Reading Comprehension Is Beautiful
Here at godlessharlotnet, we think Steven Waldman the editor-in-chief behind Beliefnet, needs to work on his reading comprehension (also, it's disturbing to see his personal editorial standards in action).
I'm guessing he's one of those who drank the feminist Kool-Aid about how horrible it is that women would make an effort to look attractive for men -- instead of letting their armpit hair grow until it can be corn-rowed and otherwise letting the "real" them hang out.
Here's his post, "Vogue's Visual Lying" (ignore his contention that Miller's head was stuck on somebody else's body and read on below):
Waldman writes:
Fashion magazines lie every time they manipulate photographs to make people seem something they're not.Apparently, Vogue took Siena Miller's head and stuck it on someone else's body (presumably because Miller's actual body was so grotesque)
We're now at the point that even the most beautiful women in the world are deemed not quite perfect enough.
Is this a victimless crime? I don't think so. Each girl or woman who models themselves after ever-more unrealistic notions of beauty -- and dislike themselves when they don't reach that standard -- suffer from these lies. And each boy or man who thinks that that's what women are supposed to look like, and back themselves into loneliness through their own warped notions of female beauty, suffer from these lies.
The guy's entire blog item is based on an error -- probably based on feminism-driven, knee-jerk hatred of Vogue. I left a comment there, that's essentially this:
Here's the actual quote from the article in his link: "They then took one photo of her face and super-imposed it on a separate picture of her body." Her body, not somebody else's body.I just did something like this for a comp which incorporates a shot of me. Why? Because the body looked better in one photo and the head looked better in another. Thanks to Photoshop, you can mix and match. This isn't sinister or horrible, it's pretty cool.
Also, what's with posting the bit about Miller's actual body being "grotesque." Famous people have feelings, too.
Also, what's wrong with "visual lying"? You're a man, so presumably you like attractive women. Any time a woman wears a slimming color, or red lipstick, or dyes her hair, she's "visually lying." Frankly, deodorant is a lie, but I hope many people continue to embrace olfactory dishonesty as well...don't you?
There are plenty of "unrealistic notions" in our lives -- like the notion promoted by chick flicks that the most implausible guy for a woman will ditch her (highly plausibly) and then come back at the end to get on his knees, apologize, and ask her to marry him. Take "Pretty Woman," for example. How many really rich industrialists decide to track down the hooker and marry her? Do you see or hear anybody mewling about the "unrealistic picture of human relationships" they're portraying?
As for "unrealistic notions of beauty," I'm taking a wild guess that those who succumb to an unhealthy extent of them are those with low self-esteem. What I see more of in this culture are unrealistic notions of ugly -- the notion, promoted by feminism, that looks don't matter, and shouldn't matter. Which is fine if you're dating the blind. If you're a woman who wants a boyfriend, you'd better take care of yourself, and wear clothes that reveal a waist (men like that).
I'm reminded of a woman I knew a little who once came up to me in a café and lamented, "Why don't I have a boyfriend?" I looked at her. She was dressed, as she always dressed, in big schlumpy clothes, with disheveled hair (and not in a sexy, bed-head way), looking like she was about to spend the day cleaning out the garage. "Um, you could wear a dress sometimes," I told her.
As I wrote in a column a while back, "If you want to trap a bear, don't go off into the woods with a Tupperware container of salad."
All photographs are a lie. Makeup is a lie. High heels are a lie. Spanx are a lie. Hair dye is a lie. Push-up bras are a lie. Good lighting is a lie.
Some of us men have learned to love the lie.
Tyler at January 31, 2009 6:37 AM
Man... this is a reminder that I need to go shopping.
Seriously, I need to buy some tighter shirts. I have a large chest whose measurement closely parallels my hips, and a small waist-- AND I've just lost about 10 lbs! I run around sports facilities with small children a lot, so dresses are out, but I'd love to be able to showcase my shape a bit better than I do with my current, admittedly schlumpy, wardrobe. My husband sees me naked on a regular basis so he has no problem with whatever I wear, but darn it, I'd like to look good in public, too!
...Anyway, personal TMI aside, I think most young people are cognizant of technology, especially photoshop and airbrushing being de rigeur on magazine covers, so Waldman is probably barking up the wrong tree. For my part, I'm just glad to see Vogue having done a nice job of compositing, rather than turning out a photoshop disaster.
Melissa G at January 31, 2009 6:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/31/reading_compreh.html#comment-1624325">comment from Melissa GSee - woman with healthy outlook (Melissa above). PS I don't know if you have Style Express near you -- I get my tight tee shirts there two for $6, usually.
