Let's see; it has a skinny woman who can't have that white chocolate macadamia nut cookie because she "caved" on eating that brownie yesterday. Her internal battle is between that bad craving, and her "good" self that really doesn't want to do anything that might jeopardize her skinniness. So what does she do? Well, she does what any smart woman who wants to be good does: she eats a piece of gum instead. Right, that isn't at all problematic.
The fact is, women should not feel like they've been bad for eating a brownie, or like they can't eat that cookie even though they've done some cardio. The fact is, self-denial in pursuit of bodily perfection does us no good. The fact is, this form of food-consumptive shaming has been going on for too long. We should not be congratulating the woman in the video for resisting her wish for a cookie. The woman in the video should not consider it a battle won that she not consume that cookie. This should not be held up as a triumph. It should not be held up as triumph because eating one cookie (or even 3) is not the end of the world or a negative action. Eating a sweet is not a bad thing, and it is continually depressing that women are taught and told to believe that it is. A while ago on Feministing, this very thing was highlighted by Courtney on her Ten Things I Could Do Without list; clocking in at number 5 was:
"Hearing my otherwise enlightened girl friends say they're "bad" because they just ate dessert."
Samhita responded with Ten Things Samhita Can Do Without. At number 3?
"Having my weight scrutinized by friends and family on a regular basis even though I am a grown ass woman and it is none of your business."
And it is present in the story told by Darla on We Are The Wave, when her mother gladly bought her diet microwave dinners to eat and took pride in her daughter's weight loss.
Weight loss or gain is only morally good or bad if we find something deficient in those who actually want to do that crazy thing called eating. Sure, there are people who overeat. But too often, we feel ashamed that we have these cravings at all, that we truly want that piece of chocolate or that brownie or that cookie. And that shame and that denial is not healthy. It does not lend to a healthy relationship with the food we eat, or the shape our bodies take. We shouldn't have to work out as penance for doing so, as though those extra fifteen minutes on a treadmill "make up" for that deviation the night before.
I eat. I personally don't eat a hell of a lot; and because of my hypoglycemia I have to be careful of my intake of sugar, lest I pass out and freak out those around me. I do eat what I want and generally when I want, though again the hypoglycemia leads to a somewhat more structured meal routine if I want to remain upright and cognizant. If I want a cookie, I have a cookie. I just make sure it's close enough to bed time so when I start getting dizzy I'm already laying down. I learned long ago that denying myself something I wanted - be it sweets or books or CDs - just meant that I would later binge on that very thing; which, by the way, is how I end up with things like Scott Weiland's solo CD. That still doesn't stop my some of coworkers from commenting about "how much" I eat and what I eat and how one day my metabolism will stop working for me and I'll have to be "good" like most of them. But I don't want to be. I want to be active; but I want to be active for the sake of being active, and not as a kind of Hail Mary when I do something like eat a piece of cake. And I want my cake, sans guilt. I want to not see commercials on my television set informing me that good girls and women chew gum after agonizing for dozens of seconds about whether or not they could rationalize actually eating something. I want a world in which women are considered good for actual acts of goodness, instead of self-denial. I want a world in which weight is no longer a measure of a person's moral worth. And I want a world in which people chew gum because they honestly want to, and not as a substitute for something else.
23 comments:
This isn't limited to women at all; it's women who make a bigger deal out of it, and consequently it's seen as a female problem, but anyone who's trying to lose weight and having issues with that particular problem struggles with willpower regarding cookies, brownies and the like. Substitute smoking--and that's probably a better example, as chewing gum can alleviate smoking, especially as a nervous habit--and the commercial still works.
I generally think that food-shaming is a bad thing, and it has become much more acceptable and prevalent, but I also think that for many people, reducing the cravings, and reducing giving in, is a good thing. People get too hung up on things, and then go on the other extreme, trying to correc the errors, instead of just relaxing and eating a wide variety of foods and incorporating (real)sweets or (real) fats into their choices.
I agree that far too many women have to deal with comments of one kind or another; God knows I deal with it on practically a daily basis, from all sides, and as such, I've become paranoid and angry. Bringing a salad to lunch is quite the conversation starter, which leads to how I'm a "good girl" and all this nonsense; I prefer healthy food because it tastes better, is cheaper and more filling than a LeanCuisine. But women do this to themselves; most of the comments I receive (outside of my brother) are from women! Nobody ever wins.
I didn't notice that the woman was particularly thin, as they really only showed her face and some of her upper body. That's by design--if they showed a heavy woman it would be too much about losing weight, not about nutrition, which I think is more the angle they'd like to go for.
This is another one of those "nobody wins" scenarios. No matter what the woman looked like, she'd get ragged on. The commercial is going for realism, and the gum is supposed to be seen as a healthier option, which it could very well be.
"This isn't limited to women at all; it's women who make a bigger deal out of it, and consequently it's seen as a female problem"
I both agree and disagree; it isn't limited to women, but I don't think it is seen as a female problem because women make a bigger deal about it but because as a society we put more pressure on women to be skinny and more pressure on women to resist the temptation of food. Women as a general rule have less shapes they can be and still be considered attractive, and commercials like this never show men - not because men can't have the same thought pattern but because women are taught that this is the correct thought pattern to have at all.
"anyone who's trying to lose weight and having issues with that particular problem struggles with willpower regarding cookies, brownies and the like. "
And yet I have yet to see a commercial where a guy overcomes his want of a cookie with a piece of gum, and plenty where guys are encouraged to eat incredibly large portions - like any Hungary Man commercial ("It's Good To Be Full") and that McDonalds commercial with the "I am Man, Hear Me Roar" thing.
It isn't that this issue doesn't pertain to men, but that these types of commercials and the message behind them aren't directed at men.
"Substitute smoking--and that's probably a better example, as chewing gum can alleviate smoking, especially as a nervous habit--and the commercial still works."
Substitute smoking, and you've got an entirely different commercial with an entirely different societal meme - and one you would see men in.
"But women do this to themselves; most of the comments I receive (outside of my brother) are from women!"
I think the issue here isn't that women aren't part of the problem; they are. But they are part of the problem because they are fed this particular meme from the time they emerge from the womb. Just because many women have been very good students doesn't mean that the message behind ads like this one aren't there and don't account for much of why women feel the pressure they do and why they feel the need to exert that pressure on other women.
