Sponsoring Fat-phobia: The Weight Loss Shake Debate
Actress Jameela Jamil has become an outspoken advocate for body positivity and intersectional feminism on social media, openly discussing her own struggle with disordered eating and negative body image. She started the Instagram account @i_weigh “for us to feel valuable and see how amazing we are beyond the flesh on our bones.” She has criticized celebrities who put sponsored advertisements for weight loss drinks on social media, including Cardi B and the Kardashians. Her initial claim to political advocate fame began with a parody video of the sponsored ads and the condemnation of weight loss products, the companies that sell them, and the celebrities who sponsor them.
Kim Kardashian, who deleted her sponsored post for Flat Tummy Tea’s appetite suppressant lollipops after receiving backlash, last reported that she made $500,00 per sponsored Instagram post. Her following has since grown from 94.8 million followers to 111 million followers, so it is likely that her price may have risen to around $1 million per post. The other Kardashians are also raking in the cash; Kylie also makes around $1 million per post, and Kourtney and Khloe both make around $250,000. When asked about the decision to accept these sponsorships, Kim said, “If there is work that is really easy that doesn’t take away from our kids, that’s, like, a huge priority. If someone was faced with the same job opportunities, I think they would maybe consider. You’re going to get backlash for almost everything, so as long as you like it or believe in it or it’s worth it financially, whatever your decision may be, as long as you’re okay with that.” The Kardashians also claimed that they did not sponsor any products they did not use themselves and are transparent about advertisements, but these comments were met with skepticism about the necessity of advertising weight loss products as part of their careers. Jamil’s response:
The promotion of weight loss products is criticized mainly for how it exploits viewers who are already vulnerable to disordered eating behaviors and issues of negative body image. The main accusation that companies face is that they take advantage of oppressive social norms surrounding appearance. Negative stereotypes against overweight people are perpetuated throughout our culture in books, television, movies, magazines, general attitudes towards people’s bodies, and now social media and advertisements. To avoid the perception of being lazy, worthless, unintelligent, or unhealthy, many people feel the need to lose weight. In fact, a study by researchers at Duke University shows that there is an implicit weight bias among children as young as 9 years old where overweight individuals are viewed negatively compared to those of average weight. According to the study, adolescents who experience weight stigma face “many negative emotional consequences, including depression, anxiety, body dissatisfaction, and, in some individuals, increased risk for suicidal ideation” as well as trouble with social bonding, schoolwork, participation in physical activity, and disordered eating behaviors. Also, one-third to one-half of high school students in Canada and the US report trying to lose weight, with young female respondents more likely than their male counterparts to attempt weight loss.
With so many adverse effects, the continuous reinforcement of weight loss as an ideal in our society should be called into question. Why are smaller body types seen as the social norm, and why are there sanctions against bigger body types? Who benefits from disordered eating, negative body image, and low self esteem? With so much social pressure to look a certain way (i.e. thin), is it moral to sell weight loss products in the first place? The morality of these products may depend on your perception of the free market; there is certainly a demand for fast methods of weight loss, which has become a market worth $66 billion as of 2017. But this demand is perpetuated by the social pressures, especially on young women, to avoid the appearance of fatness and all the negative consequences tacked onto that. Companies and celebrities achieve financial success by reinforcing harmful expectations about people’s bodies.
With so many adverse effects, the continuous reinforcement of weight loss as an ideal in our society should be called into question. Why are smaller body types seen as the social norm, and why are there sanctions against bigger body types? Who benefits from disordered eating, negative body image, and low self esteem? With so much social pressure to look a certain way (i.e. thin), is it moral to sell weight loss products in the first place? The morality of these products may depend on your perception of the free market; there is certainly a demand for fast methods of weight loss, which has become a market worth $66 billion as of 2017. But this demand is perpetuated by the social pressures, especially on young women, to avoid the appearance of fatness and all the negative consequences tacked onto that. Companies and celebrities achieve financial success by reinforcing harmful expectations about people’s bodies.
Jamil also calls into question the morality of selling coercive products:
Sources:
This article is another example of the exploitation of vulnerable consumers by money-hungry companies and individuals. The way that societies are structured, and the social norms that radiate within them, are no coincidence. In America, they are often a carefully curated set of standards and beliefs that uphold the capitalistic gain of the elite. A similar example of this phenomenon can be observed with Blac Chyna. Pairing with a company called Whitenicious, Blac Chyna became the face for a skin whitening product marketed in Nigeria. In a country that struggles with prejudice against darker skin tones (colorism), the proliferation of this product was clearly a capitalistic ploy. The social bias against darker skinned women in Nigeria became an opportunity for Blac Chyna and Whitenicious to sell their product. However, in doing so, they are perpetuating colorist ideals. As you so eloquently put it, they are “taking advantage of oppressive social norms” for personal gain.
ReplyDeleteI find this article really fascinating. I was considering discussing Jameela Jamil's I Weigh movement as well. I find her movement increasing relevant in this "woke" social media era. However, I think that targeting individuals on social media can be problematic, and Jameela Jamil addresses this in an interview with Lizzo, a rap artist. Jameela and Lizzo discussed how Lizzo received a lot of criticism for letting Oprah use one of her songs for a weight watchers commercial. They talked about how weight watchers was problematic, and how Lizzo admitted that her decision was somewhat of a mistake, but that the online discourse she received in response was overly critical and harsh, and dismissed all of her past accomplishments towards body positivity. I think it is important that Lizzo and Jameela address this issue because while it is important to call people out for their contribution towards the targeting of vulnerable consumers, it is also important to be civil and mindful of the arguments you make. It is important to point out the social norm that is being created without contributing to another one. It would be interesting to analyze how the norm of attacking famous individuals on social media for their problematic decisions has become more popular and how it may be potentially harmful and overly critical.
ReplyDelete