Recently in Beauty Category

File this under WTF. From the New York Times:

The 200 women who answered a Rome modeling agency's advertisement for tall, attractive party guests thought they would be attending an elegant soirée on Sunday. They were -- only the host turned out to be the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, and instead of hors d'oeuvres he offered them copies of the Koran and urged them to convert to Islam.

Colonel Qaddafi, by the by, was in Rome for the World Summit on Food Security of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. While Qaddafi was trying to convince young Italian cuties of his political and religious philosophies over glasses of wine and fancy apps, international leaders were pledging to substantially increase aid to agriculture in developing nations, where the majority of the world's 1 billion hungry people live.

Be warned Italian supermodels, according to ANSA News Agency, Colonel Qaddafi is cooking up similar bizzaro schemes with other groups of women through out the week.

Miss Indian TG Arizona 2007-2009, Ricki Quintero, White Mountain Apache

Who thought a pageant could actually serve the better good? The 2009 Miss Indian Transgender Arizona Pageant is being held in Phoenix on December 13th this year. The pageant is a collaboration of a LGBT individuals, groups and programs within the Native community working to raise awareness around trans people in their community and the issues they're challenged with.

Love. Check out an interview with Pageant Director Trudie Jackson, and more info about this year's pageant here.

Via RaceWire.

I just had to put this up, not only because Sarah Haskins is the awesome, because I've been meaning to post about that neckline slimmer for quite a while now. Intense.

Last month, the announcement that Marge Simpson, everyone's favorite overworked and underappreciated cartoon mom, would grace the cover of the November issue of Playboy, caught some observers by surprise. I was not one of them. After all, Playboy has always depicted women as cartoonish and two-dimensional: the only thing that really sets this particular cover girl apart is that she has blue hair and eight fingers.

Women with cartoonish proportions and features are and have long been Playboy's bread and butter. When you open up a copy of Playboy, or of any other mainstream soft core porn magazine, the images of women you're likely to find there are a far cry from reality. Surgically augmented breasts, topiaried pubic hair, uncomfortable-looking poses and often-overzealous airbrushing are porn industry standards and the result is that flipping through a copy of Playboy can leave you with a sneaking suspicion that the women staring seductively back at you aren't quite real. Given its long-standing tradition of printing photos of women whose bodies look like cartoonish exaggerations of the female form, it was only a matter of time before Playboy gave up on human women altogether, and started putting actual cartoons in the centerfold.

Via Feministe, via Sociological Images. As this commenter notes, where are Mulan, Pocahantas, Giselle and Lauren notes the absence of Tiana, first African American princess who were all also constructed as racist and sexist stereotypes. Disney doesn't discriminate who they create sexist caricatures out of, that is for sure.

Now here is a Barbie that you don't see everyday. This one was done by Loanne Hizo Ostlie. She is a bad-ass artist who sells Barbies on ebay with the hair re-rooted in diverse styles that are more representative of Black women today.

I often have this image on my desktop because it's the closest image of Barbie that resembles my look and we all need a little affirmation every now and then. It's not to say that Barbie with locs is problem free. But this work is an important contribution and it should be acknowledged.

I don't know if I am on a hair kick because I am still reeling from Chris Rock's Good Hair shenanigans, but I can't help thinking about this image in the wake of the disappointment regarding these new black Barbies that were released this month.

Here are just some of the notable quotables about the hair texture of these new Barbies:

A 'So In Style' hairstyling set that allows girls to straighten their dolls' hair completely has alarmed observers, who say it will fuel the "beauty issues" that many black girls have .

"Black mothers who want their girls to love their natural hair have an uphill battle and these dolls could make it harder," said Sheri Parks, an associate professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland.

Barbie's skinny figure has long come under fire for promoting an unrealistic body image. But Kumea Shorter-Gooden, author of Shifting The Double Lives of Black Women in America, said the diminutive, primarily Caucasian frame of Barbie dolls had a more negative impact on black girls.

"They are already struggling with messages that 'black skin isn't pretty and our hair is too kinky and short'," she said.

Mattel needs to employ Loanne as a consultant if they truly want to create a doll that represents black women.

Photograph credit: "Excessive," from the amazing Sara Heart Bacon.

Christian Louboutin is set to release Barbies made over with his stylings over the coming months, but the luxury shoe designer "reshaped the dolls' figures," as he didn't find their existing shapes appealing.

A Louboutin spokesperson said, "He found her ankles were too fat."

Charming.

Via RH Reality Check.

Since we already have the iPhone's Purity Ring application, the Wobble, the iGrope and the obnoxious "I Am Rich" app, why not throw some good old-fashioned lookism in there while we're at it?

This doesn't seem nearly as bad as the others, but is still a reminder of how technology can depress me as much as it can excite me. Are there any iPhone apps folks have that are actually doing some good for the world?

There's an article in today's New York Times about Chris Rock's much anticipated new documentary, Good Hair, which explores black women's complex relationship with hair and all the historic, racial, economic, gendered, and of course comedic, connotations. It won the jury prize at Sundance. The trailer:

In the Times article, Ingrid Banks, an associate professor of black studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, breaks it down: "For black women, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you've got straight hair, you're pegged as selling out. If you don't straighten your hair," she said, "you're seen as not practicing appropriate grooming practices."

There is so much at stake here. Not only are black women subjected to and sometimes perpetuate a system that infuses their hair choices with all sorts of social and political implications, but there are major economic implications as well. The Times article reports that "Last year, sales of home relaxers totaled $45.6 million (excluding Wal-Mart), according to Mintel, a market research firm, a figure that has held steady in recent years."

Things aren't getting cheaper, but they may be getting more complicated:

Noliwe M. Rooks, the associate director of the Center for African American Studies at Princeton, had many conversations about what it meant when the hair of Sasha and Malia Obama was pressed straight. "Unlike earlier times," the conclusion wasn't "clearly she had sold out, or she's saying straight hair is better," Professor Rooks said. "There's a complexity to who we are now. There wasn't an easy answer to why."

Thanks to reader Rachel for the reminder.

You know, it's been a really long time since I thought about pageants.* Yes, every once in a while we see a beauty queen get shamed for some pseudo-controversial picture and everyone shakes their head in mock disapproval - but pageants themselves? I don't tend to give them much mind; they seem too silly to expend feminist energy on.

Boy was I stupid.

When I was clicking around my television Sunday night I landed on the Miss Universe pageant and I was transfixed. I guess I forgot how utterly ridiculous and gross these things are. But it occurred to me that a pageant where women are parading around - and literally being judged on how they look in a bikini - could be feminism's best friend. I mean, what proves the existence of nationwide sexism better than the Miss Universe pageant (or Miss USA, Miss Teen USA, etc)? Just a thought.

Oh, and for fun - here's the winning contestants final question and answer. (Hint: It's not feminist.)

Sigh.

*I wrote about them a bit in The Purity Myth, but only in terms of how the beauty queen fall-from-grace fits into the virgin/whore dynamic.

There is a new series starting tonight on FOX called, "More to Love." It is the brother show of The Bachelor, but the difference is that this show is for "big" girls.

MORE TO LOVE, the new dating competition show from Mike Fleiss ("The Bachelor"), follows one regular guy's search for love among a group of real women determined to prove that love comes in all shapes and sizes. The inspirational new series is hosted by iconic supermodel Emme.

Luke Conley is a 26-year-old former college football offensive lineman who stands 6'3" and weighs over 300 pounds. He's a successful sub-contractor and real estate investor who has his sights set on building a long-lasting ...relationship.

My first instinct when I saw the trailer was how I feel whenever I see trailers for these dating/marriage reality TV shows, "this is bullshit." And as I watched, my opinion didn't change. The problem with these reality TV shows about marriage and finding the one isn't just about how they are sexist, but how they make fetish of romance and love and play on outdated ideas about romance. I have to say of all my guilty pleasures, The Bachelor, Tough Love, Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire and Millionaire Matchmaker are not on the list (I am more of a Top Chef, Fashion Show, Project Runway kind of gal), but most definitely because I have a specific ambivalence to weddings and the romantic industrial complex (to put it nicely).

But that is not what is unique about this show. More to Love is different because it features women that are fat. When I am using fat here, I am using it as a descriptor, not as a pejorative. Similarly, Marianne Kirby writes at the Daily Beast,

So when I say fat, I mean it as a descriptive term, not an insult. I work toward a concept known as Fat Acceptance--the idea that, really and truly, your body is OK just the way it is.

Unfortunately, the general TV watching public may not have the same attitude. The reality is that the nature of these shows is making spectacle of people, so now the gaze has shifted to fat women and the men who love them. (A very common fetish in the porn world.)

Outside of the fetish spectacle of the whole thing, my second thought when seeing an ad for it on TV was relief. I am fat and I appreciated seeing other fat women on TV, not on a show about weight loss, but on a show about accepting themselves as is and finding love as is. But as I watched the commercials, something continued not to sit right with me and Kirby hits the nail on the head,

Does every fat woman have a story about the date invite that was actually a humiliating joke? What about the one where the fat girl strikes up a conversation with the cute guy at the bar...and he asks for her thin friend's phone number? I try to remember that meeting a good partner is a challenge for everyone, but it's hard in the face of these stories not to feel like the show's producers are conflating "fat women" with "pathetic, sad women" and leaving it at that.

Still, as I started watching the first episode, I could certainly identify with these women's dating struggles, even as I sat comfortably on the couch next to my husband. The show's creators have tapped into something with this. But then they fall back on stereotypes, yet again.

The women on the show look amazing; great fashion, great hair and makeup. They are all individually gorgeous, even if they don't look a thing like the mainstream beauty ideal. It feels really great to watch them strut and shine. But...they are all strutting around huge plates of food.

So while the mere act of these women being on television does disrupt beauty standards, you have to wonder what the desired outcome of this show is and what the producers are playing to. Are they using catchy almost feminist ads to shore up support, only to break it down when you actually watch the show and realize these women are "pathetic?" Are they creating a fetish of fatness for Americans to tune in in awe, to make jokes and laugh about how these "fat girls" are trying to find love?

Yes, seriously. And the Wall Street Journal did a feature on it. (Note the subtitle of the video is "In Depth.")

Between declaring thin eyelashes a "condition" and an awareness month created around "chubby ankles," it seems that the micromanagement of women's body parts is becoming so much of a trend that soon, women will begin to hate literally every fiber of their being.

This is not to mention that the gym's campaign is a smack in the face to every awareness month that works towards, you know, saving lives and fighting injustice and stuff. Shame on Gold's, and on WSJ for actually covering this bullshit as news.

h/t to Jill, who has started her own campaign of sorts in response.

I think that Askmen.com wouldn't be so offensive if it didn't come from such a place of venom and woman hate. Every time a reader sends in another awful thing they have wrote, I appalled at not only the male anxiety displayed in the advice but also the straight up hatred of women. If these guys hate women so much why do they work to figure out ways to be with them, I seriously don't get it. Today's spectacle of sexist male anxiety is about how to make your woman "hotter," or rather "how to upgrade your woman." Cuz you know, women are like cars, phones and computers or something.

For many guys, it can seem as though the quest to find the perfect girl is never ending. When you finally do get your ideal lady it can be a bit disheartening to think that while she is a pretty young thing now, she might not be so appealing in a few years. As time passes your love for her might grow, but so will her love handles. She might be perfect for you in most ways but some things are just a little off, and even though you might not appreciate those imperfections, you would still struggle to think you would end up with anyone else.

It is perfectly acceptable for men to age, get "love handles" and be imperfect. It is women that must always look like caricatures of femininity, forever young, forever thin, forever wrinkle free. The list is ten ways you can make her stay hot including taking cooking classes, or explore culture (racist!) or "take her to a spa," which all seem like the normal fare for sexist, classist and racist examples of things middle class, straight, white couples can do to enjoy themselves. It goes into super crazy-ville when you get to number one and the advice is to "put her under the knife."

If things are really desperate, it might be time for your other half to go under the knife. With the advances in medical science and the current obsession with celebrity culture, cosmetic surgery is becoming more and more common. While it isn't something to be rushed into, nor something to persuade someone to do, surgery can do wonders for the confidence of someone who is less than a sight for sore eyes. And you'll have the bonus of a parading around town with a stunner on your arm.

I wouldn't be so disgusted by this if the rest of society didn't put similar pressure on women to stay thin and attractive as they age, but to also push the idea on men is not OK. I realize Askmen.com is a place for men to feel good about hating women, but ultimately it is just sexist crap that is peddled as advice for the modern day anxious man. I am deeply saddened for the kind of people that buy into this type of thing.

UPDATE: I have been contacted by a L'Oréal spokesperson and the picture above was actually NOT taken by L'Oréal but a publicity photo submitted to them by Pinto's management.

After Beyonce was pretty much airbrushed whiter by L'Oréal not too long ago, it's all the more infuriating to see that their tendency to equate lighter skin with beauty hasn't changed. When they say Freida Pinto of Slumdog Millionaire "is the new face of L'Oréal," what they seem to really mean is she has a new face of L'Oréal. Un-fucking-real.

Via the Frisky.

This weekly Saturday column "Ask Professor Foxy" will regularly contain sexually explicit material. This material is likely not safe for work viewing. The title of the column will include the major topic of the post, so please read the topic when deciding whether or not to read the entire column.

Hi Professor Foxy,

Thanks in advance,
Lonely

Hi Lonely -
Although I vowed not to bare the intimate details of my life in this column, I cannot help but respond personally as one not-thin woman to another. I have never been thin and get what it's like to walk through a world that tells you that you are inherently unattractive for the size you wear.

I don't doubt that some men will reject you due to your size, but others will not. Still others find women of size the hottest thing since butter on bread.

But I've found that bigger is better only when you sell it that way. Simply put, you have to think yourself Hot Stuff.

What about you do you find attractive? Yes--society, media, etc. says women over a certain size are unattractive, but I call bullshit. For many of us--size irrelevant given the malarkey all women are taught-- it is believing that we are hot that is difficult.

So how do you find yourself hot? What body parts do you like on yourself? Close your eyes and run your hands over your body . . . isn't there something lovely about how soft you are? What do you wear that feels sexy- playing dress up can help us see the erotic parts of ourselves.

There are thin men out there who date bigger women. The trick is finding them. How are you looking to meet men? Have you tried personal ads? In ads you can put it out there that you are bigger and what you want in a man. It helps lower the rejection factor.

For me, a basic tenet of feminism is not to beat yourself up over your likes/dislikes. Yes, there is some hypocrisy in being attracted to a man of a certain size, but your attraction is there and we can acknowledge our own hypocrisy and then move on.

Losing weight is something that has to be done for you. I would urge you not to focus on your size or weight, but instead on your health. How far can you run? How heavy a bag can you carry? Those numbers are often a better reflection of our health than the numbers on a scale.

As for flirting, there is not some magical code, and frankly, lots of people don't "flirt" at all. Men are just people. Talk to them, have a conversation, laugh. Somewhere in there, you will likely find that you are flirting. Nothing magically leads to another, but a good conversation can lead to a good relationship and/or good sex. Put yourself out there; try to be clear about what (and who!) you are interested in.

The risk of rejection is part of dating, regardless of size. The trick is to realize that being rejected is part of life. Only by putting yourself out there in all your fabulous size are you going to meet someone. I'm not saying it is easy, but only by putting ourselves out there do we get what we want.

If you have a question for Professor Foxy, send it to ProfessorFoxyATfeministingDOTcom.