I think it's wise, if you're super-busy, to figure out a few outfits you can just throw on and look fab in.
And you're right that younger people are cognizant of technology. Girls I know who are raised well are not beauty-obsessed but try to look pretty, even when they're going off to be the soccer goalie, like one of my friends in New York (a little friend, who's, I think, 12 now).
Amy Alkon at January 31, 2009 6:58 AM
Amy, you've hit the right balance when you say,
"Girls I know who are raised well are not beauty-obsessed but try to look pretty. . . ."
I'd like to call special attention to the phrase "not beauty-obsessed." Women who pay *too much* attention to their looks often fail to cultivate their intellects. And most men worth hanging out with (to say nothing of forming a relationship with) enjoy intellectual stimulation, once they've been attracted by the visual kind.
When I taught in college, I found that women who looked sort of ordinary at the beginning of the semester seemed very pretty by the end if in their essays and classroom discussions they said insightful things in clever ways.
But you're right--if they groomed and dressed schlumpy, then not so much.
Axman at January 31, 2009 7:45 AM
Thanks, Ax. And I think you can spot women who are beauty-obsessed -- they're often overdressed and overly made-up, wearing the latest trend from head-to-toe. I find that the average guy is put off by a woman who's gone overboard.
Because trying to look attractive for a man is so demonized, nobody ever gets to the discussion of what's good and important to do.
Amy Alkon at January 31, 2009 8:14 AM
Amy, your comments are there; it's just that after you leave a comment, the site takes you to a "preview" site with no comment.
hanmeng at January 31, 2009 8:40 AM
Says Ms. Alkon: "I find that the average guy is put off by a woman who's gone overboard."
Absolutely right. From my perspective (for what it's worth), the clothes and the makeup are less important than carriage and behavior. To me, upright, confident posture, eye contact, and friendliness (without being overly familiar) will make me remember a woman before the outfit and the makeup will. Now, if the clothes and accessories help support the attitude, great, but they shouldn't be mistaken for attractiveness itself. See what I'm trying to say?
old rpm daddy at January 31, 2009 8:50 AM
It's important to throw out clothes you don't look good in. Keep maybe one schlumpy outfit for the gym, and another for painting/cleaning out the garage, but get rid of everything else. Some people have a tendency to just keep wearing the same comfy outfit forever, long past its expiration date.
There's also what I call "upscale schlumpy", which is things that are comfy and soft, but still look pretty. There's the travel fabric that clings enough to show your curves, but not so much to show your bulges. Chico's and Eileen Fischer are good places for those sorts of things.
NicoleK at January 31, 2009 9:13 AM
Any one with the slightest hint of sophistication about visuals wouldn't use the photo Waldman did on his site. He looks drunk, deranged and/or looney.
I don't photograph well, and I'm well aware that a bad photo on the internet can be the lighted match to a troll's can of Sterno. I'm not hideous but my good photos are few and far between. Thus, I have one decent one that I use for everything--and it's Photoshopped to the nth degree.
Rachel at January 31, 2009 9:32 AM
"If you're a woman who wants a boyfriend, you'd better take care of yourself, and wear clothes that reveal a waist (men like that)."
Uhh, don't forget that this is the way to make yourself more attractive to employers, improve your position if you must talk to police - and to improve your odds against diabetes, cancer, injury in an auto accident and attack by a thug.
Clearly, if you don't care about yourself, you can't care about me, or "us"!
Radwaste at January 31, 2009 9:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/31/reading_compreh.html#comment-1624346">comment from hanmengThanks so much, hanmeng -- I deleted my update.
Amy Alkon at January 31, 2009 9:53 AM
Offtopic: Just how shitty a city is Detroit? I think this warehouse is about three blocks from Tiger stadium.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 31, 2009 3:18 PM
I know the guy who wrote that.
As for how shitty a city is Detroit, let me put it this way: When Gregg and I went to a wedding in Detroit at this fancy place on the river called The Roostertail, on the way home we passed all these parking garages along the water. That's right -- riverfront property, used for parking garages. Dismal. And sad. Detroit used to be a really beautiful city. My grandma worked selling gloves at the J.L. Hudson department store downtown -- seen here on Gregg's friend Lowell's site, The Fabulous Ruins of Detroit:
http://www.detroityes.com/home.htm
Amy Alkon at January 31, 2009 3:30 PM
I've got my own gripes with fashion photography, but it generally involves them trying to make the models far, far skinner than most men prefer -- and then they blame men when girls develop eating disorders.
