The 'Jennifer Love Hewitt Looks Fat in a Bikini' Controversy
December 6th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Feminists are up in arms over the "Jennifer Love Hewitt looks fat in a bikini" controversy, and I'm inclined to agree with them. TMZ.com recently ran a photo of Hewitt in a bikini (above left) with the observation "We know what you ate this summer, Love--everything!" Hewitt fired back at critics who poked fun at her bikini body, saying:
"I’ve sat by in silence for a long time now about the way women’s bodies are constantly scrutinized. To set the record straight, I’m not upset for me, but for all the girls out there that are struggling with their body image. A size 2 is not fat! Nor will it ever be. And being a size 0 doesn’t make you beautiful. What I should be doing is celebrating some of the best days of my life and my engagement to the man of my dreams, instead of having to deal with photographers taking invasive pictures from bad angles. To all girls with butts, boobs, hips and a waist, put on a bikini - put it on and stay strong."
The prominent feminist blog Feminist writes:
"Hewitt had the audacity to appear in public in a bikini while also in possession of a body that hadn’t been dieted and exercised down to nothing or airbrushed to smooth perfection...I’m very pleased that she recognizes that fat-shaming is designed to keep women in line."
A few observations:
1) As Hewitt notes, it's not the most flattering picture, but as a whole Hewitt still looks damn good to me. I can see why women would think "If even that's too fat, what hope is there for the rest of us?" There is such a thing as fat and unattractive, but this ain't it.
2) The photo above right is an example of what I don't like--the Auschwitz look. The blond woman in green at the bottom of the photo looks like she hasn't eaten in weeks. I never understand why so many people want to do away with women with womanly curves and replace them with women with skinny, 15 year-old boy bodies. My wife says it's because fashion designers can design clothes easier for women with flat bodies that aren't curvaceous.
3) I doubt that "fat-shaming" is a patriarchal conspiracy designed to "keep women in line," but the feminist bloggers are much smarter at detecting said conspiracies than I am.
4) I'm happy that Hewitt says she wants to "celebrate some of the best days of my life and my engagement to the man of my dreams"--isn't that what the whole mating game is supposed to be about anyway?
"));
19 queries. 0.400 seconds.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
"I doubt that "fat-shaming" is a patriarchal conspiracy designed to "keep women in line," but the feminist bloggers are much smarter at detecting said conspiracies than I am."
Exactly. I was agreeing with the points made in the Feminist posts until this. The fact of the matter is, according to articles like this, and places I've been to elsewhere, more than 80% of men actually prefer women with curves and an average, healthy level of meat on their bones:
http://channels.isp.netscape.com/love/package.jsp?name=fte/curvywomen/curvywomen
I also saw a different study that said that, although most men say they prefer average-sized women, most women, when asked, say that they think that being pencil-thin is attractive.
To compare this to a similar metaphor; most men worry about the size of their penis, and think that the bigger it is, the sexier they are. On the other hand, most women don't care either way about penile size in men. So in the end, it doesn't matter.
So feminists are basically completely wrong when they attribute the fad of pencil-thin bodies to men's expectations, when in reality is has more to do with the wrong cultural messages we see in the media, and the insecurities that women themselves develop from them.
Nonetheless, kudos to Hewitt for standing up for herself. The fact that she's already sufficiently attractive notwithstanding, her defending herself and her body image displays the personality traits of confidence and the ability to resist peer pressure and social norms. In my opinion, that in itself is one of the, if not THE, sexiest trait a woman can have.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I don't know of ONE man on the planet who finds the emaciated "skin and bones-look" to be attractive, as we are often accused of liking.
It that concention was even 10% correct, Penthouse would have a special issue devoted to naked famine victims.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Anybody looked at a copy of Playboy circa 1965? Those women are not rail thin. I don't think it was men who put Twiggy on the cover of Vogue.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Females control the family purse strings. This is a feeble attempt to blame men for the shortcomings of women.
If they don’t like the runway model advertising then they should not buy the product.
It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I have to wonder what percentage of the fashion magazines and the other people who actually produce the images like above right are heterosexual men. And of those how many just perform the labor (building sets and hauling equipment) needed to bring the concept to life.
