career success. We then test several linkages in the model based on a meta-analysis of the literature, with results indicating that physical height is significantly related to measures of social esteem (rho =.41), leader emergence (rho =.24), and performance (rho =.18). Height was somewhat more strongly related to success for men (rho =.29) than for women (rho =.21), although this difference was not significant. Finally, given that almost no research has examined the relationship between individuals' physical height and their incomes, we present four large-sample studies (total N = 8,590) showing that height is positively related to income (beta =.26) after controlling for sex, age, and weight. Overall, this article presents the most comprehensive analysis of the relationship of height to workplace success to date, and the results suggest that tall individuals have advantages in several important aspects of their careers and organizational lives.

The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: preliminary test of a theoretical model.

That is far from conclusive, UCLA, and I am telling you that my experiences (as well as several relatives and friends) say otherwise.

It doesn't matter anyway, this thread is about the pressure on mothers to look a certain way, not matter the cost. How about keeping on topic for once?

"That is far from conclusive, UCLA, and I am telling you that my experiences (as well as several relatives and friends) say otherwise."

Yes, that is why people do research. To figure out what is typically happening since people have different anecdotes. I know some women who make more money than me. It's still useful to know that on average, women make less than men? Don't you agree?

"It doesn't matter anyway, this thread is about the pressure on mothers to look a certain way, not matter the cost. How about keeping on topic for once?"

If you'll note, my post was directly related to the responses on the thread. How about following the entire thread for once?

The funny thing is, if someone finds out you don't have kids or don't want to have them, they accuse you of being vain/ selfish, not fulfilling her God-given purpose, etc. Yet, if you do have kids, you're expected to maintain the exact same body as before creating new life. Just like the virgin / whore dichotomy - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But I reject the notion that only the top 1% of women could afford this - more people than ever before are getting plastic surgery, and more and more of them are average-income earners. Lots of credit companies will finance surgery now, so in a way, maybe these average income women can't *really* afford it, but they are still getting the surgeries. It's a concerning trend but not surprising consider we finance everything with debt. And it also makes this not just an issue of the most highly privileged.

JUSTANOTHERJANE: "But I reject the notion that only the top 1% of women could afford this - more people than ever before are getting plastic surgery, and more and more of them are average-income earners."

I have to agree with you here. The most popular forms of cosmetic surgery (liposuction, breast implants) are increasingly cheapers (2000-6000 dollars), and many people of all social classes get cosmetic surgery.

Also, interest in cosmetic surgery is at an all time high, which suggests that women (and men) are facing intense appearance related pressures.

To be shamelessly self-promoting, here is a paper of mine on this topic that just came out in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

TITLE: Interest in Cosmetic Surgery and Body Image: Views of Men and Women across the Lifespan.

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 120(5):1407-1415, October 2007.
Frederick, David A. M.A.; Lever, Janet Ph.D.; Peplau, Letitia Anne Ph.D.

Abstract:
Background: Little is known about interest in cosmetic surgery among the general public or how this interest is related to gender, age, relationship status, body mass index, or body image satisfaction.

Methods: The present study tested these associations among a sample of 52,677 heterosexual men and women aged 18 to 65 years who completed the online "ELLE/MSBNC.com Sex and Body Image Survey" in 2003.

Results: Many women were interested (48 percent) or possibly interested (23 percent) in cosmetic surgery. A substantial minority of men were also interested (23 percent) or possibly interested (17 percent) in cosmetic surgery. Individuals interested in cosmetic surgery did not report poorer global body image than individuals not interested in cosmetic surgery. Individuals specifically interested in liposuction, however, tended to have poorer body image, and interest in liposuction was greater among heavier individuals.

Conclusions: The finding that many women and men are interested in cosmetic surgery has implications for research comparing cosmetic surgery patients to individuals drawn from the general population. Specifically, researchers conducting comparative studies should recognize that many individuals in their control group may be strongly interested in cosmetic surgery, even if they have not yet had any. Furthermore, individuals interested in different types of cosmetic surgery may differ from each other on such attributes as body mass index and body image.