Melissa G, you are my kind of woman! And thanks the the link. That Wal-Mart one at the end of the first page is positively Dadaist.
Cousin Dave at January 31, 2009 4:17 PM
Ah, right. You've posted that link before. It's a brilliant site.
When I was a little boy, all these cities seemed so distinctive (nearby Indianapolis, Chicago etc.). Kansas City seemed like a riot of innovative architecture because soffits on middle class houses were typically three inches deeper.
Detroit seems to fit right into the continuum. It would be a great place to do some urban spelunking, if only you could get all the people out first.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 31, 2009 4:21 PM
Cousin Dave, let me gently disagree because it's a favorite high horse... I used whine about this at Seipp's blog too.
It's not that the women will blame men (though of course they do), it's that they blame "the media" or "the magazines"... As if they didn't pay for them and read them greedily, sitting on a sofa in a sweatshirt, lost in affective reverie.
Just for comparison, you never hear a man complain that his girlfriend isn't as attractive as a Playboy bunny. (If you ever do hear one saying that, you know you're dealing with doorknob anyway.) For some reason men have the good sense to be ashamed when their magazines warp their expectations.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 31, 2009 4:31 PM
Anyway, we can all agree the depiction of gender-appropriate imagery by the leading figures in our culture is pivotally important.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 31, 2009 4:40 PM
I saw the Detroit story yesterday, it stuck with me all day.
Eric at January 31, 2009 5:57 PM
Joy Behar (sp. ?)of the View wonders why all the women on conservative media programs are thin, have long blonde hair and wear short skirts. I bet Joy wishes she was thin, had long blond hair and good looking legs.
William at January 31, 2009 6:55 PM
A woman should only cornrow her armpit hair if she is the bride at a French wedding
Robbins Mitchell at January 31, 2009 7:00 PM
Professional photographers can pose and light a person in such a way as to improve upon that person's looks. Photos for publication have always been retouched; nowadays, it's just digital editing instead of airbrushing.
mj at January 31, 2009 7:09 PM
Crid, you bring up an interesting point when you say this: "Just for comparison, you never hear a man complain that his girlfriend isn't as attractive as a Playboy bunny. ... For some reason men have the good sense to be ashamed when their magazines warp their expectations."
I do wonder if this isn't exactly accurate. For example, it seems to me that pubic hair grooming has become de rigeur for most single women, and I strongly suspect that it is the easy availability of pr0n that has shaped men's expectations that girls will have shaved or sculpted pubic hair. Now, I have been out of the dating world for almost 9 years, but none of my partners before my husband had any issue with my pubic hair, which was generally ungroomed except to neaten the sides for a bathing suit. What I read on the interwebs nowadays seems to suggest that this is one area that has become like the underarm hair, where at least a landing strip is required, if not complete depilation. I can not think that women would come up with that as a standard of beauty FOR WOMEN, like so many other standards are (as Crid mentioned, regarding the fashion mags). I would think this is something done more or less solely for men.
So, I have a couple of questions. First, is it true, as my reading would suggest, that shaving or waxing one's pubic hair is a general grooming requirement for young women these days? Second, if so, Amy, I would love your perspective on whether it falls into the same category as making oneself pretty for a man, dressing nicely, wearing makeup, etc. (with which point I have no disagreement), or is something above and beyond (or should be considered above and beyond). Third, assuming this is a real standard, am I nuts that it is male driven? I personally find pubic grooming an incredibly annoying and/or painful exercise, and I don't dislike the look of untamed pubes on either men or women. If I were single, I would most likely do the necessary waxing, but I would hate it. And I am already resentful that it might be something I have to teach my daughters about, but if it falls into the same category as red lipstick and doing one's hair, I'm probably not doing them any favors if I don't.
patricia at January 31, 2009 8:07 PM
The big problem is not that such magazines encourage women to try to look good. It's that they encourage them to look good in the wrong way.
Women who "take care of themselves" in the sense of living a healthy life, staying in shape, eating right, and maintaining a healthy diet and hygeine pretty much all look good. The same thing is true of men.
The problem is when these magazines attempt to pretend that there are good substitutes in the form of powders and paint.
billo at January 31, 2009 8:12 PM
> I can not think that women would
> come up with that as a standard
> of beauty
Well, media are always going to grease the machinery of fashion... That's been going on for centuries. In the same years that the pubic hair thing has happened, other styles have come along which didn't (one presumes) come from pr0n, but seem just as pathetic to people a generation too old to participate (specifically, tats and piercings). But the knee-jerk brigade doesn't worry about those trends so much, for some reason.
