Vogue‘s recent decision to become “ambassadors for positive body image” sounds, for the most part, like an attempt to patch up their many missteps in the fight against terrible self-esteem and eating disorders. But according to an Elle Canada article by Ben Barry (owner of the Ben Barry Agency, a pro-women talent agency that uses diverse body types), it may also be a savvy business move. Because, despite the firmly-held beliefs of many advertisers, women actually buy more stuff when clothing is modeled on realistic, healthy, and natural models.

It turns out, according to Barry’s research, that models are more than just skeletal clothes hangers that women ignore when flipping through the glossy magazine pages. He found that we are, to no woman’s surprise, inclined to look at who’s wearing the clothes, and–here’s the important part–base our purchasing habits on what we see. Shocking, I know.

From the article:

My study found that women increased their purchase intentions by more than 200 percent when the models in the mock ads were their size. In the subgroup over size 6, women increased their purchase intentions by a dramatic 300 percent when they saw curvier models. Conversely, when women saw models who didn’t reflect their size, they decreased their purchase intentions by 60 percent, and women over size 6 dropped their purchase intentions by 76 percent.

It’s true, Fashion Industry and Advertising Moguls: You could be making more money if you actually used real models. You don’t even have to care about the fact that it would help women feel better about themselves. You could totally just do it for the boost in sales. So…why don’t you?

Barry points out that, often, when the use of “normal”-looking women succeeds (like Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign, which bolstered sales by leaps and bounds, and endeared the brand to millions of consumers), the marketing and fashion industries see it as a one-off, or a novelty that won’t succeed again. But, as his and other research indicates, they’re missing a huge opportunity. Apparently women (who have brains and money and self-esteem concerns) actually appreciate it when models are less ‘aspirational’ (read: very thin).

And even if natural or differently-shaped women are just a novelty that excites women (remember how excited everyone and their mom was about that one V magazine spread? Or that time when Crystal Renn, pre-weight loss, modeled swimsuits in Glamour and we all had a heart attack because of her beauty?), isn’t that a good enough reason to keep trying it? If it’s novel to portray women as they are, shouldn’t we keep doing it until it becomes the norm?

Consider a recent interview we ran with Katie Halchishick of Natural Model Management, and our readers loved it, in part because the idea of empowering and photographing women of a variety of sizes is so outside of the mainstream–but it’s not outside of the desires of women.

Women want to see models that look like them, not ultra-thin women who give them something to aspire to /starve themselves to become. And yet, much of the fashion industry is lagging behind, churning out size 2 samples and casting impossibly small women to pose nude, hipbones akimbo, as they shill for handbags and headscarves, because they think that giving women something to “work toward” is the best way to spur purchases. But, as Barry illustrates (and as many of us can attest to), it’s not what we want–and it’s not how we behave. Karl Lagerfeld doesn’t have to be OK with Adele‘s body, or even care about how women feel about their bodies–he just needs to accept that women like seeing other women who look like her.

Designers and marketers should take a leaf out of Barry and Halchishick’s respective books and consider broadening sample sizes and widening their casting pools–if not because it’s better for women (though it is), because it’s better for their bottom line.

Image via

Related posts:

• Tyra Banks Likes Vogue‘s New Rules (But Likes Her Own Advice More)
• Vogue’s Olympic Issue: Celebrating Male Athletes and Female…Models
• Dear Vogue: Please Actually Become “Ambassadors For Healthy Body Image”
• Italian Vogue Editor Condemns Pro-Ana Websites; Continues Making Pro-Ana Bait
• Adele’s Body Confidence Unphased By Karl Lagerfeld’s Nasty Fat Comments

Post from: Blisstree

When I was a broke college student, I discovered a giant, money-saving secret in the aisles of Walgreens: gendered pricing. Women’s beauty products, like deodorant and razors, simply cost more than their identical, marketed-for-men counterparts. And according to Forbes and Marie Claire, this isn’t just a small marketing anomaly, in which manufacturers bank on a few extra pennies from the ladies–artificially inflated prices can cost females and female-identified individuals well over $1,000 per year in beauty products and health insurance.

