There may as well be a sad face emoticon included in the title of Daily Mail‘s latest feature about “real women’s” bodies, “What pregnancy did to our bodies: Six brave mothers reveal the toll having a baby has taken on their figures.” We’ve seen this trick before–back when they wrote up a similar story about the average British woman’s weight, but even on the second try, they’re not quite getting it right.

Again, the spirit seems to be positive: Let’s show what really happens to women’s bodies during pregnancy to, you know, provide a counter-balance for the hundreds of articles idealizing celebrities’ bodies they’ve written this month! But in practice, it just looks like a lot of near-naked women in unflattering light being asked to smile really big, then pick apart their own bodies and describe how bad they feel about them.

Natalie Edmonds, a 26-year-old therapist with an 18-month-old son, gets a breif introduction: “She weighs 12st 3lb and is a size 14. She says her stretch marks were the worst her midwife had ever seen.” And Aimee Marshall, 22 and nine months into mommyhood, is described as 9st, a size 8-10, and “devastated by the way her breasts looked after giving birth.” The other moms get similar introductions, all focused on their weight, dress size, and the negative impact of pregnancy and birth on their bodies. Some of them do end on a high note, explaining that they’re generally happy with their bodies (despite the flaws they’ve just cataloged in detail), but the general tone is just pretty…sad.

One connects her body with her breakup and inability to date:

It has affected my confidence. Eadie’s dad and I split up when I was six months pregnant and I’m too embarrassed to even contemplate another physical relationship.

I haven’t been put off having more children but wish I’d been aware of the havoc it would cause my body. Mums-to-be should know that they will never look the same again.

Another says she’s resigned to feeling less attractive and the impact it has on her marriage:

Kevin says I’m still beautiful but it has affected our marriage — I always wear pyjamas in bed. I’ve accepted I’m going to remain this size and I’m learning to live with it.

And even one of the more positive reflections isn’t all that encouraging:

There’s not much opportunity for looking glamorous, but I’m proud of my body. As Mark says if I’m feeling low, my body may be bigger than it used to be, but it’s given us our son.

It’s great to hear about real women instead of celebs, and we’re all for people being honest about their bodies—because most of us don’t feel super sexy all the time, and that’s ok. But the Daily Mail‘s exhibits of “real women” seems to say that if you’re not a celebrity, you should probably be resigned to feeling somewhat crappy about yourself all the time.

Related posts:

• Snooki Is Having A Boy, Is Not A Horny Pregnant Sex Goddess (Unlike Jessica Simpson)
• Daily Fail: The Average British Woman Weighs 154 Pounds, And Doesn’t Like It
• Daily Fail: How Does Victoria Beckham Do It? It’s Called Photoshop
• Daily Fail: Calling Marilyn Monroe Sexy Doesn’t Make Bashing Skinny Girls Okay

Post from: Blisstree

Tracy Anderson’s strict approach makes us uncomfortable for the average woman; it makes us really worried for the average woman trying to lose baby weight. Many well-renowned trainers roll their eyes at her method, which promises to morph your body type and sets goals like “tighten the skin and to pull the muscles tight against the bone” (yep, that is a real quote). Some swear by her hour-long, six-day-per-week workouts to achieve a thin, toned body…but some swear that it’s ineffective at best, and dangerous at worst.

If you love the workouts and they work for you, we’re all for it (because ultimately, we’re all for anything that gets you jazzed to move), but we can’t get behind her low-calorie diet recommendations as healthy advice for the average consumer. The ”baby food cleanse” that she supposedly recommended to Jennifer Aniston may be a farce, but the diet that she’s recommended to other celebs just isn’t enough calories to sustain most women with an active lifestyle.

While pregnant, she paired with Molly Sims to promote a “pregnancy workout,” and tweeted photos of herself getting sweaty at the gym late into her pregnancy:

Thankfully, she handed out some sane advice to some of her fellow pregnant twitter followers:

…but we hope that if she breaks into the “post-pregnancy workout” biz, she promotes safe workouts and a moderate diet; lord knows we don’t need fitness experts pushing women to lose baby weight on top of cruel media headlines and bad celebrity advice.

Related posts:

• Tracy Anderson Is Pregnant: Here’s Hoping Her Strict Approach Gets A “Metamorphosis”
• The Body Positive: The Real Deal On Post-Baby Bodies, From An OB/GYN
• Let’s All Listen To Jenna Fischer Say Very Sane Things About Post-Baby Weight Loss
• Ask An OB/GYN: What’s ‘Normal’ Pregnancy Weight Gain And Post-Pregnancy Weight Loss
• Rosie Pope’s Advice To Jessica Simpson: Lose The Baby Weight ‘Hard and Fast’

Post from: Blisstree

I tried to reach out to the publisher for an interview or more information, but unfortunately, I wasn’t able to connect with anyone. But I still wanted to give the book a fair shake because, while getting made into a person who is “hot” is perhaps not the best motivation for me personally, it may work for other women. And I worry that I fall into a health book rut and always read/review/interview the same kinds of things/books/authors, so I wanted to give this a chance. Just in case, you know, all of the marketing surrounding it was hiding some sort of secret gem.