(Soon comes a word I hate to use: bourgeois)
The 'kool-aid feminists' Amy's discussing about will talk about Madison Avenue's entire package of mannered beauty as a destructive force (eyes - hair - coloring - whatever). Yet they only get traction when they talk about weight.
But the Cosmo magazine ideals about weight don't seem to pay off in the hearts of most men who grow up and spend time with actual naked women. And the men who do get upset about an otherwise ideal partner who puts on a few extra pounds are probably not so concerned about her feelings anyway, are they?
And again, I hope you'll consider that it's women who buy women's magazines and fall so in love with these images of women. No teenage boyfriend ever asks his sweetheart to read that trash. (Of course he'll say that the supermodel of the day is a pretty girl, but every truly heterosexual guy is looking for other elements of physical beauty besides high cheekbones.)
The girls who are said to be so wounded by this imagery are doing the damage to themselves. They bring it into their lives because it simplistically panders to their base nature, just as Miss November panders to male classmates. Reviewing this material is, for both genders, a lazy, indulgent, narcissistic experience.
We should shed no tears for them. It's a problem for bourgeois families. Girls who have meaningful things going on in their lives —after-school jobs at McDonald's or struggles to get into good colleges— are probably not as damaged by the alluring imagery of fashion magazines. They're getting feedback from real people about the components of beauty. As Amy suggests, the girls most bothered by this are probably suffering from problems in the home.... Weird, isolating energy from parents and so forth.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 31, 2009 9:01 PM
PS-
This here was their best tune, and the last Xmas melody that will ever mean anything to me. Listen to that frickin' bass player... Boyfriend be honkin'!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 31, 2009 9:07 PM
"The problem is when these magazines attempt to pretend that there are good substitutes in the form of powders and paint."
It's a plot, of course.
For decades, men have told and shown women the same thing they tell themselves, that the answer to aging is the purchase of the correct exfoliant, lavage, oil, rinse, dye, ointment, cream, tint, preparation, mask, wax, collagen, botulinum toxin or combination of these, in any proportion. Why, the ancient Egyptians did that, and they looked like Elizabeth Taylor before she got married. Want to age gracefully? Want to be even better than the supermodel in the ad, a shallow person at best? All you need to do is smear the right mixture of cat urine and possum fat on your face, right before bed.
Hey, look in the shower. There are "beauty" products for "guys", but not real men, who have a bar of Lava or a bottle of dish soap in there. Period. Dawn™ gets Diesel and motor oil off you, you know.
Think about that the next time you see an old man called "distinguished", and a middle-aged woman referred to as "past her prime".
It's a hoax. And it's 'way more important what you put into your body than on it.
Radwaste at January 31, 2009 9:10 PM
Obama the Commie says:
"Don't worry your moderately pretty head about it, Sweetie. Now go make me a sammich and turn up the thermostat. There are people in Kentucky freezing to death, you know. Not that I'm going to lift a finger."
DemsCallWomenPigs at January 31, 2009 9:26 PM
You mention the movie Pretty Woman in your post. Funny thing is that the movie's promotional art features Julia Robert's head affixed to a much more leggy model's body.
Gareth at January 31, 2009 9:49 PM
I dunno... despite Waldman being technically wrong about whose head was on whose body, I think his central point mostly holds. Woman are being held to a ridiculously high standard of "beauty" these days. Not because they do a bit of airbrushing here and lipsticking and dyeing there, but because it's reaching rather absurd proportions. Botox ads pop up all over the web across social political and religious lines. Teens are getting breast implants in stupidly high numbers. Sure, all women "lie" a little about their looks. But to me it's kinda like the difference between stealing paper clips and hoisting a brand new laptop from the office. When the cultural mavens of our day say it's okay to appropriate the company's main Linux server and 22 workstations for home use, we've got ourselves a problem.
Scott in OC at January 31, 2009 10:03 PM
The bad news: Ladies, all that money you're spending designer clothes and beauty products is wasted. For hetero men, clothes are CLOTH. Shoes protect feet. And we're constantly reverse engineering what you really look like without all that crap on your face.
The good news: We're still absolutely mesmerized by your beauty. That's the way we're wired. And our tastes are diverse enough that the number one thing you hate about your appearance may be what we like most.
