In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Back When Baby Didn’t Have Back

Nanette

My daughter noticed something odd the other day. Odd to her, anyway, and, now that I think about it, odd to me too. In different ways, though.

See, she came to visit the other day and as I had to finish something up in the other room she dropped down on the couch to visit with her grandmother, who was watching Soul Train, one from the 70s, on the TV. As I left the room, she was barely containing her laughter at all the “weird” clothing (as if kids today have room to talk) and dances. I don’t think she’d ever really sat and watched the show before. When I came back in, though, she had such a strange look on her face… a combination of puzzlement, disgust and … I don’t know. Disbelief, or something.

I looked to see what they were doing – the people had formed two lines and couples danced down the middle. I don’ t know that they do that these days on dance shows, still… though it WAS the 70s, it didn’t seem too outlandish. Not enough to cause that look on her face. So, I asked her what the matter was.

“What’s wrong with them?” she asks. So, I look again. Okay, so maybe the dances are a little silly looking, all that flopping around, but surely she’s seen sillier ones?

“No”, she says… “look at them! Why are they all so skinny?” And, sure enough, I look again and there are dozens of Black people, men and women, and every one of them thin as rails. I sat down too, then, and we kept looking, pointing out when it appeared that a woman had hips, only to see it was because she was wearing baggy parachute type pants or something; some of them had visible breasts, but not many. Not a one had a “booty”. Even the men were super thin – little muscle tone, and certainly no bulk to them at all. And now that she’d pointed it out, I remembered when that was the look to aspire to.

I don’t have pictures, but here is a short video of a 1974 Soul Train dance line.

All of a sudden she exclaims, “Ugh! They all look like they have AIDS or are on crack.” I then turn to look at her, wondering why in the world she choose those particular comparisons… and then it hit me.

She was born in 1979. Crack invaded many Black neighborhoods in the early 80s and AIDS not long after, plus one barely mentions Africa without also mentioning, or at least thinking about, the AIDS epidemic in many countries there. In the world that young Black people my daughters age and younger have grown up in, a good many really skinny Black people they come into contact with, see in the movies or on the news, are simply not healthy for one reason or another. Some are, of course, there are plenty of healthy, thin Black people, but my daughter and just about all of her female friends that I know of are… curvaceous. Hips, breasts, rounded bellies and, of course, rounded bottoms – and they love themselves and their looks, which I think is a great thing. Not a one (that I know of) thinks she is fat. Far different from the Soul Train crew.

I was reminded of this trip into the past with my daughter by this post of Sewere’s, at Rachel’s Tavern ,where he has a conversation going about the Black Male Gaze causing self-esteem issues, referencing a Post Secret confession. I know there was a study (sort of!) done not too long ago that said something like, contrary to most White women, Black women are actually healthier when they have a little meat on their bones. The message Black women are constantly being sent about our bodies, our health, and our very existence are more mixed than usual, sigh. Still, I have to wonder if part of the reason for the shift in desirable (in all ways) body type, at least among some younger US Black folk, is a reaction to the “skinny = sick” thing.

You think?

(little update: actually, watching the video up above all the way through, at least in this set of dancers there are a few who are curvier. Still, considering that TV adds 1o lbs (or so) to your frame… )

43 thoughts on Back When Baby Didn’t Have Back

  1. I think it’s plausible (though I”m not sure what you mean by ‘healthier’ in that context – mentally healthier? Or skinny white women are healthier in most aspects (diet/lifestyle, etc), meaning people who take care of their health, who are white, tend to be thin, and people who take care of themselves, who are black, tend to be heavier. I don’t mean to imply, of course, that a certain body type is inherently healthier, just that people who achieve their [patriarchically] desired body type are probably doing things that have the side effect of being healthful, as long as it’s not too extreme.

    In any case, I can’t speak as to the attitudes in the black community, but once a certain train gets associated with ill-health, or more broadly, poverty, it becomes unfashionable. Fairness was desired when rich people didn’t have to work in the fields, and tanned-ness (in whites) became popular when people didn’t have to work in a fluorescent-lit office and could hang out at the beach. Thinness because fashionable when cheap food started to fill up on calories, rather than being a sign of starvation.