It is not just that Miss California spoke her mind about gay marriage that makes this uniquely a feminist issue, but it does make her an asshole. For all the arguments defending her right to speak on this topic, to me, it is so sad that people so quickly fight to defend the rights of bigots to speak. So, I obviously fall too left of that argument to even participate in it. Or rather, I just agree with Jill,

It's not "religious persecution" to say that someone is a bigot for having bigoted views. It's not "religious persecution" to argue that those who want to deny basic civil rights based on sexual orientation are bigots. It would be persecution to, for example, pass a law stating that a consenting Christian adult wasn't allowed to marry another consenting Christian adult because of his or her faith, or to criminalize consensual sex between adult Christians. That's persecution. Not, "I didn't win a beauty pageant and then Perez Hilton called me a bitch."

As Jay Smooth pointed out in his video, the issue of pageantry and their role in our society raises bigger concerns. The reliance on heteronormativity and beauty standards in pageants is indeed a point of inquiry.

As a feminist, I hate when women's breasts make the news, since it is rarely to uncover the sexism embedded within a system. The fact that Carrie Prejean got breast implants is not newsworthy to me. The fact that the California Pageant Association paid for them, well that is. Not because it is scandalous, but because it shows that pageants aren't about highlighting women as they are or for their talents, but for their physical appearance and to make spectacle of a specific type of femininity.

Pageants only make sense because of binary gender roles that cater to mainstream understandings of femininity. They are a fetishized spectacle of femininity to the point where it is even OK if they are artificially constructed as long as they are pushing a normative ideal of what a "real woman" is. As feminists we know already that ideal is socially constructed. Her blatant homophobia just adds to the already established straight, cis-woman and white standard of beauty necessary for pageants to exist and to perpetuate the illusion of binary genders.

The April issue of French Elle features eight female European celebrities--including Eva Herzigova, Monica Bellucci, Sophie Marceau, and Charlotte Rampling--all without makeup and, perhaps even more revealing, all entirely without Photoshopping or retouching of any kind. The mag's headline "Stars Sans Fards" translates to "without rouge/makeup," but it's a French saying that also suggests a sense of "openness."

I think this is great, particularly in an era when the only time you see celebrities without makeup is from terrible paparazzi shots.

What do you all think?

Via Shine

H/t to llevinoso

Kim Kardashian posted a pre-photoshopped picture of herself from her Complex Magazine photoshoot to her blog saying she is aware she has cellulite and "which curvy girl doesn't?" Complex had "mistakenly" run the pre-photoshopped picture showing her *gasp* cellulite. Soon after they took the picture down replacing it with one that trims down her thighs and lightens her skin.

Kim's response,

"I'm proud of my body and my curves and this picture coming out is probably helpful for everyone to see that just because I am on the cover of a magazine doesn't mean I'm perfect."

Kudos to her for saying that. Frankly, I see very little actual difference between the two pictures, but the subtle changes make a huge difference and I think it speaks to the extent popular culture will go to produce unnatural and unattainable images of women.

Hortense from Jezebel has a hilarious post about one of my pet peeves-magazines that try and help you "dress for your shape." I am so sick of being inundated with magazines that are supposed to help me look thinner or dress better, because you know, fat girls can't wear sexy clothes, we must hide our bodies. A quick google search and I found plenty of links about how to figure out what shape your body is, so you can figure out what clothes to wear.

As Hortense points out it is difficult to have an exhaustive list of body sizes because we are all shaped differently and therefore, not only are most of the categories limiting and exclusive, they are often downright offensive.

Take, for example, this Glamour feature from last year, which breaks women's body types into these categories: Tall, Busty, Petite, Boyish, Plus-Size, and Pear-Shaped. Which is all well and good, I suppose, unless you happen to be a Pear-Shaped Busty Tall Woman looking for ideas on Plus-Size gowns, because the advice for each category is markedly different, which would lead many women to believe that there are only certain aspects of their bodies that are truly worth addressing, as opposed to concentrating on what fits and feels good.

Also, as someone who generally falls into the "oh, dear, puberty forgot to deliver your boobs" category, I think it would be nice if fashion magazines could stop referring to thin women without many curves as "boyish." Femininity comes in many shapes and sizes, thanks, and Glamour's advice only reinforces the fact that they feel that flat-chested women need to blow up their bust lines to achieve sexiness: "Don't have voluptuous curves? Fake 'em!" Ah yes, because nothing makes me feel more confident than putting in my fake temporary boobs in order to wear a dress.

Read the whole post because at the end she gives some humorous advice on dressing for you shape. In any case, imagine headlines in women's magazines that said, "feel beautiful no matter what!" or "you can rock it, yes you can!" I guess the whole industry that perpetuates women's insecurity about their bodies and therefore marketing us products, tips, techniques and torture devices that will make us "feel better" would fall apart as we know it. All I know is I really don't want my body to be compared to a piece of fruit.

A few readers wrote in about this commercial, which I had the misfortune of also catching while nursing a headache last night, post-panel:

First of all, can we talk about how totally clunky this whole shtick by Schick is? Could the metaphor be any less subtle? Did they do a focus group where some misguided ladies said that they feel like overgrown hedges just waiting to be trimmed back? (I can understand a little Edward Scissorhands fantasy--Johnny Depp is h-o-t--but otherwise, come on.)

This commercial actually brings up the issue of nature and control. I think women should be able to do whatever the hell they please with the hair down there, but I'm also a pretty big fan of letting it just be. Too many of us spend an exorbitant amount of time on "maintenance" when it comes to our bodies, often motivated--not by a sense of playfulness or joy--but obligation, shame, societal pressure. If you find it fun to trim around or wax it off, more power to you, but I wish women didn't feel like they had to do anything in particular with their own pubic hair in order to be pretty, clean, or acceptable. (Health-wise, your pubic hair actually serves to protect you from infections, FYI.)

P.S. In the mixed messages department, Jersey is considering enforcing their long-standing but neglected ban on bikini waxes.

There has been some discussion lately about the impending remake of Dora the Explorer, one of the first Latina cartoon characters. Well Dora is growing up and they've just released her new image.

Veronica at Viva La Feminista has some thoughts about the make-over.

The outrage is not just about Dora, it is because we know that Dora is the safe one. The good girl. The toy and cartoon that we haven't had to monitor. Any tampering with our Dora rocks our world. If Dora isnt' safe, what the hell will we do?

The outrage is powered by pent up outrage over the sexualization of our daughters, of their dolls and their clothing.

The outrage is far more than just tween-ifying Dora. It is about all the other small things that inch our daughters closer to 90210 and further away from cuddling with us on the couch with the Backyardigans. It'll happen in its own time...if society let it happen in its own time.

My first thought was, well I'm glad they didn't lighten her skin. It's frustrating how little control we have over these representations of women and girls and how large of an impact they have on us.

What do you all think of the new Dora?

For those who don't remember, her before picture is after the jump.

For more pics, check out Women's Glib.

America's Next Top Model doesn't have the best track record when it comes to sexism and photo shoots, so I guess this shouldn't shock me. The show had the models dress up like little girls as a way to promote...purity?

This issue is really important to me, the issue of teen girls and being what I call 'out of control.' I did a survey on my talk-show website, and I found that one in five girls that are teens that we surveyed actually want to be a teen mom. Purity and innocence is something that's being lost and as you Top Models are doing this photo shoot, you guys are role models, too. The assignment was for you all to embody different little games that little girls play on the playground.

I write about this a lot in The Purity Myth (cough, buy it, cough), but I'll say it again: fetishizing "purity" and "innocence" generally just means that you end up fetishizing little girls.

UPDATE: Community blogger LTB also wrote a kick-ass post about this (long before I did, it seems - my bad!).

You don't say! This study has found that when men look at what they maturely term, "girlie calendars," not only are they aroused, but they don't think of them as people that are thinking beings, but objects.

When men are shown images of women in bikinis, the part of the brain they use when thinking about DIY tools and other objects lights up.

At the same time, the region they use to try to tune into another person's thoughts and feelings tunes down, brain scans showed.

I was under the impression that the entire culture of marketing already realized that and sells women as part of the product. Her sexuality, her image, her body, her skin, whatever you want, she is yours. Right?

The last line of the article takes the cake.

Asked if women were likely to view half-dressed men in the same way, she said that women tended to rate age and bank balance over looks.

Surely there is *some* biological desire that makes women automatically think about whether men can provide or not, but that desire is minimal considering that we must also factor in common sense. I think this argument proves that despite some pre-historic desire for men to get horny over scantily clad women and for women to want rich husbands that provide security and ability to nest (this is what evolutionary psychologists would argue), most of this desire comes from cultural conditioning. If you are exposed to something enough, you have trouble distinguishing between what you want and what you are supposed to want.

On the other hand, can there be sexy images of women without them inherently being sexist or objectifying?

Several years ago, I wrote a post about how I thought Barbie hadn't been bad for me. Sure, I said, I agree with criticism of the dolls' creepy blonde, blue-eyed, big-boobed uniformity. But, I wrote, for me the alternative gendered toy was baby-dolls. And at least Barbie was an adult who allowed me to play-act future roles for myself beyond motherhood.

Suffice to say, I would not write it this way if I were to set out to blog about Barbie today. (For better or worse, that's the nature of blogging. Your snap-shot opinions live on forever.) Even thought I didn't endorse Barbie in that post, and I said I understood that this toy is a truly destructive thing for most women, I didn't stop to fully consider -- or didn't really grasp -- the ways in which the "Barbie look" affected other young girls. (I told myself, this is a post about my personal experience. For me personally, Barbie wasn't so bad.)

I haven't thought about the post much since I published it. That is, until I clicked a link from JJP to this post Danielle Belton wrote at her blog, The Black Snob:

Along time ago at a kitchen table in an all-black, middle/working class neighborhood in St. Louis, Mo.'s North County a young Danielle Belton, age five, loved to draw and color more than anything in the world. My older sister, aka "Big Sis, bka Denise, didn't like to color, so I inherited all the coloring books she never used.

I could draw for hours and color for hours, but all I drew and colored were white people.

GO read her entire post. Her experience -- not mine -- is the baseline by which Barbie dolls (and their ilk) should be judged. And she provides a really powerful lens into a lot of the discussion around Sasha and Malia Obama.

Also, if you haven't already, go watch A Girl Like Me.

UPDATE: Veronica also has a good post on this subject.

On "Dress for Success" day at the Bank of England, women were sent the following memo:

"Look professional, not fashionable; be careful with perfume; always wear a heel of some sort -- maximum 2 inches; always wear some sort of makeup -- even if it's just lipstick." Shoes and skirt must be the same color. No-no's include ankle chains -- "professional, but not the one you want to be associated with;" white high heels; overstuffed handbags; an overload of rings, and double-pierced ears."

Wow. These are the supposed progressive, civilized leaders of the free world? I don't know these suggestions sound pretty damn antiquated to me.

Via the Cut.

I have written previously about top ten lists that measure beauty and brains and concluded that generally they are gender biased. Women's lists are always about how they look and men's lists (or pageants) are about what they do first and then how they look. When I wished upon the world to create a list that was about women taking into consideration their brains, occupations and looks this is about as far from what I could have conceived of. Self proclaimed hiphop writer hater Touré has created what he believes is the thinking man's list of sex symbols.

He starts,

A man has two minds. The lower mind is a brainless whore excited by any woman with breasts, curves, and a thong. The upper mind, which works with actual grey matter, is more persnickety. The upper mind, when employed, is moved by intelligence, success, power, self-confidence, a smart sense of humor, and, of course, not having a castrating nature.

What counts as having a castrating nature? If you get too 'ballsy' do you actually want to be a man so bad that you will (figuratively) castrate him and claim your own masculinity? I am going to assume he means feminists are castrating. I think this above description is more disparaging to men than anything else. Thank you for feeding into every myth about male sexuality and their inability to make a connection between what happens between their legs and between their ears.

But the real gems are in the descriptions of the pictures of the women he chose and why he chose the "smart babes" that he did. None will really surprise you, but note that they are all women that don't really disrupt normative ideas of beauty or act outside of patriarchy and for Touré, their intelligence exists to feed his own male ego since he has to describe repeatedly why their smarts don't threaten his own. I think some of these women would resent being on this list.

Every line is like a work of art.

So I had the pleasure this past weekend to go to Re-Dress, the newly opened, first ever size 14+ vintage clothing store in the country. It was amazing and I spent money I don't have, but I felt like I was making up for a lifetime of clothes that never fit right. Conventional wisdom might suggest that I should focus my resources on losing weight, but I am way more into looking fabulous and I love vintage clothing. Which is the concept behind Re-Dress-women that don't fit the oppressive beauty standards pushed by mainstream media have good style-if not better style than mainstream 'chic.'

So if you are in NY or you are visiting, please check out Re-Dress. The staff is knowledgeable about fashion, they are friendly and queer friendly. Everyone I spoke with had amazing political analysis along with great fashion sense. You can't really beat that, now can you.

I felt beautiful when I came out. I can't remember that last time I felt that way after going clothes shopping. Seriously.

Yeah, you heard it right. Apparently to be a cocktail waitress, you can't also be Muslim and wear what you want.

A Muslim cocktail waitress who claims she was sacked for refusing to wearing an 'indecent' red dress is suing a bar for £20,000.

Fata Lemes, 33, said the figure-hugging scarlet dress made her look like a nightclub hostess and was 'physically revealing and openly sexual'.

Miss Lemes said bosses at the Rocket bar allowed customers to think that 'waitresses could be treated as prostitutes'.

She is suing for sexual harassment and sex discrimination.

Sounds like a classy place.

Via.

Courtney and I have both discussed before our love/hate relationship with Oprah. The woman is complex and frequently, I disagree with her but I do respect her greatly and the work that she has done. And as a feminist, the way the media treats Oprah in talking about her weight, well, I think it is sexist.

Yesterday, I watched an entire segment on CNN devoted to Oprah's weight. Two female news anchors concluded that it was a hyperthyroid that has led to her fluctuation in weight. yet other news outlets weren't so forgiving or "scientific" in there assumptions. One google news search brings up how much she gained, her denial in it and calling her chubby and "heffer."

I am so disgusted by this, I almost don't know where to begin. First of all, why is weight gain newsworthy? Oprah is one of the most accomplished business women of our generation who has shown to not only be smart, but interesting, complex, well-read. Why does her weight make major headlines? Secondly, between having a health problem and being really busy, yeah she might gain weight and the fact that this is looked down upon shows us loud and clear the unfair standards put on women to not only be uber-successful but to also be svelte.

I know what you are thinking. But Oprah put this out as news herself! Probably to sell her brand even more! Yes, I think there is some validity to this argument, Oprah herself has pushed the, "I gained weight and this is why" story. But I guess it is important to ask, is Oprah creating this narrative herself or is she merely buying into a narrative that centralizes the way a woman looks before what she does? She is after all a savvy business woman. I don't agree with her using her weight as a selling point but really the joke is on the US consumer for buying into it.

As I have written about before, I struggle with this myself. I am really busy and don't have time to watch after my weight non-stop. Frankly, I don't care enough to since I think I look great anyway, but the constant barrage of comments I get about my weight is infuriating. I am successful in my personal endeavors, not to mention managing multiple relationships, projects, familial obligations and so much more, yet there are some people that only notice that I gained weight.

Bottom line, it is sexist to focus on Oprah's weight in the media. Men don't have this same pressure. You would never see a special on Lou Dobb's weight gain, nor would it be lucrative for him to have a special on his weight gain (although this sentiment is changing). As long as popular culture and mainstream media outlets stay fixed on women's physical characteristics we are bound by these constraints, holding our bodies as representations of who we are. It is not fair and we shouldn't stand for it.

Related:
Kate Harding: Dear Oprah
Rachel Setzer:Oprah done with fat shaming

Last week Salon put up a list of the sexiest men alive and boyyyy they sure were sexy! The list included some hotties including, Kal Penn, Robert Downy Jr., Van Jones and even our favorite, Ill Doctrine. I had no choice but to tease Jay about his sexy status, but realized as I was joking that when I get written about as sexy on other people's blogs it is usually in a "get back in the kitchen-shut up bitch-you are hot" kind of way which is far from flattering.