You may recall an article on Blisstree a few months ago, in which Elizabeth deconstructed the model of gendered pricing within health insurance–a sad, upsetting practice in which preventative healthcare measures for women are priced higher than those of men for, it seems, no reason. That practice is slowly, state-by-state, being stopped by the Affordable Care Act…but what about every other way women are gouged, like at the drugstore, where formulas and construction (think shampoo or razors) across genders are similar or identical? Does it really cost more to make stuff for women?

First, let’s compare the ingredients in a men’s deodorant to a women’s, just to see if the formulas really are “totally different” like one source told Forbes. Here are the ingredients for Dove’s Men+Care Clean Comfort Deodorant/Antiperspirant:

Aluminum Zirconium Tetrachlorohydrex GLY, Cyclopentasiloxane, Stearyl Alcohol, C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, PPG-14 Butyl Ether, Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Fragrance (Parfum), Dimethicone, Polyethylene, Steareth-100, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, BHT

And here’s the ingredient list for Dove’s Go Sleeveless Beauty Finish Deodorant:

Aluminum Zirconium Tetrachlorohydrex GLY, Cyclopentasiloxane, Stearyl Alcohol, C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, PPG-14 Butyl Ether, Hydrogenated Castor Oil, PEG-8, Fragrance (Parfum), Dimethicone, Silica, Polyethylene, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Steareth-100, BHT

When purchased online, they’re about the same price–around $5. When purchased in a store in my neighborhood, the women’s version was a good $1 more expensive. The women’s stick was also substantially smaller. So what gives?

One factor that Forbes points out is that the cost of importing women’s products tends to be higher, because tariff laws are weird and old and controlled by huge market forces and lobbyists. But that’s only part of the problem–if razor blades or ingredients are shipped independently and assembled in US factories, that doesn’t really apply.

What is really at play, it seems, is that manufacturers of health and beauty products know that they can get women to spend more on personal care items, and that by playing to women’s insecurities, they can also hawk more and different products. This is from an actual Datamonitor market research document:

…The increasing image consciousness of many women creates premiumization opportunities for manufacturers and retailers even during a recession

Yup. Making us more self-conscious gets us to pay more money for products.

Additionally, store placement is a big part of the equation. By keeping men’s and women’s products separated, vendors are able to thwart comparison shoppers. Few women actually go check to see what the men’s (or generic, non-gendered) razors, shampoo, or other products cost, and thus, they may not realize how much more they’re really spending for something that’s basically the same, but marketed toward them.

What can you do to save money on beauty products? First, you can consider–hear me out–actually spending a little more, by shopping for sustainable, responsible products. National chains like The Body Shop, which offer more eco-friendly (and way less gender-marketed), or artisan, local vendors may charge more, but it’s not because they’re gouging you–it’s because you’re getting a better product with less ooky stuff in it.

Or, if you’re really looking to pinch pennies, consider doing what I did in college (and still do): look for the products that are the least gendered. Take a stroll to the men’s section to check out the wares, and look for deodorants and other personal care items that seem less targeted toward women. Then compare price–items in yellow, green, blue or other more gender-neutral colors (one market study showed that women don’t actually prefer the color pink–it’s just that buy pink items because they’re in front of them) will likely be lower in price.

You can also, as Marie Claire recommends, reach out to your congressperson or representative and ask that gendered pricing, which is pointless except to make money for manufacturers, be curbed once and for all.

Image via Dove

Related posts:

• Women Pay $1 Billion A Year More For Health Insurance, Thanks To “Gender Rating”
• Companies Charging Smokers Up to $2,340 More For Insurance. What About Obese Workers Too?
• Keep It Clean: The Top 7 Ingredients To Avoid In Beauty Products
• Deodorant May Not Give You Breast Cancer, But Other Toxic Beauty Products Could
• Badvertising: Stop Making Me Feel Insecure About My Armpits

Post from: Blisstree

Post from: Blisstree

According to the New York Daily News, Bollywood actress and former Miss World Aishwarya Rai holds “a place in Indian popular culture akin to Kate Middleton or Victoria Beckham” in the U.K. And like Middleton, Beckham or any number of American equivalents, Rai is now being ridiculed for not losing weight quick enough after having a baby.