I also have learned that no matter what a woman says about her body-- don't answer if at all possible. :-)
December 6th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
This actress, like most, has exploited the dominant (as in genetic) natural male nature to pay attention to attractive sexual attributes partly enhanced by present cultural standards. It is natural and normal for her to do so, just like any male actor would do if able to. She has benefited from not only her acting income and like, but from the sale of posters, and other opportuntities exploiting her 'enhanced' sexuality for her own benefit.
Although I find it most disappointing that people now seek to 'seek to financially exploit' the less physically pleasing aspects of her appearance at this point in time, and fell she is as entitled as anyone to swim within the potential sight of cameras, one of the tradeoffs of her 'celebrity' is that her name and image will now turn ears and eyes to her at checkout counters and in front of TV sets.
I don't see how she can entirely avoid such 'criticism' after establishing such high levels of expectations in front of the camera in the past, anymore than a physicist of decreasing competence in front of his/her peers or say a professional football running back who no longer can keep his hands and arms around a football.
Unfair and distasteful is different from illogical. I do have empathy for her.
Mike
December 6th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I disagree that it's about "women's" bodies. Commentators say similar things about men too. If this were a studly, well-built male actor who suddenly had a public photo looking as fat in swim trunks as she does in the upper left photo, I'm SURE people would say something about it. I'm tired of people only noticing this when it's women but ignoring it when it's men. If you're against fat-bashing, that's fine, but don't pretend it's only about women or primarily about women. Read The Adonis Complex.
Also, aside from body image issues, I happen to think fat-bashing has some value. Fat is simply unhealthy. Period. It causes heart attacks, cancer, stroke, hypertension, shorter life spans, etc. People should never be made fun of for how they look. But having some distaste for fatness is a good thing. Many Europeans think of Americans as fat, and they're right. We are fat. We eat too damn much and we soak up taxpayer funds with our health problems related to our overeating and poor eating habits.
I happen to like slim, healthy-looking women and I'm unabashed about it. Not when someone looking like they starve themselves but when they look like they work out regularly, are active, and eat smart. I'm turned off by fat and I disagree with Glenn that the above left photo somehow looks in any way good. It looks very unhealthy to me. Most of the women in the upper right look like they eat right and work their cardio regularly, which is good. A similar comparison of photos of men in swim trunks, exactly the same as the above, would trigger the same reactions in me (minus any sexual impulses). It isn't about gender or sex at all.
Some people happen to be very think naturally and labeling them "the Auschwitz look" I think is horrible, and just as wrong as calling someone fatso. Even worse, I think, because of the denotations involved with Auschwitz. That is thin-bashing and is just as wrong as fat-bashing.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
..studies show women dress up for other women and not to impress men!!..What part of this do men not understand????
..Only women can undue their irrational, hysterical body image!!
December 6th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I'm not in favor of anorexia, malnutrition, etc., but setting aside unfavorable genetics and being male, with obesity the Number 1 factor driving mortality in America today. (Number 2 is tabacco smoking.)
Peer pressure about obesity sucks and can be counter-productive, but as a person over 300 lbs in recent years and easily 100 lbs overweight in recents years largely if not mostly due to ... divorce (I hope no one fell out of their chair), the fact that my two adult stepchildren are very weight concious and concious of what foods they consume, and exercise concious, is positive peer pressure to at least be more aware of my food intake in nothing else.
Based on living and working elsewhere in the world, especially the so-called Third World, excessive thinness is hardly a huge problem in America. Obesity in my view my be as much as 30 to 100 times the problem here. (However, somewhat more fats and the like are necessary for children under 18 years of age. (Keep in mind that the enhance growth in height and overall mass that results increases the number of adult cells, thereby cell replacement for the resulting adult in their lifetime, thereby increasing the risk of cancers.)
Mike
December 6th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I agree completely. There's nothing wrong with feminists criticising the media's unfair protrayal of generally healthy women. The exercise is completely futile, because women will still buy gossip magazines that concentrate on celebs' weights.
The real problem I have is with the idea that the media is 'telling' women to look like this. There is no media/patriarchy conspiracy to oppress women, it is simply that women buy into this stuff. It's natural for women to be more concerned about their looks than men, and the mediasimply exploits this to sell magazines.
