Walmart, We Challenge You to Rise

October 5, 2007


Lee Scott, CEO
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Bentonville, Arkansas 72716-8611


Dear Mr. Scott,

As the director of an organization that provides programming and resources to girls and women in Maine, I have seen the effects that domestic violence and stalking can have on our youth. The “Some call it stalking, I call it love” shirt that you’re currently selling in Wal-Mart stores makes light of a very serious situation of which many Americans are victims, and most often those victims are women and girls.

Hardy Girls Healthy Women of Waterville, Maine strongly urges Wal-Mart to immediately stop selling the abovementioned shirt and to take immediate action to remove these shirts from all Wal-Mart stores in the country and elsewhere. In addition, we recommend that Wal-Mart take swift action to ensure shirts like these never end up on Wal-Mart’s shelves again by making changes to the way that product purchasing occurs and by requiring all Wal-Mart stores to partner with their local domestic violence prevention programs to ensure that all Wal-Mart employees understand the very real effects of domestic violence and stalking on our daughters, sisters, mothers and partners.

This is an opportunity for Wal-Mart to take a public stand against domestic violence – to educate its corporate team, employees, and shoppers about the need to take domestic violence and stalking seriously.

I’m sure you’ll agree that domestic violence and its effects on 1 in 3 women in our country and around the world are no laughing matter. As such, t-shirts like the one you currently sell should never make it to the shelves.

I look forward to the removal of these shirts and to hearing of Wal-Mart’s commitment to the eradication of violence in America’s homes.

Sincerely,


Megan Williams
Executive Director
Hardy Girls Healthy Women, Inc.
www.hghw.org

Preteen Modeling or Child Pornography?

Any person with internet access can innocently Google the words -preteen model. It may be a parent seeking information on modeling –however misguided- for their little tutu wearing ballerina princess or possibly a social action group interested in educating young girls on the “beauty” industry. For whatever reason, the words seem basic and somewhat harmless. You might picture a headshot of a little girl with freckles and a huge smile playing in the grass. Or you could picture a little girl in a beauty pageant wearing a sparkly dress, tiara, and way too much makeup for her age. I admit whole-heartedly that the whole beauty pageant image is incredibly disturbing, but still it is nothing compared to the images that appear under the title – preteen model. Go ahead and try it…

Instantly you are bombarded with images of highly- sexualized, underdressed “preteen models” touching themselves, laying in raunchy positions and exposing their young underdeveloped bodies. Freckles are now accompanied by Victoria Secret lingerie and the headshot is now a butt shot that reveals most of the 7 years old’s thong. The girls are being marketed as sex objects. What’s worse is that they are being taught at a young age that their bodies are objects for male delight and consumption. They are growing up with the belief that admiration equals objectification.

But the images do not stop with lacy thongs. The second site that came up in my Google search contained images of grown men touching and in some cases even having sex with these “smiling” 6-8 year old girls (who are obviously too young to give consent). This is psychotic. What has become of our society? Grown women are infantilized in mainstream media and everyone in America is aware of this equation… youth=beauty. Well, now the youth is even younger. These images are scary because they normalize perverse behavior… and the desire to de-virginize an 8 year old girl is perverse. Period. A man that actually acted on this fantasy would be shunned as a sex offender yet it is still okay to provide this fantasy. We shun psychopathic behavior but by having such easy access to these images we train men to act like psychopaths. The idea that a man could even achieve sexual arousal by looking at a girl so young is to say the least, disgusting.

At any mention of male-child pornography there is protest and court hearings –and rightfully so- but there is no fight against this horrific epidemic of girl-child pornography that is being masqueraded as “preteen modeling” on the internet. What can we do about it? I have been asking myself that all day? I guess that the first act is to unveil this whole exploitation of female youth, focusing especially on how common and easy it is to access. If female child porno is this accessible, I wonder how many people are actually sponsoring it. What scares me more than its existence is its audience. Let’s expose the truth… Modeling, I think not… It’s PORNO.

Blogs We Love

Well, we'd just like to share with you, our friends, a fabulous blog that has been brought to our attention! It's the Parenting for Peace blog, and it's definitely worth taking a good look. Fantastic information and resources, and interesting reading!

Also, we highly recommend the Packaging Girlhood blog, too. Both blogs are great reading for adults who care about and work with you.

Check back soon for more on our own cultural commentary, too.