I have to admit, even though I know it's unfair for me to feel this way, that I get really upset when I hear about women getting plastic surgery. Every time someone else gets breast augmentation, it forces my body to be held to a higher standard. Everytime a celebrity drops 60 pounds in a month, it makes all other pregnant women held to an impossible standard. Objectively, I know I have a great body. My breasts aren't very big, but they are shaped beautifully, and I'm completely proportional. I would look strange if they were bigger. But dammit if I don't wish every day that they would just be a little fuller, or the areola smaller, or maybe if I could get my waist smaller it would give me the appearance of having the ideal body shape, or if my torso was longer, or maybe my legs, on and on and on.

And everytime another woman surgically forces her body to do what couldn't be done naturally, it makes it harder, it makes the pressure that much more intense for everyone else. And even though I know that someone else's actions have nothing to do with me, and that it's ridiculous for me to be so upset about what someone else chooses to do with their breasts, I take it kind of personally. I think a lot of that is the way our culture encourages competition between women based on their looks. You know, the whole, how do your breasts stack up to everyone else's? Do you have better legs than she does? It's gross.

One other question that I think is important to consider: Why, when there are people starving in the world do we think it's okay to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to make our bodies look better? It's horrifying that there is so much pressure on women to look a certain way that we prioritize it above the health of starving people, or people with preventable and treatable diseases.

How many people could have been fed with the amount of money spent on cosmetic surgery this year?

Afishnamedpig, "semen" is the Latin word for seed. Its use to describe sperm, etc. came much later; a lot of common Latin words are used to describe sexual anatomy. ("Penis" = tail; "vagina" = sheath, etc.) Describing something as "seminal" doesn't necessarily have male-privilege overtones.

Reminds me of that bit from Legally Blonde where the "feminist" character wants to change the school calendar from "semesters" to "ovesters." As a Latin major and a feminist, I always got a giggle out of that scene. (Esp. since the word "semester" comes from "semi" meaning half, not "semen" meaning seed.)

Kissmypineapple: "Why, when there are people starving in the world do we think it's okay to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to make our bodies look better?"

I agree that this seems problematic, but it's a slippery slope. Most of us could contribute more to charity. How many of us get birthday presents, go on the occasional vacation, get the occasional expensive outfit? There's a continuum of frivolous expenses, and some might characterize the above in that category when compared to people who are starving.

It's easy to throw out "starving people" when it comes to an expense for something you personally don't like, but the argument isn't all that rigorous.

I do agree with you that some procedures seem over the top.

Not to get completely off track but:

DrkEyedCajn - Thanks for the useful examples. However, I don't think we can compare all latinate words derived from those representing body parts. My specific issue with the word seminal, is that not only does it etymologically derive from semen, but when something is described as seminal it indicates origin and superiority. While it may be a small point, it is important to recognize the ways in which our language structures and perpetuates patriarchy. And to call such an groundbreaking feminist work "seminal" is still troubling to me. Speaking about the word semester, even though it derives from mensis (which in Latin implied month, not necessarily menstrual cycle), it does not have the same inherent power dynamic.

Yes, that is why people do research. To figure out what is typically happening since people have different anecdotes...If you'll note, my post was directly related to the responses on the thread. How about following the entire thread for once?

UCLA, I get very tired of you condescending, insulting, and dismissive attitude toward folks that disagree with you. I am well aware of why research is conducted. Your remarks were not directly related to any comments here. dee mused about how the post reminded her of an article she read, which was directly related to women's bodies and the perception of them. You quoted her and responded: "That simply, 100%, can't be true." You dismissed her comment out-of-hand and went off on a tangent (how does going on about the supposed advantages tall people have disprove what dee said anyway?). Yep, I wasn't following the thread at all.

