Jennifer Hudson’s Motivation for Weight Loss

In recent posts, I have focused on our culture’s emphasis on what women look like.  Women are judged and valued based on how attractive they are.  Women who are considered to be physically beautiful are considered to be more important, more acceptable, more worthy than women who are not.  We aren’t necessarily always conscious of such judgments, but if we reflect on this for even a short period, it is obvious these attitudes are pervasive.

Such attitudes are extremely disturbing for a person of faith.  As Jesus taught us, such attitudes are completely at odds with those in the Kingdom of God.  A human being’s value is not based on what they look like.  It is based on the fact that they are a precious child of God. 

In this vein, I was very saddened by an article I read recently.  The person who gave me a copy of Allure also gave me a copy of Good Housekeeping, which is another magazine targeted to women.  Whereas Allure seems to target a younger demographic with few responsibilities beyond looking good, Good Housekeeping is appealing to women with families.  The magazine does focus on fashion and make-up sometimes, but it goes beyond to focus on raising kids, health issues, meal planning, sustaining marriages and personal finance topics.  I actually enjoy flipping through Good Housekeeping from time to time.  And sometimes I pick up practical tips that are helpful.

The copy of Good Housekeeping that I was recently given had acclaimed singer and actress, Jennifer Hudson, on the cover.  The article inside included an interview with Ms. Hudson.  That article is available at the link below.

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/family/celebrity-interviews/jennifer-hudson-interview

The focus of the article was Ms. Hudson’s recent weight loss.  She lost 80 pounds and has kept it off for over a year.  That is an amazing accomplishment and I certainly admire her for it.  I have always struggled with my weight, but the struggle got particularly challenging after going to law school and entering a sedentary profession with long hours.  As a result, I know how difficult it must have been to lose so much weight and not gain it back.  With that perspective, I was interested in reading the article.

There are a number of reasons that being overweight is not a good thing.  There are a number of serious health repercussions including diabetes, heart disease, joint problems, etc.  As a result, I guess I naively assumed that the motivation for Ms. Hudson’s weight loss was her health.  I was stunned in reading the article that my assumption was very wrong.

The article describes how comfort foods were a staple in Ms. Hudson’s family and those around her were also overweight.  When she traveled, she was shocked that people in other parts of the country thought she was heavy.  Apparently what initially motivated her to lose weight was that she was not getting work in the entertainment industry despite lots of enthusiasm for her voice.  She was told she was “too big.”  This feedback inspired all kinds of dieting attempts, but each failed.  She remained heavy for years.

This continued until she became a mom.  In the article, Ms. Hudson said her son “deserved to have a mama who could run after him without getting winded or getting tired, to have a role model who could teach him to make healthy food choices.  I needed him to grow up with a mama who always would be there for him by caring enough about herself to take control of her health and her eating.” 

I respect and admire that epiphany.  I had a similar one when we adopted our first child.  It prompted me to join the YMCA and work out regularly.  It also inspired me to incorporate a lot more veggies, fruits and legumes in our family’s meals.  I ended up losing 30 pounds and have kept it off for a number of years.

So, I am second to none in admiring people who resolve to improve their health by losing weight.  That is a laudable goal.  And I can particularly related to and respect those who are inspired to improve their health due to caregiving responsibilities.

What does trouble me, however, is the impression in the article that Ms. Hudson’s initial motivation to lose weight was her career.  To be clear, I don’t judge or fault her desire to have a career.  It is natural for one to want to be a good steward of one’s God given gifts.  I also do not judge or fault her desire to have a career in the entertainment industry even though that industry can be highly superficial and seems to be populated largely by people with questionable values.  Ms. Hudson’s God-given gifts include a tremendous talent for singing, so it is natural that the talent would be used in the entertainment industry.

