Body Image is a Spiritual Issue
Category: Unitarian Universalism - General
I can’t count the number of times this has happened: I’m having a conversation with a woman friend who has a healthy body, and then she begins to tell me exactly what she has eaten that day (or not eaten) in order to lose weight. She tells me such details as the exact number of cups and slices of food.
This unsettles me every time. I can understand that a truly overweight woman might talk about her diet with friends in order to receive support or advice, but to hear the exact details of daily ingestion from a perfectly healthy woman disturbs me.
Even though it may not be intended this way, the message I get from these conversations is that we as women derive a significant part of our value from our appearance, and that we should be very focused on controlling every aspect of that appearance.
This message doesn’t just come from other women. It comes from an unfortunate number of boyfriends, husbands, fathers, and other male figures, as well as magazines, movies and a host of other media.
We women are urged to waste an excessive amount of time, money and mental energy on all manner of body-controlling behaviors. This is time that could be spent volunteering, building relationships, engaging in spiritual practice, or doing a host of other activities that bring us closer to the sacred and make a greater contribution to the world.
I also understand this problem in religious terms. Unitarian Universalism affirms the inherent worth of dignity of every person. If we as Unitarian Universalists are saying and doing things that that imply that our own worth, or that of other people, derives from physical appearance, then we need to take a hard look at our beliefs and commitments.
There’s a very interesting discussion going on at “Beauty Tips for Ministers” about the author Rev. Victoria Weinstein’s recent post, “Hey Lady, Where’s Your Face?” in which she argues that women who do not wear makeup look “seriously drab and wan.” I’m generally a fan of “Beauty Tips” but this particularly post rubbed me the wrong way.
I enjoy “Beauty Tips” because Rev. Weinstein has a common-sense message: Women leaders (including clergy) need to dress professionally and adhere to basic grooming in order to gain power and respect.
However, there’s a big difference between advocating that women look professional in professional settings, and arguing that women are unattractive when they don’t wear makeup. The latter assertion gets dangerously close to the idea that we women are inherently flawed and ugly, and that we need to be fixated on covering up or eradicating our supposed flaws.
We Unitarian Universalists do need to talk about body image. It’s a “live” issue for both men and women (albeit in somewhat different ways), and it has serious spiritual repercussions. Unitarian Universalists have developed ways of talking about sexuality that are open and affirming (see Our Whole Lives). We can talk about body image too, including in this conversation our ideas about the sacred, about relationships, about how we represent ourselves and our religious tradition, and about the worth and dignity of every person.
Update 3/30: There’s a rich discussion going on in the comments. Rev. Weinstein goes into more depth about the message of her post and the context in which it was written, including the following: “Shelby, I did NOT say that women who do not wear make-up look seriously drab and wan. I said that there are a lot of clergy sisters out there looking faded and invisible FROM THE PULPIT who could benefit from cosmetics and should look into it, stat…I find this post unnecessarily antagonistic and an inaccurate representation of my words and the context within which they were published.”
March 30th, 2008 12:02
Exactly what I was trying to say over there. thank you for writing this. ;-)
March 30th, 2008 14:34
I really appreciated your comments over at Beauty Tips. Especially your story from Mary Kay. You put the case very well.
One time I went into a well-known cosmetics store chain in Atlanta, and a saleswoman there showed me various products, including some under-eye cream (to hide the “dark circles” that I had never before noticed). When I declined to buy the prouct, she told me “well, I guess it’s ok if you’re used to looking like that all of the time.” Indeed.
March 30th, 2008 14:59
I can remember a similar experience at a makeup counter, Shelby, where I was told I had “prominent” eyebrows. I think that means I didn’t pluck them to oblivion. The salesperson also said something to the effect of, “I guess they’re okay, if you want them to look that way (you hideous beast!).”
It’s so hard for me personally to find a happy medium between taking care of myself (bathing, moisturizing, sleeping, meditating, exercising) and all the messages that I absorb from popular culture (I MUST wear makeup to be professional, I must do Pilates because I can’t have a belly, I must get manicures, pedicures, waxes, massages) etc. Additionally, I worry because much, if not close to all, of the beauty treatments, including makeup, contain all sorts of chemicals that are absorbed into our skin. I think makeup becomes much more political in that light. Yes, I want to look good, but I don’t want cancer in 10 years from the parabens or pthalates that I’ve been eating in my lipstick.
I also think that God loves me without makeup and with a belly.
March 30th, 2008 15:47
This is a major issue for me, too, and a reason that the “inherent worth” aspect of UU belief really appeals to me. I’m a very overweight woman, I hardly ever wear makeup, but I do take care to look nice otherwise, and I think I’m okay most of the time. I try to view eating more healthily and being active as part of having respect for my own inherent worth, but I only hope that even if I fail to do those things I still have worth to other people.
I don’t know–it’s thorny. I do know that much of what appeals to be about yoga as a physical and mental practice is that–approached the right way–it fosters respect for what your body *can* do even while striving to be more fit. I’ve tried the keeping track of every bite thing, and even though most people would perceive that as a very healthy thing for me I find it impossible to do it without obsessing over it.
March 30th, 2008 20:18
Shelby, I did NOT say that women who do not wear make-up look seriously drab and wan. I said that there are a lot of clergy sisters out there looking faded and invisible FROM THE PULPIT who could benefit from cosmetics and should look into it, stat.
I write for clergy, and I write about clergy. We have a serious issue in looking unkempt and sloppy in our ministry. I do wonder why the most vehement protesters of my post, none of whom are clergywomen and therefore not my intended audience, find it necessary to misconstrue my intention and message. Let me make it perfectly clear:
I am writing to my reverend sisters about our public image, not making a generalization about all women. You should certainly know that by now as a long-time reader.