As long as the feminist bloggers aren't saying that the media 'tells' women to do anything, I have no problem with their complaints.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
It is natural selection for men to find women who look healthy (symmetric face, good complexion, look like they are able to exercise) and women who have a high hip-to-waist ratio (not too heavy) attractive. I am not going to apologize for judging some women to be more attractive than others.
Perhaps the real complaint of some of these feminists is that they believe that women are too obsessed about their appearance in order to attract men. It is not good to be too obsessed, but it is natural selection for women to think about how they can be attractive to men.
The women I find attractive are those who support a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting, parental rights, and due process based on the Constitution.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Basically, what we have here are Ms Magazine-readers who are blaming men for the existence of Cosmo-readers.
I mean, if I'm wrong in any way about that, please let me know.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Sungjun, you're spot on.
Irony is, I'm sure many of the NOW members actually do read Cosmo, they just don't tell their comrades, for fear of being judged as selling out to the patriarchy.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Sorry don't blame the men for it. Ages ago, I read an interesting article on the weight and sizes of female models in mens magazines and womens magazines. As I remember it, sorry no link was way too long ago, the average model in the mens mags were 20 lbs heavier than the models used in womens magazines. It is very much women doing it to themselves.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
First I'll say that Hewitt is a pretty damn good looking woman and her show is pretty entertaining (a lot better than the "reality" shows that have poisoned the airwaves).
Fat-bashing is just as wrong as thin-bashing like Marc. A says. Some people have larger frames and some have smaller frames plain and simple. Frankly if I had my choice of Hewitt or one of t women in the pic on the right (which I think is from America's Next Model, looks like Tyra Banks in the middle) I'd go with Hewitt. As people have already pointed out here lots of men want a woman with some meat on her bones. I'm not going to pick on rail thin women (mainly because I"m a larger guy and that would just be silly) just because I don't find them as attractive.
It's about personal taste and the fact that fashion designers can't accept the fact that different people have different tastes. They think that there is one all appealing body type that everyone will be attracted to or want to emulate and that will never happen. I prefer a woman that is taller than average (I think avg. is about 5'4'') and enough mass to give that height an average build and dark hair. But then some men prefer a short woman that is thick and curvy. There is no way one body type would satisfy both of our preferences.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Danny, it's not that fashion designers want to appeal to women who like fashion by providing role models for them. It's that fashion models are basically clothes hangers, for clothes to be draped on. It's only runway models who are usually stick thin, magazine models are generally of a healthy weight.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
"I disagree that it's about "women's" bodies. Commentators say similar things about men too. If this were a studly, well-built male actor who suddenly had a public photo looking as fat in swim trunks as she does in the upper left photo, I'm SURE people would say something about it."
You're exactly right. Maybe a year or two ago there was this picture of Val Kilmer in swim trunks with a very large stomach, which inspired several "from Batman to Fatman" comments.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
The typical consumers of tabloid magazines are middle class women in their late 30's or older, with likely the same demographics for these websites. It's women themselves who demand to see celebrity beauties in unflattering positions -- not men -- probably so they don't feel so bad about their own few extra pounds.
So you see this is actually empowering for women. Or at least they have only themselves to blame.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
"As I remember it, sorry no link was way too long ago, the average model in the mens mags were 20 lbs heavier than the models used in womens magazines. It is very much women doing it to themselves."
The fashion industry =/ women as a whole. Neither "men" nor "women" can be blamed for an industry run by out-of-touch elites. As for customer support, what other choices do women have? Buy from the companies that represent fashion in our society that DON'T use exclusively underweight models? They don't exist. Just like with porn consumption by men--men don't look at porn without massively endowed male actors/amateur participants because it generally doesn't exist--at least if there is a male involved.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I can't agree with the feminists or Glenn--at least not entirely.
Part of women's power--power that feminists have consistently denied they have--is their sexuality. Women use that sexuality (when they have it in abundance) without mercy or regard to the feelings of men. So when we see that the power of sexuality is often an illusion I think it's quite fair that we point it out. After all turnabout is fair play. Why should men be the only ones who are cut down, insulted, and ridiculed?
What goes around comes around.