I can site numerous posts here on Feministing where you have gone off topic and/or derailed the thread and when you are called on it, your response is always "my post was directly related to the responses on the thread." Is it possible that you get off topic and don't realize it? Maybe when someone points that out, you should listen instead of insulting people.

This is such a huge issue because women's bodies are not really our own. The war raging over our bodies affects our self-perceptions so much that it's hard to tell what "normal" really is.

I agree that the tabloids have gotten way out of hand over "baby weight." The reaction to Britney Spears' body at the VMA's was one classic example.

Her performance was lackluster to be sure, but the focus was mostly on how "fat" she looked. If that's "fat," then I don't even know what I am.

That said, when we have privilege, it's only natural to want to keep it. You can't blame women who have been considered great beauties their whole lives for wanting to do something to reverse the natural process that makes them less beautiful by modern standards - whether that's aging or post-partum body changes.

Because we're never going to live in a perfect world. Physical appearance will always matter. Maybe it will matter less than it does now. I certainly hope so. But people will always be judged to some degree by the way we look. It's a simple fact of human cognition.

The problem isn't plastic surgery. It's not the women who choose to have it. That choice is a perfectly natural response to a culture that makes us feel horrible about ourselves for a little cellulite post-baby.

The real problem is the cruelly enforced beauty standards that are just the latest in a long string of attempts by the patriarchy to retain control over women by controlling our bodies -- which is all patriarchalists see us as anyway.

"The real problem is the cruelly enforced beauty standards that are just the latest in a long string of attempts by the patriarchy to retain control over women by controlling our bodies -- which is all patriarchalists see us as anyway."

The real problem is more the pressure to be beautiful in the first place, no matter what is considered "beautiful." For example:

"Rothblum once showed a set of identical resumes to a group of students. Half stated that the fictitious female job seeker was 120 pounds. The other half put her weight at 180 pounds. She asked the students to rate the woman's professional competence and suggest her appropriate salary range.

"The 180-pound woman scored dramatically lower. 'The amazing thing about that experiment,' Rothblum said, 'is that, actually, 180 pounds is not that heavy. Imagine what larger people experience. I think fat people underestimate how much of their daily encounters are different because of their weight.'"

What's really the problem here? The "she's 180 lbs so she's fat" attitude, or the "she's fat so she's incompetent" attitude?

"What's really the problem here? The "she's 180 lbs so she's fat" attitude, or the "she's fat so she's incompetent" attitude?"

Both attitudes are problems. But neither can be fully resolved.

People will always judge one another to some degree by appearance. It's part of the way our brains organize information. Therefore, we will always have some desire to be beautiful. What needs to change is the concept of beauty. It needs to broaden and deepen to include the whole wonderful variety of healthy human appearances and styles of dressing.

Unfortunately the standard of beauty for women will always be whatever are percieved to be the most potentially fertile combined with highest ranking. Today, we as a society have our highest ranking (richest) members thin. 18 year olds are near the peak of their fertility and are very likely to have healthy babies.
Therefore people who look rich (thin, today) and fertile (18... or around there) are the most attractive.
I'm reasonably sure there was a time when mothers were most attractive (rather than teenagers) because they had proven their fertility. And chubby mothers especially, because they had money to eat (rich).

Honestly it's nice to wish we could broaden the concept of beauty, but the *animal purpose of our lives is to live, eat, and reproduce. Human beauty is something desirable to reproduce with. Not everyone is desirable to reproduce with to everyone else.

*Yes we have other purposes in our lives for society and all. I plan on failing at that last part of my animal purpose in life.

Unfortunately the standard of beauty for women will always be whatever are percieved to be the most potentially fertile combined with highest ranking. Today, we as a society have our highest ranking (richest) members thin. 18 year olds are near the peak of their fertility and are very likely to have healthy babies.
Therefore people who look rich (thin, today) and fertile (18... or around there) are the most attractive.
I'm reasonably sure there was a time when mothers were most attractive (rather than teenagers) because they had proven their fertility. And chubby mothers especially, because they had money to eat (rich).

