MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and
chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.
10 October 2006
First of all kudos to Jean Paul Gaultier for this (mildly NSFW, underwear). Second, I have a nut problem.→[More:] Mixed nuts, specifically. Whenever, I buy a can of mixed nuts, it always includes at least one nut I don't like (like pistachios or almonds) among the ones I really want, like the peanuts, pecans, cashews and macadamias. It's an injustice. I demand action.
Yeah, that is quite a problem you have with your nuts.
Last week that image was on some of the embarrassingly juvenile gossip blogs/forums I read. The general consensus was girlfriend knows how to work it, but lots of women thought that while plus-size models in general are pretty awesome, this particular one was just.too.fat.
I don't really have an opinion other that Jean Paul Gaultier likes to push the envelope, and for the most part, I don't really like his clothes. He shows beautiful older models (and by older I mean 70s) sometimes, so that's pretty cool...
Not I sir. She looks like a stick of beef jerky. I gotta wonder about guys who dig women so skinny that all of the womanly attributes of their bodies are gone.
I gotta wonder about guys who dig women so skinny that all of the womanly attributes of their bodies are gone.
A woman is a woman is a woman, no matter what she looks like. It's not a club you have to be a certain weight to join- you become a member at birth.
And are we seriously going to have this fucking conversation AGAIN? OMG MODELS ARE SOOOOOOOO SKINNY!!!11 Yes, they are. That's fashion. We don't have to internalize it, that's just how it is. Designers like to design clothes for skinny models. My life goes on.
A woman is a woman is a woman, no matter what she looks like. It's not a club you have to be a certain weight to join- you become a member at birth.
I know. But when you're as skinny as that model above, all the feminizing bodily attributes (breasts hips, butt) are absent, which makes her an odd choice for an industry that supposedly is all about feminine beauty. And I love women of all sizes, but there's no way in hell you'll convince me that model isn't unhealthily skinny.
It is possible for humans to look androgynous, no? The person pictured above reminds me of photos from the Holocaust, in which gender of the individual does not register with the viewer. That woman above looks like a 12 year old boy to me. But that's not a scientific observation.
But when you're as skinny as that model above, all the feminizing bodily attributes (breasts hips, butt) are absent, which makes her an odd choice for an industry that supposedly is all about feminine beauty.
Plenty of women have no breasts, or hips, or ass, but that doesn't make them any less female.
And I don't know if the fashion industry is about female beauty as much as the beauty of *clothes*. The designers design what they want, and then they find people it looks good on, which they've defined as very thin women. That's their choice.
It is possible for humans to look androgynous, no?
Sure, but that's usually through a combination of both genders sexual characteristics. Emaciation of that sort seems to eliminate all sexual characteristics. (and I say this as a thinner than average male, so I'm not being partisan here).
Plenty of women have no breasts, or hips, or ass, but that doesn't make them any less female.
No but it makes their bodies look less feminine, at least to these eyes. Just like a guy with boobs and curvy hips and no body hair would look less masculine. I'm not for strict gender roles by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not going to deny the self-evident.
And I don't know if the fashion industry is about female beauty as much as the beauty of *clothes*
Yep, the thin models are there because
1. They don't have annoying bumps and curves that alter the line of the garment
2. Smaller bodies = less material = less costly design.
IMO, anyway. Especially (1). It's all about showing off the clothes, nothing to do with how sexy the model's body is or is not.
A ha! Jon says: they're not feminine, while TPS says: they're still female.
And there we have it; you're both completely correct! Feminity is a social construct while femaleness is an empirical physiological trait. Therefore, what they're saying is not contradictory. It's apples vs. oranges.
I think healthy is attractive and there's a wide range of healthy body types. Personally, neither one of those two women look healthy to me, and, while IANAAnthropologist or a Biologist, purely from a Drawinian standpoint it would seem self evident that healthy members of a species are going to be more attractive to the vast majority of the opposite sex of that species than sickly individuals. I mean, why waste your genes on someone who might fall over and croak at any moment? Extreme emaciation and extreme obesity are not noted for how good they are for your health.
1. They don't have annoying bumps and curves that alter the line of the garment
2. Smaller bodies = less material = less costly design.
Yes, but fashion models, like it or not, are upheld as the standard of beauty in our society (male and female), so it don't think it can be shrugged off so easily. That, and I just think that sexily dressed big women look better.
Feminity is a social construct
I dunno if that's 100% true. Hairstyles and clothing styles being masculine or feminine, social construct. Breasts, hips, body shapes? biological and evolutionary in nature.
OMG gaspode, your post basically states that the models are real estate in the fashion biz. That's kind of disturbing to me, but what do I know, I work with buildings and land, not humans.
They really kinda of are, pieixexactlythree- I've read articles where models talk about showing up to do runway shows, and a thousand makeup artists and hair artists crowd around them, and pull at their hair and poke at their faces, and by the time fashion week ends, their hair and skin are a mess, because everytime they do a show, the makeup and hair from the previous show is hurridly scrubbed off and pulled out. Doesn't really sound like fun to me!
Breasts, hips, body shapes? biological and evolutionary in nature.