As for J.L. Hewitt I say tough luck kid. If you command high wages with your looks then you should really have those looks. If a man becomes a CEO and is incompetent we expect that the system will reveal that and cast him out (in shame of course).
Furthermore, these types of photos are taken regularly of men as well. But no mention of how men feel about it. Also no mention of what this "patriarchal conspiracy" has to gain by exposing them.
By the way when we see these photos on the cover of The Enquirer or The Star or other tabloids in the grocery do we really question who is buying these magazines? Women. And if women are driving a market which routinely insults women then I'd say that has nothing to do with a patriarchal conspiracy but rather the way women compete with other women.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I've raised four daughters and I can tell you that women are absolutely vicious toward each other. Women are their own worst critics and will go after each other at the slightest hint of weakness. It is not some evil patriarchal conspiriacy trying to keep women in line by espousing some unnatural body image. No sir, it is women themselves that fixate on every ounce of fat, wrinkle, sag, bag ... etc.......ad nauseum
December 6th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
@SouthernDad : Absolutely, I have the same experience with two daughters. And the sad thing is that the insecurity and unrealistic expectations drives a lot of fear and anxiety. Sometimes feminism builts upon this insecurity and, like other political movements built upon fear and unrealistic expectations, builts its own out-of-reality scheme of the world.
December 6th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
...Tom Leykis had some girl on the air recently who admitted to being 160 lbs. Yet she said she had no trouble whatsoever getting dates with men. How could this be if we all want to date skeletons? It aint men pressuring for this skeletal image of women...
December 6th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
"As long as the feminist bloggers aren't saying that the media 'tells' women to do anything, I have no problem with their complaints."
I agree somewhat, but it would definitely be hypocritical of us as MRA's to condemn them for "taking things too seriously", especially when we know damn well how harmful such portrayals can be....
As to the shot of JLH....I'd do her in a New York minute....absolutely.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I don't know what planet the TMZ people are living on if they actually think that Hewitt is fat.
And, yeah, I don't say bad things about thin people, either. Until recently, I was a very thin guy. It happens naturally sometimes and isn't necessarily the result of an eating disorder. I say: we're not all meant to look the same. I don't care if a person is thin, "normal" (whatever that means), or overweight -- as long as he or she is both physically and mentally healthy (i.e. no sad eating disorders or societal pressure to change).
December 7th, 2007 at 12:06 am
I've said before, and I will say again, NOW has no one to blaim but other women for how women are portrayed. I think it's sick that not one woman I know likes her body, and that includes myself!!! It's hard to look at the picture on the right and not feel fat, and I'm not in the least overweight. Even knowing that I'm a healthy size doesn't help. Neither does getting hit on. This sickness is spreading, and is every bit as dangerouse as obesity. But I'll tell you what it's for. I work at a health food store, and you will not believe how many diet products we sell in a day. I have rail thin women (and I mean women who make the girls on the right look tubby) come in, and beg for something that will take off the fantasy pounds they think they have. It's the makers of diet products that are to blaim. I say we go after them.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Keep in mind that being so super skinny sometimes has more to it than standards of beauty. Anorexia and bulimia are legitimate mental disorders that also have to do with things like control issues, trauma, and depression, and those afflicted by them deserve the utmost psychological care and compassion (I'm a psychology major, aspiring to possibly be a clinical psychologist or therapist of some kind, so I'm inclined to try and approach such people with an understanding eye).
My experience with girls with such disorders is limited, but I have seen it briefly once. I was waiting in the checkout counter at the supermarket one time, and there was a girl about my age in front of me who was so skinny, she looked like the walking dead. Add to that the fact that the only thing she was buying was cookie dough, and it wasn't hard to see what was going on. And the worst part of it all, was that, when I saw her face (we exchanged friendly/mildly flirtatious smiles), she was actually very attractive, and had no need to worry about her looks. I was attracted her in one sense: my heart sank for her, and part of me wanted to drag her to the first psychologist's office I could find and get her help. That event just stuck with me, seeing how this poor girl was hurting herself.
