I don't think anybody disputes the idea that cultural messages affect and influence people (as far as my anthropology goes, 'culture' is exactly that which influences our behavior in directions that wouldn't be expected by merely examining external physical factors.

But not everything in a person's behavior is culture; and even that which is culture was not the result of a deliberate decision made by the 'rulers of the culture' to go in that direction. Cultures often evolve in surprising directions that would have horrified their 'founding fathers' or 'mythical initiators' -- and often in ways, or by virtue of mechanisms, that we are still far from understanding well.

I grew up without television and fashion magazines, but even still, I internalized the idea that thin is good so successfully that I managed to drop my BMI below 18. The media crap is a symptom. The problem runs much, much deeper.

Exactly! So I see in fact we don't disagree. Personally, I am interested in how exactly this happens. Since you grew up without television and fashion magazines, would I be correct in assuming this internalization came via your family and their professed beliefs? Say, 'fat is ugly', 'fat is lazy', etc.?

Criticism of another woman's body doesn't always stem from envy. It can also stem from the fear that failing to measure up will be punished, and that fear is not unreasonable.

I'm not sure I follow you here -- fear of being punished leads people to criticize other people's bodies rather than their own?

And where do we get the idea that the most positive thing a woman can do is look 25 for most of her life?

That's the million-dollar question, isn't it? Basically: how do cultural ideas ever get formed, and by what mechanisms do they influence people? And also: if humans are cultural animals, perhaps even defined by culture (what else sets humans apart from other species so clearly as the complexity of their cultures?), does that mean we're forever condemned to harboring some stupid beliefs just because we always have some culture and all cultures (thus far) have included some stupid elements? Could there ever be a perfect culture -- and how could we know, and how could we enforce it (i.e. how can we develop some kind of 'cultural/social engineering')?

So this notion of the female body as a thing that needs intensive, invasive sculpting in order to look good isn't new. What is, I think, is the increased ability on the part of women to walk away from it.

Is this an example of 'social engineering' -- or just another one of those invisible-hand, not-fully-understood forces in society? (If, as you suggest, this is merely a result of women acquiring more economical independence and at least not needing, for their physical survival, to fulfil social expectations about their bodies, then it would seem to be the latter -- another invisible-hand phenomenon, another consequence of more money and more independence in more hands.)

Saying that such criticism is petty, catty jealousy dodges the question about whether Moore's accomplishments in this arena are worth emulating.

Indeed. But it isn't entirely unfounded either -- since such criticism has always existed and is not simply a consequence of there being more economically independent women to protest against social norms. In other words, some of this criticism probably is petty, catty jealousy -- which doesn't mean that we following society's rules for physical beauty is necessarily good. It just means there are within-the-system reasons for protesting too (I am reminded of those two characters in Huxley's Brave New World, Helmholtz and Bernard Marx, who both protested in their own way against the 'perfection' of their society as described by Mustafa Mond; Helmholtz's protest was more out-of-the-system and truly sincere, whereas Marx's was closer to being petty jealousy -- the moment that controlling access to the Savage made Marx popular, his need to protest dwindled.)

Why do we care whether her admittedly very expensive regimen is diet/exercise/supplements/leeches or surgery? Why are we not, instead, asking if this is really a productive use of anyone's time or money?

That is what makes me want to liken such criticism to Marx's rather than to Helmholtz's -- all the while admitting that a better criticism is possible, just not very obviuosly present in the discussion yet; which I think is btrader's opinion (I'll let him/her correct me if I'm wrong).

There's also a certain amount of pleasure in outing a lying hypocrite, and Moore has really set herself up in this respect.[...] This particular situation is a kind of icing-on-the-cake funny.

Which is precisely Marx's kind of protest. Oh, it's OK to indulge in it if you will, and it's even right (protesting against hypocrisy) -- as long as we don't confuse it with deep social analysis.

It doesn't help that efforts at putting a stop to it are put down to jealousy or covering-up for personal failings.

I suppose these efforts have to start looking different from jelousy then. I'm sure they're there--let's just make them more obvious.

Even still, we can walk away and encourage others to do the same.

Amen.