Honestly it's nice to wish we could broaden the concept of beauty, but the *animal purpose of our lives is to live, eat, and reproduce. Human beauty is something desirable to reproduce with. Not everyone is desirable to reproduce with to everyone else.

*Yes we have other purposes in our lives for society and all. I plan on failing at that last part of my animal purpose in life.

Unfortunately the standard of beauty for women will always be whatever are percieved to be the most potentially fertile combined with highest ranking. Today, we as a society have our highest ranking (richest) members thin. 18 year olds are near the peak of their fertility and are very likely to have healthy babies.
Therefore people who look rich (thin, today) and fertile (18... or around there) are the most attractive.
I'm reasonably sure there was a time when mothers were most attractive (rather than teenagers) because they had proven their fertility. And chubby mothers especially, because they had money to eat (rich).

Honestly it's nice to wish we could broaden the concept of beauty, but the *animal purpose of our lives is to live, eat, and reproduce. Human beauty is something desirable to reproduce with. Not everyone is desirable to reproduce with to everyone else.

*Yes we have other purposes in our lives for society and all. I plan on failing at that last part of my animal purpose in life.

"Your remarks were not directly related to any comments here. dee mused about how the post reminded her of an article she read, which was directly related to women's bodies and the perception of them."

Let me remind you of the thread. It's pretty clear that I was right on topic.

A) Dee said one level of cup size = $50,000 in income.

B) I think that is misinformation, and notably harmful misinformation at that. That further adds to the anxiety women feel about their breasts - you need big breasts to make more money! I therefore strongly challenged that statement. I could have done so on two grounds.

First, I could point out that one of the most robust findings between physical characteristics and income is height, and that effect is no where near 50,000 per year. This is the strategy I took, and in context is clearly related to her post.

I could have taken a second strategy and pointed out that the median income is around 30K, so a variance of 50K would have been impossible (that would mean A-cup = 10K, B-cup = 60K, C-cup = 110K, D-Cup = 160K). Even factoring in the relative percent of the population with each breast size, the mean is still way way above 30K. Hence the reason her statement is 100% incorrect.

C) Dee then responded that perhaps the article referred to entertainers.

D) I responded that this made much more sense.

That seemed like it would be the whole story. Dee made a point, I challenged it, then we reached a reasonable conclusion.

However, you decided that you wanted to talk about height, and challenged the pretty well-known finding that taller = higher income. Since you seemed interested in that area, I followed you off-topic.

I noted that this is well-established finding, but acknowledged that you had a good point - for very tall women, there might be stigma that disrupts that taller = better for income relationship that exists across most of the height continuum.

You weren't satisfied that and responded with a snarky "how about keeping on topic for once".

I decided to mimic your snarkiness so you would get a sense of how silly it is. Apparently you didn't deal with that too well, so hopefully that will dissuade you from snarkiness in the future. I am hopeful that this is true because you didn't seem to like it when a person turned your style back on you.

"Is it possible that you get off topic and don't realize it? Maybe when someone points that out, you should listen instead of insulting people."

There are obviously times that, like every other poster here, I talk about something that is only partly on topic. Often I note that explicitly (e.g., recently I asked if anyone could suggest a reading on sexual harrassment and sexual objectification in a thread about sexual harrassment, and labeled it "slightly on topic".

In this case it appears quite clear that I was on topic and directly responding to points made my people on the board (see the first half of this post).

Is it possible that I was on topic and you didn't realize it? Maybe when someone points that out, you should listen instead of insulting people.

I don't really buy it, geeky_girl, because that formulation spectacularly fails to account for the wide range of variation in individual preference (why do I like slim, delicate men with sharp jawlines while my friend likes big burly types?), and has absolutely nothing to say about same-sex attraction.

"I don't really buy it, geeky_girl, because that formulation spectacularly fails to account for the wide range of variation in individual preference (why do I like slim, delicate men with sharp jawlines while my friend likes big burly types?), and has absolutely nothing to say about same-sex attraction."