So this morning I was reading through the HuffPo and came across the world's sexist woman alive. Here is the list as decided by E!

(How can one track be so wrong and so right at the same time?)

In a culture where what a woman looks like counts more than what is between her ears, it does make a difference that the first lady is not white, but is black and therefore disrupts normative standards of white femininity. Last week controversy stirred due to a Salon article titled, "First lady got back," a tongue-in-cheek response to the Obama victory as not only for Obama, but for black women with an overemphasis on her "back" a subject of mass introspection academically and in popular culture as a culture signifier of black women's beauty and oft sexualization.

It emerged right before our eyes, in the midst of our growing uncertainty about everything, and we were too bogged down in the daily campaign madness to notice. The one clear predictor of success that the pundits, despite all their fancy maps, charts and holograms, missed completely? Michelle's butt.

Lord knows, it's time the butt got some respect. Ever since slavery, it's been both vilified and fetishized as the most singular of all black female features, more unsettling than dark skin and full lips, the thing that marked black women as uncouth and not quite ready for civilization (of course, it also made them mighty attractive to white men, which further stoked fears of miscegenation that lay at the heart of legal and social segregation). In modern times, the butt has demarcated class and stature among black society itself. Emphasizing it or not separates dignified black women from ho's, party girls from professionals, hip-hop from serious. (Black women are not the only ones with protruding behinds, by the way, but they're certainly considered its source. How many gluteally endowed nonblack women have been derided for having a black ass? Well, Hillary, for one.)

Yes, it is imperative to push the boundaries of our racist structures that determine what is beautiful. But something about the unapologetic "booty" gazing of this piece rubs me the wrong way. Latoya hits it saying,

Reader Virigina sent in the tip, writing:

Although Erin Kaplan does make a few decent points about how black women are viewed in this culture, most of the article just reinforces stereotypes. She is defining Michelle Obama and black women in general by their butts and hair. There are so many other traits that she could have discussed.

After reading the full piece, I'm inclined to agree. I get the semi-tongue in cheek tone of the piece, but this article just feels a bit wrong for the audience. Perhaps if it was written for a magazine like Essence or Clutch, which routinely explore the issues of black women and how a lot of our politics are wrapped up in our appearance, I would feel differently about the end result.

And goes on to say, "my problem is that articles about Michelle Obama's wardrobe, booty, and mom duties are what is fit to publish, what is seen as relevant to a mass audience." I agree with what Latoya is saying here, at no point in the Salon piece is there some reflection on the fact that an overemphasis on what first ladies look like as opposed to what they think, feel and say is problematic.

Fat acceptance is not about you telling me I don't look fat. Fat acceptance is not about telling me I am a good person, smart or worthwhile. Fat acceptance is you, seeing me, as sexy, bold and beautiful AS a fat person. And that is the purpose of the Adipositivity Project that photographs sexy fat women to challenge our perceptions of beauty.

Their mission statement:

The Adipositivity Project aims to promote size acceptance, not by listing the merits of big people, or detailing examples of excellence (these things are easily seen all around us), but rather, through a visual display of fat physicality. The sort that's normally unseen.

The hope is to widen definitions of physical beauty. Literally.

And that they do. Check it out.

Thanks to reader JustCharlotte for emailing us about this charming UK-based television show, Three Fat Brides, One Thin Dress.

In each of the three episodes of Three Fat Brides, One Thin Dress, three brides-to-be have just eight weeks to transform their appearance and well-being, with the prize of the wedding dress of her dreams for the bride who has the greatest success.

But how will they cope with the added pressure of Ms McKeith on the wedding scene? Will they make it to their big day a few sizes smaller? Or will they want to call the whole thing off?

You know, because women would rather call their wedding off than be fat. I mean, is this show for fucking real? It's the same gross sentiment behind We TV's Bulging Brides: That women only deserve love if they're a certain (small small small) size.

You have to find it funny that this is coming from Fox News. Because Newsweek's recent cover of Sarah Palin isn't airbrushed, conservatives are up in arms. They claim all of Obama's covers are flawless. Yeah, totally flawless.

This is not to say either of these photos are even "unflattering," but to make the demand that Palin needs to be airbrushed like a supermodel rather than, um, a real woman, is what's sexist here. Nice try, Fox!

Thanks to stuperb for the heads up!

Hey hey Missouri feminists! The fabulous Shark-Fu will be participating in an event in St.Louis tonight:

A Girl like Me: A Conversation About Race, Beauty and Self-Image

Wed., Oct. 1, 2008 (tonight!) at 6 p.m.
Missouri History Museum in Forest Park
in the AT&T Foundation Multipurpose Room
Free!

Join us for a candid discussion about popular images, race and beauty. The program begins with a short documentary, A Girl like Me (7:08), created by high schooler Kiri Davis through the Reel Works Teen Filmmaking program.

Davis re-conducts the "doll test" used in the historic Brown v. Board of Education case and sheds new light on how society affects black children today.

Sounds awesome. Wish I could go!

UPDATE: For those who can't attend, you can watch the film online.

Yeah, I don't have much sympathy for creepy modelizers. The modeling industry has enough problems, we don't need to add sexual perverts or serial rapists to the mix.

According to the LA Times,

He was touted as the next big thing, an up-and-coming clothes designer who landed a prime spot as a guest on a reality fashion television show.

But prosecutors told jurors that designer Anand Jon was in reality a "serial rapist" who exploited his position in the glamour industry to lure young aspiring models to his Beverly Hills apartment, where he lived out his sexual fantasies in a series of assaults.

Continue reading Throw the book at Anand Jon.

Posted by Samhita - October 01, 2008, at 07:50AM | in Beauty, Sexual Assault

So the last time I wrote about American Apparel's use of mock tribal prints and the name, "Afrika" for a line of clothing, it was a little bit controversial. Some folks didn't understand why putting thin, white models, in faux tribal and animal prints with the title, "Afrika" was racist. So be it.

UPDATE: I think one of our commenters put the argument for why the use of "African" symbolism is problematic and racist best here.

She says,

For people who have not been exposed to critical race theory or the study of colonialism and cultural appropriation, the new Afrika line probably doesn't look racist to you. The reason it doesn't look racist to you is because the attractiveness of the line is meant to play on the unconscious attitudes that non-African westerners have about Africa. Here's a set of association words:

exotic
primitive
tribal
jungle
wild
animalistic
hypersexual

I can go on, but you get the point.

Renee at Womanist Musings has a great post up, Can I Touch Your Hair? Black Women and The Petting Zoo.

Natural hair equals revolutionary because it says I do not covet whiteness. It says I have decolonized my mind and no longer seek to embrace the qualities of my oppressor. It flies in the face of beauty traditions that seek to create black women as unfeminine and thereby undesirable. My natural hair is one of the truest expressions of the ways in which I love myself because I have made the conscious choice to say that I am beautiful, without artifice or device. It further states that I will not be judged by the yardstick of white womanhood. My beauty is a gift from my foremothers who knew on a more instinctual level than we know today, that 'woman' is as beautiful as she believes herself to be.

So similar to Ann, I too spend a good deal of time reading about vintage fashion online. Guilty pleasure if you will but can also be a resourceful way to dress on the cheap. But sometimes my late night google searches lead me to the funniest places. Such as this gem. It is a wiki-how to be a femme fatale.

1. Speak in a low voice. Not creepy low, just attractive low. Practice some vocal exercises for a few weeks and it will become habit. Listen to Scarlett Johanssen speak for an example of this kind of voice.

2. Wear dark, sexy, retro clothes. Not too gothic-looking, though. Think Angelina Jolie in the mid-90's. Subtle, well-cut clothing that draws attention to you, but in a tasteful way. Stick to colors like black, maroon, and emerald green. Look for silk cocktail dresses, dark-wash, high-waisted jeans, expensive-looking, dramatic jewelry, and fishnet tights.

4. Be "one of the guys". This means means holding your own with the guys in their poker/pool/video games and occasionally winning. You'll earn respect and allure as a result. But dont loose your femenine side trying to hang out with men.

5. Be mysterious. Dont let everybody know what you are feeling or what's going on. The very mystery proves to be the allure of the femme fatale.

What does it look like when someone follows all this advice? Eeeek! Aside from the patronizing advice about not being too creepy, becoming too masculine, or having a brain (#12) isn't it funny that being a quirky, individualistic, educated, fashionable, sexy woman makes you fatal? Le sigh!

My sisters, some of us are like this without trying and without having to fit it into what is sexy for men. Let's try and keep it that way.

This is awesome. A group of women started a collaborative YouTube channel, Project LifeSize, which aims to give a voice to women of size, to discuss and dismantle ridiculous beauty standards and inspire young women. Check out the casting call above, and some of their amazing videos.

Make sure you subscribe!

And this time to add to the classiness, they are being marketed as the "Afrika" collection. Please get ready to see self proclaimed, post-racist, ironic hipsters near you wearing this fall trend. You know because this isn't totally racist or anything. This company well never cease to amaze me, in every way. (Unfeminist guilty pleasure soon to come.)

By asking for "unattractive" women to move to Mount Isa in northern Queensland to remedy the shortage of women to mate with the locals. Ew.

John Molony, from Mount Isa in northern Queensland, said the lack of young, single females meant that local men - predominantly miners and cowboys - were not as fussy as they might be when it came to love. Men heavily outnumber single women in the mining town, which has a population of almost 25,000 and hosts Australia's biggest rodeo.

Mr Molony suggested to the Townsville Bulletin newspaper last week: "If there are five blokes to every girl, we should find out where there are beauty-disadvantaged women and ask them to proceed to Mount Isa.

You know, this sounds like a really classy group of men, I am sure anyone would drop their life to find love in this environment. Yeah, I don't think so. I am all for shifting beauty standards and being open-minded about who you date or marry, but the notion that women who fall outside the unhealthy normative beauty standards, should run to the arms of desperate men, isn't really indicating these people have a lot of respect for women. Because surely, we women that don't like like the girls in the magazine are sitting around waiting for *anyone* to love us.

via.

This is just horrible.

Lin Miaoke performed at the China Olympics ceremony with a rendition of "Ode to the Motherland," which has already made her a national celebrity. The only thing is - little Lin mimed the actual song.

The voice behind the song was Yang Peiyi (the adorable girl to the right), who apparently wasn't pretty enough for the public:

Speaking on Beijing Radio station, musical director Chen Qigang said the organisers needed a girl with both a good image and a good voice. They faced a dilemma because although Lin was prettier, seven-year-old Yang had the better voice, Mr Chen said.

"After several tests, we decided to put Lin Miaoke on the live picture, while using Yang Peiyi's voice," he told the radio station.

"The reason for this is that we must put our country's interest first," he added. "The girl appearing on the picture must be flawless in terms of her facial expression and the great feeling she can give to people." (Emphasis mine)

I love that reasoning - for the good of the country. Like Yang Peiyi's performance would have done some sort of disservice to the nation. Fucking disgusting.

Picture via BBC. And h/t to leonie for the link!

Now that is one hell of a before and after. Apparently, beauty is synonymous with "whiter."

I know this is a bad (un)feminist guilty pleasure. And I don't even have a good excuse, like Miriam did in talking about reggaeton and feeling some kind of cultural affinity to it. But ever since I discovered spanx (recommended by another feminist blogger actually) I have been addicted to them. What are they? Basically, a girdle, a "power panty" if you will, something that holds in all in so you can put those super ultra tight unforgiving dresses on.

Alright, full confession. I think I am sexy with or without spanx. But feeling sexy everyday is sometimes difficult. I have things to do, like go to work, blog, eat, hang out with my friends, etc. What I don't have time to do is obsess over how I like in this or that which I do my best not to do as a feminist, but it is hard when you are constantly inundated by images of thinness, whiteness and richness. And frankly, if you saw me on the regular you wouldn't think I give it that much thought, I dress pretty casually. But when Friday night rolls around and I want to go out on the town, sometimes I like to look extra fancy and sometimes it feels better to wear something that holds it all in. It just gives me that ounce more confidence. So I go from "damn I look good" to "DAMN, I look HELLA good."

According to this post on Gawker, I should stfu and go to the gym. But you know what? I go to the gym. Mainly for stress reduction, but I go and it doesn't make me look like a super model. It just makes me look like me. Which is fine. But I don't appreciate the insinuation that I am cheating or eating too much and as a result I need spanx. What I am doing is functioning in a world that hates fat people so much that young girls don't eat and even a woman as strong as me, sometimes doesn't feel like she looks super. It is normal and I don't hate myself for it, one bit!

So yeah, I wear spanx. They are simple, they are comfortable and they avoid giving me that thigh chafe us thick legged gals get when our thighs rub against each other all night long. I understand why it is not perfect that a strong, beautiful woman such as myself has days when I don't feel fully fab about my body, but shit I am human.

Apparently there's some new trend of brides getting their bridesmaids Botox and plastic surgery and the like before the big day. You know, just in case American weddings weren't enough about unrealistic expectations, consumerism and all-around bizarreness.*

Some brides pick up the tab for their attendants, replacing the pillbox inscribed with the wedding date with a well-earned squirt between the eyes. In other cases, bridesmaids -- who may quietly seethe about unflattering dresses -- are surprisingly willing to pay for cosmetic enhancements. "Most women, when they come in here, they want it," said Camille Meyer, the owner of TriBeCa MedSpa. "They know they're aging."

For Karen Hohenstein, who held her party at the Tiffani Kim Institute Medical Wellness Spa in Chicago, convincing her friends was as smooth as a Botoxed forehead. "It wasn't me saying, 'Hey, we all could use a little something,' " she said. "It was, 'I want to do this,' and a couple of people said, 'I do, too.' "

But for every accommodating pal, there's another who feels going under the knife is beyond the duty of bridesmaid. Becky Lee, 39, a Manhattan photographer, declined when a friend asked her -- and five other attendants -- to have their breasts enhanced. "We're all Asian and didn't have a whole lot of cleavage, and she found a doctor in L.A. who was willing to do four for the price of two," said Ms. Lee, who wore a push-up bra instead.

Because real friends expect each other to conform to gross patriarchal beauty norms! It's better than the new "it" bag!

*I am not dissing your wedding, I swear. It's the wedding industrial complex I'm after!

Gee, I wonder why. It's actually quite serious, the cases of melanoma - the deadliest form of skin cancer - among young white women jumped 50 percent from 1980-2004.

The researchers recommended that more studies be conducted to find out if changes among sun exposure or increased tanning bed usage have a hand in this. I'd say that's a really good idea.

You know we have a serious problem when women are sacrificing their health for the sake of attaining their beauty standard.

*Photo from People magazine.

Any day that includes Sarah Haskins is a good day indeed.

"Now that I've shaved my face, I'm not sure about anything anymore!"

Marie Claire Beauty Director Ying Chu is answering beauty questions on MSN, and her advice is, uh, well...I'll let you judge for yourself.

Q: Do models shave their faces? Their skin always looks so smooth!

A: Absolutely not, and you shouldn’t either. Face shaving is such a masculine act that it can be psychologically confusing to do as a woman. If you feel like you have excess hair on your face, try waxing, plucking, using depilatories, or laser hair removal. You can also ask your doctor for Vaniqa, a prescription cream that slows hair growth in about four to six weeks. But you shouldn’t obsess over a little peach fuzz. I’ve definitely seen my share of it on models’ faces. The reason you haven’t is because facial hair is pretty much always retouched out of photos.

I'm sorry, but what? Now I don't know too much about the psychological consequences of hair removal methods, but I'm pretty sure that, you know, there are none. Chu also recommends women stay away from football, BBQing, and peeing standing up lest you suffer a gender-related nervous breakdown.

Thanks to Dorothy for the link!