It's like slut-shaming. Women do it; but the message that women who have sex are bad exist in messages outside those individual cases of slut-shaming and are part of a cultural meme.
But they are part of the problem because they are fed this particular meme from the time they emerge from the womb. Just because many women have been very good students doesn't mean that the message behind ads like this one aren't there and don't account for much of why women feel the pressure they do and why they feel the need to exert that pressure on other women.
Yes and no. I don't want to discredit the images we're fed via the media, but it is about societal standards, and I think commercials like this are trying to sympathize with women by reflecting how they act. I'm much more annoyed by comments made by people I live with day to day than I am by media images, and I feel the pressure is so much greater when it's delivered personally. To say that we are all merely blindly soaking up media messages discounts our own individual beliefs and opinions, ones that can be even more damaging. Women create their own (often harsh) standards, and it is that insidious pressure that exerts control.
" it is about societal standards, and I think commercials like this are trying to sympathize with women by reflecting how they act."
I think that societal standards are reflected by the media, and in some cases created by the media - like all of the ads and movies and books during WWII telling women it was okay to leave the home, and then all of the ads and movies and books making it seem like the greatest thing ever was returning to the home.
I don't see how commercials like this are sympathetic to women; I don't really see how commercials are sympathetic at all. It's trying to sell gum; and one of the ways it is doing that is by offering it as an alternative to this particular behavior. It is normalizing that behavior. They reflect and sometimes create the societal standard we all live with, so if the comments you get throughout the day aren't sympathetic, it is hard for me to figure out how something like this could possibly be.
I agree with MediaMaven. Very well put.
Just one additional point with regard to the gender issue . . .
Weight loss advertisements for men typically promote some sort of exercise equipment or dietary supplement, with the explicit goal of body reconstruction. It's essentially a more "manly" way for advertisers to cultivate insecurity. There are also dietary commercials that target men -- like the NutriSystem commercials featuring Dan Marino.
In general, I think that these commercials are good to the extent that they promote a healthy lifestyle, but bad when they begin to encourage some kind of low-grade body dysmorphic disorder.
I'm really not sure how much of an impact the have either way, but women and men in the United States DO tend to be quite immoderate in their eating habits. If it takes a bit of insecurity to make us healthier, that may be a good thing on balance.
Anyway, I didn't think this commercial was particularly offensive . . . it was simply encouraging moderation.
"It's trying to sell gum; and one of the ways it is doing that is by offering it as an alternative to this particular behavior. It is normalizing that behavior." I don't find that to be particularly offensive. They're marketing to people who are conscious of their eating habits, but who also have a bit of a "sweet tooth" (argh, stupid expression) and eat more between-meal snacks than a person on a 2,000 calorie diet should. It's not as if she's using the gum to substitute for actual nourishment, just as something to satisfy her taste buds enough to discourage impulse buying (the linchpin of mall cookie stand marketing.) Now, if that brownie was the ONLY thing she ate yesterday, she's got even bigger problems...
I actually see this behavior (not specific to Extra brand gum) as taking a stand against aggressive snack food marketing and its place in our culture. We're conditioned to desire vicious delicious macadamia nut cookies as soon as we see or smell them, whether we're hungry or not (usually not.) If chewing a piece of gum helps someone get over their near-hypnotically embedded snack impulses and go without cookies until their next meal (where perhaps they might have them for dessert) so much the better.
I actually agree more with the other sources you listed in your article. Like Courtney, I look forward to a day when women don't say they were "bad" for having a dessert or snack. There's a whole "so bad, yet so good" psychodrama going on there, and it kind of weirds me out. I do think that people should watch what they eat and how much they exercise, though, because there is such a thing as obesity and it is medically unhealthy. People should (should, not must) eat what they like as long as the doctor tells them they're within the healthy weight range for their height & body type, and are getting enough important nutrients.
"Anyway, I didn't think this commercial was particularly offensive . . . it was simply encouraging moderation."
Eating one cookie isn't moderate enough? Moderation means complete denial?
"Weight loss advertisements for men typically promote some sort of exercise equipment or dietary supplement, with the explicit goal of body reconstruction. It's essentially a more "manly" way for advertisers to cultivate insecurity. There are also dietary commercials that target men -- like the NutriSystem commercials featuring Dan Marino."
Yes, but you know what? This post isn't about that. Because that isn't the commercial I saw two nights ago that made me decide to post.
I'm not saying that there aren't cultural memes directed at men that aren't just as pervasive and harmful. I'm saying that portraying this internal monologue - and the ending thought that somehow this woman is "good" if she eats the gum but "bad" if she eats a cookie (or even a couple of cookies) isn't healthy, isn't good, and perpetuates women thinking that eating=bad and not eating=good.
"Anyway, I didn't think this commercial was particularly offensive . . . it was simply encouraging moderation."
I don't find the commercial offensive; I find it tiresome. Nor do I see it encouraging moderation. Moderation would be getting a cookie, especially since the brownie the day before was made up for with that cardio work. This was complete denial, which isn't very moderating.
"I actually see this behavior (not specific to Extra brand gum) as taking a stand against aggressive snack food marketing and its place in our culture. We're conditioned to desire vicious delicious macadamia nut cookies as soon as we see or smell them, whether we're hungry or not (usually not.) If chewing a piece of gum helps someone get over their near-hypnotically embedded snack impulses and go without cookies until their next meal (where perhaps they might have them for dessert) so much the better."
I could see that, if the internal monologue was absent or changed. The "good"-"bad", "brownie"-"cardio" bit really influenced my reading of the commercial, as I think it should. I don't have a problem with someone thinking "You know what? Why spend 3 bucks on a mall cookie? I'm going to have this piece of gum". I have a problem with the pervasive thinking that somehow one is deficient if they do eat that mall cookie, which is what the monologue was suggesting.
Pet,
Let’s take a realistic example: Starbucks' White Chocolate Macadamia Nut Cookie. The serving size is one cookie. That’s because one cookie has 470 calories (243 calories from fat), and 42 percent of your daily recommended fat. I don’t know the nutrition facts for a typical “mall cookie,” but I suspect they’re roughly equivalent. Would you really recommend having more than one of these cookies per day?