    As to this particular example of the cycle going back the other way, the face of global poverty, for better or worse, is an emaciated black child. We don’t see a lot of (negatively-connoted) emaciated white bodies outside of Holocaust documentaries. That must have some effect.

  2. Several factors: Avid dancers dance their weight down. Young people weigh a lot more now than they did then, in general. I’ve noticed this particularly over the last ten years. It used to be kids were skinny and their parents were pudgy. Now, parents are skinny and their kids are pudgy.

    Back in the day, except for a few “fat” people, young women did not have prominent tummies like they do now. If everyone around you has a little pooch, you tend to assume a little pooch is normal.

    From the 70s I miss big caps, afro picks, and pimp pants.

  3. Take a look at video from a major league baseball game from the 1970s. Those dudes are skinny as hell compared to baseball players today. Take a look at pictures or video of *anybody* from the 1970s compared to pictures or videos from today.

    People in the US in general are *much* fatter now than they were 30 years ago. In my opinion, this has nothing to with changes in personal preference for body type, and everything to do with the food environment we live in.

  4. That “old school” Soul Train video was being circulated around one of my listservs a few months ago and, while weight didn’t come up, there were a few folks who felt that men today who looked and danced like that would look/be suspected of being gay. I guess the message is also that you now have to be “thick” and that unless you carry yourself like 50 Cents, you are gay.

    Remember, Louise Jefferson (from The Jeffersons) used to be considered fat.

  5. Actually, being “thin” is mostly unhealthy in whites, too. The few long term studies that have been done shows that moderate overweight (BMI between 25 and 30) is less associated to early death than underweight (BMI under 19).

  6. Yuri, I should have found and linked to what I was talking about – I am not sure what I mean by healthier either, except less likely to die early, I guess. It was just something I read in passing and I think it was this at Alas. Not exactly a study – I’ll update the post to reflect that – but still interesting.

    As to this particular example of the cycle going back the other way, the face of global poverty, for better or worse, is an emaciated black child. We don’t see a lot of (negatively-connoted) emaciated white bodies outside of Holocaust documentaries. That must have some effect.

    Yes, that’s sort of what I was thinking too.

  7. From the 70s I miss big caps, afro picks, and pimp pants.

    Heh. I am not sure what pimp pants are (and I was there! really!) but I did love the big hats. Afro picks, not so much… I kept stabbing my head and, strangely, some of my school mates were convinced that one of its main purposes was to stab them, should the occasion arise. And me a completely non-violent person, even as a teen, too.

  8. Back in the day, except for a few “fat” people, young women did not have prominent tummies like they do now. If everyone around you has a little pooch, you tend to assume a little pooch is normal.

    You’re kidding me, right?

    I think the different fashions may be warping your view a bit. “Back in the day” women wore pants that rose up to near under their breasts and dresses that cinched in the same place. Now we have the low-rise, tight-fit trend. “Back in the day” fashion hid pudges. Modern fashion, not so much.

    I might buy that kids are slightly more overweight on average now than they were 40-50 years ago, but “young women did not have prominent tummies”? Have you looked at the advertising then vs. now? Are you kidding?

  11. pimp pants

    These are fairly representative:
    http://www.dressthatman.com/view-PANT236.htm

    “Back in the day” women wore pants that rose up to near under their breasts and dresses that cinched in the same place.

    I treasure vivid memories of girls’ bare midriffs over hiphugging flares. There were far more bare midriffs than Empire waists back then:

    http://www.skooldays.com/categories/fashion/fa1630.htm

    And I knew more girls who wore hot pants than who wore dresses. Actually, blue jeans were almost universally worn by both sexes in the early 70s, unless you worked in an office or were going out.

  12. Re: young women and their pooches.

    I’m no expert, but isn’t the concave-tummy, rock-hard sixpack look a bit… well, I don’t want to say ‘unnatural’, but not very naturally occurring in women? It’s a look that must be dieted and crunched and cardioed fiercely for. Aren’t we all sort of made to be soft around the belly and hips? I suppose there are always some very thin women who have very little body fat. But I don’t think the ultra-ultra-tight stomach look is something that shows up on the vast majority of young women unless they are all very strict dieters/exercisers.