Rai, who has acted in Indian and British films, started her career as a model and is also famous for “brand endorsements, charitable work and a high-profile marriage” (to actor Abhishek Bachchan), according to Sarfraz Manzoor. But ”unlike heroines from the 70s and 80s who were often healthily curvy, Rai’s popularity rested on a body that was supermodel lean.”

After giving birth to a baby girl six months ago, Rai was photographed on the way to a UN party with a post-baby body that wasn’t appropriately slimmed down enough for some people’s tastes. Critics suggested she has an obligation to fans to lose weight. Fans seem upset that Rai isn’t living up to standards set by Western celebrity beauties for quickly regaining pre-baby bodies.

One website posted a video, complete with elephant sound effects, entitled ‘Aishwarya Rai’s shocking weight gain,’ which has been seen more than 500,000 times. “She is a Bollywood actress and it is her duty to look good and fit,” suggested one commenter. Another added: “She needs to learn from people like Victoria Beckham who are back to size zero weeks after their delivery.”

Geez … we see a lot of pregnancy and post-pregnancy body critics in the American and British tabloids, but it’s usually framed differently, posed more as a concern for health or wellness. [See: Last week, when outlets like the Daily Mail and Fox News expressed concern over sleep deprivation and jet lag as an excuse to snark on pictures of Hilary Clinton "without makeup".]

Still, the underlying sentiment is familiar. Clinton was criticized for not getting dolled up to discuss heavy international relations stuff with China and India. According to Mazoor, the image “that sparked the storm” with Rai was her on the way to a party being thrown for the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, where he asked her to be the “global face” of a new UN campaign.

“The Indian media, though, was less interested in the job offer than the fact that Rai looked like a 38-year-old woman who had recently given birth.”

The most disturbing part: Part of the criticism of Rai seems to be based on how it will look for a woman considered one of the most beautiful in India not to regain her ‘pre-baby body’ as fast as western celebrity women.

“The role models being held up are Angelina Jolie and Victoria Beckham,” said (Showbusiness columnist) Shobhaa Dé. “But our body frames are different – we have wider hips and curves – so this whole business of looking desperately skinny two weeks after giving birth is a western import.”

The problem is compounded by certain Indian cultural ideas about marriage and motherhood. ”The career trajectory of female Bollywood actors has been downwards after they married and had children,” Mazoor writes. Indian audiences have been slow to accept movie stars known to be married and/or mothers. Recently, however, two other film stars have been making comebacks after having children, and Rai is visiting Cannes as a brand ambassador for L’Oreal.

Rai’s appearance at Cannes could be an important cultural moment, said Dé. ”It could be a turning point in making us stop and review the absurd expectations we have of our female celebrities.” Well, here’s to wishful thinking ….

Photo: IBN Live

Related posts:

• Let’s All Listen To Jenna Fischer Say Very Sane Things About Post-Baby Weight Loss
• Celebrity Post-Baby Weight Loss Is Setting Dangerous Standards
• Victoria Beckham’s Post-Baby Weight Loss Is In the Stars
• TMZ Ignites Cruel Shaming Of Bryce Dallas Howard’s Post-Baby Body
• The Body Positive: The Real Deal On Post-Baby Bodies, From An OB/GYN

Post from: Blisstree

I think we need to let Jessica take some time to lose the baby weight. But it is better if you lose it hard and fast; it’s just very difficult to get it off if you wait too long. So, I think we should be kind to her, but she should probably get back on that treadmill.

Admittedly, the “maternity concierge” doesn’t hold any real medical expertise, but she does have a fairly wide-reaching platform on Bravo, which makes me slightly frightened for women who might take her advice to heart. (If you’re wondering what a healthy approach is from a medical standpoint, check out our interview with an OB/GYN about “normal” pregnancy weight gain and loss.)

In somewhat sounder advice, she also suggested that Simpson take a break from the spotlight to focus on parenting:

I feel that she’s been under such scrutiny for so long, I really think for Jessica trying to keep this baby private and trying to keep her mothering private for a little bit is the respite that she needs to really get her feet under her and know what she’s doing. Otherwise she’s going to be out driving with the baby on her lap feeding it gumdrops or something.

But then, this is coming from someone who induced and live tweeted her most recent baby’s birth to coincide with her show’s premier on Bravo last week, so we’d probably advise skipping her advice altogether.