As a general rule, snacks that you buy from a mall concession stand are “bad” -- bad in the sense that they’re very unhealthy. Most people eat these snacks in addition to their normal diet, without realizing how many calories they’re consuming (not to mention how much saturated fat).
I don’t think the implication in this commercial was that a person is deficient if she eats a mall cookie -- only that it’s good to moderate your eating habits. Americans typically have very poor diets, and some trade-offs can be healthy. If you’re going to have junk food one day (say, a brownie), it’s probably a good idea to forego something else tomorrow.
The idea here is clearly not that eating is bad and gum alone can sustain you. It’s that gum can help reduce your cravings for unhealthy foods and prevent you from overeating.
"I don’t think the implication in this commercial was that a person is deficient if she eats a mall cookie -- only that it’s good to moderate your eating habits."
I don't think the commercial indicates that it is good to eat in moderation; there's nothing in there that indicates moderation. And the language used - the cardio penance for the brownie, the "good" at the end - along with the cultural memes of being "bad" if you've had desert (a la Courtney) and a world where being impossibly skinny for a woman is the ideal and what we should all strive for even if it means starving ourselves says something else.
The commercial could have been about moderation; it could have been about - as John suggested - impulse control. But the language used, the internal monologue that was portrayed, takes the commercial in a totally different direction. Maybe if we didn't have the cultural forces exerting their weight, the ones Courtney and Samhita reference and the ones that allow someone to comment on a woman taking a brownie at a company picnic, the commercial could have been - even with the language - just an innocent commercial about self-moderation. But it doesn't exist in that world, and that is why I have an issue with it and the message it perpetuates.
"The idea here is clearly not that eating is bad and gum alone can sustain you. It’s that gum can help reduce your cravings for unhealthy foods and prevent you from overeating."
And if the internal monologue had been different, I may believe that. But given that the monologue directly reflects the belief that eating something fattening or sweet or something from the top of the food pyramid equals a bad, and given the prevalence of that particular belief especially in regards to women, I don't think that is all of it. But this isn't being presented in a vacuum, and the fact that it directly correlates to those other not healthy thoughts about food and eating means that this isn't "clearly" what the ad is about at all.
"Weight loss advertisements for men typically promote some sort of exercise equipment or dietary supplement, with the explicit goal of body reconstruction. It's essentially a more "manly" way for advertisers to cultivate insecurity. There are also dietary commercials that target men -- like the NutriSystem commercials featuring Dan Marino."
Yes, but you know what? This post isn't about that. Because that isn't the commercial I saw two nights ago that made me decide to post.
This is an unfair and an unwarranted attack, as Mikhail was merely giving perspective as a corollary to what you posted about differences in weight loss commercials regarding gender. He’s not dismissing your post or your views at all, just giving an example that fits very well with your post. I liked that example and the one with the Starbucks cookie. If anyone ate three mall cookies, they’d be feeling sick, stupid, and poor, and would be getting looks because of being so ridiculous.
Moderation would be getting a cookie, especially since the brownie the day before was made up for with that cardio work. This was complete denial, which isn't very moderating.
Usually, cardio does not “make up” for the brownie eaten; in fact, often that brownie or cookie destroys whatever gains are made by exercise. If you exercise for an hour and only burn (completely hypothetical) 300 calories, but then binge on a brownie that has 500 calories, you haven’t done yourself any favors. This is actually very common, and most people don’t take into account what’s really in the food they eat, nor how many calories they really burn exercising.
Self-control is a virtue, correct? It’s something that Americans desperately need to work on.
I think you internalize a lot of these “memes” to such a degree that they become so standard or default that you can’t look away from them. I do not think that we live in a “a world where being impossibly skinny for a woman is the ideal and what we should all strive for even if it means starving ourselves”. The people who believe that are the ones who have eating disorders and other unhealthy issues. Yes, sometimes that seems to be the case, but there are just as many magazine covers that ridicule women for being too skinny as they are for not living up to an impossible-to-define standard. Whatever standards are out there are hypocritical and confusing; it is up to us to figure out our own beliefs and discard the rest.
Pet, how would you redesign this commercial?
"This is an unfair and an unwarranted attack, as Mikhail was merely giving perspective as a corollary to what you posted about differences in weight loss commercials regarding gender. He’s not dismissing your post or your views at all, just giving an example that fits very well with your post."
The problem with the internet is that there is no way of telling how the other person is saying something. I was not attacking Mikhail, and I wasn't trying to dismiss him or his point; what I was doing was rerouting the conversation back to the topic at hand. There are times when I write about men's issues. There are times when men's issues concern me. But men, as a product of how gender is constructed, deal with a different set of issues, and although a Boflex commercial (or even one of the hair ads that show the men flabby and pasty before and buff and tan afterward) is harmful to men in that it represents an unattainable ideal, that isn't what this post was about - and it doesn't directly correlate to this particular meme. Because I don't think you can imagine substituting a man in this particular commercial. Pointing out that it is just as bad for men, but in a different way, doesn't truly highlight what this is about. What it does is pull the focus onto men and men's issues. As biased as it is, I tend to write about women and women's issues. And as possibly censoring as it is, I was trying to keep the conversation about this particular thing.
"If anyone ate three mall cookies, they’d be feeling sick, stupid, and poor, and would be getting looks because of being so ridiculous."
Really? I don't think that is truly the case. Especially about the looks part.
"I think you internalize a lot of these “memes” to such a degree that they become so standard or default that you can’t look away from them."
I think I'm aware of the messages we internalize, and so because of that I recognize when something not only mirrors a particular meme but also reinforces it. I don't believe that there are many actions or messages that transcend culture and the society that culture derives from. There's the Avenue Q song, "Everybody's A Little Bit Racist", and everyone is a little bit racist. Everyone is also a little bit heterosexist, a little bit sexist, a little bit ableist and the list goes on and on. And some people are more than others. Because the images we are presented with in society do reflect something and do reinforce something and commercials, due to being made to specifically sell a product, are highly likely to perpetuate those memes in order to gain traction in our heads that this is "right" or that this is "healthy" or that they are pointing us in the right direction.
"I do not think that we live in a “a world where being impossibly skinny for a woman is the ideal and what we should all strive for even if it means starving ourselves”. The people who believe that are the ones who have eating disorders and other unhealthy issues."