It's unfortunate that otherwise attractive women would feel the need to starve themselves, whether it's too meet arbitrary standards of beauty or what. Because rarely is it attractive, and sometimes it can be downright scary and heartbreaking.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:22 am
As Hewitt notes, it's not the most flattering picture, but as a whole Hewitt still looks damn good to me.
= = = = = = =
Harumph, harumph. agreed, that picture is not flattering but most of the time that I see her even her size 2 is too thin for me, she still looks great but breakabe.
b
December 7th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Another thought, it is hard believe that is a picture of her.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I wouldn't say that's fat I'm just thankful that there are actually some beautiful super stars out there that look normal LOL I'd rather see pictures like these than all them skinny cracked out beauties out there.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Here's what NOW should do - advise women to stop buying those magazines that make their living by attacking celebrities for having vaguely unflattering photos taken of them. They publish this crap because there's an audience that laps it up, and that audience is as near as damnit 100% female. If NOW were to try and convince women not to buy it, that'd be a campaign I could respect. I f they're just going to complain that some undefined "them" is victimising women by publishing it, they're never going to change anything.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Before I comment, I would like to relay a little background about myself. I am feminist, I am pro equality for both men and women, I read this forum often, and yes, I do disagree on some things, but there are others that I do not! Also, I am a graduate from an art institute and most of my work is media based about women and body issues. I do not blame patriarchy COMPLETELY, but I know that it has had it's effects. But today, it has evolved to be a problem with women about women etc. A lot of things that the fashion industry does is create standards for women that they can't possibly achieve. With things like Adobe Photoshop, magazines like Cosmo rearrange women's faces and hair, bodies etc. so that they no longer look the way they did when the photo was originally taken. Women have become very vindictive toward each other as well...they compare themselves to eachother and feel the need to constantly be rail-thin etc. But women have so many different cosmetics and creams etc. that they 'NEED' because they have become so insecure about themselves... and I have noticed that it is NOT to impress men anymore but to one up each other! Most of my work features that in some respects. I believe that women should be happy with their bodies, small boobs big boobs flabby stomach etc. But if someone's overweight they do need to do something about it... but they should for health reasons... not to fit in a size 6 pair of jeans or that mini skirt that they have always wanted but to assure themselves that one day they wont' have back or knee issues... or diabetes etc.
I have always considered myself a rather low maintenance woman. I rarely wear make up and don't spend hours getting ready in the morning... and so far, every single guy I have dated has COMPLIMENTED me on that, the ability to be happy with myself without scrutinizing everything... and that if i ask if something looks good on me, my fiance know s that they can say 'no' without me sulking all day and night and making him regret his honesty!
I have noticed that the pressure for beauty standards has become ridiculous and it does stem from families as well. I am 4ft 10 and 105 pounds. According to the standard BMI chart I am a healthy weight and won't be overweight until I weigh 119... and I will be underweight when I reach 91 so I am right in the middle... but my mother and grandmother insist that I loose 5 or so pounds for my wedding so that I look better... it's always the female scrutinizing another female.... do this do that, you've gotten fat, etc. My mom went as far as to say 'you don't look like you anymore'... since I gained 10 pounds in college. I didn't realize ten pounds drastically changed how someone looks physically... but when multiple women are comparing themselves to eachother, or have their mothers, sisters, grandmothers telling them to loose weight... they start (and I have) thinking about their body much more carefully and closely... sometimes for the worse.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
@Patrick Brown
These women don't stop buying the magazines even when they know that the magazines and E! TV are actively stalking and (in cases like Lady Di) contributing to the deaths of their favourite celebrities. Do you think a little word from NOW would have any impact at all?
December 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
"....but my mother and grandmother insist that I loose 5 or so pounds for my wedding so that I look better... it's always the female scrutinizing another female.... do this do that, you've gotten fat, etc. My mom went as far as to say 'you don't look like you anymore'... since I gained 10 pounds in college. "
I'm glad that you don't blame the patriarchy COMPLETELY. :-)
December 7th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
"I'm glad you don't blame the patriarchy COMPLETELY :)
--haha of course not...but I think that patriarchy could be at the root of a lot of the problem but not directly. I know that in the 20's through early 60's... a woman's only purpose was to land a husband and start a family... if she didn't want that she was crazy etc. and if she wasn't married by the time she was 25-30 she was an old maid. I think that women became competitive over trying to impress men. Now that women have many more options and it's considered okay to not want children/get married etc., women have changed their rationale behind trying to look the best! It's no longer about men it's about how you look to everyone else... so that everyone wants to 'be' you instead of you wanting to be with someone... and I agree with:
"Here's what NOW should do - advise women to stop buying those magazines that make their living by attacking celebrities for having vaguely unflattering photos taken of them. They publish this crap because there's an audience that laps it up, and that audience is as near as damnit 100% female. If NOW were to try and convince women not to buy it, that'd be a campaign I could respect. I f they're just going to complain that some undefined "them" is victimising women by publishing it, they're never going to change anything."