Girls Gone Milder? Here we go again...

Please take a moment to consider the influx of messages girls and women receive about how they should look, talk, act, what they can be, do and say.

Its exhausting for me, at 24 years old, to move through all that mess and just be myself, so I can’t even imagine how frustrating it must be for adolescent and teen girls to see past all those ridiculous social expectations.

Imagine the wheels turning in my head, then, when I discovered an article in Newsweek last Thursday titled Girls Gone Milder. What exactly could that mean? Sounds fishy to me, especially after working at Hardy Girls Healthy Women for almost a year now.

(you can read the article here.)

The article, written by Jennie Yabroff for Newsweek, examines a new movement towards a more demure existence for teen girls, as outlined by the woman who wrote the book (literally!) on modesty. Yabroff cites several new websites for clothing and socializing with a modest spin and speaks to Wendy Shalit of ModestlyYours.net.

In Shalit’s new book, Girls Gone Milder, she claims girls are sick and tired of having overt sexuality pushed on them. “She blames the usual suspects: media, misguided feminist professors, overly permissive parents... They’ve lost the sense of encouraging their daughters to be ladylike.”

So who are these teen girls tired of the sex-saturated state of the nation, rejecting “the bad girl archetype for a more demure existence?” And please remind me again, what is "ladylike" and why is it so important? She says that these girls "cover up... insist on curfews on college campuses ...bring their moms on dates...”

Yabroff then cites our good friends in girl empowerment The Girls As Grantmakers program, claiming (without actually naming the organization) that this new movement of girls also spreads the word about modesty. (Based in Pennsylvania, this group is best known for girlcotting Abercrombie & Fitch last year for their obnoxious attitude tee shirts with phrases like “Who Needs Brains When You Have These?”)

Let me just tell you what I think is going on here. I was surprised by work like this- an article printed in Newsweek with absolutely NO cultural analysis, no discussion with the pros, and furthermore an obvious conservative (modest) spin.

Should we let her know that next time it will be better to contact Lyn Mikel Brown for an opinion before asserting a new movement among girls? I think so.

We do a lot of work (and Lyn especially) considering the ways that mass media misuses the concept of girl power for money-driven schemes- another way to create anxiety so girls will spend- and now it seems that Shalit uses the concept in the opposite light, taking power from girls so that they remain modest, demure. Proper.

While the meaning and use of Girl Power seems to change so frequently and conveniently for whosoever chooses to use the term, does the term really mean anything anymore? Originally that concept was used for that happy state in between overt sexuality and social rules of modesty-- oh right I believe that's the place where you can find REAL girls. Wasn't it once about celebrating the unique and dynamic nature of every girl?

The only evidence of a new modesty movement among the female youth of this country is that Wendy Shalit says there is. Is this article supposed to make us feel culturally better?

Whew- what a relief- those girls are going back to longer skirts and chaperones- now I think we are safe.

Now, don't get me wrong, we don't like the sexualization of girls one bit. But we also don't want girls having to consider what is "proper" and "improper," we want girls to live in a culture where they can BE THEMSELVES and those ridiculous definitions don't exist.

Is a movement towards modesty going to save us from a sexual revolution that's gone "too far"? Isn't there much more to consider in this case? This article annoys me --- well, my HGHW comrades and I --- because once again pressure is present for girls to fit themselves into simplistic and limiting labels- that classic dichotomy of the good girl (modest) or bad (immodest).

How exhausting.

Even more specifically, this writing makes me angry because without cultural analysis/evidence to work with, Yabroff uses an example of a super social action (a girlcott) against a major corporation

(something we are totally proud of and did ourselves earlier this year with a bad tee shirt and Kmart- see past blogs below...)

completely out of context. Had she properly named the organization, and I will do it again for them - The Girls as Grantmakers Program- then a modesty movement would matter very little in the face of the dynamic and empowered girls that brought about that fabulous change.

Company execs of Abercrombie not only met with those girls, they removed the most offensive shirts from all their shelves and made apologies.

Wish we could say as much for the elusive CEO of Kmart, but still girls are doing great things to defend their right to be girls all over the place.

In fact, the reference would make little sense if readers were aware that much like us (Hardy Girls Healthy Women), the organization allows girls space to empower themselves through social action while also celebrating the unique and dynamic nature of every girl.