It's no secret that there's an appalling lack of diversity in the fashion world. And Vogue Italia thinks it has the answer: the issue that hits newsstands today will feature only black models, and all of the feature articles are related to black women. As you can see from the cover image above, they're calling it their "Black Issue."

Now, while fashion magazines definitely need to make their content and models more diverse, I think this issue is an absolutely terrible idea - one that only further Others black women and serves as kind of a sad band-aid to gaping wound.

By creating a "black issue," Vogue Italia is positioning a "normal" issue as white. Not to mention, diversity isn't a black-white thing. This issue of the magazine makes women of color who aren't black invisible.

And while I think there are positives to the issue - the fact that it's getting so much media attention means that there will be more of a conversation about race in fashion - I can't help but think that this is a somewhat empty gesture by a magazine hoping to avoid widespread change. Because if they put out their "black issue," then no one can accuse them of being racist, right?

“Mine is not a magazine that can be accused of not using black girls,” said [Editor Franca] Sozzani, noting that Naomi Campbell has had several covers, and that Liya Kebede and Alek Wek have also had covers.

Ri-ight. What do you think?

It seems that someone thinks it's hilarious, oh excuse me - "heelarious" - to make fake high heels for infants. Yes, I know it's supposed to be funny and clever. But then why does it just make me sad?

Via The F Word and The Frisky.

Thanks to, somewhat appropriately, Mz.Stilletto for the link.

Attention women over 35! Did you think that your days of desperately trying to fit in with unrealistic beauty standards were over? Guess again! The new TV show "She's Got the Look" gives women of all ages the chance to feel insecure and unworthy!

When will the madness stop?

...for pushing superficial bullshit onto their players.

P.S. Subscribe to our YouTube channel!

This has got to be a joke.

When the warm weather comes, I always dread to go outside when I wear a dress for the first time and find men cat-call, whistle and - what's worst for me - stare me down as I walk past them. While I should be happy that the sun is finally out and I can wear lighter clothes again, the spring seems to bring the neighborhood sleazies out of hibernation.

The New York Times published this gem yesterday about how dresses are becoming out-of-date, in which the author makes a plea for the survival of dresses, not for the comfort or convenience for women, but for all leering men's sakes:

It is also, for what it’s worth, unwelcome news to me.

That is because, unlike Ms. Slowey, I am not eager for women to become 'a little more hard-core, a little more androgynous, a little more butch.' Yes, gender play is fun, and trousers are a useful wardrobe default for the woman in business. But unless you are Thomas McGuane and find nothing sexier than a woman with crow’s feet, tight Wranglers and suede chaps, you will have to concede that, for flattering a woman’s body, nothing is quite like a dress.

Might as well throw some heterosexism in there too. And women wearing pants is "gender play"? I didn't realize trousers were still a "man's" piece of clothing.

And it doesn't end there, not by a long shot. He proceeds to refer to the "classic story" by Irwin Shaw, “The Girls in Their Summer Dresses,� not surprisingly an unbelievably sexist story about a man who is explaining to his wife that he just loves to look at beautiful women while she begs him not to leave her for someone else. Here are a couple of other lovely references to why women should wear dresses:

The summer dress, in all shapes and styles, is preferred by many women, and by men who like watching them. (Photo caption)

From a 'retro' and 'Mad Men' garment, the dress was transformed into a wardrobe staple, to the benefit of women and those who get pleasure from gazing at them. . .

The dress, Jennifer Emory, another midday shopper, said: 'is very easy and very flattering — a no-brainer, really. It’s comfortable, and you can easily go from day to night. And guys like it because it’s so feminine.'

. . . And so, for those of us who take pleasure in the sight of a woman in a summer dress walking along Fifth Avenue, her dress caught in a faint breeze, a vision that calls to mind a Guy Wiggins painting or the famous bit of dialogue spoken by the actor Everett Sloane in 'Citizen Kane,' there is still time. (Emphasis mine)

In short, dresses are still the hot thing this summer so men can have their daily dose of voyeurism.

The sad thing about this piece is that it won't do anything but discourage women from wearing dresses this summer, despite some women's love to wear them. (Ahem.) I guess they didn't get the message that women wear their clothes for comfort and fashion, not someone else's fancy.

Thanks to the readers who alerted us to this!

Queen Latifah then:

Queen Latifah now:

Okay, I get that they're trying to promote her through this "healthier" rhetoric so that it's not about beauty standards - but conflating health with size really bugs the shit out of me.

(And yes, I realize that I'm a bit late on this one - but I had to post on it anyway.)

I don't know about you, but I was obsessed with Sweet Valley High when I was a kid. (Though I was always pissed that the Jessica character was the vapid one, while Elizabeth was the cool, smart reporter type.)

Well, it seems that Random House is re-releasing the series with a new modern twist: skinnier twins.

To publicize the re-release of teen fiction series Sweet Valley High, Random House Children's Books sent a letter to journalists highlighting the changes made to the content of the 1980s paperbacks. New cover girl Leven Rambin (pictured) was not mentioned, but just to make sure preteen and teenaged girl readers are sufficiently insecure about their bodies, the publisher made the "perfect" clothing size a couple of notches more restrictive.

In a side-by-side column comapring the 1983 version of the book with the present one, publishers write that the previous characters were a "perfect size 6." Now, they're a "perfect size 4." Charming. The next SVH book? Nipping it in the Bud: Elizabeth's Designer Vagina.

This is too gross. An online game, Miss Bimbo, encourages girls (as in under 10 years old) to buy their avatars plastic surgery - face lifts, boob jobs, you name it - in order to be the "hottest, coolest, most famous bimbo in the whole world." Yeah.

Children are given a naked virtual character to look after. They compete against other players to earn "bimbo" dollars so they can dress her in sexy outfits and take her clubbing. They are given missions, including securing plastic surgery at the game's clinic to give their dolls bigger breasts, and they have to keep her at her target weight with diet pills.

Perhaps even worse than the sexist and dangerous messages being sent to young women, is the cavalier response of the Miss Bimbo creators (both men, btw).

[Chris Evans says,] "But there are lots of positive lessons that replicate messages in real life."

While feeding your bimbo too much chocolate has added virtual pounds to the animated girls' hips, feeding her fruits and vegetables will improve her health, Evans points out.

That and diet pills, apparently. Evans also claims that the game is just aiming to be realistic: "The breast operations are just one part of the game and we are not encouraging young girls to have them, just reflecting real life." You know, the kind of real life where nine year-olds get boob jobs. Charming.

This article from the NYTimes from Valentine's Day talks about the decline in perfume purchases. It starts with a trite story about a woman who seemingly ended two serious relationships because of scent-related issues:

“He thought I smelled like a traveling carnival, the kind where they sell corn dogs, because I guess the smell was reminiscent of cotton candy,� Ms. Ware, 28, said. “This was the demise of Trish No. 9.� It was a bad omen. Soon after, Ms. Ware said she broke up with the perfume-averse boyfriend. She has not worn fragrance since. A more recent boyfriend fared no better after he bought Ms. Ware what she called “an old-lady perfume� against her wishes.

I won't even go there. The more interesting part of the article is the author's discussion of a budding fragrance-free movement, partially in response to some people's allergies to strong scents that are common in deodorants, perfumes and cosmetics. The conference I went to last week, Creating Change, had a fragrance-free zone.

Now a few workplaces and cultural sites are trying to become fragrance-free zones. Some doctors’ offices ask patients not to wear perfume because some medical personnel or patients may have allergies or asthma that could be exacerbated by scent. Some schools ask students to forgo perfume and even scented deodorants if a teacher has a fragrance allergy — much like peanut butter has been removed from some cafeterias.

What it doesn't really address is the fact that a decline in perfume purchasing might be due to an increased desire to smell more like yourself. It also implies that not wearing perfume equals having no smell at all. I'd argue we all have a smell, with or without scented products, and it can be pretty nice for some people.

I'm not so unhappy to see this decline (although 85% of women still wear perfume, according to the article) mostly because of the gender stereotypes that many of the scents promote. Women need to smell like florals and fruit, while men need to smell like musk and pine trees.

UPDATE: THIS WAS THE WRONG BOOK!!!

So, someone from Seal Press just brought to my attention that the book I quoted was completely wrong and the book that this show was about was actually boobs, by Elisabeth Squires and this show was actually about burning bras that fit, as opposed to having anything to do with breast cancer. See what happens when you don't watch TV! I still think drawing on the myth of bra-burning to feign female empowerment has to be fleshed out and doesn't quite work for me. But attacking body dysmorphia and focusing on what fits our body, well that is cool fer shure.

Sorry folks and thanks for keep us bloggers accountable.

Who would argue the importance of Breast Cancer Awareness? But Tyra Banks took it to the next level by having her studio audience burn their bras to promote the book B.O.O.B.S. Now what does breast cancer have to do with bra burning (something the article mistakenly calls the ultimate symbol of femininity, not something I have EVER heard)? How is it that in her attempt to cover heavy hitting issues, Tyra consistently strikes out?

We all know bras are too damn expensive to run around burning them. Let's be real.

Thanks to Cristina for the link.

After a Glamour associate editor's implication that being black is a fashion don't, the magazine has issued an apology and is hosting a panel today on "Women, Race & Beauty," which "will explore the culture of beauty, with an emphasis on ethnic hairstyles in corporate America." (via.) They've got some excellent panelists, including Farai Chideya from NPR's News and Notes and Daisy Hernandez of ColorLines. (If someone finds a link to a transcript or video, please post it in comments!)

The Newsday article about the panel also features a slideshow of several professional women talking about their hair, and how they've chosen to wear it. I think this comment, from Keisha Walker, is especially telling:

"It’s obvious that corporate America doesn’t care for natural hairstyles on Black women because you rarely see them wearing them there. People think that when Black women wear natural hair that they are making a political statement. And I find that strange, because I don’t know of any ethnic group where if the women wear their hair naturally, it is associated with politics."

And Ifeanyi Chijindu echoes that:

"Hair is a big issue with black women. We are judged by it all the time When I wore my Angela Davis afro at school, all of a sudden people parted the way. They were treating me like a Black Panther. I could feel this huge sense of fear."

That sounds, interestingly enough, like the Glamour editor's critique:

'No offense,' she sniffed, but those 'political' hairstyles really have to go.

Maybe that's a large part of why corporate America treats Afros, braids, and other natural styles as "inappropriate" for the workplace: Because they associate these hairstyles with black empowerment, and with women of color standing up for themselves and for their rights. It goes beyond the superficial racism of "this is a messy fashion don't." It's also about the old boys' (and girls') club feeling threatened by an empowered woman of color.

I find most conversations with people about the fetishization of Asian women mind numbing. Even when people have the best of intentions with comments like, "you can't help who you are attracted to," or "Asian women are hot," you begin to realize that often people are just trying to explain away their own or someone else's racism. Myths such as Asian women are hotter, or they are more docile and therefore better wives, are not only mythical and generalizing, but they hinge on essentialist stereotypes that silence the voices of Asian women and Asian feminists that have been shouting for years about how they are not your fantasy.

Carmen at Racialicious emailed me about this piece on Jezebel, that seems to be calling out the problematic reality that a lot of men have hard core Asian fetishes, but unfortunately ends up reinforcing the very stereotypes that reinforce this complex situation.

A bunch of economists are once again putting their decades of rigorous study to a societally optimal end and dispelling the "myth" of the Asian fetish. In studies of speed dating communities, it turned out, Caucasian men showed no racial preference at all for Asian women; in fact, male speed daters showed no racial preferences at whatsoever! To which I call, "bullshit." (Remind me to tell you about my "Asian" phone sex persona one time!) And I know because I practically am Asian that when talking about the AZNs we are allowed to talk about stereotypes without regard for the numerous and glaring exceptions out there, so here goes: there are a few reasons some dudes prefer Asian women, and it starts with the fact that they are very rarely unattractive, and they are even more rarely stupid, and they are even more rarely than that fat. They have really nice skin and they're not afraid to tell you yours looks bad.

Um, no. It is very difficult to talk about Asians as one whole group of people. There are a lot of different kinds of Asian people and sometimes, Asian also includes South Asian. And while Moe concedes that it is difficult to homogenize when there are so many exceptions, the reliance on still perpetuating the same myths that fetishizers use to justify their fetish, well that is not cool. I mean I am South Asian and you will not hear me say, "oh we are nerdy, tee hee, that is a positive stereotype, so it is OK!" Because in reality, the Indian nerd stereotype is often used to justify unfair work conditions or low self esteem in South Asians that are not "nerdy."

The fetishization of Asian women by the media, by men, by women, by Westerners, it is not just coming from a few people. It is supported by not only myths and stereotypes, but the objectification of Asian women's bodies through pornography that is focused on Asian women, the global sex trade that is disparaging in Asia and South East Asia and the culture of sexual tourism. It has somehow become OK to have racist sexual preferences, even in progressive circles. The thing is, it is usually one sided and that being white men, into Asian chicks. We are not operating in a vacuum. There is a long history of white men lusting after Asian women because of certain qualities they felt were "natural" to Asian women, qualities that make them more desirable than us loud mouth American gals.

I mean Asian women that are choosing to be with white men (even when they are racist or just into them because they are Asian) is their choice as well. I mean if they feel OK with it, who am I to say anything otherwise. But for the rest of us, that are sick and tired of white men being into us because we are "exotic," well this shit is just tired. I am not your fetish, I am not your fantasy and, yeah, I might be good in bed, but my race is not why.

A reality show about six year old beauty pageant queens. And their pictures look SO weird, like dolls, not even real children.

Dear VH1, please stop propagating this nonsense.

Thanks to Jenny for the link.

Let alone dismembered and made into fashion accessories.

Ok, now repeat after me. Dismembered women's body parts are not funny, or ironic, classy or a message for recycling (as in this case). They are gross and a reminder that women are continually objectified in compartmentalized ways, where they are judged for a piece or section of their body, not for the total being they are. Dismembered women's body parts are so part of everyday life, you almost have to remind yourself that it is totally fucked up.

I guess, I would like this more if it was done in a way that highlights how scary dismembered women are, a different type of art. Not trying to make something pretty, that really isn't.

Thanks to Trina for the link.

The anti-choice crowd, which is usually so eager to stop talking about women's bodies and start talking about fetuses, has been known to say that women who want to force pregnancy on other women are, like, sooo much prettier than pro-choicers.

So I wasn't really surprised when Garance sent me this image, which is apparently making the rounds on Facebook:

Even if it were remotely true, "our women are better-looking!" is not an argument. The idea that discussing the attractiveness of women's bodies as a point in favor of or against a specific set of political beliefs is just disgusting. And the implied possession -- as in, our things are pretty and yours are ugly -- is also revoltingly sexist.

Which I why I also can't stand it when people (especially those on the political left) choose to focus more on right-wing women's looks than their heinous political statements. It's. Not. Okay.

Apparently, in light of Bush claiming that we don't use torture methods in our war tactics (cough-bullshit-cough), it is OK to use torture imagery to sell products. Add a little sexy, sultry, brunette action and you are good to go.

It is all about sex and violence to sell products and women's hair products are so important that of course we need the strictest of *interrogation* tactics.

via Democracy Cell Project.

Thanks to Dianne for the link.

Today, the New York Times takes on a trend for new (and rich) mothers: postpartum plastic surgery. (With a really horrendous title, I might add: "Is the 'Mom Job' Really Necessary?")

"Mommy makeovers" are being marketed by plastic surgeons across the country in an attempt to reach out to women post-childbirth, so that they can get their, you know, "normal" bodies back:

In 1970, “Our Bodies, Ourselves,� the seminal guide to women’s health, described the cosmetic changes that can happen during and after pregnancy simply as phenomena. But now narrowing beauty norms are recasting the transformations of motherhood as stigma.