Yes, but saying that one size of breast or ass is more feminine than another? That's a social construct, proven by the fact that opinions have changed over the course of human history.
Yes, but saying that one size of breast or ass is more feminine than another?
Social constructs driven by biological imperatives. I remember hearing on a nature show that female humans breasts evolved in the shape they did to resemble female buttocks as a sexual signal.
I'm not trying to propose that all women or all men have to look a certain way because it's ordained by nature, but I'm also not going to deny the self-evident like I said. especially, when it encourages eating disorders, steroid abuse, excessive vanity, etc.
Ok, I think I get the point you're trying to make, which is that because you think that bigger breasts and buttocks are superior due to "biological imperatives" and not social construction, your preference for them is also superior. And who can argue with that.
Ok, I think I get the point you're trying to make, which is that because you think that bigger breasts and buttocks are superior due to "biological imperatives" and not social construction, your preference for them is also superior.
Uh no. I'm saying that the female body evolved to look the way it does (generally: wider hips, larger breasts, more pronounced buttocks, etc) due to eveolutionary imperatives, and that eliminating those characteristics through artificial means like crash dieting/bulimia etc is problematic in a host of ways, especially in an industry that trades in beauty standards. My preferences don't even enter into it.
Personally, you know, for me it's all about the broad shoulders, rippling muscles, strong jawline, and other indicators of maleness. Without those, who the hell wants a guy, right? Skinny? Bleh.
SKINNY GUYS ARE UNATTRACTIVE AND UNMANLY! AND I WILL CONTINUE TO SAY SO ANY TIME THIS SUBJECT COMES UP! GROSS SKINNY MEN! THEY DON'T EVEN LOOK LIKE MEN! MEN SHOULD HAVE LOTS OF OBVIOUS AND RIPPLY MUSCLES! OTHERWISE YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL IT'S A MAN! MANLY MANLY MEN!
I'm saying that the female body evolved to look the way it does (generally: wider hips, larger breasts, more pronounced buttocks, etc) due to eveolutionary imperatives
Then I suppose it's interesting that women all over the world don't share those characteristics. Or do only US women count?
Eliminating those characteristics through artificial means like crash dieting/bulimia etc is problematic in a host of ways
True, but plenty of models (and women around the world!) were just born the way they look. Not to mention that fact that most runway models are very, very young (14-17 years old), and haven't gone through puberty yet.
True, but plenty of models (and women around the world!) were just born the way they look.
Sure, but that doesn't excuse the industry for filtering out all the rest.
Sure it does- it's their industry. They can do whatever they want. Have you seen some of the crazy shit that's on the runway? Runway fashion is not supposed to be for everyone; it's not really supposed to be for anyone. It's more of an artistic statement from the designers saying, This is what we think will be cool. Those designs calm down and trickle down to the stuff us normal folk buy at the mall. If they only made regular clothes for runway models and the rest of us had to make our own, well, then I'd become concerned.
All I need is a wild chick with enuff gas to keep up with me and make me laugh everyday.
STRAIGHT UP!
I love women however they come as long as the wig on their cap is healthy and their heart is pure.
occhi,
I'm actually on the feminist side here. If you're built thin, you're built thin. But deliberately going for a unreasonable thinness does tend to eliminate the feminine attributes, sorry. And there's no way you can tell me that model isn't bulimic or anorexic or something.
SKINNY GUYS ARE UNATTRACTIVE AND UNMANLY!
I certainly hope not.
(put it this way: there obviously is room for a lot of variation in what masculine and feminine bodies look like, but if you saw a guy with curvy flaring hips and protruding buttocks, you'd probably say his body looked feminine, right?)
WILL CONTINUE TO SAY SO ANY TIME THIS SUBJECT COMES UP!
Really Miss "i-lost-a-dime-in-a-pay-phone,I-blame-the-patriarchy!" No offense, but you're not in any position to criticize someone for riding a particular viewpoint too hard. And I never thought i'd see the day where I'd be accused of sexism for championing larger women.
The "feminist" side, if there is one, is to refrain, especially if you're a man, from declaring how any woman should look. Period.
Swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side and declaring that a new set of women are now unattractive due to heterosexual aesthetic standards is most emphatically NOT a feminist position, no matter how good your intentions. You're still putting yourself up as a judge of what counts as "feminine" and judging women based on it. That your standards are not mainstream does not make the process any less obnoxious.
I will say, however, that the fashion industry does seem, from all experiences, to actually despise women in general, so I'm not defending them, either.
OMG gaspode, your post basically states that the models are real estate in the fashion biz. That's kind of disturbing to me, but what do I know, I work with buildings and land, not humans.
It's disturbing to me as well. And I don't know shit about the fashion industry, that's just what I've decided to be the case from listening to people talk about it.
And jon, I think that more people hold up celebrities as a beauty standard than fashion models.
Swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side and declaring that a new set of women are now unattractive due to heterosexual aesthetic standards is most emphatically NOT a feminist position, no matter how good your intentions.
I agree. That's not what I was doing. My own aesthetic preferences aside, I still think Gaultier did a good thing, especially in an industry still overpopulated by models like the beef jerky looking woman ico linked. and what's with "heterosexual aesthetic standards?" Homosexuals don't have aesthetic standards? or are they somehow superior standards?