Related posts:

• Ask An OB/GYN: What’s ‘Normal’ Pregnancy Weight Gain And Post-Pregnancy Weight Loss
• Jessica Simpson Gave Birth To Baby Girl Maxwell Drew Johnson (Who’s Not Addicted To Crack Pie!)

Post from: Blisstree

The Daily Mail is among the media outlets most obsessed with the no-makeup “trend”—headlines proclaiming shock over a new barefaced celebrity seem to surface on their website hourly—but unsurprisingly, they’ve also been using it as an opportunity to shamelessly bash female celebrities’ looks; especially the ones who happen to be older than 23. First, there was their embarrassing focus on Hilary Clinton‘s pared-down look (while discussing nuclear weapons); now, they’re bashing Stella McCartneyfor looking “older than her years” without makeup.

In an article that’s typical of the tabloid, the commentary revolves simply around a few photos of the British designer and her husband, caught on the street looking…not super made-up. Which, for plenty of young starlets, has been occasion to celebrate their “natural beauty” and rally in admiration of their confidence, but in her case, doesn’t seem to impress.

One photo caption reads:

Strained: Stella is only 40 but looked much older than her years

And the article describes her look:

…considering she usually looks chic and trendy especially if she is wearing one of her own designs, she looked less than polished in a chunky light blue cardigan and boots.

She was with husband Alasdhair Willis who looked better than his wife, but still ungroomed as he headed across the street.

We have mixed feelings about the whole “no makeup” trend in celebs; it’s practically become the new “baby bump” for female celebswho want to embrace their confidence and “natural” beauty (whatever that is), but the photos are often deceptive and the concept just seems to give women another category of physical appearance for which they’ll be scrutinized–at least insofar as it’s been used to make headlines on pubs like the Daily Mail.

Related posts:

• Daily Mail, Fox Bash Hillary Clinton For Going Makeup Free While Discussing Iranian Nukes
• ‘Without Makeup’ Is The New Baby Bump For Celebrities
• Celebs ‘Without Makeup’ Who Are Clearly Wearing Makeup
• Daily Fail: Let’s Not Glorify Rihanna’s ‘Mystery’ Weight Loss

Post from: Blisstree

Well, that settles it. Those of us who were skeptical about Vogue‘s vague new “rules” for becoming “ambassadors of positive body image” can now rest assured that positive change is coming, because Tyra Banks said so. In an open letter today, the model-turned-entrepreneur-turned-talk-show-host congratulated the fashion/media giant on their decision…and offered plenty of Tyra-centric advice of her own. Because, you know, she’s Tyra. And while much of it was questionable, she did have some pretty smart things to say.

Banks, who has made a career out of talking about herself (under the guise of helping others) posted the open letter to the Daily Beast, which both saluted Vogue‘s decision to stop using models who “appear” to have an eating disorder, and to create a healthier work environment for them, and took the opportunity to remind everyone about how much work she personally has done to help end eating disorders, like eating pizza. From the letter:

In my early 20s I was a size four. But then I started to get curvy. My agency gave my mom a list of designers that didn’t want to book me in their fashion shows anymore. In order to continue working, I would’ve had to fight Mother Nature and get used to depriving myself of nutrition. As my mom wiped the tears from my face, she said, “Tyra, you know what we’re going to do about this? We’re going to go eat pizza.” We sat in a tiny pizzeria in Milan and strategized about how to turn my curves into a curveball. In a way, it was my decision not to starve myself that turned me into a supermodel, and later on, a businesswoman.

To be fair, Tyra Banks has been a pretty loud and progressive voice toward changing the way the media treats the female body. And the swimsuit finger-wagging clip posted in the article does still give me goosebumps, because it was a very brave move and also one that spoke to a lot of women.

However, parts of her letter get dangerously close to problematic territory of “models eating syndrome,” in which inhaling large quantities of unhealthy food is equated to the exact opposite of inhaling large quantities of unhealthy stimulants…Because, remember, “totally pigging out on junk food” is not necessarily any healthier (or, for that matter, any less of an eating disorder) than starving oneself.

But Banks does get a few good tips in, particularly those aimed at mothers of young women (and, ostensibly, female-identified individuals).