    I could see that the young women of yesteryear were smaller (seems like everyone was a bit smaller/shorter then, I hear that people are getting bigger and taller). I think being bigger would make that belly softness more obvious. But I would be astonished if the majority of women in the 60s and 70s had Britney Spears’ abs. Just saying.

  13. But I would be astonished if the majority of women in the 60s and 70s had Britney Spears’ abs.

    No, they didn’t. But they didn’t have paunches, potbellies, or beer bellies like they do now. I heard an extreme case on Sue Johanson’s show — a young woman complained her boyfriend did not perform cunnilingus on her. It turned out that her belly drooped down so much that it hung in front of her clitoris, blocking access.

  15. Hector, I have no clue what the hell you are talking about. I’m serious. I just do not see this avalanche of enormous women that you’re talking about. I think you’re obsessed, frankly.

  17. I remember watching Grease when I was in high school (about ten years ago), and thinking, “Wow, these women are really freaking skinny!”

    The moment it really hit me was a profile shot we get of Rizzo, I think when she’s realizing she might be pregnant. She was in a pencil skirt, and her shirt was tucked in, and she was practically two-dimensional.

    Another example of that skinniness is here: http://entimg.msn.com/i/PMG/grease_530.jpg

    It’s a pic of Sandra though…

    (Apologies for these all being white women, but I think this supports the “people are just getting bigger” comments.)

  18. I see Hector’s buying into the “fat is contagious!” hysteria. Oh noes, we might lower our standards!

    BTW, that link of the pants? If you’re trying to show bare midriffs from the 70s, you might not want to illustrate that with fashions from the 21st century. That’s Christina Aguilera on the right there.

    Athletes do look skinny from the 70s, probably because they really didn’t do a whole lot of weight training until later as part of their conditioning.

  19. I think women were, as a whole, skinnier back in the 70s. But cymbal’s right — they also weren’t as toned. I’m always amazed when I see women considered sexy from the 70s or 80s, with their midriffs bare — and no toned tummies in sight; just a thin but curvy stomach. Even Madonna in the 80s had a much, much more rounded stomach then she does now.

    I don’t know if one’s better or worse than the other, but I think in the 50s, 60s and 70s the emphasis was on being tiny, while now it’s all about being “toned.”

    … vaguley related — my dad was in the same grade as my mom’s older sister, who was not popular because everyone thought she was fat. my dad says he remembers that she was the only “fat girl” in their class. looking back at pictures now, he can’t believe they even considered her fat at all; she would toally pass as average weight by today’s standards. I’ve seen pictures, and it’s true.

  20. No, they didn’t. But they didn’t have paunches, potbellies, or beer bellies like they do now.

    Of course they did. Mostly what has changed there is that many girls and women with that body type/build are quite comfortable with themselves and no longer feel they need to hide somewhere in the shadows, under moo moos (muumuu’s?) or something. A very good thing, in my opinion.

    I don’t know if one’s better or worse than the other, but I think in the 50s, 60s and 70s the emphasis was on being tiny, while now it’s all about being “toned.”

    I think it changed a few times, actually, in those decades. I remember reading old ads in the backs of mystery and sci fi magazines – I guess from the 60s, am not sure, where sad looking women would be told (in the ad) to cheer up! there was a way they could gain weight and get the figure they wanted, and all that. There were the same type of ads for men, for that matter.

    For the women, I think that was a carry over from the 50s (and 40s?) with the ideal being Monroe and um… Ava Gardner, Rosiland Russell and so on.

    And then came Twiggy!

  22. Watching that video, what strikes me most is that the women were considered sexy even while covering their bodies with clothes. Imagine that.

  23. I think what people are seeing is the difference between people who are slim because they either are naturally that way, or because they diet quite heavily (with or without the aid of pharmaceuticals), and people who are slim because they exercise a lot, which is much more the norm today. If you look at the actresses (specifically the women) and singers today versus even 30 or 40 years ago, you’re going to see women with a lot thinner hips now, and a smaller waist-to-hip ratio, because their back muscles are built up, and they’re not carrying any weight at all on their hips.