I don't think that is true, and I think it is disingenuous to suggest that recognizing a problem within society means that there is a problem with the individual and not society. And - not that I think you think this (at least I hope you don't) - by that logic you think that I have an eating disorder.
Also, I have to say I don't think that's how eating disorders go down, nor that those who recognize society's pressure to be an ideal size or weight are more likely to develop an eating disorder. Many eating disorders, as far as I have read, are about control; controlling one's environment, a sense of order in a not-orderly world. And I would think that for those who recognize that being skinny isn't truly a moral issue or a sign of universal attractiveness or worthiness but a pressure that society puts upon us would be less likely to fall prey to that trap - not wholly unlikely, but less likely. Because they would be the ones who recognized where the traps were.
Frankly, I find that whole premise to be a bit off, and I think it could be used to dismiss anything, no matter how blatant an offense. You don't see it in this instance; fine. You don't have to; but just because you don't doesn't mean my reading is incorrect.
After all, to bring it to a pop culture/philosophical level, only those who've taken the redpill can see what the Matrix truly is.
In a world where pictures of celebs are photoshopped almost to the point of nonrecognition to get rid of such troublesome things as those lines that are automatically created on the stomach when one leans over, I don't see how the culture at large is not ingrained with the idea that being skinny is the ideal to shoot for, that skinny is the most beautiful a person can be. When a majority of the (female) stars weigh about as little as they can, and when if they stop what would be a grueling work out routine and gain some weight back they are maligned for suddenly being fat, I don't see how that cultural meme isn't there. When every cover has its life photoshopped out of it to the point where even when they are celebrating different body sizes of different stars, the larger ones (like Queen Latifah) are still made smaller, I see a problem.
"Self-control is a virtue, correct? It’s something that Americans desperately need to work on."
But the commercial isn't about self-control. The very language it uses in the internal monologue mirrors language women use when they are feeling guilty for doing something as heinous as getting a desert. And while self-control may be a virtue, self-denial really isn't.
"Yes, sometimes that seems to be the case, but there are just as many magazine covers that ridicule women for being too skinny as they are for not living up to an impossible-to-define standard."
Because there is an impossible standard of beauty. But that doesn't change the fact that although stars get ripped apart for being "too skinny", the second they go 2 sizes above what they normally are, they are derided, and further out than just the magazine covers.
"it is up to us to figure out our own beliefs and discard the rest."
Yes, but it is also up to us to recognize that our own beliefs are profoundly influenced by where we are, what we see, and what we are inundated with.
"Pet, how would you redesign this commercial?"
I would very possibly scrap it. But if I were to keep it, I would change the internal monologue. If it were about price, or even that she would be eating soon, that she hadn't planned on stopping for a cookie, that she just wanted something sweet and "oh, gum!" the entirety of the commercial would be different. But instead what is portrayed is a damaging inner monologue that does equate not eating a cookie with a superiority, and a goodness. And I don't think that is such a great message.
“Maybe if we didn't have the cultural forces exerting their weight, the ones Courtney and Samhita reference and the ones that allow someone to comment on a woman taking a brownie at a company picnic, the commercial could have been - even with the language - just an innocent commercial about self-moderation. But it doesn't exist in that world, and that is why I have an issue with it and the message it perpetuates.”
It’s impossible to contend with this kind of argument because it’s a logical fallacy. You’re begging the question – like a cosmologist who creates a model of the universe, and then argues that any exogenous attack on that model is false because everything must be placed in the context of the model.
“Pointing out that it is just as bad for men, but in a different way, doesn't truly highlight what this is about. What it does is pull the focus onto men and men's issues. As biased as it is, I tend to write about women and women's issues. And as possibly censoring as it is, I was trying to keep the conversation about this particular thing.”
I agree with MediaMaven here, obviously. If we want to look at gender or self-image issues in a social context, it seems a bit provincial to ignore men -- and it’s also pretty unfair since you brought men into the conversation.
“I don't think that is true, and I think it is disingenuous to suggest that recognizing a problem within society means that there is a problem with the individual and not society. And - not that I think you think this (at least I hope you don't) - by that logic you think that I have an eating disorder.”
I agree that ad hominem attacks are unfair, but I do think it’s fair to point out that sometimes people become so narrowly focused on a particular issue (or set of issues) that they see symptoms everywhere. An economist who views everything through the lens of monetary policy can become rigid and ideological, and thus misdiagnose or “over-diagnose” a problem. Placing things in a particular philosophical context is not the same as seeing them in their full context.
“But the commercial isn't about self-control. The very language it uses in the internal monologue mirrors language women use when they are feeling guilty for doing something as heinous as getting a desert. And while self-control may be a virtue, self-denial really isn't.”
I don’t really understand the distinction you’re making between self-control and self-denial. The White Chocolate Macadamia Nut Cookie is very unhealthy. Not eating the cookie is the healthy decision, unless you begin with the premise that this woman is already starving herself or eating too little. The woman’s regular diet is by no means clear from the context of the commercial, so it’s unfair to assume that this is self-denial as opposed to a healthy lifestyle choice.
(I wanted to point out this article that backs up one of the claims in my previous comment.)
Because I don't think you can imagine substituting a man in this particular commercial.
I think you could, changing the dialogue slightly—incorporating things that his doctor or wife said about cutting back on sweets, still incorporating the guilt and back-and-forth. While I obviously do hear women talk like this, it’s no so out of the blue for men either. It’s just another sign of the times.
"If anyone ate three mall cookies, they’d be feeling sick, stupid, and poor, and would be getting looks because of being so ridiculous."
Really? I don't think that is truly the case. Especially about the looks part.
We’ve both seen what too much junk food does to our systems (and our friends’ systems), and we’ve both seen and been judged on what we’re eating. It’s like eating a sack of White Castle burgers—you know what you’re getting yourself into, and you have to justify it both to yourself and whoever you’re with. It’s not a smart decision, in terms of nutrition or overall health.
Many eating disorders, as far as I have read, are about control; controlling one's environment, a sense of order in a not-orderly world. And I would think that for those who recognize that being skinny isn't truly a moral issue or a sign of universal attractiveness or worthiness but a pressure that society puts upon us would be less likely to fall prey to that trap - not wholly unlikely, but less likely. Because they would be the ones who recognized where the traps were.