Also, I will have you know that the patriarchy is well known for stealing dimes.
They melt them down and make chastity belts for barbie dolls.
Well, I for one like boobies. Especially ones with them big ol' salami nipples, yum!
Women are like men; some are bad, some good. What they look like has nothing to do with it.
Fashion is all about selling clothes; some look good, some bad. As with all luxury goods, packaging is paramount. Runway shows are like the big incongruous bow stuck on your new bottle of eau de cologne. The bow doesn't really effect your decision to buy, but it makes you feel extravagant when you remove it and slap it on the fridge 'til it falls off and the adhesive gets dusty and you wonder what to do with it.
Big gold flocked bows, little white lacy bows, medium-sized bows with freckles and great teeth: as long as they catch your eye and make you buy, they're working just fine.
And as I'm finding out, the runway's the little half of the racket. The big deals go down at the trade shows.
If a designer decides that runway extremes, thin or thick, make the big store buyers salivate, it's a business decision. Me, I wish all runway models looked more or less like my mom, the most beautiful woman in the world (though she's got heavy competition from this year's love of my life, who works as a fashion trade show model. Does she look like my mom? Please don't make me think about that, okay?)
All this talk is making me swoon.
Oh yeah, and this politicization of personal preferences (mine are all based on my mother. You wanna fight about it?) is bizarre, controlling, and more intrusive (by that I mean just shy of offensive) than the statement of said preferences. You say I like skinny girls because of Vogue and Maxim? I say I like them because of my mom.
Women are like men; some are bad, some good. What they look like has nothing to do with it.
Awww, but looking at them is so much fun. (and you ladies look at us just as much, and you gayfolk look at your own gender and you bifolk look at everybody, I guess). People like discussing other peoples looks, the same why they like discussing any other aesthetic topic like art or music or explosives. That's all, nothing wrong with it.
Well, I for one like boobies. Especially ones with them big ol' salami nipples, yum!
I prefer the kosher salami nipples, more flexible than the genoa.
Do you ever get where you have so much that you want to say, except that it all congeals in your chest in one big mass so that all you can really articulate is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know thing one about fashion. But nobody's ribs should be poking out like they are on that skinny chick. Not her's, not some child's suffering from famine, not some holocaust survivor's. Any social force which, in part, creates such people should be denounced.
(And I call 'em "pancake nipples". Or are those different?)
Easy. First of all, you should all know better than to take anything I say that seriously. Second, I was making an observation and spinning theories, not declaring universal truths, I figured that was a given and that I didn't need to add a disclaimer. And as for me and Hugh's jokes: there's been much raunchier banter around here from all of us including people getting angry about it. So what's the big deal?
I never figured applauding a designer for featuring a plus-size woman would get me branded a sexist, but whatever.
Do you ever get where you have so much that you want to say...
Actually, I often get to the point where I realize that people have become so worked up about a topic that it simply becomes a bore. This thread turned into a bunch of dogmatic axe grinding, and that's just plain tedious.
You know, even jokingly going from claiming to represent the feminist high ground to joking about women's body parts as food in, what, three? four? comments is just plain gross. In pretty much every connotation that word has. That goes for all of you.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCKKKKKKKK
about sums it up.
Do you ever get the impression that some people [deleted the rest because I was experiencing what gaspode described]?
And you know those placemats you get with a Happy Meal at McDonalds, and how they have little games to play while you eat your cheeseburger? If this thread had a placemat, it would include a little game called "How Many Objectifications of Women Can You Spot in This Thread, Perpetuated by People Hypocritically and Smugly Purporting to Honor Them?"
"How Many Objectifications of Women Can You Spot in This Thread, Perpetuated by People Hypocritically and Smugly Purporting to Honor Them?"
Of course we objectify women sometimes. Is that neccessarily a bad thing? Women objectify men, too. Everybody objectifies everybody. That's just a fact of life. You'd prefer some sterile world where everybody feigns faux-politeness?
and I generally support most feminist positions because I believe in equality and freedom of choice, but lately what I hear coming out under the banner of 'feminism' seems to be a whole new set of of 'don't do that!' regulation. don't look at porn! don't look at that girls butt! don't watch that TV show! I thought that kind of thinking was for fundamentalists.
Of course we objectify women sometimes. Is that neccessarily a bad thing? Women objectify men, too. Everybody objectifies everybody. That's just a fact of life.
Sure jon, but you need to think about the tone and context of your statements. I acknowlege that most people probably have their minds in the gutter a lot of the time (I do) but in cases like this you risk placing in the public realm something that is really appropriate to keep private, or at least should not be expressed as a naturalized truth/hegemonic pronouncement, if that makes any sense.
Do what you like, and realize it has consequences. Do what you like, and realize that the power differentials between men and women mean that what you do has meaning that you can't always control, and deal with the consequences of that. Do what you like, and realize that if you're continually pissing people off with it, that maybe you're not actually doing what you're doing, and deal with the consequences of that, too.
I'm ever so sorry if women's oppression is inconveniencing you, but that's the way it goes sometimes.