These unforgiving standards are the offspring of pop culture and technology, a union that treats biological changes as if they were as optional as hair color. Gossip magazines excoriate celebrity moms who don’t immediately lose their “baby weight.� Even Cookie, a luxury parenting magazine, recently ran an article that described postpregnancy breasts as “the ultimate indignity� and promoted implant surgery; a photo of droopy water-filled balloons accompanied the article.

Many women struggle with the impact of aging and pregnancy on their bodies. But the marketing of the “mommy makeover� seeks to pathologize the postpartum body, characterizing pregnancy and childbirth as maladies with disfiguring aftereffects that can be repaired with the help of scalpels and cannulae.

The Mommy Makeover website is nothing less than atrocious, with a slideshow introduction of "beautiful" mothers and their children with the text: "Embrace the feeling of being a woman." Which apparently means going under the knife.

So these surgeons are not only pitching this idea that women's bodies are "used up" after they give birth, but even physically deformed. In other words, while it's more than natural for a woman to bear a child, her post-baby body isn't natural and needs to be "fixed." (For a minimum of $10,000, I might add.)

There are way too many double standards and oxymorons to list here; all I know is that it never ceases to amaze me how obvious the war over our bodies is.

P.S. I second Feministe's request that the NY Times start to "focus more often on issues affecting more than the top 1% of the income distribution." Amen.

Because looking good in a swimsuit is more important than knowing about basic geography, or knowing how to answer a question. I am sure people in *the* Iraq and South Africa need to get taught by us good all-knowing, well-meaning, geographically gifted, Mericans. Interesting how when asked why Americans don't know, her response is Americans need to help other people know (what we don't know).

Feel bad for her. How embarrassing. Even Mario Lopez was cracking up.

Aren't fashion folks supposed to be somewhat original?

Via Jezebel.

For the most part, evolutionary psychology scares me. And studies that try and test what people find more attractive are usually full of variables that can't always be accounted for (cultural preferences, personal preferences, oh I don't know racism). Putting all that to the side, this study found that women are more attracted to "feminine" men.

Many women regard men with masculine facial features -- such as a square jaw, larger nose and smaller eyes -- as unsuitable long-term partners, because they're more likely to be domineering, unfaithful, unaffectionate and poor parents, U.K. researchers have found.

On the other hand, women believe that men with finer facial features -- fuller lips, wide eyes and thinner, more curved eyebrows -- to be more committed, less likely to cheat, and to make better parents, said the study by psychologists at Durham and St. Andrews Universities.

I don't appreciate physical characteristics identified as masculine and feminine as though there is a static way to look manly verses looking feminine. Why is a square jaw masculine? I have a square jaw and I don't think I am masculine. So I suppose this study relies on fixed categories of masculine and feminine to prove its logic, but we already know that is problematic.

Furthermore, I have met tons of men that are super nurturing and don't have what would be considered feminine features.

And what about gay men? Are they just not part of the equation?

But perhaps, I am missing the point. Is there some logic to this I am not getting? Superficial qualities have some role in how we behave?

via US News and World Report.

An article in the Washington Post covers the increasing "sexuality" of the 2008 presidential candidates. The problem is that in almost all cases, the sexuality of the candidate is not the one actually in question-- it's that of his wife.

In this long, hot campaign season, intimations of sexuality are sprouting like wildflowers along the road to the White House. Not that the commingling of sex and politics is anything new, but for what seems to be the first time in memory, voters are being confronted with questions that don't usually break the surface: Just how sexy is a first lady allowed to be? And what constitutes an appropriate display of affection between candidates and their spouses?

With a nominating field full of older men and younger wives, experts say that a youthful, even sexy wife offers a none-too-subtle message about the vitality of the candidate.
[. . .]

"What's going on reflects what's happening in the larger culture, a culture increasingly focused on young, attractive women and blatant sexuality, on display for all to appreciate," said Elizabeth Sherman, a political sociologist and Democrat who is married to former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma. "The candidate's wife is a strategic asset. How are you going to deploy that asset?"

Gag.

You know, it's bad enough that the media is constantly judging the wives of candidates at all (and let's face it: Michelle Obama, Jeri Kehn Thompson and Judith Nathan Giuliani are getting far more attention these days than Bill Clinton is, and whatever attention he gets is undoubtedly due to the fact that he used to be president). These women are scrutinized for how they dress, if they're too supportive or not supportive enough, if they follow the candidate around like a puppy or are "disengaged," how their views match with the candidate, whether they're nice enough, pretty enough, maternal enough, smart enough, etc. But now we're officially referring to them as "assets" that need to be deployed? On the bright side, I guess that it's at least more honest.

Insanity is the new black!

To further touch upon Vanessa's question about why the media (and everyone these days) seems so obsessed with celebrity downfall, I enter into evidence the above spread from Vogue Italia. It's crazy chic! Complete with a model buzzing her hair off a la Britney. Charming.

But that's not all, folks! In related women-in-distress-are-fashionable news, W magazine ups the ante: dead models posing with furries!

I think Amanda said it best in a recent IM conversation: "I can't wait until fashion is about trotting out women in fancy clothes and shooting them dead on the runway--so daring!"

Taking the foot fetish to the next level of nasty.

Shoes have never been so sexy sexist.

via V Magazine.

Thanks to Jessica for the link.

Apparently not. This woman is actually supposed to disgust you.

Apparently this is just one in a series of Brazilian ads for light yogurt that takes iconic images of women and replaces them with "fat" women. The tagline? Forget about it. Men’s preference will never change. Fit Light Yogurt.

Excuse me while I go dispose of all the yogurt in my fridge. Fuckers.

Via tigtog and the f-word.

If lipo and vaginal "rejuvenation" surgery isn't quite enough body hatred for you--you can always look further down.

It is 8 o’clock on a serene blue morning in Beverly Hills and Dr Ali Sadrieh, a podiatrist, has just performed a 45-minute operation on a client, cutting a section of bone out of her toe to shorten it. She was awake during surgery, watching a film; next week Sadrieh will do the same thing to the second toe on the other foot. There was nothing medically wrong with the toes, but his patient didn’t like the way they protruded over the lip of her high-heeled Manolo Blahniks.

Welcome to the wilder shores of La-La Land, where cosmetic surgery has finally travelled the full length of the female form. Down the phone line from California, Sadrieh’s voice is upbeat: “Toes are the new nose,� he tells me happily.

Now I like heels as much as the next gal, but generally I look for shoes to fit my feet--not feet to fit my shoes. Just saying.

Ann linked to this story yesterday in WFR, but I just had to delve a little deeper and point out just how depressing this is.

Partnerships of Mattel and the cosmetics industry is no new thing; their “Barbie Loves MAC� collection this past Spring was MAC’s largest and most successful collection they’d ever had. (After all, who could resist looking like the "Barbie Loves MAC" scary doll-woman to the left.)

Now they’re collaborating with Bonne Bell to market a new line of makeup aimed at 6 to 9-year old girls. Mattel included in their announcement of the partnership:

"The Barbie and Bonne Bell partnership will bring girls a fun, feminine and unique beauty experience, leveraging the unparalleled popularity of two globally loved brands."

Because what’s the most unique and useful growing experience a girl could have? Placing beauty standards on her at an early age, of course! What's more rewarding than learning about the wonders of femininity?!?

We all know this is much more important than, say, the “I Can� campaign that came out of Mattel’s partnership with Girls Inc. This project was aimed to tell girls to believe in themselves, in their strengths and that they could make a difference in the world. But of course, that relationship wasn’t so “successful� because of the sexist, anti-choice and homophobic American Family Association’s disapproval of the organization; Mattel cut ties from Girls Inc. shortly after the AFA launched their attack.

So we've gone from “I can be myself, follow my dreams and always do my best,� to “I can apply make-up.� When will young girls be given the positive messages they need which tells them they can be more than...well, a doll?

Dove's Real Beauty Campaign has had its fair share of successes and critiques, yet while they have been pushing this idea of "real beauty," it seems that they also think that should exclude your armpits. Like we don't have enough body parts to obsess over.

The slogan, "Are you sleeveless ready?" says enough about what they're trying to pitch, but I've heard the commercial is pretty irritating, more or less saying that their newest deodorant will make your underarms look soft and gorgeous (as opposed to their gross existence before). The website says:

"Every woman can have softer, smoother underams and show them off in sleeveless styles that make her feel beautiful."

Because seriously, who likes a girl with dry and not soft-as-a-baby's-ass underarms?

Thanks MAC for the story.

Naomi Wolf had the cover story in New York Magazine on Saturday titled, “The Porn Myth,� which largely discussed how porn today basically kills people’s sex lives; or in other words, men’s.

With mainstream porn’s fake breasts, tiny vaginas and perpetually tan bodies, the unrealistic expectations it puts on straight men and what sex is “supposed� to look like is evident, which Wolf points out. But her extreme oversimplification of the issue is evident as well.

She claims that all porn this day and age does is demolish straight women’s sex lives because they can’t live up to porn’s image of the “perfect body� and satisfy their more-or-less bored partners. In fact, the entire piece discusses the issue from the perspective of men, seeming to say that a satisfying sex life is defined based on what a man wants.

Her solution seems to be to regress back to a more modest sexuality, and possibly mimic the sexual habits of more “traditional cultures�:

I am not advocating a return to the days of hiding female sexuality, but I am noting that the power and charge of sex are maintained when there is some sacredness to it, when it is not on tap all the time.

Her example of this is her Orthodox Jewish friend who covers her body and hair in public, and the apparent erotic nature in the the fact that only her husband can see her hair. What exactly is she trying to posit by using this example? That we'd be better off covered up? She seems to be cloaking the idea of putting sex back into the private sphere with the concept of “sexual mystery.� Wouldn’t it be more practical (and fun) to simply promote the realistic images of women (and men) in sex culture than simply repress it altogether?

Wow. People are assholes.

Remember our huge controversy over heels? Well now we have gotten a solution. And I am sure that the super hip style of these shoes will take care of all your fashion needs, not make you feel like a cyborg.

Disney has created their own line of wedding dresses to represent the many princesses of Disney movies. Ew.

It's called Disney's Fairy Tale Weddings Collection, where the dresses are meant to represent characters of Disney classics, like Cinderella (in the pic to the right), Jasmine and Snow White. Mara Urshel, owner of the popular Chelsea bridal salon, said she expects the dresses to be top sellers, particularly for younger brides. And exactly how young are we talking?

Even the quotes in the article on thoughts of the dresses were from 12 and 13 year old girls. What the fuck is going on here? I don't know if this some sort of sick scheme to make Disney child brides or convince young girls that they actually can grow up to be a princess -- but only if they get married! Ugh, ugh, ugh.

Thanks to MAC for the link.

After the strip a while back that implied that feminism is no longer needed, perhaps Trudeau is attempting to make amends by talking about women's beauty standards in a recent strip.

Thoughts?

Contributed by Courtney Martin.

Props to Vanessa for pointing out the ways in which the recent treatment of perfect girls in the NY Times does not represent the plight of most girls across America. I’d like to take issue with it from a different angle.

While I respect Sara Rimer’s structural choice to let the girls speak for themselves, I fear that she produced something more akin to PR than investigative journalism. Sure hanging out with a few upper middle class white girls from the northeast will provide you with a flurry of shocking quotations about ambition run amuck and some great scenes with overly involved parents. But that story is obvious, already reported, on the surface.

The underbelly is what we need to be talking about. Nine million girls and women in this country—of all different classes and cultural backgrounds—have diagnosable eating disorders and countless others obsess over food and fitness. Panic disorders are twice as likely for females. About 75% of autoimmune illnesses occur in women.

These are serious health concerns in large part caused by a society that systematically socializes women to take the weight of the world on their shoulders and try to look graceful while doing it.

When I was researching and interviewing for my book— Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body (out in a couple of weeks on Simon & Schuster’s Free Press)—I couldn’t believe how much pressure girls and women put themselves under. Whether it was the Armenian-American girl in the course I teach at Hunter who felt completely shameful that she’d gained weight in college despite the fact that she was the first in her family to go, or my beautiful younger cousin from a tiny town in Colorado who spent much of college feeling on the edge of an eating disorder (as did I), women are just flat out deteriorating as a result of their own determination to be everything to all people all the time.

It’s not just about Ivy League admittance or extracurriculars. It is about a nation of women buying in to the idea that their wellbeing is not as important as achievement and beauty.

The American Psychological Association released a crazy huge report yesterday showing evidence that the sexualization and objectification of girls and young women in the media is mentally damaging for girls.

While you’d think most people would think this is, well, "duh", the APA’s report at least gives it some extra validation. While I was originally wary of the report and language used when talking about “sexualization,� (especially when others are saying the “hook-up� culture is stripping our daughters of self-worth at the same time), I think APA did a fine job in getting the message across without pushing some sort of case for chastity.

Here’s the full report.

So what is up with the so-called embracing of the round mound of brown woman-ness that is saturating pop culture? Similar to Broadsheet and Givhan at Wapo, I too have been reading and thinking about all the media hype that "full figured" women like Tyra and Beyonce have been getting and the problems associated with the a) mainstreaming of the voluptuous woman and b) the merging of sexulization with the black female body. Neither of these are a new phenomenon. The strategic sexualization and de-sexualization of women of color in the media is the foundation upon which white women's beauty is compared and usually strengthened.

So with this understanding I agree with what Tracy at Broadsheet writes. . .

Givhan argues that part of the reason for these disparate beauty standards is "the stereotype of the large black woman as the diva-like sexpot: strong, aggressive and entitled." As limiting and dangerous as that stereotype may be, it's that pervasive caricature that's paved the way for the idea "that big can be beautiful and desirable -- at least when it comes to women of color," she argues. I suppose on the flip side of that is the stereotype of white women as fragile flowers: passive, agreeable and unthreatening. Hence, the wilted look adopted by so many white actresses in Hollywood.

The nasty thing about stereotypes, though, is as much as they can create odd (and fleeting) chances at empowerment, they're, of course, deeply limiting. As much as the "diva-like sexpot" stereotype has opened doors for women of color in Hollywood, it also keeps that racial modifier constantly at arm's reach.

So as I was reading this I decided to scan some pics of Beyonce and I found the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. And I just have to say this whole conversation really ticked me off when I realized how small Beyonce is. If that is considered a full figured woman and we are excited about the entry of that (overtly sexualized and fetishized) image of the "strong" black woman into the mainstream, then count me out. That is such bullshit. The only reason she looks big is because we are used to seeing size 1's and shit. If she was sitting next to me you would tell her to eat something.

Furthermore, I got to thinking about the representation of black women on television and in the media and realized how much the way they look has been changed through the years by white standards of beauty. For example, take Louise Jefferson from the Jeffersons or Florida Evans from Good Times. Maybe I am totally detached, but you just don't see women like that on television anymore.

Thoughts?

Check out this disturbing Indian commercial for Fair & Lovely skin whitener (made by Unilever, which also manufactures Dove's "real beauty" products... and Axe). Here's a synopsis:

One TV commercial aired in India (often referred to as the Air Hostess advertisement) “showed a young, dark-skinned girl’s father lamenting he had no son to provide for him, as his daughter’s salary was not high enough – the suggestion being that she could not get a better job or get married because of her dark skin. The girl then uses the cream [Fair & Lovely], becomes fairer, and gets a better-paid job as an air hostess – and makes her father happy�.

Sexism, classism and racism, tied up together in a neat little 60-second spot! A similar ad for a whitener made by Pond's -- also a Unilever brand -- drew criticism a few years ago:

"Those ads are incredible," says Malaysian social activist Cynthia Gabriel, referring to the Unilever ads. "Whitening creams are capitalizing on a market that's quite racist and biased toward people who are lighter."

Responded a Unilever rep:

"Our TV commercial was never intended to suggest any correlation between skin color and beauty. We leave that to each individual to interpret according to his or her culture, background and education."