    I’m suddenly reminded of reading the literature for the “XBX” exercise programme pioneered by the RCAF for women in the early 1960s, where the writer absolutely insists that the programme is for fitness and toning only, and will not turn you into a “muscled woman,” which seemed to be very much a concern at the time. How many modern female celebrities do you think work out with weights? Pretty much all of them now are “muscled women” by the standards of the 1960s.

    Keep in mind, too, that we also know a lot more about both fitness and nutrition than we did then, which accounts for people’s being generally larger and more muscular. (I am indisputably a large, muscled woman, albeit with some fat to boot, and I’d look huge compared to — and probably tower over, wearing comparable shoes — most of those women in the period pictures.)

  24. It’s a look that must be dieted and crunched and cardioed fiercely for. Aren’t we all sort of made to be soft around the belly and hips? I suppose there are always some very thin women who have very little body fat. But I don’t think the ultra-ultra-tight stomach look is something that shows up on the vast majority of young women unless they are all very strict dieters/exercisers.

    Yep. I’m semi-muscular just about everywhere, and thin, but my lower abs are more… gooshy compared to the rest of me. It was never for lack of trying.

  25. I think that the fitness movement that started in the mid 70s had a lot to do with how thin people were. People didn’t work out unless they were athletes, so there weren’t a lot of ROCK HARD ABS or Buns of Steel. If you were on the thin side, you were considered healthy. If you were fat, you weren’t. Anyone know wheren BMI came to be?

  26. But they didn’t have paunches, potbellies, or beer bellies like they do now

    You are correct that you didn’t used to see children or even adolescents with a panniculus, it was unusual in adults too, even if they were fat the stomach was rounded but kind of proud! Fat as well as thin people’s shape has changed.

    By the way some women used to bind themselves post-partum, a practice that is obsolete in western societies as far as I know, but this doesn’t account for children and young people.

  27. Concave bellies don’t occur naturally. They’re airbrushed. Even the flattest washboard abs stick out a little bit under the belly button. Women have more stuff packed in there. Sorry.

    It’s also a function of posture. Have the skinniest girl slouch and suddenly she’s got a “pooch.” I guarantee you. Have someone who thinks they’re pudgy straighten up and arch their back a bit (or a lot, if you’re a model) and a good portion of their tummy will disappear. Try it.

  28. I appreciate what you are saying Amanda w. but I’m talking about the belly hanging down, you never used to see that in children like you do today, even frankly in adults too. I remember I was there.

    I did quote Hector B. but I don’t share his tsk, tsk, attitude, it is just that I’ve noticed these things with my own eyes.

    In Japanese, and other Asian cultures, as I understand there is more of a tradition of the hara, the belly should retain it’s integrity, which as you state isn’t flat, if you look at a baby or a young child, you can see how their belly moves naturally with inhaling and exhaling. This is how it should be really.

    You are also correct about posture, and that is very important, but gets lost in the tedious short sighted obsession with ‘healthy eating and exercise’. We could all benefit much more from gentle altering of our posture etc., to increase our sense of wellbeing and vitality, but that doesn’t fit into the vile ‘war on obesity’ cult.

  29. I appreciate what you are saying Amanda w. but I’m talking about the belly hanging down, you never used to see that in children like you do today, even frankly in adults too. I remember I was there.

    You remember? it was 30 years ago.
    and even if your memory isn’t even a little affected by age, how much of the country did you actually see by the end of the 70’s that you can make any sort of definitive call
    Also as mentioned pants that come past your belly button do a terrific job of hiding your shape, a paunch becomes “rounded but kind of proud”. I know, I’m fat.

    now I’m not necessarily saying people today aren’t paunchier (they certainly seem larger at least) but both your and Hector’s “I remember” defense, between time and fashion differences, doesn’t cut it.

  30. Also as mentioned pants that come past your belly button do a terrific job of hiding your shape, a paunch becomes “rounded but kind of proud”.

    While that is certainly true, waistbands were as low — and thus as paunch-revealing — in the early 70s as ever they’ve been the past five years. I remember one unfortunate girl who wore boy’s jeans to class. Sized to fit the wide part of her hips, the waistband gapped all around.