Back-and-forth discussion about women's bodies and the good and bad ways in which they're viewed + Ha-Ha Funny Boy jokes about pancake and salami nipples = Really fucking creepy and gross
Not to speak for anyone else here, but IMO by all means go on about how much you love fuller-figured women. Hells, you're married to one, I am one, so are many women here - shout your love from the treetops. yay, free speech!
It's when you move into the territory of:
I gotta wonder about guys who dig women so skinny that all of the womanly attributes of their bodies are gone.
which yes, sure is your opinion, and go for it again, but also be aware that you're now making a separate judgement of what is womanly, and you're defining womanly in your own terms. And let's see... HJ said it:
Oh yeah, and this politicization of personal preferences (mine are all based on my mother. You wanna fight about it?) is bizarre, controlling, and more intrusive (by that I mean just shy of offensive) than the statement of said preferences. You say I like skinny girls because of Vogue and Maxim? I say I like them because of my mom.
I have no idea what you mean to say, but often your statements imply that (or I infer from them that) people who do like skinny girls are manipulated by the media, and in the absence of that everyone would like what you do, biological imperative la-di-da.
It's not pleasant to read. Still you're not writing for my pleasure, so go right ahead.
I stalk Elyse Sewell (the 3rd runner up on Season 1 America's Next Top Model) - now that girl is skinny. Naturally very skinny. She recently blogged about a trip to Paris, where she had difficulty getting jobs due to her (and I'm paraphrasing now) atrocious amount of body fat. Did I mention she's a stick?
Stalking Elyse, I've learned a lot of things about the fashion industry: 1) A lot of models are young and will treat their body any way necessary to keep on modelling, including coke, bulimia, and starvation. 2) A lot of models are very professional, with natural attributes that make them attractive to designers. In other words, models are exactly like normal people, they sometimes hate their job, they sometimes hate their coworkers, and they have to put up with a lot of crap to keep doing what they're doing.
Also, I agree that comparing human bodies (male or female) to food really grosses me out. Maybe it reminds me too much of food fetishment...
I'm ever so sorry if women's oppression is inconveniencing you, but that's the way it goes sometimes.
Yes, the fact that I like looking at women's bodies means that I'm really out denying them equal pay and abortion rights. That's quite a logical leap you're making there.
but in cases like this you risk placing in the public realm something that is really appropriate to keep private, or at least should not be expressed as a naturalized truth/hegemonic pronouncement, if that makes any sense.
Isn't that just putting puritanism in a feminist wrapper? Ooh, somebody said a dirty word! Our delicate morals!
Back-and-forth discussion about women's bodies and the good and bad ways in which they're viewed + Ha-Ha Funny Boy jokes about pancake and salami nipples = Really fucking creepy and gross
women never discuss men's bodies like pieces of meat? or other women's? that's simply part of being human, nothing intrinsically wrong with it.
I gotta wonder about guys who dig women so skinny that all of the womanly attributes of their bodies are gone
I can see hopw that statement would be misinterpreted, but my honest first thought on seeing that woman's body was: it looks like a boy's body, no breasts, narrow hips, etc. Maybe that thought is politically incorrect or sexist* somehow, but it's still what I thought and I'm not gonna deny it.
And I don't think the food joke was that bad. i was simply riffing off Hugh.
* I won't say 'misogynist,' that means 'hatred of women' and I don't hate women and I think throwing that word around recklessly cheapens it.
That's not what I was trying to say, jon. When some things are said in a public arena, they can carry the implicit statement of "this is how it is and how it ought to be." I have no problem with anyone downloading pr0n and getting off to it or anything like that. However placing our feelings about eroticism (which are all subjective) into a normative context is dangerous.
I could discuss in extreme detail all sorts of girlie bits and how they make me feel, but the imporant thing is to remember the inherent subjectivity of these things. Nobody's saying your feelings are not valid.
Hell, I was actually hoping to talk about mixed nuts if you wanna know the truth.
That's not what I was trying to say, jon. When some things are said in a public arena, they can carry the implicit statement of "this is how it is and how it ought to be."
Now, this is interesting because I always mentally preface everything everybody says with "This is just my opinion." To type that every time, however, is tiresome and makes for clunky prose.
I read a great definition of feminism the other day. "It’s about political action on behalf of a class of people who are culturally, socially, politically, intellectually, physically, and violently oppressed, impoverished, abused, enslaved, objectified, raped and murdered."
It's not just fighting for abortion rights and equal pay. It's often fighting the conditions that allow denial of reproductive rights and unequal pay. Part of those conditions is the idea that women exist simply to be judged by men, that we should spend large amounts of time and money adhering to a beauty standard that creates a double-bind: Be conventionally pretty and get jobs and men, but be treated like a silly little girl, or buck the standard and have to fight to be taken seriously as a woman. Both ways, you lose something. Which is why replacing the current beauty standard with simply another one that women are forced to live up to doesn't change anything. Eliminating the conditions in which a male-controlled society's approval of a woman's appearance significantly affects all areas of her life, on the other hand, would change something. Not just in terms of who she dates, but what jobs she can get, whether she's taken seriously in the classroom, etc etc.