I find this post unnecessarily antagonistic and an inaccurate representation of my words and the context within which they were published.
About “body image,” well that’s another subject altogether. Any visit to a clergy gathering of ours will inform you that a significant number of our ministers are obese. I write a lot about how a plus-sized clergywoman can dress well; I suppose that makes me size-ist?
No. It doesn’t. It makes me, as ever, a tough-talking advocate for clergy image improvement in a visual age. If you and Jess aren’t into make-up, don’t wear it. But don’t keep accusing me of insulting all of womankind because I consistently recommend cosmetic “helps” to my female AND male readers.
March 30th, 2008 20:47
I’m with you 100% on this. Great post!
March 30th, 2008 21:07
Regarding the whole ministers and make-up thing…
This may be off topic, but…
In a church I attended, I had two female ministers. One wore make-up. One did not. Knowing them personally, this was absolutely fitting with their personalities, and all that I would ever want from any minister is that they were 100% authentically themselves.
And this may just be me…but I was, for a time, intimidated by the one who wore make-up. She always seemed so together…But when I saw her day-off, hair dissheveled, no make-up, down-to-earth chasing her little one around… something clicked in me– “Oh, she’s real. I can relate.” (I have since seen her make-up melted by real tears in front of the public eye, too.) So, if ministers need to look good for the public, OK. Leading a service is one thing… But, sometimes we need to see their flaws too.
All in all, though, what got me about both ministers is that they were always honest with their hearts in front of that church. Makeup or no makeup, you saw their inner beauty shine through.
March 30th, 2008 21:41
Peacebang,
Thanks for your comment.
I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. After reading your post and the discussion in the comments carefully, I thought I correctly understood the message of your post, and I did not pick up that your concern about the lack of makeup applied only to ministers viewed from afar away while preaching.
As you know as a prominent writer and preacher, words have a great deal of power, and they sometimes impact listeners quite differently than intended. What you wrote struck a nerve with me — especially because I’ve enjoyed so much of what you’ve written at Beauty Tips — and I felt the need to share my concerns in what I believed to be a sincere and fair response. I like you as a person and respect you as a professional, and did not intend to be unnecessarily antagonistic.
March 30th, 2008 21:44
Hi friends,
Thank you for the thoughtful responses here. I’ll respond more soon.
March 30th, 2008 23:34
Peacebang, reread those first three paragraphs, without the righteous indignation:
You don’t say “from the pulpit” until the very end of your post.
Perhaps it is not your intention to speak to all women, but that’s how you wrote this post. And while you say that you respect women’s reasons for not wanting to wear makeup, you do convey that same attitude as the woman at the makeup counter (”Well, if you really want to look like that. . .”) that pushes all the wrong buttons for many, many women.
I do wear makeup. That’s not the point. What I object to in the attitude and tone of your post is that you are speaking with a sense of “Universal Truth from On High” about an issue that can make many women feel belittled and inferior, and I don’t feel that you have taken that into account.
March 31st, 2008 10:08
Embroiderama,
Thank you for writing! I was moved by your comment, “I try to view eating more healthily and being active as part of having respect for my own inherent worth, but I only hope that even if I fail to do those things I still have worth to other people.”
We all deserve to be seen as a people of worth and dignity. And I believe that despite being bombarded with images of extreme thinness, many of us ARE able to appreciate people of all sizes, and to appreciate ourselves regardless of weight.
Terri,
Thanks for sharing your experience as a parishioner relating to two ministers with very different senses of style. And your story about seeing your minister on her day-off was a sweet illustration of how one can minister in unexpected moments and unexpected ways.
Here’s my take on ministers and appearance…
To me the important thing when it comes to the minister’s appearance is that a minister (man or woman) look professional and appropriate when at work. Within the category of “professional and appropriate” I do think there is some flexibility both for men and women.
A minister’s appearance can never substitute for the openness of heart and sense of presence that you describe. But a professional appearance can reinforce the sense of competence, presence, and confidence that makes an effective minister.
Ms. Theologian,
You make a good point about the harm of certain beauty treatments. I’m not that familiar with the risks of make-up products, but there are some pretty egregiously risky beauty treatments that come to my mind, such as tanning beds, plastic surgery, and anything that involves injecting fluid into one’s face.
April 5th, 2008 17:22
“Shelby, I did NOT say that women who do not wear make-up look seriously drab and wan. I said that there are a lot of clergy sisters out there looking faded and invisible FROM THE PULPIT who could benefit from cosmetics and should look into it, stat…I find this post unnecessarily antagonistic and an inaccurate representation of my words and the context within which they were published.”
So…..does the rev. also suggest that faded and invisible MEN look into cosmetics ’stat’?
April 5th, 2008 17:28
Oh, sorry I hit “submit too soon; I would also like to add that I rarely think about what I SEE at the pulpit-I am too busy listening to the message of the service. Sorry Rev., but your message is what it is, regardless of added qualifications and quantifications. You are propagating the belief that women have to “look” a certain way to be accepted.
I wear make up; but not always. I am an ICU nurse and work nights; do my patients care how I look-other than clean and professional? Or do they care more about my abilities to provide intelligent, educated and loving care? well, that’s how I feel about a minister…
April 7th, 2008 10:10
drcRN,
Thanks for commenting! I’m with you that so long as women look “clean and professional” in their work, that is sufficient.
I like your point that competence, knowledge and “loving care” are key qualities for both ministers and nurses. Teaching is another field where these qualities come to mind. A teacher needs to look professional and together in order to be effective with children, but what kids ultimately will appreciate most is caring and competence.