From The Guardian UK: http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2013/nov/04/thigh-gap-obsession-most-extreme
I read a piece in the Observer about young women’s latest obsession: having a gap between their thighs. Surely this must be the harbinger of the apocalypse.
Rita, by email
Come come, Rita. To intimate the apocalypse you’re going to have to do better than citing an obsession with one’s legs. As all Bill Murray fans know, the only true harbingers of an apocalypse are “human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria!” So until you show me any feline and canine cohabitation, I’m going to maintain you’re still OK to make holiday bookings for next year without any risk of losing your deposit due to brimstone flooding.
However, as my colleague Rosie Swash detailed in her article, the thigh gap obsession is not good. In fact, this column is officially dubbing it A Bad Thing. To type “thigh gap” into Instagram is to gaze down a dark hole of scary sadness. The sense of horror Edvard Munch captured in The Scream is the terror he felt upon seeing Instagram names such thigh_gap_please and Twitter accounts such as @CarasThighGap. No, it is not a widespread trend and, no, not every single female between the ages of 14 and 29 is obsessed with ensuring that their thighs don’t touch any more than every single female thinks it is totally normal to wear 5in Louboutin heels every day (or ever). What it is, though, is an example of yet another form of body hatred that has been successfully marketed to vulnerable girls and women, and anyone who says that these trends are propelled by articles (such as – wahey! – this one) about said trends has clearly not spent much time talking with teenage girls recently or looking at their social media.
Just when you think there hasn’t been an inch of the female body that has failed to be deemed in some way wanting, along comes another body obsession, whether it’s the Daily Mail wailing about women’s cankles or Instagram accounts obsessing over Alexa Chung’s thigh gap. From one perspective, one could see this as proof of the inexhaustible ingenuity of the human species. From another, one might want to crawl under a rock.
Two popular misconceptions, though, should be cleared up from the start. This column has always given a big thumbs-up to Madame Caryn Franklin, but her contention in Swash’s piece that young women aspiring to unachievable physical ideals is a new development won’t quite do. “I had spent my teen years listening to Germaine Greer and Susie Orbach talking about female intellect,” she says, and cheers all round. But to suggest that there is a dichotomy between having body neuroses and being intellectually stimulated isn’t fair and misunderstands the problem here. When I was a teenager in the 90s, I happily read Charlotte Brontë and Chaim Potok novels, but simultaneously became so obsessed with having a flat stomach when I was 14 that I pretty much stopped eating for a decade. Turns out that intellectual pursuits are no guarantee of good mental health. To reduce body obsession to empty-headed narcissism feels like yet another way to criticise women and girls. Moreover, to claim that it’s only in the past few years that women have been encouraged to suppress signs of sexual maturity in favour of looking like little girls is very selective imagining.
Continue reading at: http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2013/nov/04/thigh-gap-obsession-most-extreme
by Sharon Levin, National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)
November 7, 2013
UPDATE, November 7, 2:27 p.m.: The Senate approved the Employment Non-Discrimination Act with a 64-32 vote. The ENDA will now move on to the House.
Readers of RH Reality Check are all too familiar with efforts to let bosses impose their religious beliefs on their employees by making their birth control decisions for them. On Thursday, the Senate actually voted on a provision that would have allowed bosses to use religion to discriminate against their lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees. Although the amendment was soundly defeated (43 -55), the fact that the Senate actually took a vote on this shows how widespread these efforts are.
That’s right—more efforts to use religion as an excuse to discriminate.
This is what happened today: The Senate passed S 815, the most recent version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would bar employment discrimination against LGBT workers. Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-PA) offered an amendment that would have weakened its protections by broadening ENDA’s current religious exemption—which already provides less protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation than discrimination on the basis of race or sex or national origin.
The Toomey amendment would have gone even further, using ambiguous and undefined language that could allow even private, for-profit employers to discriminate against their LGBT employees. It could even allow them to discriminate based on any reason or bias, not just on religious beliefs. The Toomey amendment was just another step in a long-term strategy to normalize using religion as a tool to discriminate in a variety of arenas.
In recent years, there has been a sustained, multi-pronged effort to use religion to discriminate against both LGBT individuals and women. We have seen it repeatedly in the reproductive health-care context. More than 80 federal cases have been filed by bosses challenging the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that health insurance plans cover contraceptives with no cost-sharing. Just last month, the House of Representatives used the issue of letting bosses refuse to cover birth control as a bargaining chip in the negotiations over shutting down the government.
But these efforts go beyond wanting to deny women access to birth control. Private organizations have refused to allow LGBT individuals to adopt or serve as a foster family. Bosses have discriminated against single mothers just for being single mothers. Bosses have discriminated against women for using in vitro fertilization treatment to become pregnant. The Toomey amendment was just another attempt to allow bosses to impose their beliefs on their employees and to discriminate against those who do not share the same beliefs.