You have the luxury of ignoring how sexism affects every aspect of women's lives. But by commenting on them, no matter how "normal" you think such action is (and yes, I agree it's common), you are perpetuating a set of conditions that hold women back in almost every area of their lives.
Yes, everyone does it. That doesn't mean it's not harmful, or that it doesn't have consequences.
And like I said, go right ahead and do what you want. But you can't engage in anti-feminist behavior while claiming that you're making feminist arguments without raising a lot of ire from people.
occhiblu, then in an ideal world, nobody would ever comment on anybody's appearance? or only womens'? what? I'm honestly asking, cause to be honest that does sound puritanical to me. I don't think equality has to come at the price of eliminating aesthetic and yes, sexual appreciation of eachother. We differ on that score.
You have the luxury of ignoring how sexism affects every aspect of women's lives.
Like hell I do. I have a wife. I have a mother. I have a grandmother. I have sisters, aunts, and nieces. I care about what happens to them and how their treated. My wife makes almost double the money I do. I'm fine with that. I'd be very happy to be a stay at home Dad. I believe in equal pay. I'm pro-choice. I've had many female bosses. I din't like most of them but that was because they were the boss, not because they were women. But you know what? I still like boobies. A pretty girl still turns my head. I see no reason to pretend otherwise.
And like I said, go right ahead and do what you want. But you can't engage in anti-feminist behavior while claiming that you're making feminist arguments without raising a lot of ire from people.
What I did was make a verbal gaffe. My intent was to applaud Gaultier for featuring a plus-size model, because in a world where the stickfigures are far more common it's a way to show that full-figured women sometimes like to dress up and look pretty and be sexy like everyone else. I think that's a good thing and yes, I think it's even a pro-feminist thing. I may have clumsily stated my points and indulged in some vulgar banter with my friend, but getting that upset over a minor gaffe is a waste of energy and furthers the image of feminists as puritanical harridans.
It's not a minor gaffe. I have seen you over and over and over and over again make declarations about how skinny women aren't real women. I have seen multiple people ask you to stop doing that.
And if you are that concerned about how women are treated in society, then start treating all women in the manner you wish your wife, mother, grandmother, aunts, sisters, and nieces would be treated. All the time. It sucks, and it's hard, and I know that I engage in thoughts and actions that harm women, because those thoughts are often encouraged by the world we live in, but when someone calls me on them, I try to acknowledge it and change.
What you're not understanding here is that as a man, your actions are not morally neutral. You have more power to judge women, and cause action based on those judgments, than women have to judge men and cause action based on those judgments. Once acknowledged, that power should, in most moral people, cause them to realize they also have a responsibility not to harm. I think you're a moral person; I don't see any reason why commenting on a woman's appearance should factor as more important in your life than not causing a woman harm. But that's what I see you arguing.
(That's what I see most men in these convesations arguing. I'm not really trying to claim you're an unethical monster. But it amazes me again and again that so many men will hold their right to comment on women's bodies above any other consideration. The fact that you hold it so dear should, actually, give you some indication of the power such action holds.)
As usual, I undercut my lucid and reasonable comment about fashion (tangentially about female bodies and the host of issues that brings up) with a joke I thought harmless (and which was actually a response to someone writing something about liking boobies upthread). Sometimes my jokes are universally funny, sometimes they fall on deaf ears, and sometimes they're offensive to someone.
But they're general jokes, intended at no one's expense. I'm sorry I offended you. My intention was to be funny, not creepy and gross, and I failed at that.
This is discouraging, because the rest of my comment was an attempt to elucidate what I feel on the subject. I don't see how (aside from the nipple joke, which I regret) what I wrote was particularly wrong, it being my point of view and reasonably clearly stated as such.
I don't mind being misread or misunderstood. But I do mind being insulted, and I see I've been lumped in on the charges of hypocrisy (big deal!), smugness (fuck you!), creepy, and gross.
I made a bad joke. "That's not funny" would suffice. I would respond with an apology, as I wrote and meant above. Responding to a broad and unfunny joke with a careful and precise insult is inappropriate to a forum where we all try to be friends.
I don't mind, really; I'd love some dialog about these things, and I'm sure there's a way to have a constructive one (I don't agree that these chats should be stifled completely or not started at all), but your response is just decreasing your audience one by one.
Again, I'm sorry I made an insulting joke. And for the record, I think the problems women face are big, and real, and they affect us all.
I don't see any reason why commenting on a woman's appearance should factor as more important in your life than not causing a woman harm.
Well, for one, I don't agree that commenting on a woman's (or anyone's) appearance de facto causes harm. We're human, and humans look at eachother and share their thoughts on eachother. That's just a fact. To deny it would be even more unhealthy, IMHO.
What you're not understanding here is that as a man, your actions are not morally neutral.
I also don't accept that a man is automatically more powerful than a woman. Would Oprah Winfrey change places with an unemployed male coal miner? Would Madeline Albright rather be a male prison inmate? Extreme examples, sure, but the equation is not as simple as you make it out.
As a wise man once said, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
I have seen you over and over and over and over again make declarations about how skinny women aren't real women.
I've said that I prefer full-figured women, often colorfully. That != denying skinny women their humanity. I din't know my opinion mattered that much frankly.