To moms everywhere, we need to educate our girls not to fall prey to thinspirational images of beauty. So where do we start? By being very careful about how we talk about our own bodies in front of our daughters. We can show our daughters diverse images of beautiful women: curvy, tall, short, and everything in-between. Moms, you are the first and most influential role model in your girl’s life. Use that power. Teach her to love herself and everything that makes her unique.

Ah, that’s better. And it demonstrates something that’s been bothering me about Vogue‘s decision, which is that, yes, it is awesome that a huge (and hugely unwilling, it seems) participant in the pro-ana and thinspo community is willing to be part of the solution (even if in a consequence-less, vague-seeming kind of way)–but that’s not the end of the line. There’s still plenty of work to be done, mostly at home. Instead of making images of very-thin, unhealthy women go away entirely (they never will), it’s important to address them and look critically at them.

It’s hard to say if Vogue‘s decision be the game-changer than helps young women feel more positive about themselves, or if it’ll encourage the fashion world start making sample sizes in a 6, an 8, or, heaven forbid, a fit, muscular 12. But it can’t hurt to have vocal members of the industry coming out to support the move–and, more importantly, to remind parents that the problem goes far outside the pages of a magazine.

Image via

Related posts:

• Vogue’s Olympic Issue: Celebrating Male Athletes and Female…Models
• Dear Vogue: Please Actually Become “Ambassadors For Healthy Body Image”
• Italian Vogue Editor Condemns Pro-Ana Websites; Continues Making Pro-Ana Bait
• Vogue Puts 7-Year-Old Girl On A Diet, Highlighing How Not To Solve Childhood Obesity
• Dear Vogue, I Wish I Could See Adele’s Chin

Post from: Blisstree

The Help star “was spotted exercising her post-pregnancy legs on a walk with her adorable baby daughter Beatrice in L.A. this weekend,” TMZ wrote. They went on to point out her “comfy sweats and slippers” and even subtitled the article, “It Takes a Village.” A village of what? Fat? Did they deliberately leave that wide open so people could partake in the fat-shaming of a mom four months after giving birth?

It would seem so, based on some of the super rude comments that readers left:

Stu took the bait and wrote:

Her a$$ is a huge village!!!

HappyPat35 added:

wow..looks like she put on a lot….I think the viilage is in her backside.

JustMe wrote:

Damn! I think they left a baby in there.

Sealab2021 commented:

DAMN!!! Most of these actress’ work to lose the load pretty fast. She seems to be playing “universe”. She’s ever expanding… Sorry Bryce, but you have cowed out, BIG TIME! Those thighs could feed a village of cannibals for a few weeks!

And Puffy wrote:

Couldn’t agree more. The Hollywood types have plenty of money to pay for personal trainers, nannies, and it’s part of their JOB to stay as thin as possible.

But perhaps the rudest and most uncalled for response came from TMZ’s own staff who wrote:

The article may say Bryce Dallas Howard on it, but all I’m seeing are photos of Hugh Jass.

Really, TMZ and all of you other assholes? Do you really feel that badly about yourselves that you need to put down a new mom’s appearance?

All of you might be interested to learn that most women don’t lose all of their pregnancy weight until 6-12 months after delivery, according to an OB/GYN from the Mayo Clinic. You might also be interested to learn that Howard suffered from postpartum depression after her first child, in part because of her weight gain. Taking shots at her now is beyond mean.

Lucikly, not all of TMZ’s readers were so unsympathetic.

Melinda wrote:

Did you guys ever stop to consider she may have had a medical condition while she was pregnant that made it difficult for her to work out before delivery? I’m really disappointed in all of these rude comments. I’m sure a lot of you are just as fat but didn’t give birth recently!!!

And Ness added:

NOW that looks like a woman who had a kid 4 mos ago. so she didnt starve herself to be as thin as a broomstick..so the fk what!

See? This is what Hollywood and the media have done to us. Our society now thinks a woman should always look skinny and perfect, even after just having a baby. Please. Anyone who truly believes that has obviously never been a new mom whose body has been contorted every which way for nine months and hours–sometimes days–of labor. Not to mention the months afterward with no sleep, fluctuating hormones and very little time, if any, to cook a healthy meal and exercise.