Eating disorders are often about control, but standards of beauty—no matter how crazy—do play into it. Why do you think there’s such an uproar over pro-ana groups? Control issues can manifest in many other ways that have nothing to do with food, and using food as a weapon is a way of getting back at somebody, whether it’s a mother’s comments or society. And just because someone recognizes societal pressure doesn’t mean they are immune to it; many times people fall prey to it despite knowing better—just like eating a cookie (or five) when they know they shouldn’t.
Frankly, I find that whole premise to be a bit off, and I think it could be used to dismiss anything, no matter how blatant an offense. You don't see it in this instance; fine. You don't have to; but just because you don't doesn't mean my reading is incorrect.
What premise are you referring to? You lost me there.
It was not my intention to personally attack you, Pet, and I’m sorry if that was how it came across.
"I think you could, changing the dialogue slightly"
That changes the commercial, because the dialogue (or the internal monologue) is the source of the problem with it. If the internal monologue is changed, then the commercial is changed. If the internal monologue is changed, then the "good"-"bad", not eating versus eating dichotomy goes away.
"We’ve both seen what too much junk food does to our systems (and our friends’ systems), and we’ve both seen and been judged on what we’re eating."
I have junk food affect my system because I don't eat much of it; therefore, when I eat at a fast food place, it completely messes up my system. For someone who eats fast food regularly - like some friends of mine - their systems are unaffected. So one of them could eat 3 mall cookies and remain unaffected physically. And unless they pulled a Cookie Monster, I don't think they would get many stares from the other people in the mall.
"just because someone recognizes societal pressure doesn’t mean they are immune to it"
That would be part my argument, that this commercial is a continuation of a specific kind of societal pressure. And that arguing against that specific kind of societal pressure because one recognizes the pressures contained within is a valid discourse.
And like I said, just because someone recognizes the societal forces doesn't make the immune to them; but suggesting that recognizing the societal forces in question makes them more likely to be affected - to the point of developing an eating disorder - is not realistic.
"It’s not a smart decision, in terms of nutrition or overall health."
Not every day, no. But moderation means being able to indulge every once in a while as well without feeling guilty or "bad".
"Eating disorders are often about control, but standards of beauty—no matter how crazy—do play into it."
I didn't say they didn't; just that it seemed disengenuous to suggest that people who recognize the power of these images and intellectually combat them would be more susceptable to them than those who don't.
"What premise are you referring to? You lost me there."
Sorry, that paragraph got moved. It was in response to this:
I think you internalize a lot of these “memes” to such a degree that they become so standard or default that you can’t look away from them.
That the person who points out the memes in question is in some way the one most affected. I disagree.
"It was not my intention to personally attack you, Pet, and I’m sorry if that was how it came across."
I don't feel personally attacked at all, so don't worry about it.
"It’s impossible to contend with this kind of argument because it’s a logical fallacy. You’re begging the question"
Actually, I wasn't begging the question. I was actually pointing out that context is everything, and that the context of the ad must have this reality taken into account. In another world, it wouldn't be a problem; in this world, it is. No circular logic there.
"If we want to look at gender or self-image issues in a social context, it seems a bit provincial to ignore men -- and it’s also pretty unfair since you brought men into the conversation."
I am examining a specific self-image issue in a speficic social context; and men don't always have to be brought up as a counterweight. My point was that the ad was limited to women, and that men had other problems that weren't congruent with this particular ad. Thus, the argument that this affects everyone but "it's women who make a bigger deal out of it" wasn't entirely true. So Boflex and the images that men face have less to do with this particular presentation.
"I don’t really understand the distinction you’re making between self-control and self-denial. The White Chocolate Macadamia Nut Cookie is very unhealthy."
Do you ever eat an ice cream cone? Even after having dessert the night before? Is that inherently a negative? Should we abstain from anything that would be particularly unhealthy?
A White Chocolate Macadamia Nut cookie is by itself not a health food. But that doesn't mean that consuming it is a negative. It doesn't mean that just because something doesn't contribute greatly to our dietary requirements that we shouldn't eat it. When it becomes a problem is if we eat too much of it; eating the entire thing of cookies would be overkill.
"I do think it’s fair to point out that sometimes people become so narrowly focused on a particular issue (or set of issues) that they see symptoms everywhere."
And what if symptoms of it are everywhere? I don't pick up on half of the stuff out there, because I'm not as jacked in as, say, someone who has studied this exclusively. But the arguments made against certain commercials, certain turns of phrases, and certain representations of gender norms certainly have their place and can be right on the money.
That changes the commercial, because the dialogue (or the internal monologue) is the source of the problem with it. If the internal monologue is changed, then the commercial is changed. If the internal monologue is changed, then the "good"-"bad", not eating versus eating dichotomy goes away.
You missed my point. You could have a very similar monologue, still incorporating the same message and same feelings of guilt with a man: “Aw man, those macadamia nut cookies look so delicious. But I shouldn’t have it, I’ve eaten too many sweets recently and I need to cut back, even though I’ve been exercising. So maybe I should have a cookie…it’s just a cookie. But that would ruin my good progress.” Etc. You can change some of the details—adding a wife, a doctor, a friend--since these nagging forces might be more likely to weigh on a man.
For someone who eats fast food regularly - like some friends of mine - their systems are unaffected. So one of them could eat 3 mall cookies and remain unaffected physically.
Have you seen Supersize Me? Even a person who eats fast food regularly is affected, they may just not realize it because they’re so used to eating that way. Once they know what the difference feels like, they can recognize the factors. Same with you and your hypoglycemia.
“For someone who eats fast food regularly - like some friends of mine - their systems are unaffected. So one of them could eat 3 mall cookies and remain unaffected physically.”
I think MediaMaven is absolutely right. No one is physically “unaffected” by foods that are high in saturated fats. You don’t become immune to heart disease because you eat a lot of fast food -- quite the opposite.
“Do you ever eat an ice cream cone? Even after having dessert the night before? Is that inherently a negative? Should we abstain from anything that would be particularly unhealthy?”
Sure, I eat ice cream. But I try to moderate my eating and, yes, I make sacrifices. Having a dessert that is high in fat and calories in addition to your normal diet is inherently negative -- especially if you make a habit of it, which many people do.