    More important, storing fat in your abdomen instead of your hips and butt raises your chance of high blood pressure, heart disease, and type II diabetes, so young women were also much healthier then. I guess I’ll just have to look for a longitudinal study of women’s waist-hip ratio over the past 40 years. I encourage readers to refute me with evidence that they’ve found.

  31. Um, how, exactly, did we get from the original point of the post to discussing Hector’s observation/preferences regarding the abdomens of young women past or present? It’s starting to verge on kind of creepy, the level of detail being presented.

    Also, the whole radio show/oral anecdote he presented just smacks of concern troll.

  32. The fitness craze of the 80’s really altered the way we see men and women’s bodies. Now, being naturally thin is not desireable – your body must be sculpted. And while building muscle is likely good for you, it’s hard to compare bodies that stayed slim because of normally consuming less food and moving more due to the lack of a totally sedentary lifestyle and bodies that are forced slim through movements that are designed to carve out muscle tone.

  33. Toni asks:

    Um, how, exactly, did we get from the original point of the post to discussing Hector’s observation/preferences regarding the abdomens of young women past or present?

    To summarize: Original point of the post — skinny young people are rare enough today to make young people think that the thin ones of 30 years ago either have aids or take crack. From the post:
    Some are, of course, there are plenty of healthy, thin Black people, but my daughter and just about all of her female friends that I know of are… curvaceous. Hips, breasts, rounded bellies and, of course, rounded bottoms – and they love themselves and their looks, which I think is a great thing. Not a one (that I know of) thinks she is fat. Far different from the Soul Train crew.
    I said, in effect, yup, especially different today are girls’ rounded bellies. Commenters took issue with that statement, claiming that girls’ tummies were no bigger now than then, suggesting (1) High waist styles in 1974 had concealed girls’ tummy flab, and (2) No one could possibly remember what girls looked like in 1974.

    So there you are.

  34. You remember? it was 30 years ago.

    Yes I think scientific studies show it’s possible to remember 30 years or more ago.

    and even if your memory isn’t even a little affected by age

    Of course it’s affected by age, but I’m not talking about the designs on the cups, I’m talking about peoples’ bodies

    how much of the country did you actually see by the end of the 70’s that you can make any sort of definitive call

    I think I can safely state that afros were more popular in the 70’s than they are now, do I need to tour any country to find that out?

    I’m fat.

    Well done, so am I.

    now I’m not necessarily saying people today aren’t paunchier (they certainly seem larger at least)

    Did you tour the country?

    but both your and Hector’s “I remember” defense, between time and fashion differences, doesn’t cut it

    .

    What am I defending exactly? Hector can speak for himself, but I’m talking about the changes in the bodies of people and children of whom I am and was one, and who are not a tedious social issue de nos jours, but living breathing people with interesting stories to tell, or can’t you tell the difference?

  35. By the 1970s I was grown up and my kids were almost grown up. For most of my life I’ve been pretty thin, and when I was young, people were always asking my mom if I was sick. However,I had a hearty appetite, and got much extra food, because my friends’ moms would put stuff in their lunches to give to me.

    Even when I was a young adult, people were concerned that I might be ill (5’11” tall, waist 24 inches, after my third childbirth). But this was before it became fashionable to be extremely thin. I think Twiggy was the first real emaciated-looking celebrity, and that was in an era when models were already supposed to be very thin. But not that thin!! However, people jumped on the bandwagon for Thin, as people are wont to do.

    So, at least part of the eeking and skweeking about people being too fat dates from about 30 years ago. Not all that long, really.

  36. PS: I have to comment on this: “her belly drooped down so much that it hung in front of her clitoris, blocking access.” (Hector at #13)

    How is this possible? It “droops down” when she is reclining? They only have sex in a vertical position? Her boyfriend can’t move a flap of skin aside? I have known some fat people, and I don’t think they had this problem. There must be a way around it.

  37. I have known some fat people, and I don’t think they had this problem. There must be a way around it.

    haha, Older.. I had a similar (if unexpressed) reaction to that… mainly that, whatever else that guy was, he must be a singularly inept bed parter.

  38. Seconding 36 & 37! And also, Hector, if this:

    skinny young people are rare enough today to make young people think that the thin ones of 30 years ago either have aids or take crack

    is what you think the original point of the post was, there’s… nothing more I can say.