My concern with Ms. Hudson’s initial motivation to lose weight is more a concern about our culture, not her.  The entertainment industry is well-known for its imposition of and demand for unrealistic standards of beauty, particularly on women.  Women are expected to be stick thin, even right after pregnancy.  Women are also expected to have “perfect” facial features.  Plastic surgery, Botox and other expensive, risky treatments are apparently quite common.  This is so sad to me.  Breast implants and artificially full lips are pervasive.  Botched attempts to prevent visible signs of aging on one’s face are frequently seen as well.  Sadly, such Hollywood actresses are caricatures with their distorted facial and bodily features. 

Again, I don’t judge or condemn such Hollywood actresses.  But I am deeply saddened by the culture that would drive women to such lengths.  I cannot understand the values of a culture that would make women feel that such drastic measures are necessary to be successful.

Nonetheless, I don’t doubt that such pressures do exist.  I’ve never been in the entertainment industry, but even where I have worked women are judged by their appearance and they know that. 

On a more uplifting note, the end of the article on Ms. Hudson emphasizes her Christian faith.  She was raised in the church and her family spent lots of time doing work for the church.  Bible studies and choir were important parts of her upbringing.  She reads the Bible regularly and cited prayer in helping her get through trials in her life.  Ms. Hudson indicated in the interview that she tries to attend services regularly now.

Luke 12:27-31

“Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.  If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith!  And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well."

The High Price of Maintaining an Acceptable Political Appearance

I don’t think I had ever read a copy of Allure magazine until recently.  To be honest, I’m not sure I had even heard of it until someone gave me a stack of magazines she had already finished and didn’t want to just throw away.  So at my daughter’s dance class last week, I was flipping through a bunch of magazines including the February 2012 edition of Allure magazine. 

To be honest, I wasn’t too impressed.  The magazine seems incredibly superficial.  It is just advertisement after advertisement for make-up and toiletries.  It had hard hitting articles with titles like “How to Take a Relaxing Bath,” and “Shocks of Color.”  There were also articles on fake eye lashes, accessories every woman should have, and the claim that “women will go to extraordinary lengths to tame their curls.”  Earth shattering stuff.

I was sitting next to a male friend as we were watching our kids in dance class.  He was giving his baby daughter a bottle while I was flipping through my copy of Allure.  Even before I got to the article entitled “How to Buy a Sex Toy,” I was pretty mortified that my friend saw me reading such a stupid magazine.  He is a smart, thoughtful fellow whose values I really admire.  (He recently quit his job when his wife had their third child so that he could be the primary caregiver as she grows the family’s business.)  This gentleman and I have had some great discussions about all kinds of interesting things:  the impact of student debt on the younger generation, work-life balance, whether our respective families will add more children, and even the parameters of attorney-client privilege.  What a disappointment it must have been for him to have looked over and seen a woman who had seemingly had a brain and family values reading such a moronic magazine!  I wonder if he’ll bother to strike up a conversation with me at future dance classes or if he’ll tell his wife to steer clear of the nit-wit with the make-up magazines.

Anyhow, as I was quickly flipping through the February edition of Allure one article caught my eye—it was a brief history of make-up through the centuries.  Maybe “article” doesn’t quite describe the piece.  It was more of a bunch of bulleted make-up facts.  One such bullet particularly got my attention:

“$22,800: Makeup artist Amy Strozzi’s earnings for two weeks of work with Sarah Palin in October 2008.  Strozzi was the highest-paid staffer on John McCain’s campaign.”

Now, based on my brief exposure to the magazine, I’m thinking the editors and readers of Allure like this fact and perhaps celebrate it.  The magazine seems quite obsessed with make-up. 

But I myself was horrified at this little fact.  Think about the repercussions.  Do the math.  What a sum must have been spent on make-up for Governor Palin’s vice presidential campaign!  And one can imagine this must not be an isolated phenomenon.  Other female candidates likely also need to have flawless make-up to be presentable.  That would suggest that female candidates routinely have to raise more money for their campaigns than male candidates.  They have extra expenditures to pay for the make-up artists (and presumably the hair stylists, if they want to avoid the Hillary “un-coifed” label).