Meaning: girls are much, much more that these ridiculous and lazy labels - they are smart, strong, bold, loud, creative, complex and dynamic. And much, much more..

This article is frustrating because we work to create a more equitable culture for girls and women, so that they may thrive and be all those wonderful things listed above (and much much more.) This hypothetical "modesty movement” only creates more unecessary pressure for girls, another hoop to jump through on the way to finding comfort in one's own skin.

Please check out the AWESOME LIST on the Hardy Girls Healthy Women website -a comprehensive listing of pro-girl organizations and sites- to counteract the pro- "modesty" sites listed in Yabroff’s article.

As always, if you have any questions or would like more information about Hardy Girls Healthy Women, please send an email to info@hghw.org.

Thank you!

What makes it easy to hit women?

What makes it easy to hit women? Their objectification. Make them objects and it's not like you're hurting anyone. Why would someone want to hit a woman in the first place? She's stepping out of line, threatening to take up the space she deserves is one reason. It's pretty easy to think that's okay with the institutionalized sexism and racism that plagues this country. Kim Gandy does a good job (below) of explaining how that works and why we are going to be in this for a long haul. It's up to the many good men (like Cesar Alvarado of Men's Nonviolence Project who posted this on a list serve) who are out there to join with women to start speaking up about attacks on us, not just the physical ones but the 10,000 little cuts that are being inflicted at the emotional level each and every day to women in every corner of this land.


Racism and Sexism Run Deep
Below the Belt: A Biweekly Column
Published on April 17, 2007 by the National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy

Let's start with a simple fact: Most U.S. media outlets - television and radio stations, newspapers and magazines, movie studios, music companies and book publishers - are owned by a shockingly small number of giant corporations. These conglomerates generally are run by white men focused on profits and stock options. This reality lurked behind much of last week's Don Imus storm.

That's not to say that some fine behavior wasn't on display. In fact, the outcome was a victory for all women, and particularly for women of color. After Imus called the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" (and his producer Bernard McGuirk called them "hard-core hos"-he can't be let off the hook), organizations like the National Association of Black Journalists, Media Matters for America and, of course, NOW swung into action, alerting the public and demanding accountability.

NOW supporters sent over 30,000 messages in support of the campaign. Women and men across the country responded in force, saying enough is enough. Employees of CBS and NBC let their bosses know that a line had been crossed and the networks' reputations were at stake. Advertisers started dropping like flies.

One week after the offensive comments were made, MSNBC discontinued its simulcast of Imus in the Morning. The next day, CBS Radio canceled the show. The week ended with an inspiring press conference organized by the National Congress of Black Women and the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, at which a long list of leaders, including civil rights legend Dr. Dorothy Height, addressed the larger challenge of creating diverse and responsible media while ridding our culture of misogyny and racism.

So, kudos all around to everyone who did the right thing.

Unfortunately, the media's handling of this news story demonstrates a problem beyond Imus' crude sense of so-called humor. My staff and I watched hours of media coverage on this issue, and I appeared on a number of TV and radio shows. The other guests invited to comment were almost invariably men. True, we saw and heard from more people of color than ever before. It's just too bad that almost none of them were women of color. I was on two segments of an hour-long morning cable show devoted to the issue and, despite a large number of guests, I was the only woman - in other words, there wasn't a single African American woman on the show. And with so few women in the discussion, the issue of sexism has not been given the attention it deserved.

Despite the advances that women and people of color have made as working members of the media, their presence in top management and as owners is still minuscule. The news can't help but reflect the lack of diversity and inherent privilege of its ownership, and the power imbalance that persists in our society. Take the April 13 front page story in the Wall Street Journal as an illuminating example. The article was littered with the names of high-profile decision-makers and communicators. A total of 35 people were named in the text and photo caption - ranging from talk radio hosts to media executives, politicians to journalists, civil rights leaders to business chiefs.

Just two of them were women - a lousy six percent in a story partly about sexism! The writers and editors didn't even bother to call Rutgers coach C. Vivian Stringer by name; otherwise the tally might have jumped to a surplus of three women.

When I took part in meetings with NBC and CBS executives last Thursday, who did the television media report was there? Only Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson. Now, I don't begrudge these two civil rights leaders the ink and airtime they received - they were saying what needed to be said and, without their outrage, the story might never have received the level of attention it did. But it sure would have been nice for women across the country to know that women leaders were present at those meetings, speaking up on their behalf.