High-end whiteners are also sold by Chanel and Shiseido in the U.S. But they're huge in countries like China, India and Malaysia, where they help perpetuate the idea that whiter skin = more respect = success in life. They also pose health risks.

As Salon points out, the popularity of Fair & Lovely (the best-selling whitening cream in the world) provides fodder for a debate about whether marketing to lower-income populations helps or hurts them.

Not surprisingly, [manufacturer] HLL claims Fair & Lovely is doing good by fulfilling a social need. They argue that 90 percent of Indian women want to use whiteners because it is “aspirational…. A fair skin is like education, regarded as a social and economic step up� (Luce and Merchant, 2003).

But Fair & Lovely isn't a step up or solution; it only enforces the prejudices that contribute to economic and social inequality.

Via Nerve.

Photo by Kaya Nati

Hanifah Walidah is a hip hop artist, playwright, actor, music video maker, and filmmaker. Her list of accomplishments goes on and on, literally. Here are just a few of them: Her first LP, “A Headnadda’s Journey to Adidi-Skizm� was released in 1994 under the name Sha-Key. In the early 90s she was co-founder of two poet/performance collectives, The Vibe Khamelons and The Boom Poetic, both recognized as groundbreaking for fusing a hip hop approach to traditional beatnik rhythm. In 2002 she wrote and performed her one-woman show “Straight Black Folks Guide to Black Folks.� In 2006 she was the musical director of “What It Iz,� a hip hop/spoken word adaptation of “The Wiz.�

And thankfully, Hanifah is at it again. Hanifah’s new album, “Once Upon It Is� debuted this month. Check out her new song and music video, “Make a Move� on her website. Or better yet, vote to make it #1 on LOGO’s [LGBT-focused channel] “Click List.� It’s the first video that depicts gay women of color in a positive and celebratory light.

Hanifah will also be releasing an accompanying documentary to the video, U People, this June for Pride. The documentary features behind the scenes discussions on the video and a closer look at the women who make up the video. It will be debuting on LOGO.

You can also catch Hanifah on a European tour this spring. Here’s Hanifah…

Women find men more attractive if other women find them attractive too. People were paid to come to this conclusion. I swear.

"We tend to think about things like attraction as reflecting a private decision or a personal choice but our work shows that people's attractiveness judgments can be influenced in pronounced ways by what other people appear to think of those individuals," said psychologist Dr. Ben Jones.

Jones, of the University of Aberdeen, and his team tested the impact of the opinions of others by giving women a test in which they had to choose the more attractive of pairs of male faces and to rate how much more handsome they found them.

They were then shown a short video in which the same faces were displayed. But each face was being looked at by a woman smiling or one showing a bored or neutral expression.

After watching the video, the researchers repeated the initial test.

"We found that the slide show caused women to become more attracted to the men who were being smiled at by other women," said Jones.

Yes and of course this must be because women are competitive for men's attention and they don't just want a man, they want your man. Logical conclusion, right?

I am not going to deny that this competitive complex does happen, we all know in some of the most mature of crowds, it does. But is this really the first time this doctor realized that how other people percieve what is considered attractive, actually impacts what people find attractive? Because advertising giants figured it out a mad long time ago. The beauty, fashion, commodity industries thrive on people's insecurities and convinces them of what they should and shouldn't like based on some *other* person's arbitary opinion. Sheesh.

So I think it is a pretty big leap to say that women happen to find men more attractive when other women do. It is more like, our entire society is based around trying to get what you don't have, but are convinced that you need, so you MUST have it. Now as we have all seen, that competitiveness is often nurtured in women. We are taught that not only is our worth gained from the male gaze, but we must fight to get that gaze.

F%&* that noise.

via Reuters.

The New York Times had a piece on Sunday about a growing epidemic among girls and women in Brazil: anorexia. Two girls have died from it within the last two weeks.

While Brazil historically hasn't been a country that falls victim to the Western social beauty standard of “the skinnier, the better,� it looks like things are changing. And rapidly.

The particularly interesting part I found in this article is historian Mary del Priore’s contention that Brazilian women’s recent struggle with “globalized� social beauty standards is partly due to their subversion of Brazilian machismo.

“This abrupt shift is a feminine decision that reflects changing roles. . . Men are still resisting and clearly prefer the rounder, fleshier type. But women want to be free and powerful, and one way to reject submission is to adopt these international standards that have nothing to do with Brazilian society.�

So Brazilian women are swapping one patriarchal culture for another? This is way too depressing to believe. Thoughts?

I thought this was pretty cool. (And also knew my pops would love it; he’s a big Buddhist.)

Griffith University psychologists are using “mindfulness,� a psychological technique based on Buddhist philosophy, to treat anorexia, binge eating and bulimia. And apparently it’s working.

Compared to other therapies, mindfulness requires less of a focus on food and controlled eating and more on freeing one’s minds from negative thoughts and emotions. "They learn that thoughts and emotions don't have any power over us as they are just passing phenomena and aren't permanent,� says psychologist Angela Morgan.

“Women who have been through the program report less dissatisfaction with their bodies, increased self-esteem and improved personal relationships," she says.

Mindfulness has also shown to be effective in treating substance abuse, anxiety and depression, and stress associated with physical conditions like trauma, chronic pain and cancer.

Here are a couple of books if you're looking for more info on the technique.

My friend sent this to me so I thought I would put it up. It is a series of pics of women from different periods in history and how body image has changed over the course of the last 300 years in the West. All the women depicted are white, but I still thought it was interesting to look at how industrialization and advertising have literally changed beauty and body standards. They even compare the models of today to holocaust victims, which is a little intense, but I think we get the point.

I would be interested in doing this with images of women of color from the West and looking at how the images relate images of white women. When I look at these pictures I don't just see the construction of femininity as thin-ness, but also as constructed a white body, which is considered the norm for Western beauty.

Thoughts?

Sorry I forgot to add the link.

The first picture is from here. The second is a product of this.

Talk amongst yourselves.

First they tell you to shave it, wax it and pluck it. Then they try and market it. Fashion will never cease to amaze me. This takes the pubic hair panties to the NEXT level.

Watch with caution, you may spit out your coffee.

Thoughts?

(and if this is really a new trend, I am SO fashion forward)

Thanks to Jason for the link.

Do not get your sexy on in the conservative town of Kotu Baru, Malaysia. You will be fined 138 dollars. And why? Because scantily clad women mar the image of the town.

The Kota Baru town's municipal council has said it will no longer tolerate indecent dressing and will begin enforcing an existing Islamic law that prohibits indecent dressing, The Star newspaper said.

The bylaw on proper feminine attire prohibits Muslim and non-Muslim women from wearing body hugging outfits, blouses that show the navel, see-through blouses, miniskirts and tight pants.

Women's groups are unhappy and ask rightfully, "I would like to know what is the (acceptable) level of tightness of a pair of pants or jeans, and what happens to those of us who have larger buttocks?" I understand differing cultural/relgious practices (whether I agree with them or not), but I bet there are no laws restricting what men wear.

via AP.

If you have the time, check out my interview with Rha Goddess and JLove Calderon, editors of We Got Issues! A Young Woman's Guide to a Bold, Courageous and Empowered Life. They have lots of powerful things to say. Happy Thursday!

UPDATE (Jessica): Hey, just wanted to say that I just started reading this book and it's fucking awesome. I'm planning on doing a full review, but just wanted to sing it's praises here as well.

I don't know what to make of this exactly, but I don't like it. Men come here and put up pictures of their girlfriends and wives that they feel have gotten *fat.* I think it just adds to the wealth of media and knowlegde production dedicated to the hatred of fat people. Do we really need more of that?

Thoughts?

Whoa.

I actually don't really know what to say about this (well I always say that, but I guess I can come up with something). But calling a woman a mule is just wrong. Furthermore, what little I know about women who are used as cocaine mules, the conditions are rather abusive. So technically a beauty pageant for cocaine mules could be seen as glamourizing the enslavement of women of color. At the same time, if this is enjoyable for the women, right on. But a greater discussion as to how these women end up in these jobs and what work is going on to support them still needs to happen.

Thoughts?

via Boing Boing.

Gaultier used a size 20 model in his latest fashion show to give comment on the recent size 0 model debate. It could be a protest but it still seems fishy to me. I mean is he really supporting the use of size 20 models? I don't think so. If anything, it seems he is trying to say the opposite. But again, I have NO faith in the fashion industry when it comes to body size.

Furthermore, how come nobody has mentioned the fact that a size 0 means it doesn't exist. Zero means nothing or that it is not there, so in a way it is like the metaphorical erasure of women, as though they don't exist or that they don't take up any space. Just a thought.

Thoughts?

via Daily Mail.

I am not a fan of censorship, especially at the highschool level. I think young people should be allowed to express themselves how they feel. Repression is problematic, but what if how you are expressing yourself is detrimental to yourself or the people around you?

How do we feel about young girls wearing suggestive sexual slang on their shirts in highschool?

They're blatantly sexual, occasionally clever and often loaded with double meanings, forcing school administrators and other students to read provocations stripped across the chest, such as "yes, but not with u!," "Your Boyfriend Is a Good Kisser" and "two boys for every girl." Such T-shirts also are emblematic of the kind of sleazy-chic culture some teenagers now inhabit, in which status can be defined by images of sexual promiscuity that previous generations might have considered unhip.

At Potomac Senior High School in Prince William, a girl recently wore a black T-shirt parodying the "Got Milk?" ad, with sexual slang replacing the word "milk." Steve Bryson, the school's administrative assistant, brought the girl into his office. "I asked her, 'Why would you wear something like that?' And she said: 'I don't know. My dad knows that I have it,'" he recalled. "So I called the dad, and, of course, he had no idea. He said, 'Throw it away.'

One popular merchant of suggestive shirts is Hollister Co., a chain owned by Abercrombie & Fitch. Its shirts say such things as "two boys for every girl" and "FLIRTING MY WAY TO THE TOP."

Asked about the messages his company markets to teenagers, Thomas D. Lennox, Abercrombie & Fitch's vice president of corporate communications, said, "Our T-shirts are sometimes controversial, which we're fine with." He declined to elaborate.

Yuck, I hate Hollister and Co. We can't really ignore the corporate motivation behind this notion of "controversial." I mean is it really still student self-expression if everyone is wearing the same shirts and an entire company dedicated to marketing to young people is endorsing it?

I don't necessarily know if the shirts themselves are so bad, as is the lack of sex education in most public schools. Are most young women getting the education they need around self-esteem and sex? Furthermore, an analysis of how corporate enterprise supports these shirts is impossible to ignore. How do companies like Hollister benefit from the "slutification" of young women?

As a South Asian child of immigrants, the issue of skin color was a BIG deal in my family. Not only did my mom get extra attention because she is light skinned, but I was constantly yelled at for being in the sun (not good advice for a street hustlin tom boy). It was not until I was older and read a thing or two about colonization, especially mental and cultural, that I began to realize perhaps the idea so prevalent in 3rd world cultures that lighter skin is more beautiful, is maybe not so healthy. In the South Asian community I have been exposed to, fair skin was looked upon highly. Seems that Sudanese women hold similar beliefs, only to be perpetuated by the unstable situation in the country (you know genocide and war).

In many countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia lighter-colored skin is considered prettier and paler women are believed to be wealthier, more educated and more desirable.

This attitude has led to a boom in the use of skin-lightening products in Sudan, a vast country torn by war where skin color also has political connotations.

The worst part is a lot of these products have long term health consequences involved with them.

Obviously, skin color is intensely political. It is unfortunate that the immediate effect on the psychology of people of color tends to be the belief that lighter skin is somehow better (I mean I guess the clear domination/colonization of the world by people that are light-skinned may quite possibly perpetuate this belief). But I also think it is more complicated then that.

In rebellion, I remember I would (and still do) tan as much as possible, just to piss mommy off. But what is the real issue? Is this internalized colonization?

via Reuters.

The latest Cary Tennis column at Salon takes on the old "to shave or not to shave" debate. Well, Tennis actually defers to his readers for their opinions...so I guess I'll do the same. Thoughts?

One question though--does anyone else find Tennis' use of the word "pussies" totally creepy?

With the U.S. Women’s Open kicking off today, it looks like there’s a new theme that’s attracting the audience this year: fashion. Ooh ooh, I got a joke. What does fashion have to do with golf? Nothing, but we’re talking about women’s golf, silly!

While I’ve always personally wanted an excuse to wear argyle socks (and don’t you just love the word “knickers�), this new style of fashion described is not-so-original and a wee “slutified� -- the three descriptors from the article that stand out in my mind are “mini-skirts,� “tight tops� and “pink.� (There’s also the “funky headscarves,� but that’s more cheesy than anything.)

Don’t get me wrong; I love short, tight gear and rock it all the time. But it really gets my knickers (a different meaning this time) in a twist when focus is put on the athletes' sexual appeal or something so stereotypically "female" as fashion to legitimize a women's sport.

Thoughts?

Check out Jessica's article in The Guardian today on The Real Hot 100. The Guardian was so inspired, they're actually starting their own hot 100 list!

Additionally, keep checking the site as we will be announcing the final 100 very soon!

I know I’m posting this three months too early, but I just had to do it.

You must check out this new book that’s being released in August about the marketing schemes that are being used to make girls into boy-crazy, pink-obsessed shopoholics.

Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters From Marketers’ Schemes is a parent guide on how to teach girls to subvert the market and the media that essentially “packages� their girlhood. Here’s a snippet of their mission statement:

“We show parents the image of girls (sexy, diva, boy-crazy, shoppers) that's being packaged and sold, pretty in pink. We write about how ‘girl power’ has been co-opted by marketers of music, fashion, books, cartoons, TV shows, movies, toys, and more to mean the power to shop and attract boys, and how girls are encouraged to use their ‘voice’ to choose accessorizing over academics, sex appeal over sports, and boyfriends over friends. We expose these stereotypes and the very limited choices presented of who girls are and what they can be.�

Hell yes. I love this catchphrase the most:

“You can’t turn off the world; so teach your daughter to READ it and read it well.�

Do you think it would be okay to buy the book even if I don’t have daughter?

I mean seriously, I have so many mixed feelings about the much talked about Dove ad campaign (that started a year ago, my how time flys) and it's lofty goal of redefining beauty. It is just the marxist critic inside me that says this is not really what is going on.

Women's enews agrees...

Harousseau said the intent of the "Campaign for Real Beauty," launched globally in September 2004 after success in the European market, is to widen the stereotypical view of beauty, while advertising their firming lotion. The goal, while laudable, may also be shrewd. If more women feel beautiful, goes the underlying marketing premise, more will be inspired to take great care of themselves by buying beauty and hygiene products.

Also, the models are not really detracting from the millions of dollars that go to size 4 models, they actually only get paid a stipend, you know because they are real women.

On one level, it is totally cool to have billboards plastered with (albeit airbrushed and not bigger then size 12) *real* women. However, I think it is misleading to say that this is a)changing American's ideas of beauty standards or b)that is in any way the intention of Dove, really.

The intention is to sell more product and capture as many women as we can into the capitalist fortress of the beauty/body image machine.

Don't yah think?

Just as the media finished trashing Harriet Miers’ looks, reporters-cum-fashion-police have started obsessing over special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s sexiness. Feministing has already pointed out how male and female public figures are held to different standards in the media, but the Miers and Fitzgerald examples shine a bit more light on the subject.

When a male politician is ugly it’s considered normal and no fuss is made over it in the news. But boy do we swoon when one comes along who’s even remotely good lookin’. We require our women to be beautiful, though. So when a female public figure shows up at a press conference and her fashion is sub-par, we're all over it.