Johnc at January 31, 2009 10:56 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/31/reading_compreh.html#comment-1624414">comment from GarethYou mention the movie Pretty Woman in your post. Funny thing is that the movie's promotional art features Julia Robert's head affixed to a much more leggy model's body.
And this is a problem why?
Amy Alkon at January 31, 2009 10:58 PM
re: pubic hair grooming
A friend my age (44) who is single once said that he could accurately guess a woman's age by how she did, or did not, groom, ahem - "downstairs". Not that this is a perfect analogy - but I shave my face everyday. A beard does not work on my face. And a mustache? Turns me from striking (in a good way) to slightly sinister (and not in a sexy way). Occasionally shaving my face causes a rash....on my face....and I have to good to work like that. However - I have learned that women in general and my wife in particular strongly prefer me cleanshaved (again, on the face). I gently suggest that the path to success does not lie in telling your target market that they are stupid pigs for liking what they like. If you are not willing to groom as a potential paramour would prefer - find another paramour.
Californio at January 31, 2009 11:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/31/reading_compreh.html#comment-1624416">comment from RadwasteThink about that the next time you see an old man called "distinguished", and a middle-aged woman referred to as "past her prime".
This has to do with the differences in our evolved adaptations. Men place a premium on physical appearance because what we consider "beautiful" (hourglass figure, youth, clear skin, long, shiny hair) translates to fertility and health in a woman. Women place a premium on men's earning capacity and height. They're looking for "providers." It's merely biology that older women are not valued and that older men are, as men tend to get richer and more powerful as they become older (until they're infirm, and then they are not attractive -- unless they're very rich). How many men want to be with an ugly rich woman, do you think? Some, but not many. Women flock to ugly rich guys. Biology.
Amy Alkon at January 31, 2009 11:02 PM
First of all, Amy, your original comment on his blog shouldn't have criticized his use of the word "grotesque", which was obviously ironical.
Second, it is indeed true that women are held to a standard of beauty that is unrealistic because of photographers retouching pictures in magazines and ads. However, the only ones actually "holding" them are themselves, because they're too ignorant to know how many people have more realistic standards and how few men actually insist on Vogue-type looks.
The comment about a new standard for pubic grooming that many young women now feel obliged to follow is indeed true (I refused to believe it until my wife confirmed it with many of the young students in her college class), but it is also an insane situation -- because no woman should need to reveal the status of her pubic hair to a man until she is ALREADY SURE that he is not the kind of jerk who would reject a woman on that basis. I think that a woman who waxes because of such perceived social pressure must be stupid because she is EITHER sleeping with men she hardly knows (which is stupid) OR she is sleeping with jerks (which is also stupid).
Joe at January 31, 2009 11:36 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/31/reading_compreh.html#comment-1624420">comment from JoeLow. Self. Esteem. A condition common to women in their 20s.
The guy is not the brightest bulb in the box of tacks. Look at the photo he used with the link to "grotesque."
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 1:03 AM
"The good news: We're still absolutely mesmerized by your beauty. That's the way we're wired. And our tastes are diverse enough that the number one thing you hate about your appearance may be what we like most."
Absolutely true - I have always found short, cute girls more attractive than tall, beautiful girls, small breasted over large breasted etc. (Still have to point this out often to my 5'2" small breasted wife of 25 years.) Other guys like the reverse or focus on parts I don't. We all like girls who smile, do not nag, ignore our foibles, are fun and are enthusiastic in bed.
By the way at 50 she waxes because I like the look and feel. Nothing wrong with pleasing your lover.
Michael at February 1, 2009 3:44 AM
Photo retouch can be extreme, sinister, or even faking it, it's still only photo retouch. Trying to establish any border between "right and wrong" will only end up in confusion and discussions about norms and culture. It's better to go with the flow, if you don't like it - don't do it! If you like it, go for it!
Manfred at February 1, 2009 4:11 AM
patricia, regarding the grooming issue, i disagree with you. i'm in my mid 30's and have been grooming down there for close to 7 years, haven't had a boyfriend or any need to groom for well over a year, but i do it because i like it. it's not always about men, i don't shave my legs for men, i do it for me, even in the winter time bc i like how my legs feel when clean shaven, not bc men expect women to have shaved legs, same goes for the grooming issue, i do it for me, not for men. i did try it bc it was the thing to do, but i kept doing it bc i like it better and not to impress a man. same goes for the way i dress, i like to look good, so i enjoy wearing stylish clothes that enhance my hour glass figure and large breasts. i get quite a bit of attention from men bc i dress nice, but again the ultimate reason i dress to impress is to impress myself. i agree that looking good is important bc it presents a better package to the world, but i also think that it's easy to spot when someone pampers themselves and takes care of themselves for their own satisfaction and bc they care about themselves versus dressing to impress for other people's approval. confidence and self-assuredness are sexy, but a confident slob still looks like a slob.