I tend not to point out when jokes are "not funny," because too many fall into that category for me. Not funny, for me, means shrug and move on.
But I stand by salami nipples, in the context of this conversation, being creepy and gross. That's how I feel. Not going to apologize for it or water it down.
"I read a great definition of feminism the other day. "It’s about political action on behalf of a class of people who are culturally, socially, politically, intellectually, physically, and violently oppressed, impoverished, abused, enslaved, objectified, raped and murdered."
+1 for coming to the defense of all humanity, somewhere, sometime, occhiblu. -2 on rhetorical focus for the topic of feminism.
"An uncongenial post, because it covers 85% of what I would say anyway."
posted by occhiblu 10 October | 15:52
-2 more style points for endorsing a pedantic voice, saying unoriginal things, in humorless fashion, while wearing sack cloth and ashes, wailing off key.
I stopped reading this post half-way through, but then, I didn't expect anyone to read this comment, either.
Then I suppose it's interesting that women all over the world don't share those
characteristics.
Cross cultural studies show a universal preference for women with about a .7 ratio of waist to hips. For men, they are most attractive with a ratio of 1 (no discernable difference).
But it looks to me like Gautier did a big Fuck You to the people actually trying to have realistic/healthy models. He could just as easily gotten a size 10, or 16. Also, from that picture, the model didn't look particularly well-proportioned (bottom-heavy). I read his statement as "what you want me to do is hideous, see how hideous you are forcing me to make my show" (not that I thought the model was hideous; I'm just trying to read his motives in having ONE plus-size model, who didn't, from that picture, look to exemplify beauty for her size). What the hey, it's almost totally subjective, and fashion is stupid anyway. I'm going to put on my flannel, jeans, and work on my motorcycle. Grease coture (sp?).
I have to say I agree with paulsc. I've never understood why people can't simply be people in & of their own character. In my experience, people who are considerate, respectful, reasonably polite, and responsible for their actions are ok - regardless of gender/age/race/religion/country of origin/whatever other prejudicial variable you want to throw in.
For all I know, you guys think I'm an idiot for not finding jonmc's comments in this thread offensive. I saw it as him voicing his opinions. I guess if I disagreed with him I might feel differently. That skinny model is disturbing to me; the large one doesn't affect me in any way good or bad. I'm gay, and sometimes I make observations about other people's physiques.
class of people who are culturally, socially, politically, intellectually, physically, and violently oppressed, impoverished, abused, enslaved, objectified, raped and murdered.
Ok maybe this is narrow minded and callous, but abuse takes two. The emotional side is where the bigger problem lies: how to build self esteem strong enough to fight back and break generational cycles of learned roles? Does pointing out that women are globally abused actively work toward that goal?
There's a lot of shitty things going on in the world, and not just involving women. But if you can't/aren't doing something directly about them, all you can do is whatever's within your circle of effectiveness. All I can think is "Be the change you want to see in the world."
jon, pistachios really are fabulous. I think you should write to the president of Planters and request the Signature Jonmc mixed nut collection.
When we were children, my sister denied eating all of the cashews out of the mixed nuts, so I sent a letter to the manufacturer complaining there weren't enough cashews, and they sent me two cans of cashews.
In your case jon, you should see if you can send back the ones you don't like and exchange them.
My mother used to cut the fat off the roasts and take it back to the store and demand meat in exchange.
I can't fucking believe we're having this conversation AGAIN. I'm naturally thin (though not as thin as that model, who I do agree looks unhealthy -- my BMI is in the neighborhood of 19 and change), AND I have small breasts AND I'm womanly AND I'm sexy AND my boyfriend loves me and my body AND he's a perfectly normal person. Those things can and do all coexist with great fucking frequency, and there's not a damn thing wrong with it, with me, or with my boyfriend.
God, I'm so tired of hearing how the only people who think my body type is pretty are fashion industry fascists and men who secretly want to fuck boys.
(gah, and I meant to quote TPS on this point: A woman is a woman is a woman, no matter what she looks like. It's not a club you have to be a certain weight to join- you become a member at birth. A-fucking-men. Whether heavy or thin, whether voluptuous or angular, we are all women. FULL STOP.)
And thus scody completes the derail TPS started so many comments ago. Though it began innocently enough, we have, indeed, had this fucking conversation AGAIN.
StickyCarpet's mom makes it all worthwhile though. Can't we all just love on Sticky's mom?
Women are beautiful creatures, regardless of what shape they are. Some of them appeal to any given male (or female, of course), some don't. To say that femininity is at all related to size is a disgraceful insult to every woman who ever walked the earth.
Does pointing out that women are globally abused actively work toward that goal?
I fail to see how to fight it, otherwise. I'm not trying to pick an argument, I just really don't see where you're going with this. Women, as a class, are universally doing worse than men. Having this as background knowledge means that individual acts of discrimination or abuse cannot be simply written off as two individuals being stupid and/or naive, but instead seen as part of a system; once that recogntion happens, systems can begin to change.
Without that recognition, we have the same abuses happening over and over again and the same fights about the abuses over and over again. Of course we should all try as individuals to do what we can to effect change in our individual lives, but stopping there, or pretending that's all that's broken at this point in history, doesn't fix all that much.