I understand that making Pat Fitzgerald one of the sexiest men alive sells magazines. I just want to know why we're so busy insulting Condie’s coiffure that we can’t bother mentioning that Cheney started sporting his comb-over 30 years ago?

Contributed by Madeline Halperin-Robinson

and I don't?

A study carried out at the university of St. Andrews, Scotland, found that women who were judged to be attractive tended to have higher levels of oestrogen in their urine than women who were not judged to be attractive. Such features as large eyes and full lips do seem to be linked to higher levels of the female hormone and higher fertility.

1. Do we really need more reasons for people to uphold unfair standards of beauty?

2. Who decided what was "judged to be" attractive? (attractiveness is culturally mediated and not to mention totally distorted by hegemonic notions of beauty)

3. Why did someone decide to do this study? To justify men being superficial in picking partners?

This is bullshit.

Marian Smith and her team took photos of 56 female students. They were all aged 18-24. The team took urine samples from the 56 students at exactly the same point of their menstrual cycles.

29 people (14 males and 15 females) were then asked to rate the pictures for attractiveness and health. They found a direct link between high levels of oestrogen and higher judged levels of attractiveness.

This sample size is WAY to small to generalize the findings, let alone publish this in Medical News Today. I just had to submit my MA thesis to Human Subjects for approval. One of the criteria is that I have to show how my study will somehow benefit my field or society at large. How does this study benefit anyone?

And I wonder if oestrogen (and its release) is connected to self-esteem at all? That would no doubt skew these findings. I mean for me sexuality/wanting to have sex, thus my production of oestrogen is DIRECTLY connected to my self-esteem, which is NO DOUBT mediated by our detrimental cultural standards of beauty. Just a thought.

Stella McCartney in New York displays fall’s newest look: hunger-fabulous.

Un-fucking-believable.

Via Gawker.

The New York Times had a story yesterday on the popular doll that has replaced Barbies across the Middle East, and her name is Fulla.

She is the doll with “Muslim values,” as described by her creator, NewBoy Design Studio. While Fulla shares the same unrealistic body proportions as Barbie, she doesn’t share her wardrobe; while she has many fashionable clothes, she’s usually modestly dressed, covered with a black abaya and head scarf. She even has her own pink prayer rug!

Fulla won’t have a boyfriend like Barbie’s Ken, but the company is planning on making a Teacher Fulla and Doctor Fulla for young girls to look up to. While there have been many other dolls in the past that have worn the hijab, none have ever been as popular as Fulla. She was introduced in November of 2003 and has been the rave since.

Some Syrian women’s rights advocates criticize Fulla being a part of the “cultural shift” towards Islamic conservatism that’s extending across the Middle East. And apparently, this particular “cultural shift” doesn’t come cheap. In Damascus, a Fulla doll costs $16, while the average per capita income is about $100 per month. Yet it still sells.

I’ve come to the conclusion that all dolls are evil, one way or another. The Chucky movies were trying to tell us something, dammit!

Thoughts?

According to the Associated Press, a Texas woman, Deleese Williams, is suing the reality show Extreme Makeover for alleged breach of contract, willful infliction of emotional distress and negligence.

In the lawsuit, Williams claims that her sister was interviewed by ABC producers and goaded by them into making extremely hurtful disparaging comments about Williams' looks. When Williams was subsequently dropped from the show, without getting any corrective surgery, the sister felt so bad about making the comments that she then killed herself. She (literally) couldn't live with the idea that she'd called Williams ugly.

Now, I will try to keep my nerdy law student-ness to a minimum and avoid discussing the problematic causation problems here. I do think, however, that this story (and this lawsuit) have some serious feminist implications.

It goes without saying that shows like Extreme Makeover are questionable. Any show which promulgates the notion that you need to "extremely" transform yourself to be a happy person is not a feminist's dream. But I think this story shows how deep this belief goes. If this lawsuit went through, we'd be living in a society that gives legal remedies for distress over being ugly. We'd be saying, "Yes - the harm of calling someone ugly, and them having to live with that knowledge, is grave enough that we will punish the actors who made that happen."

Has being ugly, especially as a woman, become so impermissible? Has our society begun to acknowledge that it's a fate worth dying over? And what effect does this have on women, who are usually the ones involved and for whom beauty standards have skyrocketed?

Italians can now legally bet on the Miss Italy contest because of a change in gaming rules.

The pageant folks aren’t too pleased:

"We're people, not objects or, worse, animals," complained Anna Prete, the "Miss Calabria" from the southern region of the same name and one of the many finalists unhappy with the government-sponsored scheme.

...Miss Italy purists are appalled at what they see is the vulgarization of a 66-year-old national institution and the competition's founder, Enzo Mirigliani wrote to the government to complain.

Allowing bets "damages the girls' dignity, bringing them down to the level of champion racehorses," he wrote, according to Il Messaggero.

The National Review Online loves them some boobies. So much, in fact, that they actually have an entire article devoted to whining about feminists trying to take away their boobilicious fun.

Author Sally Satel (who recently wrote a book with Christina Hoff Sommers—that should tell you a lot) fancies herself quite the comedienne:

The Breastapo are at it again, trying to dictate what American women should and shouldn't do with their breasts. On August 9 they were at the National Press Club, speaking out against the recent FDA decision to approve marketing of silicone breast implants (under FDA negotiable conditions) for cosmetic augmentation. The National Council of Women's Organizations hosted the event and featured speakers from the National Organization of Women, the National Women's Health Network, and Public Citizen, among others.

We are "so concerned about this... because it is uniquely a women's issue," said Martha Burk, spokeswomen for all women "and it uniquely affects the health and lives of many, many women. No one wants another Dalkon Shield." "They're making women sick," Kim Gandy of NOW weighed in. "Women will risk a lifetime of grave complications from faulty breast implants because the Bush administration and their appointees value short-term profits over women's long-term health."

Satel’s argument is basically breast implants aren’t that dangerous, and that feminists are just ruining everyone’s fun. I mean who really minds a little silicone leakage, right? What’s more disturbing than her dismissive attitude towards the health risks involved with breast implants is that her concern over this issue seems more about her anti-feminism than anything else:

The objections of the Breastapo are driven by feminist body politics which say that women should love their bodies as they are, not change them to please men. Apparently, in the feminist mind, a woman only has the right to choose what she does to her body as long as she chooses the "right" thing.

This argument is sooo tired. I must have missed the part where Gandy and Burk argued that saline breast implants and plastic surgery in general should be outlawed. Please. Feminists trust women to make their own decisions about their bodies. But we also intend to hold the government accountable when they put dangerous products out there.

Related: FDA, Bush administration favors fake tits

Looks like Nike is joining Dove in the new “real beauty” ad trend. (If you can call two companies a trend...well, it’s a start.) Rebecca Traister at Salon takes a look at Nike’s new ad campaign, which features women telling “stories” about their body parts--butts, thighs, hips, you name it.

Check out the copy from the “butt” ad:

My butt is big
And round like the letter C
And ten thousand lunges
Have made it rounder
But not smaller
And that's just fine.
It's a space heater
For my side of the bed
It's my ambassador
To those who walk behind me
It's a border collie
That herds skinny women
Away from the best deals
At clothing sales.
My butt is big
And that's just fine
And those who might scorn it
Are invited to kiss it.
Just do it.

Well then!

No matter what your feelings about Nike as a company, you have to admit that ad is pretty cool. As are the others. Though Traister does point out that they’re far from perfect. The weird voice-over style and content of the ads come off a little cheesy and sometimes bizarre. Not to mention, the featured body parts all seem from fairly younger women. A positive though: the body parts featured aren’t models’, but from women picked out of gyms across the country.

And as Traister says:

But it's still arresting to open up InStyle and see a pair of bulging, fleshy legs, flatteringly photographed in black-and-white against a paint-splotchy background, next to the words, "I have thunder thighs."

What do you guys think?

Women's eNews recently reported on a new trend in state legislatures: imposing a "Vanity Tax."

Vanity tax, like sales tax, is a surcharge imposed by the government on cosmetic procedures such as Botox injections, breast implants, nose jobs and tummy tucks. The idea behind the charge is to raise money for other, more "noble" political initiatives. For example, in Washington State, the cosmetic surgery tax was proposed to restore cuts in children's health services. The same initiative in Illinois aims at funding stem cell research.

Here's the deal: most people getting plastic surgery are women. Consequently, some worry that this law is discriminatory and sexist.

How do you feel about this? Rumor is that it's been a hard issue for feminists. Obviously, we reject any law that is unfairly burdensome to women. But do we really want to go to bat for the plastic surgery lobby, when its role is to reinforce some unattainable ideal? Kim Gandy, President of NOW, said it well:

"I'm not for any tax that disproportionately affects women..but it's a sad commentary on our society that such a large percentage of women feel the pressure to look a certain way and that 86 percent of people getting cosmetic surgery are women. It's not the taxes that bother me as much as the procedures themselves."

What do y'all think?

Teen, women's magazines now featuring females of all shapes and sizes

Lots of talk, minimal action.

There was a really interesting article in the Los Angeles Times a couple of days ago on the skin-whitening craze that’s been occurring within much of Asian-American culture as of late.

Women are the target, and they are going to great lengths to be as pale as possible, whether it’s by using whitening creams or actual medical procedures.

While skin-whitening products have been popular in Asia for decades, the U.S. has recently picked up on its potential within the past four years, and is now a multimillion-dollar industry.

The belief is that a porcelain-white face is the feminine ideal, as well as represents wealth.

One native of China, Qi, compared it to Western women’s obsession with tanning. "When you see darker, you think they are very rich. They have a boat. They have enough time to go to the beach."

While some may say it's that simple, there seems to be much deeper sexist and racist implications going on here. What do ya'll think?

Check out this article (free subscription) by the Charlotte Observer. I couldn’t help chuckling when I read the title, “Men are the new women.”

The author discusses the growing rise of men’s skin care products, with a picture (that’s probably supposed to be humorous) of a pro football player Fred Barnett applying a honey and almond facial scrub. Apparently, the sales of men’s skin care products jumped 13 percent last year, and is continuing to rise.

"There is just more cultural pressure on men to look good," said Karen Grant, an expert at NPD Group, a marketing information company. She also predicts that this fad isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

On a more serious note, is this a mere “metrosexual” fad, or does this development of male beauty standards seem to be more of a permanent change?

Craziness.

A new study found that more than half of women between 25 and 45 intend to have plastic surgery.

Of those considering the move, 64 per cent thought that it would give them more confidence, 42 per cent wanted to look younger and 13 per cent admitted that they wanted to look more attractive to men.

...As many as 78 per cent said that their biggest worry was "the operation going wrong", 40 per cent feared "being in pain" and 38 per cent even voicing fears about "dying under anaesthetic".

How in the world can you be afraid pain and death and still go ahead with cosmetic surgery?

Now I know how I feel about plastic surgery, and it ain’t good. Anyone out there who’s had cosmetic surgery (or plans to) want to weigh in?

What do we think of the new American Apparel advertising campaign? Perverted pornography or a break from rigid "typical (read anorexic)" advertising? American Apparel is a t-shirt/other cotton goods company well known for its very fair labor practices. The owner Dov Charney seems to be a rather complicated character, well mainly he seems like a big pervert, but what do we make of this kinda contradictory politic? His recent hire for their ad campaign is porn star Lauren Pheonix. I was recently in the store and I couldn't get a hold of how I felt about it either?

An SF Gate goes into why...

There is, for example, no silicone. There is no collagen. No Botox. There is no obvious retouching and no major Photoshopping to eliminate bulge or nipple or shiny forehead and there is occasional body flab and stocky leg and there are plenty of "average" (read: nonanorexic) female body types, and as mentioned all the models are amateurs, real women and men, and each is funky and ethnically mixed and unexpected, and Charney even leaves in the red eye and the sweaty lips and the odd angles and there is an air of salty delicious intimate funk to the pictures that makes you go, now this is what T-shirts should really be all about.

Like obviously I see the goods and the bads here. Incidentally, the owner has several pending sexual harassment suits against him probably stemming from his desire for a free and sexually open workplace.

Tell me what you think?

If you thought that women weren’t judged on their looks anymore, here’s a nice smack down for you:

An increase in a woman's body mass results in a decrease in her family income and a decline in her occupational prestige, according to research conducted by New York University sociologist Dalton Conley and Rebecca Glauber, an NYU graduate student. The study was sponsored by the Cambridge, MA-based National Bureau of Economic Research.

In addition, the researchers found that the association between body mass and occupational outcomes was more pronounced among younger women, suggesting that it is body mass that affects occupational prestige rather than the reverse. By contrast, and consistent with past research, men experience no negative effects of body mass on their economic situation.

Huh.

I never put too much stock in studies like these, but I’m not really surprised by this one. Fat discrimination is insanely pervasive, not to mention accepted, particularly when it comes to women. (Clearly discrimination could be just one factor behind the study’s results, but you can’t discount it entirely.)

Shit, even celebs now say out loud that they don’t like the fatties.

Horrible.

While steroids has always been presumed as a problem among men, a new survey conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that up to seven percent of high school girls may be trying anabolic steroids in the quest for the perfect body. Wow.

While the effects can be damaging for anyone, young women who take the drug can stunt their growth and damage their reproductive system. Because steroid use is related to body image, doctors predict that young women who have eating disorders may now turn to steroids.

Despite the disturbing findings the CDC survey found, other experts think the percentage is exaggerated. For example, a study conducted by the University of Michigan suggests that the total number of users may only be about 20,000 high school females.

Regardless of what the correct number of cases are, this is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed. "The risk is so tremendous," said Dr. Todd Schlifstein of New York University School of Medicine. "In young females, it is catastrophic."

Check out this belt ordered by an unidentified actress to be worn at the Cannes film festival. The diamond is 22-carat, by the way. That's some serious pussy accessorizing right there.

Via Nerve.

Check out Women’s eNews’ article on how groups of teen girls from Montana and California have been organizing to fight the $35 million cosmetics industry “one eyeliner at a time.”

For the past month, the girls have been traveling to stores and schools in their areas, educating girls and boys their age about the health dangers of cosmetics. The national campaign, “Operation Beauty Drop,” urges the public to drop questionable beauty products into their bins.

It was reported by the Environmental Working Group in 2004 that one-third of all cosmetics contain one or more ingredients that are classified as possible carcinogens. Some of these ingredients can cause reproductive harm, birth defects and cancer.

For more info, check out the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

My, my, the Bush administration sure does seem to make fashion waves on its trips to Europe. First there was the shameful Cheney in his "Staff 2001" knit hat and green, fur-trimmed parka at the Auschwitz ceremony. And now Condoleezza Rice is raising brows among cultural critics with her fashion pick for the Wiesbadan Army Airfield.

Washington Post style writer, Robin Givhan critiques:

"Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power -- such a volatile combination, and one that in political circles rarely leads to anything but scandal. When looking at the image of Rice in Wiesbaden, the mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix! It is as though sex and power can only co-exist in a fantasy. When a woman combines them in the real world, stubborn stereotypes have her power devolving into a form that is purely sexual."

"Rice challenges expectations and assumptions. There is undeniable authority in her long black jacket with its severe details and menacing silhouette...If there is any symbolism to be gleaned from Rice's stark garments, it is that she is tough and focused enough for whatever task is at hand."

While I'm still wrestling with Givhan's critique, I'm struck by the fashion conundrum that powerful women are left to wrestle with. By breaking with her usual uniform -- "a bland suit with a loose-fitting skirt and short boxy jacket with a pair of sensible pumps" -- Rice got cast a dominatrix. While I personally think that the "power-suit" is an extremely unflattering look, why does breaking free of a two-piece suit imply sexual deviance? It seems that even in wardrobe choices, critics are eager to impose the virgin/whore dichotomy on women.

Any thoughts?

Maureen Dowd's piece, Where's the Road Beef?, on some of the lovely things men say about women and how beauty standards haven't changed much. At all.