Women, and men, need to hear the message from feminist groups that what Imus did was not just a shock jock repeating naughty words he heard in rap songs (yeah, like Imus listens to rap). No, what Imus did was utilize an ugly, age-old tactic. When confronted with a group of successful women who dared to tread into a historically male arena, he tried to diminish them the best way he knew how-by reminding everyone of their sex and their race, and by judging them on their appearance. Not only that, he employed the term "ho" (short for whore), which often is reserved for women who step beyond male-patrolled sexual boundaries. What did these young women do to rate such a harsh assessment? - Oh, that's right, they were playing sports.

Imus and the crew on his show had a long record of making racist and sexist comments. In 1993 he said of journalist Gwen Ifill, who was then working for the New York Times: "Isn't the Times wonderful? It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House." Still, he attracted a steady stream of well-respected presidential candidates, legislators, news anchors and editors as guests. It's the top-shelf company he kept that helped sink Imus - making it almost impossible for him to defend his show as merely a comedy.

While other big mouths like Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh (whom NOW targeted with a multi-year campaign) spew hate across the airwaves, none of them have the status that comes with interviewing Tom Brokaw, Maureen Dowd, John McCain and John Kerry on a regular basis.

And, despite what some may say, this is not a free speech issue. Don Imus can walk down the street shouting "nappy-headed hos" all he wants, or even get a demonstration permit, make signs to that effect, and march around with them. But nothing in the First Amendment entitles him to a $10 million a year job or a television showcase for his hate speech.

Even those inside the media agree. On the Today show, radio host Tavis Smiley said: "I think while Imus had a First Amendment right to free speech, he doesn't have a First Amendment right to a talk show."

We can't heap all the blame on the media's shoulders, though. Why was there an audience willing to snicker along as Imus insulted women, blacks, Jews and other oppressed groups? Why did Tim Russert of Meet the Press and Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe agree to go on his show? Why did so many people consider his words no big deal, or felt that his good deeds should compensate for his bigoted speech? Perhaps it's because we've encountered this attitude so many times, for so long, in a society where racism and sexism continue to fester, that we've all become far too desensitized.

Neither Imus nor the media industry created the system of denigration, intimidation and discrimination that functions to keep women in line. But they do benefit from it.

Let's face it, we're all going to have to be vigilant if we want to change something as elemental in our society as sexism and racism. We must call out hate speech whenever we hear it, even from our friends and family. We must teach our kids that boys and girls are equal, and equally deserving of respect - that women are not the mere decorations or sex objects that they seem to be in most music videos (that's all genres of music, by the way, not just hip hop).

And we must support legislation that protects women and girls as they make their way in a hostile world. At the same time the Imus flap was dominating the news, Senators Ted Kennedy and Gordon Smith introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a law that will penalize and help prevent hate-based violent crimes. The most comprehensive hate crimes legislation ever introduced in Congress, this law will finally classify as hate crimes certain violent, criminal acts that are motivated by the victim's gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.

When I first heard of Monday's horrific mass murder in the engineering building at Virginia Tech, I immediately thought of another mass murder at another engineering building - the one at the University of Montreal where, in 1989, engineering student Marc Lepine murdered 14 women and injured 14 other students, mostly women. That reminded me of last year's Amish school shooting where girls were singled out for elimination. We don't yet know whether the Virginia Tech shootings were hate crimes, but there have been enough hate crimes - more than enough - to make it clear that more expansive laws are essential. And they remind us of how deep the river of sexism runs.

We have our work cut out for us. The radio dial is chock full of raving bigots, but we're ready. Watch out, and listen up!

The National Organization for Women, NOW, is the largest organization of Feminist Activists in the United States. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

To comment please join the Men's Nonviolence Project listserve by sending an e-mail to mensnonviolence@listmanager.tcfv.org, personally sending an e-mail to César J. Alvarado at calvarado@tcfv.org, or calling 1-800-525-1978 x3194.

Mr. Tarantino we have something to say to you

Quentin Tarantino- WAKE UP!
We are appalled to report to you that Quentin Tarantino is now advertising for a plastic action figure (directly marketed to kids) from the film Planet Terror (a tribute to the B-movie Grindhouse genre). This action figure's name is "Rapist number one" and Quentin happens to be the actor in the film. While he didn't necessarily direct this portion of the film, we know he is a direct proponent.

WHAT IS HE THINKING!?