Again, we don’t need to abstain from eating anything unhealthy, but if we eat an unhealthy snack one day in addition to our normal diet, it’s a good idea to forego an unhealthy snack the next day. If you don’t do that, then you’re consistently eating unhealthy things.
This commercial is showing a snapshot in a woman’s life. You don’t have any real context for her decision. Maybe, like most Americans, she has a tendency to overeat or to eat unhealthy foods. I think that you’re filling in the context in a way that complements your worldview.
That’s why I said you’re begging the question. You’re beginning with the premise that this woman is excessively weight-conscious because, you contend, all commercials must be seen in the context of a society is excessively weight-conscious. Then, you’re arguing that the commercial promotes a society that is excessively weight-conscious.
I think you’re right that people probably shouldn’t be saying “I’m bad” when they eat unhealthy foods. That’s a silly way of phrasing it. The act of eating the food is morally neutral, but the foods themselves are bad.
There’s a paradox here that I think you’re ignoring. Americans may be excessively weight-conscious, but they’re also extremely unhealthy eaters. Personally, I’d rather have people saying “I’m bad” and foregoing the cookie than saying “I’m not going to deny myself” and consistently eating crap.
"You missed my point. You could have a very similar monologue"
Actually, you missed my point; the monologue IS the point. The way the monologue is constructed is the point. Change the monologue, and you change the societal message of the commercial.
"Even a person who eats fast food regularly is affected, they may just not realize it because they’re so used to eating that way."
I read your original thing as an examination of immediacy, not long term. Like, eat a dozen White Castle burgers, feel like utter crap - along with having other people look at you in disgust.
"That’s why I said you’re begging the question. You’re beginning with the premise that this woman is excessively weight-conscious because, you contend, all commercials must be seen in the context of a society is excessively weight-conscious."
No, I'm not; you're misunderstanding me. There are two separate issues here, one I dealt with in the post and in the comments, and one solely present in the comments.
The issue in the post is that the language used by this woman - who happens to be skinny and who makes up for the fact that she ate a brownie with the fact that she worked out - is language that directly mirrors the language women use in the world when discussing food consumption - especially foods that have the potential to cause some form of weight gain. The good-bad dichotomy in the commercial is exactly the good-bad dichotomy Courtney highlights in the Feministing post and is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to questions regarding women's weight and comments around cafeteria tables. The main issue with the commercial is the "good-bad" dichotomy, and it is the one I highlighted.
The second issue that came up in the comments was the idea of self-control. There's nothing wrong with self-control. Self-control is what stops someone from decimating the entire cookie cart. But I don't see this commercial as being exemplary of self-control, and to me maintaining that it is about self-control is you filling in the context in the way that fits what you want to see.
"Having a dessert that is high in fat and calories in addition to your normal diet is inherently negative -- especially if you make a habit of it, which many people do. "
I feel like I need to preface this with that this is in no way snark or a put down; that being said, I find it odd that a person who questions any moral judgements and some scientific ones can become so immovable on the subject of food consumption.
There is a way to have a healthy balance between food that is high in fat and calories and food that is high in nutritional value. Eating one piece of chocolate a night is not going to negatively affect your health. Having a bowl of ice cream of a moderate size is not inherently a negative. There are some factors for some people that make it more of a health risk, and some factors for some people that make it less of a health risk. For example, I have extremely low cholesterol, so low that I could probably eat a stick of butter a week and have it not negatively affect my health. Meanwhile, someone who is predisposed with high cholesterol could have problems even if they avoided all the "bad" cholesterol and on top of that all the "good" cholesterol.
And all of this leads back to this: eating a brownie one day and a cookie the next does not make bad eating habits. Denying oneself a cookie because to eat it would make one "bad" is not an example of self-control. If the problematic monologue were removed and replaced with something else, the commercial could be made into something about self-control.
Regardless of that, the conversation regarding self-control versus self-denial has, on my end, less to do with my reading of the commercial as problematic and more to do with a fundamental disagreement with you and MM about what makes up self-control and "healthy" eating versus just having that cookie and eating some salad and going to exercise and not having one the next day. And the reason I feel that way, that if you feel like having a cookie you should go for it as long as you haven't had another sweet that day, is because of the fact that that sort of denial in the real world outside of commercials is more likely to cause binges. That's what happens when diets fail, and so eating a cookie a day - if the theoretical person is reasonably healthy - doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world; maybe she could mix it up a bit and eat that white chocolate macadamia cookie one day and an oatmeal raison the next couple of days, but I don't see anything wrong with cookie consumption.
"There’s a paradox here that I think you’re ignoring. Americans may be excessively weight-conscious, but they’re also extremely unhealthy eaters. Personally, I’d rather have people saying “I’m bad” and foregoing the cookie than saying “I’m not going to deny myself” and consistently eating crap."
Personally, I'd rather everyone jumped on the organic and fresh food chain, but that's just me. And I'm not ignoring that fact. I would rather not have people believe that eating a cookie is bad. I would like them to believe that eating a batch of cookies is unhealthy.
And I think that because we are extremely weight-conscious, it leads to this unhealthy relationship with food. The French eat all the damn time, and yet they are healthier than we are - partially because they (on the whole) have a better relationship than Americans (on the whole) do with food. And part of that unhealthy relationship with food is this belief that to eat something like a cookie is inherently bad and to abstain from such things in inherently good.
"Self-control is what stops someone from decimating the entire cookie cart. But I don't see this commercial as being exemplary of self-control, and to me maintaining that it is about self-control is you filling in the context in the way that fits what you want to see."
The voiceover explicitly talks about outlasting food cravings. The woman is craving a fatty snack, not a meal. I think it's pretty clearly about self-control. Assuming that the commercial is, in fact, encouraging women to starve themselves and eat only gum seems like a logical leap to me.
”I feel like I need to preface this with that this is in no way snark or a put down; that being said, I find it odd that a person who questions any moral judgements and some scientific ones can become so immovable on the subject of food consumption."
Well, I'm not making a moral argument - quite the contrary. You're making a moral argument. I'm making a practical argument about health. I don’t think it’s particularly strident to question the value of eating a (nearly) 500 calorie cookie.
. . .