Here's a snippet:

At the dawn of feminism, there was an assumption that women would not be as severely judged on their looks in ensuing years. Phooey. It's just the opposite. Looks matter more than ever, with more and more women spending fortunes turning themselves into generic, plastic versions of what they think men want, reaching for eerily similar plumped-up faces and body shapes.

For only fifteen bucks, you can get yourself a pretty beaded bracelet. But this is not just a bracelet; it represents a secret society of self-destructive young girls and women.

I’ve heard of these underground “pro-ana” websites before, where young women bond over their eating disorders and feel that there’s no need to get better. It’s a way of life and they don’t want to change. For example, bluedragonfly.org. is one of the sites where you can purchase these bracelets.

The pretty jewelry is a sign of membership that can distinguish each other in public, so they can identify their fellow members. But the bracelets aren’t just limited to eating disorders.

Red bracelets represent anorexia.
Purple represents bulimia.
Black and blue is for self-injury, like cutting.

I’m quite speechless. The depressing part of this is that when young girls do come together, it’s for an unhealthy and destructive lifestyle. Is this the only way we can support each other, by killing ourselves?

Much thanks to Rebecca for the link.

From the cover of Teen Vogue. Lovely.

Via Gawker.

Check out this really interesting article by the Guardian Unlimited about past and recent advertising that takes a feminist stance, and how that feminism is actually lost in the attempt to sell a product.

Natasha Walter grapples the issue, and is particularly disappointed in the use and abuse of feminist rhetoric that is used to appeal to women consumers. She discusses in most detail the recent campaign that Dove has recently begun. On
their web site, next to pictures of “ordinary” women, there are a number of slogans like, “Real beauty comes in many shapes, sizes, colours and ages. It's why we started the campaign for real beauty. And why we hope you'll take part. Join the beauty debate.”

She brings up past uses of feminist rhetoric in advertising, like the earliest in 1969, when Virginia Slims introduced the slogan, “You’ve come a long way, baby.” I’m sorry, but I always thought that slogan was so ridiculous, it was funny. And for cigarettes too! Priceless.

At the end of the article, Walter says:

The use of feminist rhetoric in the service of pure self-improvement is seen everywhere at the moment, while the feminist movement towards equalising power in the real world still gets a poor press. So don't campaign for real beauty. Instead, we could campaign for real feminism, or, at least, join that debate.

I think it was a very insightful article and couldn’t argue with one thing she said, but I can’t help smiling when I do see an ad that’s subverting social beauty standards or promoting a form of feminism. Should these company’s be scrutinized for putting forth a positive media image of women for a change? Even if their strategy is almost solely for self-promotion, and merely to make us buy some soap? Is feminism truly lost here?

I’m open for comments...

Check out this article on Slate.com by Laura Kipnis, author of Against Love: A Polemic, that grapples a pretty popular subject these days.

In this piece, "Navel gazing: Why Even Feminists Are Obsessed With Fat," Kipnis takes on the growing obsession with fat that is not just limited to reality shows anymore. She discusses the increasing number of books and plays recently introduced that analyze the cultural aspects of weight and beauty in the U.S., such as Leil Labute’s Fat Pig, Eve Ensler’s The Good Body, and the newest addition, Fat: An Anthropology of an Obsession, a collection of short essays edited by Don Kulck and Anne Meneley.

At the end of the article, Kipnis puts her own two cents in:

The reason they're incompatible [feminism and femininity] is simple. Femininity is a system that tries to secure advantages for women, primarily by enhancing their sexual attractiveness to men. It also shores up masculinity through displays of feminine helplessness or deference. But femininity depends on a sense of female inadequacy to perpetuate itself. Completely successful femininity can never be entirely attained, which is precisely why women engage in so much laboring, agonizing, and self-loathing, because whatever you do, there's always that straggly inch-long chin hair or pot belly or just the inexorable march of time. (Even the dewiest ingénue is a Norma Desmond waiting to happen.)

For another book on the issue, check out our review of Wendy Shanker’s The Fat Girl’s Guide to Life.

It looks like the conservative radio giant, Clear Channel Communications, has shifted their focus from their pro-war antics to another target: insecure young women.

Titling their new enhancement program, “The Breast Christmas Ever”, they are running a number of contests on their radio stations where young women send in letters and pictures, hoping to be the lucky winner to get breast implants for the holiday, reports CBS News. The listeners vote, ultimately deciding which woman “deserves” it the most. They apparently claim it a “noble cosmetic self-help exercise” that saves young women’s self-esteem. Give me a fucking break.

The contests also require the lucky winners to send in “before and after” pictures of themselves (one station insisted they be topless), as well as sign a liability release that frees Clear Channel, their radio stations and the plastic surgeons of any future problems with their implants. So not only are they promoting sexist and voyeurist ideas, but potentially putting women’s health in danger.

Don’t you just love the holidays?

To take action against this ridiculously degrading shit, here are some contacts:

Clear Channel:
Mark Mays, President and Chief Executive Officer
1-210-822-2828
MarkPMays@clearchannel.com

FCC:
1-888-CALL-FCC
fccinfo@fcc.gov

Or if any of y’all live in these areas, you can call individual stations:

Radio Stations:
95.5 WKQI FM Detroit, MI
248-967-3750

97.9 KISS FM Jacksonville, FL
904-636-0507

Z107.7 FM St Louis, MO
314-333-8000

93.3 WFLZ FM Tampa, FL
813-839-9393

Plastic surgery parties for teens. Yeah, you heard me.

The New York Observer reports that plastic surgeon-sponsored soirées are quite the hit among rich NY teens, where they can dance to bad club music, drink nonalcoholic drinks out of martini glasses, and get consulted about a nose job. Sounds like a fucking blast.

But according to the ultra-sensitive Steven Pearlman, a Park Avenue plastic surgeon, “it’s not just a nose job these days…Girls gain confidence after their surgeries and want to improve many other elements of their appearance. For example, girls with big noses often have big, frumpy hairdos. We can direct them to a stylist who can help fix that.”

Yeah, what is it about big noses and bad hair that always seem to go hand in hand? Puh-leeze.

Another gem from Dr. Pearlman on the right age for plastic surgery:

“It depends on the individual, but I can generally start on girls at 15 and boys at 16…Though with the guys, you have to be careful that they’re not going to be doing any sports too soon after their surgery.” Cause girls generally don’t do anything active besides like, shopping at the mall, right?

This guy is the ultimate dickhead—he invites already-insecure girls to a party where their looks are dissected to the point where only a $10,000 surgery will cure their ego. Nice job, asshole.

Check out this cool new product, Bandshades—for those of us (which would be most) who don’t have a nasty pasty shade of peach for skin color.

Bandshades come in five different shades and do a hell of a better job at looking discrete than your typical band-aid. (Unless you’re still sporting your Hello Kitty or fluorescent band-aids, which I admit doing on occasion...)

Are you a die-hard fan of The Simpsons like myself? If so, you have may checked out last night's episode, which grappled an ongoing feminist issue.

Little Lisa gets made fun of by the twins for having a big ass, so she responds by becoming immersed in the current social beauty trend of being "thin" -- in other words, looking starved. Lisa's reaction -- by constantly working out, reading "Thin By Third Grade" magazine, and eventually binging on a cake in the middle of the night -- approaches the numerous problems that begin for girls as young as herself due to society's obsession with weight.

It was interesting how although Nelson succeeded in getting revenge on the mean twins for their comments, Lisa admitted that her insecurities about her body still existed. While the show usually resolves every problem that arises in each episode by the end of the half-hour, this one was left open-ended. Despite how intelligent and feminist Lisa may be, she is still an impressionable little girl who is just as victim to this pressure.

At the end of the show, while discussing the standards she can't seem to escape, she even admits that "We still have a long way to go."

Word.

Women’s eNews wrote an interesting/scary-ass article this week about a newly popularized form of plastic surgery that makes me quiver -- labiaplasty.

Originally, labiaplasty was performed primarily for women in the sex industry who needed their labia reduced for infection or pain. But more recently, it looks like the average Jane is coming to the doc’s to get her vagina “looking pretty.” Some do get the surgery due to physical discomfort, but it seems to be quite a trend for women who feel like their pussy is “old looking” and want it nice and, er, perky again.

And what does it actually mean to get your labia “reduced?” Exactly what it sounds like. “In a labiaplasty, the surgical reshaping of female external genital structures, larger or uneven inner vaginal lips are cut and shortened.” Ahhhh!

Another form of vaginal cosmetic surgery is called vaginal rejuvenation, which is a tightening of the vaginal and perineum area (which can be stretched during childbirth). I won’t lie, I am a bit scared of damaging my goods while giving birth, but my cooch could be wider than Texas and I still wouldn’t let someone take the knife to any part of it. On top of that, there is speculation of whether vaginal rejuvenation actually increases pleasure or severely decreases it -- seems that there’s risk for cutting nerves, creating scarring and causing future pain during intercourse. Gulp.

And it seems that much of the time, according to two doctors that perform labiaplasty and vaginal cosmetic surgery, the reason for the surgery is due to a comment by a partner. “The bulk of the women getting this surgery are ultimately being pressured by men who want them to conform to a idea of beauty most often seen in the porn industry...Doctors Loftus and Young say feedback from male partners is the number one reason women request the surgery.”

Should we be surprised? Sigh.

Also check out Echidne of the Snakes’ take on this scary shit.

Feministing reported on pregnant women who try to slim down back in September as a disturbing New York City trend, but it seems that the rest of the country is (unfortunately) catching on.

A Johns Hopkins study found that one in five pregnant women think it's cool to skip meals, and that most feel bad about their weight gain. Umm, you have another friggin person in there—you’re going to gain weight!

Coauthor of the study, Dr. Laura Caulfield, noted that this was the case “even among women who gained the recommended amount of weight associated with a healthy pregnancy.” Ugh.

What’s the deal ladies?

It looks like Eve Ensler is coming out with a new play, and this time she’s not going to be obsessing over her vagina. This time, the fetish has moved six inches up. "

Yes, Ensler’s tummy has been the inspiration for her new 85-minute broadway play, "The Good Body," reported the New York Times yesterday. "It has become my tormentor, my distractor," she laments. "It's my most serious committed relationship. It has protruded through my clothes, my confidence and my ability to work....My stomach, is chicken wings, dipping butter, fried shrimp, fried zucchini, fried ice cream, fried dumplings, fried anything, fried right. My stomach is America.” I would be careful Eve, your vagina might get jealous...

There is a discussion in the article of how there seems to be a fad of shows concerning weight like "The Biggest Loser," where weight-challenged contestants compete to see who loses the most weight, “Fat Actress” on Showtime where Kristie Alley plays an actress struggling with her weight, and "Flab to Fab" from VH1 where peeps follow a weight-loss program inspired by their favorite celebrity. Ugh, when does it end??

What I found interesting was the question posed concerning social beauty standards and being overweight -- is Eve Ensler’s belly subversive to these norms? Is "fat" a feminist issue? I would say yes. But please, let’s not replace the vagina speak to tummy talk.

Check this nonsense I found via Nerve.com.

Jen Magazine—a publication for Mormon teen girls—gives some chaste fashion advice, in their “modest fashion fixes” section. Some gems:

Wear two pairs of jeans. Yes, I’m serious. Jen insists that this is a super-cool new fashion in Hong Kong. Plus, it’s that much easier to protect that hymen, ladies!

Wear overalls. And don’t worry, Jen assures readers, “I'm not talking about ugly overalls, I'm talkin' about cute overalls with lots of pockets and other stuff.” Nothing says virgin like a whole bunch of pockets.

The ever pure Jen gives several other tips, but they all amount to the same thing: wear more clothes! Pile on the layers! Come on, quick, before you’re tempted to fuck your way through high school!

If you have a tank top that's printed or decorated and you want to wear it, you can always put a shirt with sleeves under it…If you have a skirt that's become too short you can still wear it as a fashion accessory. Wear it with pants underneath it or wear it over a longer skirt…things always look cuter with layers.

Fine. I’m into layers. But Jen crosses the line when she suggests…(shudder)…bodysuits. She specifically pushes the modesTee (pictured above), a bodysuit made to wear under clothes so that you keep that inner-whore under wraps.

I would expect to see much more of this, now that Bushie is in office. Maybe he can make it part of his scary abstinence-only education…Cause lord knows those overalls will come in handy to cover up an unexpected pregnancy.

If you're a decent artist and looking to get active, you should check out the National Organization of Women's 2005 Love Your Body Campaign. It's a poster design contest with the intent of responding to society's negative body images that effect women's and girl's esteem and health. They are looking for the following in their art-eest:

"Winning images will provide a visual response to advertisers who attempt to link smoking, drinking, and dieting to women’s liberation; fashion magazines who imply that anorexia is the path to beauty; and marketers who tell us that more expensive cosmetics will improve a woman's sense of self worth."

The grand prize winner recieves $600, and a her/his poster with be part of a national campaign that challenges the industries that prey on women's insecurities with their bodies. Sounds dandy to me! (Now, if only I could draw...)

Remind me never to get old in Romania....This shit is just mean!

Apparently a new Victoria’s Secret marketing campaign that targets college women is pissing some people off. Um, why? Is this really news?

I’ll tell you though, while the idea that Victoria’s Secret wants young women to buy lingerie isn’t exactly a shocker, their weird campus-invasion technique is insulting in a do-you-really-think-I’m-that-stupid kind of way. I mean come on now, they’re trying to lure us with little pink doggies for fuck’s sake.

The new collection for 18- to 22-year-old women, PINK, is designed with sexiness and youthful energy...The models who wear the sexy apparel belong to a diverse group of all nationalities...

Because didn’t you know? College girls—unlike the rest of women—are diverse!

Rebecca Lehmer…of Christian Student Fellowship, said she’s not against the clothes, but questions the message Victoria’s Secret is issuing by marketing on campus...

Lehmer said some of Victoria’s Secret’s advertising is explicit and provocative. In some ways, it might be selling sex, she said.

Wow, really? Selling sex? She’s a sharp one. (Forgive me, my mood is cruel today.)

While marketing to a supposedly new demographic might help sales, we at Feministing once again suggest not making cheap-ass underwear that falls apart after two washes.

I love my city, but this is just ridiculous...

New York magazine is running a piece on pregnant NYC women who are way too concerned about their weight. But wait--aren't you supposed to pack the pounds on when with child? Apparently not in Manhattan. (I refuse to let my precious Queens and Brooklyn take the blame for this one.)

An extra odd element? The main woman interviewed in the piece is Margot Tenenbaum. But she's not an eyeliner-heavy Gwyneth Paltrow, just a New Yorker who was friendly with The Royal Tenenbaums director. Freaky.

In any case, check it out--it's not pretty. It's sad enough that so many women are constantly psychotic about their weight, but to be all nutty when you're pregnant is too upsetting for words...

Uh oh ladies. An article in the Chicago Tribune details increased spending among women in their teens and twenties on beauty products. While putting your best foot forward is always a good thing, it's not a great idea when it comes at the expense of your savings account.

It turns out that we are spending more than twice as much today on waxing, tanning and lipstick as our moms did in the 60’s.

Companies who have been documenting our spending have found that we tend to [over]pay for our beauty regimens in cash and then charge necessities like groceries and gas. As a result, money that should be going into a savings account is spent paying off a credit card balance.

The article urges young female consumers to set goals (like paying off your credit card, or saving $50 a month), try DIY services (L'Oreal Jet Set works great for me) and spend on quality (salon hair color lasts a lot longer than the stuff in the box).

Oh yeah, and pay your bills online. Women in their 20s rack up a huge amount of debt on late fees alone.

The bottom line: you don't have to abandon your beauty regimen -- just make sure you spend as much time researching savings & investment options as you do at the salon.