"Planet Terror" is essentially an homage to the B-movies of the seventies- where women are sexed up and then most likely sliced up in one way or another. The women in Tarantino's take on the genre go on their own killing rampage, however. That is, after being brutally gang raped repeatedly.

Its very interesting what comes up when you do an Internet search on Tarantino and feminism, too. While he loves those B movies, he's revered in some feminist and film theory circles for two powerful female characters: Pam Grier in Jackie Brown and The Bride in the Kill Bill films. These women certainly DO act on their own behalf, but only after their (stereotypical) constant and degrading victimization. Thus, the only way that they act on their own is violently. The denouement in these films is nothing new--- violence violence violence. C'mon Tarantino- we know you're creative. Surprise us already.

While the use of women in your films is, at best, Quentin, a bit different than most violent movies -- we believe you are a much, much smarter man than you are showing us at present time. Claiming a "feminist sensibility" (read the short interview at althouse.blogspot.com) might sound nice, but actually creating dynamic female characters with substance and intelligence (not merely violent capabilities/tendencies full of revenge) would be reeeeeal nice Quentin. Reeeal nice.

Okay, I didn't come here to bash your films though. Well not necessarily. But seriously, what are you THINKING trying to market a RAPIST doll to children?

- I would also like to add here that Toys-R-Us issued a statement that they would NOT be selling this ridiculous toy. We give them thumbs up all around- Way to go Toys-R-Us, you are setting a MUCH better example than our friends at KMart.

This article is excerpted from "Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters" by Courtney E. Martin. Copyright 2007 by Courtney E. Martin. Reprinted by permission of Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster, Inc.

-excerpts of article are available here (www.alternet.org/story/50661/), but we have pasted our favorite paragpraphs below! Enjoy!

There is a girl, right now, staring in a mirror in Des Moines, scrutinizing her widening hips. There is a girl, right now, spinning like a hamster on speed in a gym on the fifth floor of a building in Boston, promising herself dinner if she goes two more miles. There is a girl, right now, trying to wedge herself into a dress two sizes too small in a Savannah shopping mall, chastising herself for being so lazy and fat. There is a girl, right now, in a London bathroom, trying not to get any vomit on her aunt's toilet seat. There is a girl, right now, in Berlin, cutting a cube of cheese and an apple into barely visible pieces to eat for her dinner.

Our bodies are places where our drive for perfection gets played out. Food is all around us, as are meals and the pressure that goes with them. Well-intentioned after-school specials teach us, from a very young age, how to purge our snacks. We are inundated with information about "good" and "bad" foods, the most effective workout regiments, the latest technological advancements in plastic surgery. We demand flawlessness in our appearance -- the outer manifestation of our inner dictators.

To some degree, this makes sense. People in general like to look at a pretty face -- which means they also like to be friends with a pretty face, do business with a pretty face, and marry a pretty face. Attractive people are desired and coddled in our society; they have an easier time getting jobs, finding boyfriends and girlfriends, getting parts in music videos, simply getting the average waiter's attention.

The cruel irony is that although we become totally obsessed with the daily measures of how "good" or "bad" we are (refused dessert = good; didn't have time to go to the gym = bad), there is no finish line. This weight preoccupation will never lead us anywhere. It is a maniacal maze that always spits you out at the same point it sucked you up: wanting. We keep chasing after perfection as if it is an achievable goal, when really it is the most grand and painful of all mirages.

Beauty is the first impression of total success. Social psychologists call this the halo effect: We see one aspect of a person -- such as her nice hair -- and assume a host of other things about her -- that she is wealthy, effective and powerful. Looking good indicates control, dedication, grace. If you are beautiful, we learn, you are probably rich, lucky, and loved. You are probably sought after, seen, envied. You probably have ample opportunities for dates and promotions. Our generation does not generally equate beauty with stupidity the way our parents or grandparents sometimes did. Beautiful, to us, has come in savvy packages -- Tyra Banks creating her own empire, Candace Bushnell writing her way into found-hundred-dollar Manolo Blahniks.

From a very young age, we see weight as something in our control. If we account for every calorie that we consume, if we plan our fitness schedule carefully and follow through, if we are exacting about our beauty regimen -- designer makeup, trendy clothes -- then, we conclude, we will be happy. And we can be beautiful if we are just committed enough -- no matter our genetics, our bank account, or our personality -- as we have learned from advertising and the American Dream ethos. This logic leads us to believe that, if we are unhappy, it is because of our weight and, in turn, our lack of willpower. We are our own roadblocks on this road to 21st century female perfection and happiness.