"...Women, as a class, are universally doing worse than men. Having this as background knowledge means that individual acts of discrimination or abuse cannot be simply written off as two individuals being stupid and/or naive, but instead seen as part of a system; once that recogntion happens, systems can begin to change. ..."
It's also the baseline condition for individual paranoia, and seeing "discrimination" where none exists. A "class" is a legally and morally useful concept when it is tailored by specifics to a particular wrong, a certian act or series of acts, by a certian party, which can then be proven and presumably redressed. Defining all women as a "class" is simply sexist, on the face of the definition. Worse, because the only defining characteristic of such a poorly specified "class" is sex, such a definition does little to create constructive dialog about improving support for the rights of those members of the fraudulent "class" most in need of help, who are brushed aside in discussions of what for them are minor issues, of interest only to those with far more privileged lives, by the comparatively wealthy Western world members of the "class" who typically have the luxury of making such arguements.
I think it not too broad to say flatly, that feminism, as a philosophy, is a morally bankrupt legitimate target of any humanist, as much as any other endeavor based on class exclusive ignorance.
I hope someone more lucid than I am totally takes you down.
paulsc, your comment is a steaming pile of shit that makes me embarassed to share the male gender with you. I can only hope that it was intended as some kind of twisted joke because, if not, I will never be able to take any thing that you say seriously again. That comment is the outpouring of an evil mind.
danostuporstar: And thus scody completes the derail TPS started so many comments ago. Though it began innocently enough, we have, indeed, had this fucking conversation AGAIN.
But wait, quoth jon, 2 comments before TPS chimes in: I gotta wonder about guys who dig women so skinny that all of the womanly attributes of their bodies are gone
...and TPS and I are the ones who derailed the thread? Oh, I see, jon calling thin women sticks of beef jerky (and calling into question either the sanity or the sexuality of men who are attracted to us) is all in a day's (meta)chat; it's responding to such comments that's derailing. Got it. I was so faint from self-starvation that I didn't know I was supposed to keep my mouth shut. Thanks for setting me straight, dano.
Has anyone aside from me made an on-topic comment in this thread? Geez, so much dander has been raised, it's hard to see. It's pretty amazing that seasoned regulars here don't know how to read jon and have let themselves get worked up over one man's point of view. The bunnies are screaming, make it stop. Can we agree that encouraging people to do unhealthy things to their body in the name of fashion is wrong, while also agreeing that you can be beautiful no matter what size you are (even if jon thinks otherwise)? I mean, jon and I have both come out publicly in support of Scody. No one's body type is more attractive, objectively and on the large scale, than another's (so long as your w/h ratio is .7, and that's according to SCIENCE); however, making people feel like crap because of their natural body size is bad. Emphasizing one body type over another is BAD. If Gautier was being pro-woman, he would have put a medley of models of all sizes in his show. End of story. This is a publicity stunt that you've all allowed to get yourselves worked up over for NOTHING. Nothing's been accomplished here except for a few bruised egos. As pie said, you're arguing about two different things.
I volunteer to go on staff (paid, full-time) as a MetaChat First Responder, to show up in threads like this before the flames spread. Because, GEEZ. Where is the LOVE, PEOPLE?!!?!
Has anyone aside from me made an on-topic comment in this thread?
Oh eide. Eide. Eide. Um... Heh. Haha!!! Ahh...
After a whole day of this, you decide you're the only one who's on topic??
Ha!
Sorry. Had to say it.
And for the record, scody was totally gallant when, after being accused of "derailing" the conversation, she neglected to point out that the person who accused her of said derailment was the one who mentioned "pancake nipples." Since no one else seemed inclined to point it out, and since I'm on the record as being drugged, there you have it.
jon says: I know. But when you're as skinny as that model above, all the feminizing bodily attributes (breasts hips, butt) are absent, which makes her an odd choice for an industry that supposedly is all about feminine beauty. And I love women of all sizes, but there's no way in hell you'll convince me that model isn't unhealthily skinny.
TPS see: I know everything. When you're skinny, your feminizing attributes diminish or are absent, which makes you an odd choice for what I think is hot. And I love women of all plus sizes, but there's no way in hell you'll convince me that models aren't unhealthily skinny.
TPS replies: Yes, but saying that one size of breast or ass is more feminine than another?
See, but he didn't say that. He said being emaciated to the point where you are not healthy, and where your secondary sexual characteristics disappear (not change in size, but vanish entirely), makes it hard for him to imagine anyone finding it sexy. That doesn't mean someone doesn't find it sexy. That doesn't mean women with small breasts are unattractive. It's about proportion, and health. I know jon likes to talk/type, but that doesn't mean his word choice is always the best (I should know; neither's mine). And given that it's jon, and that you know jon, I would think you'd give him the benefit of the doubt when replying.
I don't want to defend one person over another, or every comment jon's made in this thread, because it's too much reading and too late at night, but I think this is where things sorta started to go wrong. I do know that once jon is on the defensive, he tends to dig himself in, which is why I rarely put jon on the defensive. And sorry if I'm singling out TPS, because it's not just her. Anyhow, it's late and I need to sleep. I love all of you bunnies, no matter your various foibles and axes (I got mine, too). I'm sorry if I went on a tirade; I just hate seeing so much vitriol among people who, fundamentally, agree on an issue.