1 Peter 3:3

 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes.

Bachmann, Palin and the Role of Physical Appearance in Politics Generally

Following up on an earlier post about media attention to the sex appeal of Bachmann and Palin, I wanted to add that I don’t remember ever hearing similar comments about Newt Gingrich or John McCain when they were running for the GOP nomination.

Oh, wait, they are both male, and neither gentleman is considered physically attractive per our cultural standards.  Of course, we tend to not care what people like Gingrich and McCain look like.  How silly to judge them on looking dumpy.  They are serious political thinkers.  Looks don’t matter.  We’re looking for a president, not a pin-up.

That double standard concerns me greatly. 

I think by any objective measure, both Governor Palin and Representative Bachmann are endowed with great physical beauty.  I wonder what would have happened if they were not.

Actually, I should be more explicit.  I don’t just wonder, I have a very strong hunch.  I feel quite sure that it is not a coincidence that these two women—the first nationally viable Republican candidates we have ever had—are both quite pretty.  In all honesty, I don’t believe Palin or Bachmann would have gotten as far as they did if they were homely by our culture’s standards.  There have been other women who have run for high office, but they didn’t get as far.  If asked, I doubt most people would think that those other female candidates were as attractive in terms of physical beauty.  I’m not naming names, but it seems an obvious pattern to me. 

To be clear, I’m not saying Palin and Bachmann have gotten where they are solely on their looks.  Not at all.  Though I vehemently disagree with them on many (or maybe most) issues, I acknowledge that they are gifted orators and shrewd politicians. 

What I am saying is that very sadly I think there is a litmus test for female candidates.  To be successful in politics, they have to have all the same positive characteristics and credentials as male candidates, but they also have to be physically beautiful.  The less attractive women do not make it as far.

Nancy Pelosi is another example of this.  Again, she is a very handsome woman.  She has a lot of skills that helped her become the first female Speaker of the House.  But if she had buckteeth, a big nose, frizzy hair and a protruding gut, my guess is she would never have made it to be third in line for the White House. 

However, if you reflect back over the gentlemen who have served in leadership in Congress, by societal standards many of them were considered unattractive.  For a man that doesn’t seem to matter.  For a woman though, it is a huge roadblock.

This point is not something I see mentioned in the media, but it is something that should get more attention.  I am not sure most of us in the electorate realize that we seem to be imposing a double standard for female candidates.  They have to be smart and have to possess strong oratory gifts.  But they also have to be pretty.

Male candidates never seem to be looked down upon for a lack of physical beauty.  Actually it can be a detriment to them if they are perceived as too handsome.  Governor Rick Perry of Texas was dismissively derided by the late Molly Ivins as “Governor Good Hair.”  Dismissing his political aptitude and accomplishments, Ms. Ivins joked that his lovely coif was something that brought pride to all Texans. 

Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts has also experienced flack for his good looks.  To help pay for his education at a prestigious private law school, Brown posed nude for Cosmopolitan and then did a fair amount of modeling with his clothes on.  Posing nude does not help a candidate to be taken more seriously, regardless of gender.  But could you imagine Pelosi, Palin or Bachmann being as popular as they have been to their respective constituencies if it were publicly known that earlier in their lives they had posed topless for Playboy or Maxim?  Brown overcame his nude modeling to accomplish an astounding feat—capturing the Senate seat of the late Democrat Ted Kennedy for the GOP.  I somehow doubt a female candidate who had posed nude would have had similar success regardless of her intellect or the political positions she endorsed.

2 Corinthians 5:12

We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart.

Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, and the Politics of Beauty

Following up on the prior post, I saw an article on a related theme:

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-au-naturale-does-secretary-state-care-100046912--abc-news-politics.html?ugc_c=D1Lpxe712QAXL2BIj2JWmbOobmYTRRx.y5byNR6RDXBHuRfrhWFBEfLzWrtT7RzDsgGiONJkmmnmlQavCRN6iakjI0Lkre3_PGK28Q_e3HG9jPWND17Cvekd2UxCGvvXn7l2trXOQz1G6jDvziaMunVSO8EXFCXRWvvVfT2FnegR7KmRuu7x26uN3UklBUSE82ZYOJrKEybZuwwDiUzYAm5LsAofSPofRfnOoI1KnSc4_L4bbU6bkYV9amRzHm1W.cKO6b2pXGE-&bcnv_s=e&ugc_scnv=1&ll=2

The article's title was "Hillary Clinton, 'Au Naturale': Clilnton [sic] Hits Back at Critics."  As a result, I thought maybe the paparazzi had caught the poor woman in a swimsuit or something. 

However, the article is even worse.  Apparently, it makes news when the Secretary of State appears publicly with "very little make-up, sported glasses and had un-coiffed hair." 

Really?  This is news? 

Representative Eric Cantor and Senator Mitch McConnell routinely appear in public with "little make-up" and wearing glasses.  That never seems to attract any attention.

In the photo of Secretary Clinton, I'm not sure her hair qualifies as "un-coiffed."  It was combed.  She didn't have bed-head or anything.  It is not like she fell out of bed and threw on a baseball cap to hide her lack of grooming.

In the photo, it looks to me as if Secretary Clinton's hair was as neat as that of Representative Boehner or Senator Hatch.  Secretary Clinton simply has a whole lot more. 

Are we saying that a professional woman must spend an hour out of her busy day to blow dry and curl her hair into perfection befitting the senior prom?  We don't expect professional men to spend that much time on grooming.  Why is it newsworthy (or even noticeable) when women follow that sensible lead?

At the end of the article, there is mention that Clinton's predecessor, Secretary Condoleezza Rice, also is scrutinized for her appearance.  There is reference to a recent article on Huffington Post about the former Secretary of State's fashion style. 

Good grief!  When did you last see a retrospective of a male politician's wardrobe and an analysis of his fashion sense?  (Jokes about Senator Santorum's penchant for sweater vests don't count!)

1 Timothy 2:9

…in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing…

Bachmann and Palin: Media Attention to Physical Appearance and Sex Appeal

As noted in a prior post last fall, I’ve been disturbed by what I perceived to be a lack of respect in the mainstream media for Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin’s intelligence.  Not only do I think there is a double standard about female candidates’ intellect, I’ve also been disturbed by disproportionate media attention on Bachmann and Palin’s physical appearance. 

I haven’t heard a lot of that emphasis on physical appearance in the news media, but it has been a reoccurring theme in the entertainment media.  (However, I have noted in the past that the two are often hard to differentiate these days.) 

Last summer in particular, whenever I caught the opening monologue of late night comedians, the physical appearance of Bachmann and/or Palin seems to garner more attention than I would have expected.  I don’t even watch such programs very often, but I’ve heard Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Jimmy Kimmel all make comments that I found to be offensive about Bachmann and/or Palin’s appearance.  I’ve heard the term “hot” used to describe them, as well as similar terms denoting their physical attractiveness.  I’ve also heard them referred to with the word “babe.”  Such characterizations are disturbing to me on many levels.

First, Bachmann and Palin are politicians who have been considered for the presidency.  Neither Representative Bachmann nor Governor Palin has hit the campaign trail to win a beauty pageant or a wet t-shirt contest.  Their intelligence, leadership abilities and vision for the country should have been the focus.  Their physical appearance should have been irrelevant, so I’m amazed that it even got noticed.

Second, I cannot help but notice that these late night talk show hosts are all male and they are apparently heterosexual.  So, I find it quite depressing that through their lens a woman can be so easily diminished to nothing more than a sexual being.  Haven’t we evolved to be a little more sophisticated view than that?  Apparently not.  That depresses the heck out of me.