Nor does it have anything to say about work that can be done without sexiness. For example, what about when an employer has the "if she's not sexy then she's incomepetent" attitude about hiring someone to be an architect, janitor, rice farmer, or writer?

"Unfortunately the standard of beauty for women will always be whatever are percieved to be the most potentially fertile combined with highest ranking. "

I agree with you that cues to fertility are often found attractive.

But that doesn't mean those are the only cues that are attractive.

Taking your prestige example, if the media and people in society were to link a wider array of body types with prestige, then I think people would find a wider array of body types attractive.

Further, different subcultures link different body types with prestige (think rockers vs. rappers) - the more diverse the ideals of different subcultures, the wider array of body types that will be attractive to different segments of the population.

kissmypineapple: I think you're totally right. This also extends into the media industry's rampant retouching of photos, creating a belief that we should look as good as impossibly manipulated images do.

afishnamedpig: Is there a more gynocentric word you would use instead of "seminal"? Do you object to its use in other contexts? Do you find "seminal" to have an inherently negative connotation for you?

"18 year olds are near the peak of their fertility and are very likely to have healthy babies. "

A) 18 year olds are not at the peak of fertility. This occurs in the mid-20s.

B) Thinking along the lines of what best demonstrates fertility, women who have given birth obviously display the clearest indicators of fertility. So by your reasoning shouldn't they be most preferred? Shouldn't strech marks be sexy?

That's how it works in chimps - males prefer older females, not younger ones.

C) Obviously it's different in humans because social monogamy requires that reproductive potential, not just current reproductive state, be considered. But it's far more complex than simply young = fertile = most preferred.

UCLA, I'm going to make this as short as possible. I was not being "snarky" and even if you interpreted it that way, was it necessary to be condescending and insulting (of which I was neither toward you)?

Yes, that is why people do research. To figure out what is typically happening since people have different anecdotes... It's still useful to know that on average, women make less than men? Don't you agree?

Can you not hear the condescending tone to that? That is very clearly insulting.

How about following the entire thread for once?
You weren't satisfied that and responded with a snarky "how about keeping on topic for once".
I decided to mimic your snarkiness so you would get a sense of how silly it is. Apparently you didn't deal with that too well, so hopefully that will dissuade you from snarkiness in the future. I am hopeful that this is true because you didn't seem to like it when a person turned your style back on you.
Again, rude and unnecessarily condescending. I don't need you to teach me a lesson. I've been puttering around this earth for awhile now (as an outspoken feminist and humanist), I have very thick skin, thank you.

It seems that you did not deal to well with the fact that I pointed out that one preliminary study based on a theoretical model does not make that model "well-established" and felt the need to insult me. When I pointed how you were off topic and asked that you stay on topic (as you have a history on this blog of veering from it), you again, felt the need to be rude and insulting.

I think that is misinformation, and notably harmful misinformation at that. That further adds to the anxiety women feel about their breasts - you need big breasts to make more money! I therefore strongly challenged that statement. I could have done so on two grounds.
Thanks for worrying about women and their breasts, but I can assure you that dee saying she'd read an article about breasts = more money is not harmful to women or their breasts. And saying "nuh-uh, tall people make more money, not big breasted people" is not really a challenge that to statement, is it? It's simply replacing harmful (mis)information with harmful (mis)information that has nothing to do with her point about women's bodies being commodities. – I put mis in parentheses because we have no idea whether or not dee's article was based on sound research or not; and obviously telling women that being taller = more money could be harmful to their self-esteem as well.

And with that, I am done, because, clearly at this point, I, too, am way off topic.

Hollywood/the advertising industry really seems to be selling motherhood lately too. It seems horrible to (essentially) tell a woman she has no value unless she's reproduced and then tell her she's "lost value" by doing so. It's another example of the double bind women perpetually find themselves in in this culture.