  40. Just wanted to point a hard, cold fact of the TV industry out here:

    The kids who danced on Soul Train and American Bandstand were all hand picked to be on those shows, if I recall correctly. They had to demonstrate that they could dance, of course, but does anyone really think that appearance didn’t enter into it?

    The late 60s and early 70s saw an explosion of the “thin, thinner, thinnest” mindset starting with Twiggy. (If you’ll look up a period picture of Twiggy, I think we can all agree that she’s maybe a little TOO thin. AND I believe she was something like 17 when she made her big splash. My BONE structure changed between the ages of 17 and 21 — there was no way I’d ever have the same figure. MOST adults don’t have the same bone structure they did when they were just post-adolescent.) The answer to getting thin like that wasn’t to work out — ’cause that might give you “unfeminine” muscles, you know — it was to just freakin’ starve yourself. Or pop diet pills (aka, amphetamines). There was a LOT of drug use in the music and TV/movie industries at that point, and a lot of it was linked to weight loss (as well as handling ridiculous hours and pressures, but I digress). And the diet of the lower classes at the time wasn’t as crappy as it is now. If you were poor(er), there was a very good chance you didn’t get enough to eat, not the full of fat, salt, high fructose corn syrup, and gods know what else cheap food there is now.

    So yeah, I can see where the kids on Soul Train might look sick to kids of today. Hell, look at some of the sitcoms from the day. What was portrayed on TV was, then as it is now, not necessarily representative of the population at large.

    Disclaimer: I’m going off my knowledge of the entertainment industry here, not any hard facts cited by anyone else. I’ve just seen enough healthy-thin women told they weren’t thin enough for a particular director/show to be cynical about it.

  41. Laurie has a good point—the folks on those shows were hand-picked by tv execs to be there. That was even true of local dance shows (which mostly pre-dated the seventies); my mother was on one of the local shows in Chicago (early sixties) a few times, and she told me the suits came out and pointed—“you, you, you, not you, you, the rest of yas, better luck next week.”

    As for people actually being heavier, I don’t know about that. I think children are heavier. My seven-year-old daughter is considered “skinny”, but at her age I was the same size and considered average—I didn’t wear the “slim” cut, and she does. At the same time, “thin” women now have differently shaped bodies; as Interrobang pointed out, we tend to be packing more muscle than women in the sixties and seventies.

    ‘Cuz let’s face it, if you have any propensity towards muscle-building, and the Stairmaster is your friend, you’re going to have an Ass and Some Thighs to show off all that work. You’re not going to be shinnying into size 2’s. I think it’s a both/and—some people are heavier, and not hiding that heaviness under a muu-muu, and others aren’t fat, just more muscled. Yet mass-media images still trend toward the very thin, just like back in the seventies. So, after a steady media diet, it’s possible to think that people are heavier.

    Look at it this way: Alicia Keys was told by the first record company interested in her that yeah, she was good, but she’d have to lose a little weight first. At 105 pounds, she didn’t really think that was the case so she signed with another company. Is she “fat”, or even “a little chubby” by any rational standard? No. But she does look bigger on-screen than many of her fellow female artists; she has the thighs of a sprinter. And that was considered unacceptable by that first company, because they planned to market her as a “crossover” artist. And white people have a different standard of thin; more ectomorph, less mesomorph.

  42. Oh, thanks Laurie and La Lubu… I didn’t even think of them screening the participants, but I’m sure you’re correct. They wanted a “look”.

    Vanessa, lol, dang. Very skinny. Grand Poobah, over at Maat’s Feather also put up this photo of Diana Ross’ first solo album cover. Unrecognizable, if you ask me.

  43. Holy fricken cow, is that real? (checks wikipedia) Jeeze. Very skinny indeed.

    And having just seen the Hairspray remake, yes, they probably did screen the dancers.

    Kind of interesting, how beauty standards change and you don’t really notice until you go back and look. I recently caught an old episode of Friends, and not only were the clothes hideous in the early 90s, but Jennifer Aniston was all cherubic-ly round compared to her current ultra-sculpted physique.

Comments are currently closed.