However, it is also sad to me that even speaking out against such sexism is immediately suspect to many in our society.  Indeed, many may read this very post and dismiss these concerns out of hand.  Lighten up. They are just jokes.  What a tight ass. 

Such dismissive reactions fail to appreciate the gravity of such pop culture references.  Sadly, many people look to such comedians as news sources.  Even those who do not are often greatly influenced (even unconsciously) by the joking characterizations of such comedians.  Such jokes send the subtle message that women like Bachmann and Palin are just sexual objects and don’t count for much else.  They are not real politicians.  They aren’t to be taken seriously in campaigns.  How outrageously demeaning such attitudes are.

To anyone who might be inclined to think of such pop culture jokes as harmless fun, I would encourage you to reflect on whether you would feel the same if they were used against someone other than Bachmann and Palin.  What if your mother, your sister, your wife, your daughter or your niece were running for political office and was publicly characterized in such terms—emphasizing only her physical appearance and not her intellect and beliefs?  Would you want your mother, sister, wife, daughter or niece to be referred to as a “babe”?  Would you want to hear strangers describe her as “hot”?  Would that contribute to the dignity of her political campaign?  Would it encourage voters to take her candidacy seriously or would it invite them to view her campaign as a joke?

1 Thessalonians 4:1-8

Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.

America in Primetime: Independent Woman

I am second to none in my admiration of and appreciation for PBS.  It has such good programming.  I don’t get to watch it as much of it as I might like, but consistently PBS broadcasts such interesting shows.

The other night I turned on the TV and was flipping channels.  I came across a show on PBS that I had never heard of: America in Primetime.  It seems to be a show about how television reflects societal attitudes in our culture.  I caught part of an episode on how women have been portrayed over the years in television. The episode is described at the following link:

http://www.pbs.org/america-in-primetime/episodes/independent-woman/

The episode interviewed a range of individuals who had been involved in television shows focusing on women from Mary Tyler Moore to Darren Star (creator of Sex and the City) to Mary Louise Parker. 

At one point Mary Tyler Moore noted that earlier in society women had to focus on being liked because their economic and societal security was dependent on pleasing a man.  To explain this phenomenon, she quipped, “Am I cute enough for you, honey?”  Then other interviewees explained that women in our modern society no longer have to focus on being liked.  Women now have a wider range of options and experiences, which are expressed in television programs. 

The interviewees noted that the current struggle of women is finding balance.  Today women are juggling work, family, other relationships, other responsibilities, etc.  It was noted that it is hard for a person to know who she is when juggling all that.  It is easy to lose one’s identity and one’s grounding amidst the struggle for balance.

Several interviewees described the seeking of balance as elusive or even mythical.  They balked at the idea of having it all.  One person said that if you are doing everything, by definition you are not doing it all well.  Shows like Desperate Housewives, Nurse Jackie and Weeds were held up as examples of this struggle.

One interviewee mentioned in essence that women today were expected to achieve things outside the home; they had to run companies and have careers.  It wasn’t enough to “just” stay at home.  That was looked down upon. 

To this point, Juliana Margulies of The Good Wife talked about people not respecting stay-at-home parents.  She said that when people talk down about caregivers, she asks, “Do you know how tough that is?”  She said that by comparison her going to work was the easy option.  She goes to work and someone hands her a cup of coffee.  No one takes care of the stay-at-home parent.

Felicity Huffman and Eva Longoria of Desperate Housewives were interviewed and expressed similar attitudes.  They describe a famous scene in their program where Ms. Huffman’s character has a meltdown on a kids’ soccer field because she is overwhelmed by how difficult motherhood is.  In the scene, Ms. Huffman’s character (a former corporate executive) is in tears because she is overwhelmed and feels she is failing as a mom.  Her girlfriends console her and express that they know what she is going through.  Ms. Huffman’s character laments that no one ever tells you how hard it is.  In that context, Ms. Huffman and Ms. Longoria discussed the image of the perfect wife and mom in pop culture, and how impossible it is for women to live up to that unattainable ideal.  It was noted that there is also a lot of shame that comes with not living up to the ideal.