Nina at February 1, 2009 5:12 AM
Each girl or woman who models themselves after ever-more unrealistic notions of beauty -- and dislike themselves when they don't reach that standard -- suffer from these lies.
My 12 year old daughter sees through this feminist theme of petty jealousy.
The Onion makes great satire of it: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/bratz_dolls_may_give_young_girls
NOTE FROM AMY - It's already posted here on my site with some interesting comments:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/27/is_your_little.html
DADvocate at February 1, 2009 5:34 AM
That's a great piece from the onion, dadvocate. I also never as a kid didn't have unrealistic expectations of beauty, but i've always known i'm intelligent and have more to offer than just how i look. i also have a wonderful father who loves me and was and still is always there for me, maybe that helps as well with the whole self esteem issue, lol.
Nina at February 1, 2009 5:41 AM
What a wonderful posting in every way. I live in Thailand, and by now I find it shocking to run into American woman who are still drinking that Kool-Aid. They look and smell absolutely frightful, often wearing jeans which have not been changed in weeks. It is absolutely true that Thai MEN (not to mention Thai women) spend more time looking good then these feminist horror-shows, who claim to expect that someone will fall in love with "the real me." As if no one had ever told them about the power of first impressions.
By the way, the Thai attitude is that paying attention to your own looks in public is also a very important way of stating that you respect other people. That is why clothes are always clean and freshly ironed. To appear in public without paying attention to your appearance is rude.
jaafar at February 1, 2009 6:10 AM
Lonely American Women - Ditch the sweatpants and white nurse sneakers. Greater happiness is bound to ensue!
Skip Kent at February 1, 2009 6:11 AM
Upon closer and more reflective reading of the comments I wanted to ad this thought.
For all of us, the 'real me' is inside our heads. How we choose to appear to the outside world is a reflection of that, the outer being a reflection of the inner.
Anyone who decides to wipe their bum after pooping has made a decision to alter their appearance to the world according to an inner impulse. Choosing to let your armpit hair grow in contrast to cultural preferences is every bit as potentially pretentious as piling on the mascara.
Either extreme shows to observant outsiders a weighty self image preoccupation/obsession which many will instinctively choose to avoid.
I respect the feminist impulse to be your own individual. I don't respect the message that "I know better than everyone else and must teach, inform and protest with my every action."
Obsession, yuck, goodbye.
Meanwhile, the mousy waitress or check-out girl with the cute smile has my heart racing...
Skip Kent at February 1, 2009 6:54 AM
Amy, this was interesting. I've always found the militant feminist clique repulsive because I had to deal with it professionally. Since the science side of the campus has great public gravitas, over the last few decades the campuses have attracted vast legions of parasites and camp-followers in various invented "studies". Since these folks are doing precisely nothing, they have the time to engage in campus politics, whereas the barking end of the dog is usually too busy figuring out how to turn physics or molecular biology into something wonderful. The public as a whole has been suckered by them into thinking that if little bobby or jill doesn't get a degree in SOMETHING, they are a failure, so send in lots of your money and validate your kid with a basket-weaving degree. Nuts.
The rise of the "studies" scam made it really easy for corrupt folks (with indoor plumbing) to grandstand on femminist social issues for decades, culminating in monstrous and outrageous nonsense like the mess at Duke. These are not vile "feminists", they are vile people, period, opportunists feeding off the evolutionary elements of society. All corruption travels on a beam of plausibility and things in the past were not good for women in the professions. Young girls were discouraged from technical professions. Today however, a 130 pound woman can control a heavy machine like an F-15 thanks to coputers and servos, whereas handling a direct control biplane in 1917 required huge upper body strength. Same for mining coal in a four foot high space for twelve hours a day. And anyone who thinks the streets of Chicago were safer then is a fool, and even men had to be careful on the way to their jobs at the stockyards or the pushing boxcars around in the railyards. Still, as my wife points out, there were just a few occupations encouraged for young women of her age class, eg. teacher, nurse, airline stewardess, etc. There was a problem. It wasn't aptitude or brain organization, the te3chnical basis of society changed: that was the barrier. Although very different distributive processing occurs in the sexes, it is not much different with respect to outcome, remembering and reasoning, all essential to a technically advanced society. It was a frustrating time for her, and even earlier for women excepting the occasional young woman who had good support (eg Barbara McClintock of transposon fame (Nobel 1983). Able women who didn't get a break were stymied.