that women should not read those magazines, and if they do, that the magazines should be geared more toward other avenues than physical attractivity.. or at least pick models that aren't sticks.... men get popular mechanics, forum, etc.... as well as men's health which focuses on the 'ideal' male body the way that fashion magazines are considered the 'ideal' female body... but women's only magazine literature IS a fashion magazine... or a bridal magazine... or a craft magazine... but even those have rather thin women being portraying in a 'lovely knit hat' or something... the literature is totally different... men's focuses on: look! do this! You can learn this etc. women's is: What to wear that will fit your figure... how to stop wrinkles early. That difference is INSANELY frustrating... but NOW is doing something about it ,but not enough in my opinion. They have started an offensive ad campaign... which I know that Glenn has mentioned before etc. that he agrees with some of them but not all. I DO agree with all of them, but I think that the offense can range from very mild... to extremely awful depending on what magazine ad they picked out to be offensive....
anyway, I do think that if fashion magazines toned it down, and showed real women not Photoshoped phenomenons, then women would feel better about their bodies, be less competitive, and all in all happier.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Oh! I forgot to add:
and of course, what effects one gender, in some form effects another... and like some of the comments here... it's obvious that all the men commenting on this forum know exactly what I am referring to, and agree with me on some level... (about the fashion magazines)... and since women's bodies have been picked at and prodded etc. in order to maintain this unobtainable ideal beauty, it's starting to trickle down to men.... Although women still remain the much larger majority when it comes to REPORTED bulimia and anorexia disorders... the amount of men becoming anorexic and bulemic has risen significantly in the past few years. I think that we're closing the 'gender gap' in the wrong area ! ;)
December 7th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I thought The Patriarchy ™ had women dressed up in so many layers of clothes you couldn't even tell what they weighed. Women were the ones who wanted to show their ankles. Then they wanted to show some calf. Then a little knee. Then their upper thighs. And today, their thonged, tramp-stamped butt-cracks.
If anything, The Patriarchy ™ wanted to suppress some women's tendency towards exhibitionism. That is, if you believe in a patriarchy rather than acknowledging there were respected town elders of both sexes involved.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Ashley if you say anorexia or bulimia you are always going to show women as the primary victims. If you say body issues it changes the aspect a bit because you start to include men who over do weights and start abusing steroids to get that huge look. And if you ever hear how those guys talk about their bodies its always "its just not big enough" even when they are huge.
I am always amazed how feminists can frame a problem exactly so women are always the primary victims.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Again respectfully feminists like to say how the female roles are dictated but never how male roles are dictated. Society dictates these roles a society that comprises both men and women. To say our society as it currently stands is any more a patriarchy than a matriarchy relies totally on your own subjective view. That is not to say that men and women don't face discrimination but discrimination is very different than "oppression".
December 7th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Welcome to the board Ashley, good to see another of you here. Not to sound too patronizing or anything, but you're coming off as a recent college grad, possibly still in University? Because I'm not sure how you can possibly believe you can socially engineer sexual impulse exactly. The real problem women in general seem to have is to understand that the things they are insecure about are, by and large, NOT things men care about. Granted, a nicely dressed, well made up woman will nearly always "beat" a similarly attractive woman with no makeup and sweats....same thing goes for men and sweats vs a suit. People naturally want to put their best forward, and minimize the faults.....so do birds, snakes, and other wildlife.