And there is some really good information in the book–like not being afraid of carbs, exercising, and eating high-energy food. But then there are lines like this:

You’re not going to believe me, but I’ve considered myself fat. And I could have stayed fat. Instead I decided to make different decisions every single day, because for me, there really isn’t any alternative.

And then this:

Is skinny hot? Naturally skinny is hot. Starving yourself in order to change your body type in order to get skinny is not hot. I’m not advocating that everyone weigh 104 pounds…but at the other end of the spectrum, being overweight or obese is certainly not hot; it’s just plain unhealthy.

Is that helpful, Kelly? Because you know, according to the BMI, I’m “overweight,” and I’m a runner and a yogi and pretty damn. Am I not hot? Are all of your readers who will never be in the “normal” range not hot? Or, moreover, are women who are in recovery from eating disorders not hot?

Speaking of eating disorders, Kelly wants you to know that she, too, could have been weak enough to succumb to one like all those other ninnies out there who want to be hot but do it in a not-hot way.

I was definitely in danger of developing an eating disorder, and what saved me during those years was running. I ran almost every day, mostly to keep my weight down and my spirits high.

Because people with eating disorders never exercise to self-medicate, right? This is not good advice.

Kelly Bensimon seems to, at times, try to actually motivate readers–mostly through personal stories that are hard to sympathize with, like how photographers are mean and being wealthy makes it hard to related to people–but for the most part, this book is a small parcel of good intentions, a handful of great pieces of advice (drink water! Eat real foods! Don’t skip meals! Do the kinds of things that make you feel beautiful!), and a giant drop-cloth of conventional-beauty-touting, abelist, cisgenered, promise-I-don’t-promote-skinny-except-that-I-do body-negativity.

When America is struggling with an obesity epidemic that threatens to hamstring our workforce and bankrupt us with sky-high medical costs, we need a diverse range of diet and exercise advice available, so that every single person can find a plan and a kind of motivation that works for them. And while Bensimon’s book may work for some people, it’s an example of how good advice becomes negative. It preys on low self-esteem, it puts Bensimon on a pedestal of “hotness” that readers are expected to watch and try to achieve.

If this book helps one women find motivation and eat healthy food and generally feel awesome about herself, then it’s not a total waste–especially considering a small portion of the proceeds are going to GenerosityWater.

But if the body-snarking, fat-shaming, and general air of “how to be hot like me” drives anyone away from being healthy, away from finding a kind of exercise that she enjoys, away from eating and making wholesome, nutritious recipes, then it’s just another brick in the wall between “hot” people and “not hot” (read: overweight, unhealthy) people. That’s not what we need.

Image: my copy of the book

Related posts:

• 7 Worst Body-Negative Food Ads
• I Need A Diet From Negative Public Health Messages
• Vogue‘s Version Of Being Body-Positive: A Skinny Woman Smoking [NSFW]
• Why Gawking At Ioana Spangenberg’s 20-Inch Waist Isn’t Body Positive
• “When Did This Become Hotter Than This” Gets A Body Positive Makeover

Post from: Blisstree

“Thinspo” content—images and articles “inspiring” readers to persist at disordered eating and dieting for the sake of being thin— has slowly been getting pushed off social media sites and shamed for its damaging effect on women’s body image and mental health. In its wake, a new brand of body-negative, obsession-spurring “inspiration”—called “fitspo”—has begun cropping up on Facebook, Pinterest, and Tumblr. But with the goals of achieving fitness and health, instead of thinness, it’s unclear when fitspo is a great way to stay motivated, or when it’s just thinspo in sheep’s clothing.

Thinspo content is disturbing in its own right, but fitspo content can be even more bothersome, because on first look, it actually seems inspiring and healthy. Do lots of lunges? Why, yes! Work hard at fitness and health? Replacing the goal of weight loss with goals of strength and health (a la “strong is the new skinny” and “healthy is the new skinny”) is a move in the right direction; in fact, it’s something we hope all of our readers do. The problem is when you start visualizing these goals…with yet more idealized (and often photoshopped) pictures of women in sports bras and short-shorts.

Even if they are exercising, holding weights, and eating big green salads, photos of “fit” women still fuel an unhealthy obsession with appearance, defeating the purpose of prioritizing health and strength, and perpetuating new myths about how women “should” look if they’re healthy and fit.

Of course, we’re happy to see images of women with muscles getting some representation in the media. But as Chichi Kix, the trainer and writer behind Fit Villains, wrote on Facebook earlier this week:

Don’t get me wrong: I love, LOVE seeing fit girls more and more often. I appreciate muscle. And it IS slightly more refreshing than images of thinner & thinner models. But considering that the majority of fitspo models still represent an unrealistic & unattainable ideal for most women, I don’t think it’s necessary to pair motivational messages with images of ripped, toned, albeit gorgeous ladies.