So....what's this got to do with beauty and nasty-type femminism and "sensitive guys" whining about photoshopped babes?
Simply this, at a very early time in our embryonic history, a switch flips and some of us go down the boy path and some the girl path and after a few more switches flip some of us become something in between. But for most of us, women become distinctively women and guys become distinctively men. Now, its an interesting fact that most breast augmentations are initiated by (surprise!) women and not their loathsome sex-obsessed men (between 92-96 percent) and the boys in the relationship report that they thought the women were fine as-is. If this is the case, and assuming that most women are not totally inmpressionable robotcheks, we conclude that women are deeply in competition with other women, even when in stable relationships, and feel better FOR THEMSELVES when they have an awesome set of jugs, even rubber ones. Why? because women are "hunters" just as men are, although the targets are different, which goes back to evolutionary history and those switches. Even a woman who is entirely monogamous and engaged still needs to feel competitive; it's in the genes. Thus the beauty component and boob jobs and all that plugs right into their psyches, and it's not lobbying from those nasty sex-obsessed men per the combat-boot feminists. As for the recommenations of academic femminists, well, they are usually not normal people, and skankhood is no competitor for the power of the genome....they are damned to failure and the cosmetologists and designers win. Screw 'em...er, maybe not.
Brendanav at February 1, 2009 7:36 AM
"feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." -Rush Limbaugh.
Such "frumpy uber alles" women prove his point, even tho what he said was tongue in cheek.
SGT Ted at February 1, 2009 7:41 AM
"academic Feminists" are merely another form of cultural Marxists, with all the cant about oppressors and victims and the need for government to step on the oppressors neck.
SGT Ted at February 1, 2009 7:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/31/reading_compreh.html#comment-1624453">comment from BrendanavFascinating comment, Brendanav, and you bring up something I haven't considered:
Now, its an interesting fact that most breast augmentations are initiated by (surprise!) women and not their loathsome sex-obsessed men (between 92-96 percent) and the boys in the relationship report that they thought the women were fine as-is. If this is the case, and assuming that most women are not totally inmpressionable robotcheks, we conclude that women are deeply in competition with other women, even when in stable relationships, and feel better FOR THEMSELVES when they have an awesome set of jugs, even rubber ones.
If you could toss me the source on this, I'd be very grateful. I have a column I'm doing that I might end up putting this into.
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 8:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/31/reading_compreh.html#comment-1624454">comment from Skip KentChoosing to let your armpit hair grow in contrast to cultural preferences is every bit as potentially pretentious as piling on the mascara.
Great point, too. I'm reminded of a friend, growing up, who wore Sears no-brand jeans as aggressively as people wore Sassons.
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 8:38 AM
Amy wrote:
"Girls I know who are raised well are not beauty-obsessed but try to look pretty, even when they're going off to be the soccer goalie"
Hear, hear! :) As an amsuing (to me, anyway) aside, I always found that wearing makeup to karate tournaments seemed to make me more intimidating to my opponents! Go figure! :D Or maybe it just made me feel I had to act fiercer, who knows! Either way, I brought home more trophies when I wore makeup.
Thanks very much for the Style Express recommendation! It's nice that one doesn't have to spend a fortune to look good!
Johnc wrote:
The good news: We're still absolutely mesmerized by your beauty. That's the way we're wired. And our tastes are diverse enough that the number one thing you hate about your appearance may be what we like most.
This is a beautiful sentiment! Thank you. :)
@ Cousin Dave, glad you liked the Photoshop Disasters! Extra fingers and floating hands always crack me up.
@ Crid, I laughed so hard at the BBC pic + headline you linked! The clergyman next to the pope seems to be asking, "Does this lace make me look fat?"
Melissa G at February 1, 2009 10:31 AM
The only problem is, if you try to look like the cover of one of those magazines, to "look attractive for men", you're looking attractive to gay men, because only gay fashion designers prefer buttless, titless women who look like pre-pubescent boys.
Go ahead and try to masquerade as boys, ladies. Whatever.
Self-hating Boomer at February 1, 2009 10:45 AM
"If you could toss me the source on this..."
Here's "Breast Augmentation Motivation and Satisfaction" from the Oct/Dec 08 issue of Plastic Surgery Nursing:
http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=834661
A brief synopsis:
* Less than 3% of the thousands of women studied listed "to improve my sex life" as a primary motivation for getting their implants.