I basically have two issues here:
First, the commercial doesn't explicitly address weight. It doesn't give you any information about the woman's overall dietary habits. You keep bringing up the fact that the woman is "skinny," but skinny people can be very unhealthy eaters. Many of my extended family members remained skinny all their lives, but maintained poor diets and died early of heart disease.
The point is that you’re assuming that this woman's decision not to eat the cookie is some kind of excessive self-denial. I think you’re begging the question because you don't have enough context to make that assumption. You're CREATING a context for the commercial that supports your own criticism of the commercial.
Second, I don't agree with you on the broader question of what constitutes a healthy diet. CLEARLY, eating three of these cookies would be extremely unhealthy if you're eating them in addition to your normal diet. Snacks aren't meals. And a snack that's pushing 25 percent of your daily caloric intake is BAD for you.
I don't see how you could disagree on this second point, and that's why I'm having such a hard time with your argument.
"The point is that you’re assuming that this woman's decision not to eat the cookie is some kind of excessive self-denial."
I think you're missing me completely here. My original point about this particular thing - something that was possibly not made clearly, as I spend more time (though often not a lot of time) constructing how I write posts than I do how I write responses - was that I found it odd that both you and MM thought that the commercial was constructing a vision of self-control in regard to eating. Well, that and that MM found the commercial sympathetic.
I don't see how the commercial equals self-control. Beyond that particular thing, some of the comments made about cookies and unhealthy food by you and MM (and I'm going to be lazy and not dig up exact quotes because I've got a post to write tonight and a bed to get into at some point in time) seemed like you were constructing the reality you see (or want to) based on a commercial that says little about self-control. It says just as much about self-denial as it does about self-control. The space between the two isn't very large within the context of the commercial.
Having said that, the next point is this:
"Assuming that the commercial is, in fact, encouraging women to starve themselves and eat only gum seems like a logical leap to me."
I can only really assume that this refers to the title of the piece, which is snarktastic in nature. It came to me when I was MST3000ing it in my head, and while it was supposed to reveal a bit of what I felt the commercial was saying, it was not meant to be the crux of the argument.
The crux of the argument is the internal monologue of the woman, which directly mirrors what women - not all, but plenty - say in RL when addressing issues of food - "Oh, I've been good; I haven't eaten anything fattening today"; "Oh my god, I was so bad; I ate that brownie at lunch". Courtney's post - and Samhita's post - were brought in as examples of that dichotomy, and Samhita's post was brought in to show how worries about food and weight continue to dominate women's lives even when it is no one's business but our own.
"You're making a moral argument."
Funny, I consider what I was doing a deconstructing of falsely moral statements. There is nothing moral about food consumption. There is nothing moral about body size.
"The point is that you’re assuming that this woman's decision not to eat the cookie is some kind of excessive self-denial. I think you’re begging the question because you don't have enough context to make that assumption. You're CREATING a context for the commercial that supports your own criticism of the commercial."
Here's the thing: I know that the woman isn't real; well, she's real, but the character in the commercial isn't. Therefore, there is no true context for the woman in the commercial, because she stops existing outside of the 30 second spot. What I am looking at is the context in which that portrayal exists in the greater scheme of things and in the greater world. Her internal monologue directly correlates to problematic thoughts about health and food and how women in particular interact with food. The context is that this is how this gum chooses to sell its product, by cashing in on what I perceive as at the very least an irritating meme and at the very most a disruptive and destructive meme. And the meme does exist, so the commercial is problematic.
"You keep bringing up the fact that the woman is "skinny," but skinny people can be very unhealthy eaters."
Which is also a point I was attempting to make, perhaps clumsily, that being skinny implicitly equals good; fat phobia is a real thing, even when the people who are larger have healthy eating habits. The fact that she's skinny just makes it fit into yet another cultural meme.
"CLEARLY, eating three of these cookies would be extremely unhealthy if you're eating them in addition to your normal diet."
If you're eating them every day, then it would be extremely unhealthy. But having a cookie or a brownie isn't something I see as being inherently unhealthy. Well, I mean, for people other than me, as that could potentially floor me. I'm not advocating eating 3 of those cookies every single day of your life and saying that's a healthy lifestyle. But having one day of gluttony and eating three cookies isn't a bad thing in my book if its balanced by a normally healthy diet. And having a cookie and a brownie on back to back days isn't either.
"I don't see how you could disagree on this second point, and that's why I'm having such a hard time with your argument."
Because your point seems to be that having one cookie is unhealthy, whereas I take a more holistic approach to the whole thing. I don't think eating a food that offers little nutritional value and that is on its own not healthy means that eating it automatically equals unhealthy. Eating it means you've eaten something that isn't on its own healthy, and as long as you take into account that the cookie is a part of your diet for the day and you eat healthy and don't have a bowl of ice cream or a chocolate or a piece of cake when you go home then it isn't inherently unhealthy or bad.
And on an entirely different not, I'm going to pull an Inigo Montoya and say I don't think begging the question means what you think it means - or that you're consistently reading me wrong. I have, at some points in time, constructed circular arguments. But in this case (and I think some others), I'm postulating on correlations. The internal monologue matches up to what - again, and I really should begin pulling in different sources but I'm still lazy and I still have that post to write - Courtney's friends say and what has been commented on in things like Jean Kilbourne's work. The internal monologue is the forefront of my complaint with the commercial. The internal monologue is representative of how the commercial is selling itself, and because it matches up with a popular game of "I've been bad because I've eaten X"/"I've been good because I haven't eaten X", I think there is something of note going down there. I'm not saying the commercial created the meme; what I am saying is that there is a meme that exists, and it is present in the commercial for a reason - and the reason I come up with is that commercials are meant to manipulate and this one manipulates by playing upon that prevalent theme - and that I find that theme problematic because it hurts women's relationship with food. The commercial only reinforces that already problematic situation, but I think it is there. If I were better at doing proofs I'd map it out better, but they've always been a bit dodgy for me.
Actually, you missed my point; the monologue IS the point. The way the monologue is constructed is the point. Change the monologue, and you change the societal message of the commercial.
Yes, I got that. I was not advocating changing the MESSAGE of the monologue; those feelings of guilt and denial that you bring up would still be present and could still be done with a different narrator. This commercial, by using a female protagonist and this particular “meme”, as you call it, is targeting women.
