There is no doubt that fat is still a feminist issue. Susie Orbach said that if we when we ask whether fat is still a feminist issue we ask the question - is there a form of violence against women's bodies today? - then the answer to that has to be yes. This is because, as was so clear from the speakers' different presentations, our relationships with our bodies are still so troubled and full of pain and our search for a body is so frantic within our modern culture. And not just women - men too.

The frantic search for a body was epitomised in a presentation by the psychoanalyst Catherine Baker-Pitts who is studying the cosmetic surgery industry in the USA. Her very clear impression from extensive research with women in the USA is that cosmetic surgery is becoming a cultural imperative. The pressure on women to have cosmetic surgery is becoming increasingly enormous and if you don't have it then you are seen as somehow lacking. There are no longer limits to the search for the "perfect" body.  So, just like the diet industry, the cosmetic surgery industry is now making huge money and profits out of our dis-ease around our bodies.  

One member of the audience asked - how can we be resilient to these huge cultural and commercial pressures?

It can start here. AnyBody wants to fight for variety in bodies and the possibility of having a body at peace. 

30 years since Susie Orbach wrote Fat is a Feminist issue and we can still be full of hope that there can be change and peace for our bodies.  

By Sharon Haywood, http://www.sharonhaywood.com/

Fifty-year-old Barbie might be middle-aged but she sure doesn’t show it. When she was in her 30s, her manufacturer Mattel sent her for plastic surgery, not to maintain her youthful appearance, but rather in response to market demands to morph her into a more realistic-looking doll. In 1992, Barbie’s waistline slightly expanded. Then in 1998, Mattel altered one version of the doll—Really Rad Barbie—giving her a decreased cup size and slimmer hips. Currently, her estimated measurements—38-18-34—contrast greatly with the American woman’s average of 41-34-43. Barbie’s curves fall several inches short of what typical women possess today.

On the other hand, considering that the average woman in the U.S. is a size 12, a doll that wears a double-digit dress size would be a much more accurate reflection of American women. The late Anita Roddick (1942-2007), the founder of The Body Shop, thought the same. In 1997, the socially-conscious international cosmetics franchise created Ruby: a chubby-cheeked, chestnut-haired, computer-generated figurine. Ruby was the brainchild of The Body Shop’s self-esteem campaign, “Love Your Body.” Her size 16 image was accompanied by the caption, “There are 3 billion women who don’t look like supermodels and only 8 who do.” She sent the message that you should love what you’ve got, not loathe it.

If you’re familiar with Ruby, you know that she’s not easy to locate. So, where’s this confident and curvaceous character been hiding? You can find her at www.bestrejectedadvertising.com under the category of “Banned,” courtesy of Mattel. The U.S. toy manufacturer thwarted the innovative campaign in its early days by serving The Body Shop with a cease-and-desist order; all posters had to be removed from American shops. Why? In Roddick’s own words: “Ruby was making Barbie look bad, presumably by mocking the plastic twig-like bestseller … Mattel thought that Ruby was insulting to Barbie.” Outside of Roddick’s explanation on her website, no other information regarding Mattel’s specific legal grounds can be found online. We can surmise that Ruby’s rolls and less-than-perky breasts were the offending culprits.

This year Ruby would have turned 12. But imagine if she had grown from being a self-esteem campaigner into a three-dimensional doll in direct competition with Barbie. Do you think that when she would have reached her 30s, she would have gone under the knife too? Would the folks at The Body Shop have decided she needed a tummy tuck, a breast lift, and some lipo to give her a competitive edge? The Body Shop’s global communications head told the New York Times that Ruby represented “a reality check” in contrast to the “stereotypical notions of unattainable ideals.” Odds would tell us that the Rubenesque beauty wouldn’t have any part of her body nipped or tucked; in fact, like many women approaching middle-age, she might even have gained a couple of pounds. Regrettably, we’ll never know for sure.

Although Ruby’s existence was short-lived, her presence generated controversy. She caused Mattel to sit up and take notice. Along similar lines, consider that Barbie underwent cosmetic surgery to appease consumers’ demands. Although Mattel was conservative in its alterations of Barbie’s figure, the company did respond to the public. Furthermore, with sales of the blonde figurine consistently dropping, the toy manufacturer has even more incentive to cater to the customer. If more and more women let corporate giants like Mattel know what they really want, who’s to say that Barbie’s waistline (and the rest of her) can’t fill out as she eases into her fifties? Something to ponder in memory of both Ruby and the visionary Roddick.

 Perfect your child with digital enhancement compliments of an American re-touching company

What Is The Learning Channel Really Teaching Us?

You don’t need to sneak behind the scenes of a fashion magazine photo shoot to catch a glimpse of packaged perfection. Instead, just tune in to Toddlers and Tiaras: a weekly U.S. reality show on The Learning Channel (TLC) that documents the world of children’s beauty pageants. Its cameras reveal that kids apparently need a lot of help being beautiful. False lashes and penciled brows magnify eyes. Hairpieces add body and volume. Spray-on tans bronze lighter skin tones. French-manicured fingernails shine impeccably. Short ruffled skirts bare silky shaven legs. And ‘flippers’—retainer-like contraptions that give the appearance of a perfectly veneered Hollywood smile—camouflage unsightly gaps caused by lost baby teeth.

An estimated 250,000 babies, toddlers, and children participate each year in beauty pageants across the United States, never failing to generate controversy. It’s of no surprise. Contestants, some not even out of diapers, compete for the crown of The Prettiest Princess by sashaying for judges in formal attire and shimmying down the runway in the latest swimwear. When TLC’s latest series premiered in late January 2009 the online public reacted. Bloggers were disgusted. Mothers were appalled. Then, the strongest voices emerged and expressed their anger: two female high school students from the city of St. Catharines in Canada created a group on the networking site Facebook aimed at taking Toddlers and Tiaras off the air.

These students, Karrin Huynh and Lesley Cornelius, have spoken out against the exploitation and sexualization of these children. They have also drawn attention to the negative messages about body image and self-esteem the show sends young viewers. Their group members, over 5000 Canadians and Americans and still growing, continue to support the proposed ban via emails to Discovery, the show’s parent network. For the moment, shutting it down doesn’t seem forthcoming; however, somebody at the network appears to be listening. The Toddlers and Tiara’s website had previously given viewers the opportunity to vote on the appearance of child contestants, using a scale of one through ten. This feature, as well as before-and-after shots of participants, has thankfully been removed.

If TLC is truly interested in educating the viewing audience, the show’s producers should take a closer look at young women like Huynh and Cornelius. By putting a spotlight on the newest generation of role models and activists, TLC could really teach us something of value.