* Less than 6% listed "to please my partner"
* 50% listed "to make me feel better about my appearance"
* 60% listed "to make me feel better about myself"
That should settle the issue of who does the initiating.
Redheads should never shave their pussies! (well, maybe a slight trim now & then). Nothing on earth is more appetizing to a lover of ginger women than a burning bush.
Given a choice, I'll take a woman who can fill out her sweater, but I've never met a man who actually prefers fake D-cups over natural A-cups. There are plenty of small-breasted nude models, strippers, & porn stars out there, and plenty of very popular web-sites devoted to girls with tiny tits & their admirers. Anyone who believes that men don't lust after women in all their variety & glory must have never browsed the Web.
Martin at February 1, 2009 11:03 AM
Yeah. It's one thing to say "She's not Sheila" or whoever it is you adore. But I don't understand when guys say "She's not my type."
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at February 1, 2009 1:03 PM
Martin, I'm married to a redhead, and I concur on the fire down below. ;)
The shaving thing has been a fad in porn for the past five years or so. (Or so I hear, ahem...) Like all fads, it will eventually run its course; it's already pretty much become a cliche. Afterwards, some women may choose to continue shaving for their own reasons, as Nina points out, or because they do modeling or some other thing where they need tight-fitting things to fit well. I have been told that it can be very uncomfortable when it's growing back out, so some other women will probably stop, and eventually there will be a mix.
And I'm not really surprised by the numbers that Martin uncovered. Think about it: is a guy going to look at a woman, and think to himself, "She'd be hot if she had bigger boobs -- I'm going to introduce myself, date her, establish a relationship, and then pressure her to get implants?" No, of course not; that's too much damn trouble. Much easier to simply look for a woman who already has whatever it is that you're looking for.
Cousin Dave at February 1, 2009 7:58 PM
*But I don't understand when guys say "She's not my type."*
As a craven coward, I say it instead of "Gee, I'm just not attracted to her" when someone thrusts their single friend at me. Saves me from a lot of savage beatings. Amazing how they can think you're perfect for their pal until you say 'no', and then you're the worst thing that ever crawled out of the slime, thrust its head at the stars and cried "I am Man!".
By the way and totally off-topic, what is UP with that, anyway? I get these match-ups from friends, family, co-workers ... one guy was pushing his DAUGHTER on me. I mean, c'mon people, two loose socks don't always make a pair!
Unfortunate, really, because there are some really nice socks out there.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 1, 2009 9:31 PM
@Gog-Magog: "By the way and totally off-topic, what is UP with that, anyway? I get these match-ups from friends, family, co-workers ... one guy was pushing his DAUGHTER on me."
Dunno, family, tradition, culture? Every now and then, Old RPM Momma asks me if there are any unmarried men I know she could match up with her nieces in the Philippines (all talented and heartbreakingly lovely young ladies, by the way). Finding a kind and reasonably wealthy husband seems a little more important over there than it is here, although that's probably changing. Why people play matchmaker here, though? Maybe some people have a subconcious need to fix (or control) other peoples' lives.
old rpm daddy at February 2, 2009 8:01 AM
A comment I heard on talk radio a couple years back.
People with low self esteem make better consumers. They need to be "fixed" and they'll spend money to be fixed. So a lot of advertising is designed to lower your self esteem, then sell you something to raise it up again.
I think this is true and the net result of it is a lot of misery. I don't know any way of avoiding it though.
When I raised my kids, I didn't have network television, largely to spare them the influence of commercials. I think I had happier kids because of this.
Brian Levine at February 2, 2009 9:31 AM
And another thing:
When women shave their armpits just who is it they are emulating?
Where I'm from, you get arrested for being sexually attracted to girls too young to have armpit hair.
brian levine at February 2, 2009 7:06 PM
Fashion magazines are not the problem when it comes to producing unrealistic expectations for women, and it irritates me immensely when someone tries to demonize them. The "Womens" magazines like Good Housekeeping and Ladies Home Journal are much more problematic. Rarely do I see one without "Lose 10 pounds FAST" (never mind that losing weight fast is bad) or "The Best 5 minute workout ever" (never mind that a 5 minute workout is likely ineffective)on the cover...alongside a photograph of and recipe for a picture-perfect cake or pie. To me, that kind of quick-fix, have your cake and eat it too (pun intended) message gives more unrealistic expectations than a picture of a supermodel.
Carla R at February 3, 2009 8:24 AM
Leave a comment