Colorado Springs, Colo., was suburbia to the nth degree, home of strip mass, chain restaurant heaven, and Focus on the Family. Normal doesn't begin to describe how homogenous my hometown was.

Perfect girls

But as in any American town with picket fences this white, something dark lurked underneath. Like American Beauty's psychopathic real estate agent, the mothers I knew were often grinding their teeth and trying to outdo one another in landscaping and SUVs. The fathers -- mostly doctors and lawyers -- were socially accepted workaholics who attended big games and graduations still in their suits. The sons were out on the field 24/7, dreaming of Big Ten schools. And the girls ... were perfect.

Yet these perfect girls still feel we could always lose five more pounds. We get into good colleges but are angry if we don't get into every college we applied to. We are the captains of the basketball teams, the soccer stars, the swimming state champs with boxes full of blue ribbons. We win scholarships galore, science fairs and knowledge bowls, spelling bees and mock trial debates. We are the girls with anxiety disorders, filled appointment books, five-year plans.

We take ourselves very, very seriously. We are the peacemakers, the do-gooders, the givers, the savers. We are on time, overly prepared, well read and witty, intellectually curious, always moving.

We are living contradictions. We are socially conscious, multiculti, and anticorporate, but we still shop at Gap and Banana Republic. We listen to hip-hop, indie rock, and country on our iPods. We are the girls in hooker boots, wife beaters, and big earrings. We make documentary films, knit sweaters, and DJ. We are "social smokers," secretly happy that the cigarettes might speed up our metabolisms, hoping they won't kill us in the process.

We are relentless, judgmental with ourselves, and forgiving to others. We never want to be as passive-aggressive as our mothers, never want to marry men as uninspired as our fathers. We carry the world of guilt -- center of families, keeper of relationships, caretaker of friends -- with a new world of control/ambition -- rich, independent, powerful. We are the daughters of feminists who said, "You can be anything" and we heard "You have to be everything."

This quintessentially female brand of perfectionism goes on all over America, not just in suburban enclaves but in big cities, mountain towns, trailer parks. And perfect girls abound in Vancouver, Rio, Tokyo and Sydney. Their compulsion to achieve constantly, to perform endlessly, to demand absolute perfection in every aspect of life is part of a larger, undeniable trend in the women of my generation all over the world.

I satisfied my hunch that this was the case by consulting more than 25 experts in the fields of food, fitness, and psychology, interviewing twice as many girls and young women about their personal experiences (sometimes multiple times), and conducting focus groups with girls on the topic across the country. When I sent out an informal survey e-mail to all the women I knew and asked them to forward it to all the women they knew, I got more than 100 echoing responses in my in-box. Here are just a few:

I am DEFINITELY a perfectionist. To the extreme. Everything I do has to be perfect -- whether it be school, gymnastics, working out, etc. I do not allow myself to be the slightest bit lazy. I think if I heard someone call me lazy, I would cry! -- Kristine, Tucson, Ariz., 22

Perfectionists were rampant at my all-women's high school, as were eating disorders. I think I can remember two women in my class who really didn't have body issues, and I always admired them. I never had an eating disorder, but I definitely didn't get away without disordered ideas about food. -- Tara, Beirut, Lebanon, 27

I have always been and always will be a perfectionist in almost everything I do. It creates a struggle within me to truly define or determine when I will be good enough. -- Melissa, McKinney, Texas, 21

I do not consider myself a perfectionist, but others describe me that way. There is always room for self-improvement with my body, no matter how thin I am. -- Kelly, Denver, Colo., 28

People who know me call me an overachiever. I am hard on myself. My body fits into this mentality because I'm tall, long, lean, but that is the result of strict diet and lots of exercise. -- Kathleen, Jersey City, N.J., 28

I am quite a perfectionist. If I put on weight, I would be very upset. I would see it as a sign of failure on my part to control myself. -- Michelle, Dublin, Ireland, 24

Our bodies, our needs, our cravings, our sadness, our weakness, our stillness inevitably become our own worst enemies. It is the starving daughter within who must be shut down, muted, ignored ... eventually killed off.

4/19/2007

Please let us know what you think about this article!