Thank you, Bryce, for keeping it real. I want those slippers!

Photo: TMZ.com

Related posts:

• Ask An OB/GYN: What’s ‘Normal’ Pregnancy Weight Gain And Post-Pregnancy Weight Loss
• Science Tells Us How To Have A Healthy Pregnancy; Should The Law Punish Women Who Don’t?
• From “Scary Skinny” To “Full-Figured”: 5 Celebs Who Have Been Snarked For Both

Post from: Blisstree

Some celebrities are consistently being bashed for the same thing–Rachel Zoe is always “scary skinny,” like at last week’s Met Gala, for example–and that is upsetting. However, it’s not quite as disappointing as the body-snarking that happens to celebs who, like a lot of us, aren’t one body type or another. These women, whose weight fluctuates depending on, say, the role they’re playing, the workout they’re into, or what’s happening in their life, can’t ever seem to get it right. This does not send a great message to the rest of us.

Miley Cyrus, Jessica Simpson, Hilary Duff…all of these women have, within a few years, been railed against in the media for being “too” something, whether it be “too skinny!” or “too toned!” or, seemingly inevitably, “fat.” And, while it may seem frivolous to care about what tabloids say about other women’s bodies, the fact is that the way the media (and, as a result, readers and commenters) talk about the female body directly reflects and impacts the way we talk about ourselves and each other. It takes the emphasis away from having a healthy, functional body and places it squarely onto having a body that looks “right.” But, as the following headlines and images demonstrate, it seems that our bodies are simply always “wrong.”

When the same women are being called both “scary skinny” and “a little bottom-heavy” (or worse, the faux-complimentary “ample” and “curvy”), the message is this: women’s bodies can never be good enough. Someone always thinks you’re “too something.” Which is, frankly, bogus.

Here are 5 celebrities (only 5–I know there are PLENTY more, but these had the best/most ridiculous accompanying headlines, and believe me, I spent a lot of time rooting through the annals of the internet and now I need a big old drink) who can’t seem to win, no matter what they weigh–which just goes to show that media criticisms of bodies aren’t rooted in anything other than subjectivity and negativity.

Images via here and here

Related posts:

• Natalia Vodianova Says Skinny Is Better Than Fat–Is She Wrong, Or Just Un-PC?
• Women Can’t Win: Model Alexa Chung Is Skinny-Bashed On Instagram
• Cameron Diaz Sparks 2011′s Most Harmful Celebrity Debate: Can Women Be “Too Muscular”?
• Not Cool: Fat-Shaming Kate Upton Because She Doesn’t Starve Herself
• Daily Fail: Fat-Shaming Hilary Duff While Pregnant Is Lame

Post from: Blisstree

Vogue‘s June issue is a special Olympic-themed issue, devoted to celebrating the athletes with shoots like Annie Leibowitz‘s “Country Strong” and Bruce Weber‘s “Wonder Women.” But from the cover–which features Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte flanked by Hope Solo and Serena Williams—to the shoots, it’s hard not to notice how strongly the issue glorifies male athletes…and female models. Not only are the female athletes given far less ink (each male athlete gets two photos, while the female athletes each get one), but the photos chosen for the magazine practically try to hide them beneath giant props and vast expanses of sky, while model Karlie Kloss gets far more attention for posing languidly beside America’s top male Olympic hopefuls in designer clothing.

This is a fashion magazine, not ESPN, no one’s expecting Vogue to provide fair and balanced Olympic coverage. That said, it’s also a women’s magazine: Where ESPN’s audience is largely more concerned with male athletes, it doesn’t seem so far-fetched to think that Vogue readers might enjoy a few more photos of female athletes, maybe even in a designer dress or two.

Take a look at the photos and tell us what you think: Is Vogue just another source of sexist sports coverage?

All Photo: Vogue

Related posts:

• Dear Vogue: Please Actually Become “Ambassadors For Healthy Body Image”
• Vogue Puts 7-Year-Old Girl On A Diet, Highlighing How Not To Solve Childhood Obesity
• New York Times Sports Section Sexism: Will Feature Female Athletes (If They’re Former Beauty Queens)
• Before ESPN’s Body Issue: A Short History of Nude Female Athletes

Post from: Blisstree