Seeing lean, toned women represented in the media isn’t the problem; idealizing a single body type is. We’ve made this argument on Blisstree before, and so have plenty of others. Idealizing Marilyn Monroe over Keira Knightley might seem like a great way to rebel against modern media’s ultra-thin norms, but placing any single body type on a pedestal inevitably sets unrealistic expectations for most women.

Here are a few of the deceiving images. On first glance, they may seem like great motivation for your health goals; here’s why we think it’s better to steer clear of their hidden body negativity:

Related posts:

• Pinterest Bans Thinspiration And Pro-Ana Content…But That Doesn’t Mean That It’s Going Away
• Italian Vogue Editor Condemns Pro-Ana Websites; Continues Making Pro-Ana Bait
• Body Acceptance Gone Wrong: Why This Photo Doesn’t Make Me Feel “Hot”

Post from: Blisstree

Well, that was quick. I was skeptical when Vogue proudly proclaimed that they would become the ambassadors for positive self-esteem, but I tried to remain at least a little optimistic. That was silly of me, and I realize that now, as the various international June editions–which were supposed to be about health–have already failed to deliver. Like this “unadulterated” black-and-white spread in Germany which features a bunch of very thin women, including one who’s smoking. Nice work, Vogue. Very body-positive.

Yes, using models like a very-airbrushed Kate Moss to celebrate the Olympics (well done, both American and British Vogue) is pretty disappointing–apparently Hope Solo was good enough for the cover, but not as good as Karlie Kloss at actually being in the magazine–but at least it’s vaguely about sports and health. But Germany’s “The Naked Truth,” a spread by Peter Lindbergh, is the worst kind of fake body-positivity.

The tagline for it sounds great: “11 women and 1 photographer. He wants nothing but the naked truth – unvarnished, unadulterated, pure.” And, to be fair, the women do vary in age, and a couple of them are actual non-modeling women, including editor-in-chief Christiane Arp and photographer Donata Wenders.

However, they all have one thing in common: they’re thin and white. There is no diversity in body shape or ethnicity whatsoever–every “pure” woman is leggy and slender. And Nina Hoss, an actress-turned-trade unionist in Germany, is pictured with a cigarette in her hand.

Yes, the images are striking and beautiful, and the lighting is perfect, and the nudity is bold. But…it’s not body-positive. Or healthy.

Bravo, Vogue. You’ve done exactly what everyone thought you would do. Way to be an inspiration to us all.

Warning: some of these photos contain nudity, and thus, may not be suitable for work.

All images by Peter Lindbergh via Vogue

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

Post from: Blisstree

If you didn’t fall in love with Miranda Lambert for speaking her mind about Chris Brown‘s Grammy’s appearance, her cover interview in the June issue of Self will have you head over heels. This might just be the best stuff we’ve ever read in that magazine.

A lot of “body positive’ messages from celebs come in the form of confusing quotes confessing how fat they feel after eating, and those who pose as healthy inspirations run the risk of sending a borderline thinspo message. But Lambert’s advice is just…great. It’s sane, balanced, and just kind of makes us wish that everyone could come from such a grounded place when it comes to their bodies—celebrity or not.

Here are our favorites:

“I won’t give up what I enjoy to look perfect. I want to find a happy medium between feeling good about my body and still having a beer and some barbecue.”

“I don’t care about being stick-thin. I don’t want stuff to jiggle. Really skinny actresses make me hungry—I see them and think, Honey, you need to eat! I feel my best when I’m a toned, not flabby, size 8. Women come up to me and say, ‘You’re beautiful and confident, and that makes me feel I can be, too.’”

“It’s OK to be fat and lazy sometimes. But eventually you’re like, Oh crap—I shouldn’t have done that! I gained about 10 pounds over the holidays, and when I got onstage in January, I realized I wasn’t feeling great. I didn’t have the energy or lung capacity I needed. It was a good idea to get strong again.”

“I absolutely hate exercise. I love it afterward, of course. But my trainer is so nice, I want to do push-ups to please him.”

And probably one of the most unique celeb dietary policies:

“We eat the meat we kill. [My husband] Blake and I served it at our wedding! I love it when people are down on me for hunting. If you eat meat at all, I don’t want to hear about it.”

She may not be 100% vegan-friendly, but for once, we really, really think you should take a celebrity’s health advice.

Photos: Self, GoHUNTn

Related posts:

• Miranda Lambert Blasts Chris Brown (As Senators Stall On Domestic Violence Act)
• Emma Stone, We Like You, But We Wish You’d Be Nicer To Your Body
• Marisa Miller’s ‘Diet Tricks’ In Women’s Health Read Like Pro-Ana Tips

Post from: Blisstree

Post from: Blisstree

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