As to the selection of magazines for women, well, there's everything from Parenting magazine, through Good Housekeeping etc, that you seem to forget to mention. Plus there's all the "specialty magazines" like People and such, along with the celeb mags, then the slew of fashion magazines you speak of. Somehow all of the magazines seem to cover common topics, some more brazenly than others. For example, "15 hot ways to get off with your man" type articles are on practically every single Vogue cover, hell, MOST of those magazines are like that. Know why? They sell more that way. Because that's what the women who read those magazines want to read about.
I see your point regarding the "male oriented" vs "female oriented" chasm in intelligence level though. What I suggest though is that this is not the result of The Patriarchy (1st clue you're fresh to the fold), but the result of typical areas of interest. Perhaps the proliferation of "lad mags" will balance that out eventually....does that help? :)
As to the whole body image thing, will someone please explain to me how we can have social "scientists" on the tax dollar "studying" why this stuff is happening? Isn't it blatantly obvious to anyone who looks at it?
Women do not "select" men, they try to be as attractive as possible to as many men as possible, and then select the best candidate from that pool. The presence of a more attractive female will lessen the size of that pool, therefore a woman has 2 options - she can either remove herself or the offending female from the situation, or she can become more attractive, which has the added benefit of not only increasing the size of her available pool of men, but the quality as well. Attractiveness on a physical level is important for everyone, but it's far more important for women...that's just the way it is. Think of it in terms of shopping....something has to catch your eye before you take a closer look...right?
For men it's different. We have to be attractive as well, increasingly so. But we are the approachers, WE are the selectors, not women. We have what can be called "first right of refusal", because if we don't find a woman physically attractive we won't approach her at all. This is balanced fairly well by the fact that we are also the ones to stick our necks out for romance. But on top of this, we men have to occupy a position of higher status than women on a one-to-one basis, or the attraction disappears fairly quick. Status isn't necessarily financial by the way, just working at a cool restaurant, or being a bouncer will get a guy laid.
How lectures and public "awareness" campaigns are going to change this is beyond me. These are deeply ingrained, possibly INSTINCTUAL behaviours...
By the way, you need to read some history books published before 1965....or at least ones that have escaped revisionism.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:04 am
I agree with Marc - Some persons are naturally very slender. So what do we do - shame them into feeling guilty for being naturally thin just to spare the feelings of some women who have eaten their way into a size 18? And if men really didn't like thin women, then how did my sisters find men who think they are pretty? To each his own.
My twin sister and several others sisters are about 5'1" and 100 pounds dripping wet. They aren't sick looking - in fact, for older women, they have worked very hard to keep toned and attractive. My brother is taller, but still as slender.
The rest of us weren't so fortunate and our battle is to make sure we don't progress beyond a size 6 or 8. It gets harder the older one gets. The doctor says I'm OK at this point so although I'm not pleased to be larger than usual, I'm not going to buy into the bull that at 52, I should still be a size 4.
Anyone who is otherwise HEALTHY and in reasonably good shape should not buy into the bullshit that they are too fat OR too thin.
That said, there are plenty of women and men who are just too damned fat - and they need, for sake of their health, to lose weight. That sort of gets lost in the anti anti-fat message. "Well, it's bad to be anorexic and I don't have to listen to anyone tell me that I'm too fat, so I'll just eat this Big Mac and a few orders of fries and wash it down with a milkshake" -
It's not healthy to be a size 22.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Rosemarie Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 7:04 am
It's not healthy to be a size 22.
= = = = = =
How would anyone on earth know that since there is no standard set for womans clothing size.
b
December 8th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Ashley said
"I'm glad you don't blame the patriarchy COMPLETELY :)
--haha of course not...but I think that patriarchy could be at the root of a lot of the problem but not directly. I know that in the 20's through early 60's... a woman's only purpose was to land a husband and start a family... if she didn't want that she was crazy etc. and if she wasn't married by the time she was 25-30 she was an old maid. I think that women became competitive over trying to impress men. Now that women have many more options and it's considered okay to not want children/get married etc., women have changed their rationale behind trying to look the best! It's no longer about men it's about how you look to everyone else... so that everyone wants to 'be' you instead of you wanting to be with someone...