"UCLA, I'm going to make this as short as possible."

Okay. I do feel obligated to respond since you seem compelled to continue to make baseless personal attacks on me.

" Can you not hear the condescending tone to that? That is very clearly insulting."

It is unfortunate that you perceived that as insulting. Pointing out that anecdotes don't disprove the general pattern seemed obvious to me as well, but it seemed necessary given that your rationale for disbelieving the height-income link was based on your personal experience. This doesn't mean that your personal experience isn't valid, only that it is less common than not.

"It seems that you did not deal to well with the fact that I pointed out that one preliminary study based on a theoretical model does not make that model "well-established" and felt the need to insult me."

I think you misunderstood what "preliminary" referred to. The link between height and income has been demonstrated repeatedly. The authors decided that they wanted to figure out *why* that link is so robust. So they proposed this model: height influences self-confidence, which influences income. They replicated the standard finding that height is linked to income. They then conducted a preliminary test of their model: that this effect was mediated by self-confidence.

"Again, rude and unnecessarily condescending. I don't need you to teach me a lesson. I've been puttering around this earth for awhile now (as an outspoken feminist and humanist), I have very thick skin, thank you. "

I think I made my point clear. If you are going to call someone out personally, don't be surprised when they respond in kind.

"Thanks for worrying about women and their breasts, but I can assure you that dee saying she'd read an article about breasts = more money is not harmful to women or their breasts."

I disagree, hence the reason I posted. Telling women they need big breasts to make lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of money is not a positive message, and is one that encourages breast augmentation. I thought, and still think, it was/is important to correct that misinformation.

"I put mis in parentheses because we have no idea whether or not dee's article was based on sound research or not; and obviously telling women that being taller = more money could be harmful to their self-esteem as well."

I agree that that knowledge can be harmful. I think, however, that rather than denying that it exists as you were prone to do, it is important to recognize that discrimination and work to correct it.

Recognizing something that isn't true (breast size = 50K), however, is not helpful.

Again, it seemed like a really simple point (breast size ~= 50K per year). Since I couldn't find any study looking at breast size directly, the next most appropriate thing to do was to use another physical trait as an example of the size of the effects, which are far smaller than was claimed.

I saw pubic hair dye the other day. Nothing shocks me anymore.

Wow. As if women today need any other reason to doubt their self-worth. The more procedures introduced, the more women are going to get them, or feel shameful if they don't get them. If it's really bothering a new mother, why not try the old "workout and eat right" tactic. This surgery is also promoting ideas of a quick fix. If women cave to this type of surgery, what else are they likely to risk their lives for?

Wow. As if women today need any other reason to doubt their self-worth. The more procedures introduced, the more women are going to get them, or feel shameful if they don't get them. If it's really bothering a new mother, why not try the old "workout and eat right" tactic. This surgery is also promoting ideas of a quick fix. If women cave to this type of surgery, what else are they likely to risk their lives for?

Wow. As if women today need any other reason to doubt their self-worth. The more procedures introduced, the more women are going to get them, or feel shameful if they don't get them. If it's really bothering a new mother, why not try the old "workout and eat right" tactic. This surgery is also promoting ideas of a quick fix. If women cave to this type of surgery, what else are they likely to risk their lives for?

Sorry, my computer kept coming up with an "error on page" screen every time I clicked "post"...didn't mean to post it 3 times!

Becoming pregnant and later a mother should not be a reason for more plastic surgery. Today, women are so out of control with appearing to look perfect that they are willing to do whatever it takes to get back to their original bodies, when in actuality it is normal for a new mom to have some baby weight on her. With a little diet and excercise, the mom might not regain her old body right away, but if you work at it you can. I don't believe that anyone has worked hard enough and not seen results. Plastic surgery is just a way of copping out on exercising and eating right and actually putting in the effort. I think it is ridiculous how many surgeries can be performed in a couple of hours, and for what? So women can have confidence just for what they look like not for who they are? I don't think that's right.