On preview: "After a whole day of this, you decide you're the only one who's on topic?"
I said: "Geez, so much dander has been raised, it's hard to see." There were several comments that were actually on topic, but my point was that they were lost in the smoke rising off the flame war. Too many negative comments to pick out the positive ones on a quick readthrough of the thread. Poetic license, if you will. If it didn't make sense, well; you're drugged, I'm tired. Let's call the whole thing off. =)
Hey now, "derail" is not a dirty here, so I didn't accuse anybody of anything nasty. The whole "are we having this conversation again" is pretty annoying though. We are just kinda shooting the shit. If you'd like to join in, then great. But don't sit there and scream in all caps that we are somehow low-lifes for just talking about something that interests us.
The first time TPS did it, well OK. But seeing scody say the same shit (AGAIN) after mudpuppie had called us creepy and gross and after occhi had linked to that long ass Unfogged post detailing all the things men may and may not type (which is recent but I swear I've read the same post there before). Well, after all that, I used the word "derail" ... sorry to be so harsh.
(I have a lot of stuff I could say about fat admirers and why jon might couch things in "naturalness" but it's not really worth the effort.)
Well, I tried my best to derail this thread into stupidity before it got shot to shit, but I had to go home and watch the Bitter Films DVD I got in the mail.
Yesterday I watched Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc, which can be read as a strikingly powerful feminist text, especially in the light of this discussion of phenotypic gender designations.
I try to opt out of all of this designatory crap because such taxonomy is fundamentally judgment-based. Instead I attempt to use the Golden Rule as a baseline for interactions with each individual I associate with. By not having a set criterion for "how a person should be" I allow myself a staggeringly large amount of leeway and can therefore get along with everyone. Perhaps it seems milquetoast but it isn't.
I just really don't see where you're going with this.
Entire original context: The emotional side is where the bigger problem lies: how to build self esteem strong enough to fight back and break generational cycles of learned roles? Does pointing out that women are globally abused actively work toward that goal?
The above assumes that we already know women are globally abused, and that it is wrong. Simply repeatedly shouting it to an audience that already possesses and recognizes the condition is not actively doing anything to correct the problem. It's more of a passive call for someone else to do something about it.
While I sympathize with women in abusive relationships, for example (I have been one myself), the only way out is for them to find inner strength to stand on their own. How can they do that? How can we help them do that? How can we put them in a place that gives them the perspective that how they are living is not the only option? How can we help them find enough breathing room to gather the fortitude to trust themselves?
I'm not saying my abuser was not wrong; I'm saying I enabled my abuser by allowing the abuse to happen. Out of my own resilience (which I believe every human has - how else could they continue to tolerate abuse?) I decided I'd had enough and got out. Was giving up most of my possessions fun? No. Was going to court to press criminal charges fun? No. Was knowing I was respecting myself and getting myself to a better place worth it? Hell yes. A million times over. Who helped me? The government: by providing me the services of a district attorney for nothing. Other than that? Friends who let me stay at their house almost a month while I took care of my situation. Am I lucky for that help? Yep. Is every abused woman like me? No. Every situation is unique.
That said, if someone else had gotten me out of that situation, I probably would have entered subsequent abusive relationships afterward, because I wouldn't have learned how to recognize it early on and not get involved to begin with.
Maybe what I'm saying is that if we could help them find a way to channel their own resilience into constructive self help, that would actively work toward fixing the problem.
I agree, and that emotional support is a huge part of being able to function as a human being in society. The thing is, if the courts don't recognize domestic abuse -- which is something a few states are now actively trying to strike from their law books -- then it's harder for people in your situation to get anywhere. Not impossible, certainly, but harder. If you're in a situation in which the police should intervene but they don't, in which the courts should punish but they don't, which the schools or parents or after-school programs should teach against but they don't, then you've got a harder uphill climb.
And I think while there may be a fuzzy sense of "yeah, women generally have it bad," there's not necessarily the understanding of how wide-ranging the problem is. And if that exploration and explanation is cut off, then it's harder to get institutional change that will support women in bad situtations.
So I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't see that as the only piece of the puzzle. I think labelling abuse, talking about its effects and complications, and not assuming that we've established what constitutes disadvantaging someone (because I don't think we have, fully) are all important.
Also, no, I'm not simply saying "Women are disadvantaged!" I'm saying that constantly having members of this bulletin board judge women's bodies as bad is off-putting to a number of the women posting here. I tried to give context for *why* it's bad, yes, but the reason for my arguing was asking for concrete change from the people in front of me (well, virtually in front of me).
And the change I'm asking for (and back me up, anyone, if you disagree): keep your value judgements off our bodies. You have your preference for big nipples or small nipples or big asses or small asses? Great! But when you get into language like, I can't imagine how anyone could find (opposite of what I like sexy), that's when it's offensive.
photo by splunge
photo by TheophileEscargot
photo by Kronos_to_Earth
photo by ethylene