The creator of Desperate Housewives, Marc Cherry, was also interviewed.  Though I don’t know him and frankly had never even heard of him, I just wanted to hug him when I heard him interviewed.  He expressed that the title of his show was immediately controversial; he was told that the title would be a turn-off to potential viewers.  He expressed that reaction gave him the insight that our society just doesn’t respect women who stay at home.  Nonetheless, he expressed his opinion that there was something “quietly and beautifully heroic” about women who aspired to devote themselves full-time to building a home and caring for their family.  And he expressed that heroism was something he was drawn to write about.  God bless Marc Cherry!

If you would like to watch America in Primetime: Independent Woman, the link below contains videos of the whole series.  Apparently “Independent Woman” was the first episode, so you have to scroll down to the bottom of the screen.

http://www.pbs.org/america-in-primetime/watch-video/watch-full-episodes/

John 13:5

Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.

The Value of a Homemaker’s Work

Last week, I wrote about Michelle Bernard’s reference to “red state feminists”:

http://christianityandthelawblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/red-state-feminists.html

I had never heard of that term, but it seemed to denote women who had opted to devote themselves full-time to the raising of their children and who resented those who looked down at them for not being in the workforce.  The essence of the concept of a “red state feminist” seemed to be a woman who wanted to be respected for the decision to care full-time for her family instead of earning a paycheck in the marketplace.

I expressed in that post my support of such attitudes.  Christianity values the intrinsic worth of human beings as children of God.  It rejects the secular societal emphasis on valuing human beings for their ability to command a certain monetary price in exchange for their labor. 

However, because our American culture respects productivity and making money over other endeavors, it tends to look down upon those who care for children.  I myself have observed such attitudes in so many contexts.  Over the year, I’ve heard people describe stay-at-home parents as lazy, lacking in ambition and wasteful.  Sadly, I’ve even heard terms like “parasitic” and “leech” used to describe full-time parents who are not earning a paycheck.  In my experience, many people seem to have such attitudes.

When my own husband left his successful career as a corporate accountant, his co-workers couldn’t believe he was “throwing it all away.”  They thought for sure he was keeping a secret about some wonderful new professional opportunity he was pursuing.  And I was surprised when my friends did not seem to share my pride and admiration for my husband’s sacrifice and prioritization of his family.  They too seemed to think there was more to the story.  I sensed they thought he must have been fired or something.  Some even seemed to be embarrassed for me. 

At the time, I just didn’t understand these attitudes.  Why would anyone have anything but tremendous respect for someone sacrificing the prestige and money of a successful career for family?  But over the years I’ve come to realize that although we as a nation pay a lot of lip service to prizing “family values,” in reality most of us do not.  Deep down what most Americans seem to really value is status in the marketplace.

Not long after my post on red state feminists, I came across an article on a related theme: “How Much Is A Homemaker Worth?”  The article is available at the link below.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-homemaker-worth-182358580.html

I don’t endorse the basic mindset of the article.  It tries to quantify the monetary value of a person who stays home full-time to care for family.  I disagree with that premise.  Not everything of value can be translated into monetary terms.  My worldview teaches me that human beings have value beyond their financial contributions.  We are uniquely precious and valuable because we are created in God’s image.

Nonetheless, I did at least appreciate the thrust of the article in trying to refute the common cultural attitudes that homemakers are lazy and unproductive.  If you buy into the premise of monetizing everything of value, then it is important to recognize that stay-at-home parents do provide a lot of services with a quantifiable monetary value.  The article concludes the sum of such monetary value is just under $100,000.

But of course homemakers don’t earn a salary.  For this reason alone, they are widely dismissed and disrespected in our society.  This attitude is so misguided, so disgusting.  I don’t even know where to begin to refute it. 

Matthew 6:19-21

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.