There are some factors for some people that make it more of a health risk, and some factors for some people that make it less of a health risk. For example, I have extremely low cholesterol, so low that I could probably eat a stick of butter a week and have it not negatively affect my health. Meanwhile, someone who is predisposed with high cholesterol could have problems even if they avoided all the "bad" cholesterol and on top of that all the "good" cholesterol.
It could negatively affect your health in other ways, but not show up in a reading. My family is predisposed to high cholesterol (I probably already have above average numbers merely because of my genes); my grandparents have been eating a very restricted (to me) diet for nearly 30+ years and their numbers are still off the charts. (They would eat a cookie once a year.) At a certain point, the numbers aren’t going to change because of complex genetic interactions with how they break down the food, just like I’m not going to gain a hundred pounds unless my body goes haywire—no matter how bad or good my diet is. And ignoring good cholesterol would be just as unhealthy and silly as trying to avoid all fats as much as possible.
You keep bringing up the fact that the woman is "skinny," but skinny people can be very unhealthy eaters.
Which is also a point I was attempting to make, perhaps clumsily, that being skinny implicitly equals good; fat phobia is a real thing, even when the people who are larger have healthy eating habits. The fact that she's skinny just makes it fit into yet another cultural meme.
I have a real issue with you continuing to reference how skinny the actress is in the commercial. I’ve watched the clip several times, and the only time you see a shot of her entire body is in the last frame, when she’s walking away from the snack stand eating gum. It’s not in focus, and a second later words appear on the screen for the gum. She is almost always framed only above her neck, and the commercial zooms in to her eyes and mouth. For most viewers, they aren’t going to notice her body shape—and I noted that I didn’t, either. That’s by design. The commercial is not pointing out a particular body shape as being acceptable; this isn’t an example of “skinny = good” and “fat = bad”. They just, for whatever reason, picked this actress who happens to look this way, but they shot her so that her body is not an issue. For all intents and purposes, her body type is irrelevant to the conversation.
Begging the Question: Where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises.
First, you're beginning with the premise that societal standards (reflected through the media) promote weight-consciousness.
Second, you're arguing that, even though this commercial doesn't explicity address weight, it must be seen in a broader social context in which concerns about weight dominate women's lives.
Third, you're holding up the commercial as an example of how society (through the media) promotes weight-consciousness.
...
It has also occurred to me that the woman never actually says anything about being "bad" in the commercial. She says, "Wow, you're good, you."
She could simply be anthropomorphizing the gum, as I often do with my toothbrush when I say, "You're gonna kill those cavities!"
I don't have many friends.
...
I think at this point we're starting to talk past each other, so I'm just gonna throw out some red herrings.
Extra Fruit Sensations Gum probably tastes disgusting.
Yay! Logical fallacies to all! And to all a goodnight!
"I was not advocating changing the MESSAGE of the monologue; those feelings of guilt and denial that you bring up would still be present and could still be done with a different narrator."
Unless the guy makes the same connection to not eating the cookie being good - literally -, the message changes. The guy who is concerned because he ate a lot of sweets in the past is in a wholly different group - I think - than this commercial. The point I'm making is that the line used by the woman in the commercial is directly related to the line used by women when describing their food consumption or lack of it in good and bad terms. Change that line especially, and the entire commercial's message changes; the rest of the monologue isn't the best, but it is that line that catapults it over the top into the danger zone.
"For most viewers, they aren’t going to notice her body shape—and I noted that I didn’t, either. That’s by design."
I was talking to my mother after the commercial, and Jess a little while later, (neither of whom have read the post) and they both came away with the idea that the woman is skinny (and I didn't put it in their heads!). I know, anecdotal evidence, but I feel okay bringing it up because yours is as well.
"First, you're beginning with the premise that societal standards (reflected through the media) promote weight-consciousness.
Second, you're arguing that, even though this commercial doesn't explicity address weight, it must be seen in a broader social context in which concerns about weight dominate women's lives.
Third, you're holding up the commercial as an example of how society (through the media) promotes weight-consciousness."
Wrong. I think I came up with a proof:
A. Women (like Courtney's friends) are prone to saying they're "bad" when they eat a dessert and "good" when they abstain.
B. The woman in the commercial says "You're good, you" at the end of the commercial when she abstains from eating a cookie.
Therefore, C:
There are societal factors that contribute to women feeling like eating a cookie equals a negative and not eating a cookie equals a positive.
There are some other nuances and there could probably be some other letters thrown in, but that is my argument.
From there, the argument expands into what this says about women's relationship with food and the media's portrayal of women, mostly in the comments section. But the crux of the argument is just that.
You wrote:
A. Women (like Courtney's friends) are prone to saying they're "bad" when they eat a dessert and "good" when they abstain.
B. The woman in the commercial says "You're good, you" at the end of the commercial when she abstains from eating a cookie.
C. Therefore, there are societal factors that contribute to women feeling like eating a cookie equals a negative and not eating a cookie equals a positive.
...
This is not a logical progression of ideas. I think you’re arguing:
A. Women are prone to saying that they’re “bad” when they eat a certain kind of food (“Food X”) and they’re “good” when they do not eat “Food X.”
B. Commercials are a social medium.
C. The woman in this commercial says that she is “good” when she does not eat “Food X.”
D. Therefore, this commercial contributes to women saying that they’re “bad” when they eat “Food X” and “good” when they do not eat “Food X”
E. Therefore, some social mediums contribute to women saying that they’re “bad” when they eat “Food X” and “good” when they do not eat “Food X”
...
This is faulty logic.
First, D is a conclusion that does not follow logically from premises A, B and C. The woman in the commercial says she’s “good” for not eating “Food X,” but it does not follow logically that this contributes to women in general saying they’re “good” (or “bad”) for not eating “Food X.” That’s an assumption on your part, not a deductive conclusion.
Second, your initial premise (A) relies on the assumption that women are already prone to saying that they’re “good” or “bad.” I think you’re trying to argue that women are prone to this behavior because social mediums encourage the behavior. Is that correct? If that’s true, your premise is assumed from your conclusions (D and E), and this is circular reasoning. If it is not true, why do you think women saying that they are “good” and “bad”? If you’re suggesting that they’re simply prone to this behavior, then that undermines your entire argument, doesn’t it?
Post a Comment