Seriously. If a slender, famous actress or singer would say in an interview:

“It’s really important to me, personally and professionally, to have as pleasing a body as possible, so I work really hard at it. I work out for an hour and a half every day, do 200 abdominal crunches daily, and am really, really careful about what I eat. It’s hard work and sometimes I wish I could relax about it, but in this business, a slender, toned body is a career asset. Plus I feel great, really fit and energetic, so it’s worth the work.”

Would that be so bad? Would anyone think any less of her? Would it mar her image in any way?

First, Star Jones has “weight loss surgery” of some undefined type, and for months tells us that she’s been doing pilates. Why not be honest? Why not say “this surgery carries a lot of risks, but I discussed it with my doctor and researched it thoroughly and decided that for me it was the best decision, for personal, health, and professional reasons. I wish I’d been able to lose weight by diet and exercise, but we all know how that goes – so I did what I needed to do, with the time, resources, and body that I have. I don’t expect anyone to applaud me for it. It was a personal decision.” Could anyone argue with that? Why lie? Why make women around the world think “If Star can do it, so can I,” when in fact Star did NOT “do it”? She did NOT do something that any woman can do if she puts her mind to it. She did something that any woman can do if she has the money AND is willing to take the very real risks of surgery. Remind me to tell you some time about the woman I met who suffered kidney failure and was in a coma for 2 months as a result of complications from her gastric bypass.

Now, Geri Halliwell tells People that the way she got these abs — which, in her words, “just pop” — a year and a half after giving birth,

is this:

“I never go on a diet – at all. I go for walks, a little bit of yoga. That’s it. I eat literally every two or three hours,” adding that she drinks “loads of water.”

Yeah, right, Geri. I have news for you: Even people with fast metabolisms and “skinny genes,” who stay thin with no effort, do not get toned with no effort. You are totally doing 1,000 crunches a day.

And, good for her! If she wants rock-hard abs and is willing to do 1,000 gazillion crunches a day to get there, then fantastic! We’re all for women reaching the goals which they set for themselves!

But what virtue is there in pretending that it’s all effortless? Why not tell the truth: That, yes, other women can get abs like that if they are willing and able to work out for hours every single day. That is, if they have the time, if they aren’t working long hours at the office and they have a nanny to look after the kids and a housekeeper to do the vacuuming and dusting. Or if they’ve decided that they will sacrifice other things in their lives — date night with their husbands, or girls’ night out, or a clean home, or sleep, or all of the above — to make the time, because having washboard abs is a priority for them, or simply because they really crave exercise.

It’s a legitimate decision to make time for reaching a personal goal. But what happens, when stars lie about how much work it takes, is that women’s inner voices say “if dieting and exercising is so easy for these entertainers, why is it so hard for me? I must be a lazy bum.”

You are not a lazy bum. Weight loss is not easy. They are lying. They had surgery or they work really, really hard.

That is all.

A couple of months ago, we discussed the hack job which Glamour’s cover designers had done on the beautiful figure of America Ferrera.

Not to belabor the point, but this month’s cover clearly indicates that not enough heads have rolled over there. It’s one thing to make a curvalicious actress look like a Barbie doll; it’s another thing to do so in such an obvious way that we all notice it. Listen Glamour, if you’re going to try to trick us into believing that Ferrera has stick-thin arms and a rib missing from the bottom of her ribcage, at least don’t do it so that we all know what you are doing. If you are going to trick us, then trick us. That’s why we pay your newsstand price, for the fantasy, right?

So what exactly have you done this month to Mariah Carey’s normally-perfectly-normal face?

Francesca took one look at this cover and thought “Aha! Clearly there is a new beauty trend emerging!”

Plastic is the new black.

Interesting article in the “Weekend Review” of the New York Times, to the effect that, although the “overweight” BMI category is actually the healthiest in many ways, as long as being overweight is associated with poor socioeconomic status, our beauty standards probably won’t change:

Two years ago, federal researchers found that  . . . .  there were 100,000 fewer deaths among the overweight than would have been expected if those people had been of normal weight. This is what might politely be called the chubby category, with body mass indexes (a measure of weight for height) of 25 to 30. A woman, for instance, who is 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighs between 146 and 175 pounds.

. . . Dr. Brown is among those social scientists who say that being thin really isn’t about health, anyway, but about social class and control.

When food was scarce and expensive, they say, only the rich could afford to be fat. Thus, in the 19th century, well-do-do men with paunches joined Fat Men’s Clubs, which gave rise to the term “fat cat.” Heavy women of that era were stage stars. Lillian Russell, “airy fairy Lillian, the American beauty,” weighed 200 pounds.

Those notions of fashion gradually gave way to a more streamlined physique.

. . . . How did we get to this point?

George Armelagos, an anthropologist at Emory University, calls it the King Henry VIII -Oprah Winfrey effect.

Henry VIII, king of England in the 16th century, “was huge,” he said, which was a symbol of his wealth. To get that way, Dr. Armelagos said, “it took 100 people collecting food for him and cooking it.” Compare that to the billionaire Oprah Winfrey. “She has to have a dietitian and cook and a trainer so she doesn’t get to be like that,” he said.

Today, poorer people are most likely to be fat and so, said Abigail Saguy, a sociologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, “fatness is associated with downward mobility.” Weight has thus become a moral issue couched in health concerns, she said. After a while, it almost becomes inconceivable that anyone would see a fat person differently.

So what does this all mean for the chubby among us, who may be the healthiest, or at least, the most likely to live the longest? Will chubby become fashionable? That may have to await the day when chubby becomes inextricably linked to health, or privilege.

What it boils down to is that in our society, where food is plentiful and often not very nutritious, and where people of all classes might be working at desks, it takes a lot of money and/or leisure time to get or stay thin.

And since we equate wealth with moral value, well . . .  you do the math.

Our internet friend Amy sent us a link to a short article which just goes to show, we are with fat people now where we were with women about 80 years ago:

Companies are cracking down on the health of their employees. IBM recently said that starting next year it will pay employees $150 if they sign up their kids for a program to fight childhood obesity.

Clarian Health recently revised controversial plans to penalize workers for smoking, having high blood pressure, or body mass index over a certain limit.

The moves are part of a trend among a growing number of employers to monitor their workers’ health. After all, it costs more to insure smokers and overweight people.

Where do we begin?

So, companies want their workers to take better care of their bodies, since healthy workers are cheaper to insure. All fine and understandable and business-like.

But the logical extension of this is that workers who are more expensive to insure will have a harder time getting a job.

It’s not OK to discriminate in hiring on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, or race, because what is important is whether the person can do the job.

It should not be important how much it costs to insure them.

And do not even get Francesca started on the idea of penalizing workers for being fat . . . because, you know, the social pressures, the difficulties dating, and the parents and aunts and uncles who put us down for years worked real well to keep our BMI’s in the “normal” range, right? Negative reinforcement sure works wonders, right?

Right?

Francesca says: This is not a political blog, but I am compelled to point out something important. I spend much time in countries with socialized medicine, and have seen the benefits of it. It is absolutely ridiculous what happens in the United States, wherein businesses consider it their issue whether a worker smokes or is obese — not out of genuine concern for whether they are well, or even for how many sick days they might take, but rather because the employer has a connection to the health insurance. And it is ridiculous that one can only easily get affordable health insurance if one is employed by someone else — someone else who will now be keeping an eye on how often one’s children go to the gym.

Francesca says: She would rather pay for national health care and have fewer amenities in the doctors’ offices, than have to put up with this sort of crap.

Francesca hath spoken.