Forget the patriarchy. The idealised female shape, as depicted in art throughout history, has always been the opposite of the prevailing societal circumstances. Thus in times of shortage and struggle the "Rubanesque" shape was idealised. The west is very wealthy in today's world so the ideal shape is one suggesting starvation.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:45 am
"I know that in the 20's through early 60's... a woman's only purpose was to land a husband and start a family... if she didn't want that she was crazy etc. and if she wasn't married by the time she was 25-30 she was an old maid."
It is natural selection for both men and women to want to have children. There's no reason to blame the "patriarchy."
Do you think that some of the "old maid" pressure came from other women?
"I think that women became competitive over trying to impress men. "
The competition is heating up. Through child support, many women are supported by more than one man, and this leaves fewer men effectively available for other women. Because of gender bias in family courts and no-fault divorce, it has been suggested that some men are avoiding marriage and forming a family. In addition, women outnumber men in college, and as a result, there are fewer men who are acceptable to women with a college degree.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:12 am
gwallan Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Ashley said
Rubanesque
= = = = = =
We always tell out daughters that and in fact dad (me) prefers rubanesque women
b
December 8th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Aren't women's magazines chock full of women that other women and gay men find attractive? I.e. I don't think it's much of a surprise to me that they all look like 15 year old boys…
How many straight men work at Cosmo anyway? Compare that answer with that of the proportion of feminist women and you'll get your answer as to who the primary perps are when it comes to 'fat shaming'.
As for "fat shaming", when the average US woman is a size 14, and stands 5'4" and weighs 167 lbs, perhaps some pressure to get back to a healthier weight is necessary and appropriate. When the average woman is 7" shorter than I but weighs just 25 pounds less, that's a problem, both for them and their boyfriends/husbands. However, know that it's not the men doing this shaming, it's other gossipy women.
Feminists, you have met the enemy, and she is you.
Also, saw this Newsweek article today via MSN...seems that women have a tendency to "normalize" their current weight, be it over- or under-weight. Perhaps this has something to do with the backlash against 'fat-shaming'? That women want justification for being overweight to salve their guilty consciences about how they're a full 25 pounds heavier than a generation ago?
December 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Damn, 5'4'' and 167 pounds? Seriously? I'm a 6 foot tall man, and I weigh at least ten pounds less than that!
Stuff like this I guess does indicate that it is true that being overweight is also a problem. I think that, regarding weight and health, a lot of western cultures focus too much on the extremes of "avoiding being too fat" and "avoiding being too skinny," and not enough looking at the big picture and striving for a balance, aspiring to be a healthy, average weight that's well-nourished without being wasteful.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Alex Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Damn, 5'4'' and 167 pounds? Seriously? I'm a 6 foot tall man, and I weigh at least ten pounds less than that!
Stuff like this I guess does indicate that it is true that being overweight is also a problem. I think that, regarding weight and health, a lot of western cultures focus too much on the extremes of "avoiding being too fat" and "avoiding being too skinny," and not enough looking at the big picture and striving for a balance, aspiring to be a healthy, average weight that's well-nourished without being wasteful.
= = = = = = = =
At 6'01" and 185, I looked like an Auschwitz refugee. The charts said that was the heaviest I should be I felt unhealthy and like I would blow away in a stiff breeze. I am comfortable between 225 and 250 by standards that is morbidly obese, and absurd. After 3 steroid treatments for allergies to antibiotics with a weight gain of 30-40 lbs. each time and a little of my own self indulgence and another medical bout that added some ponds, a year ago I topped out at 350, large but I carried my weight well with short legs and a long torso. People typically did not believe what I weighed and on average guessed me at 50-75 lbs. lighter than I was . . . Whit that being said I have lost 50 lbs in the last year and plan to loose about 75 more but NO more. The point here is that I will still be according to the charts morbidly obese, yet look skinny as a rail. Furthermore, regarding the wasteful comment, some if not many have reasons for obesity to name a few: depression, medicinal steroid treatments, thyroid/glandular problems. Self-indulgent gluttony is NOT the only underlying cause.
Besides who cares? Variety is the spice of life.
b
December 12th, 2007 at 10:44 am
I agree with SouthernDad.
Ashley, the first paragraph or so of your first comment made me think I was reading one of those personal ads where people advertise themselves. Nonetheless, it was a good introduction and welcome.
My comment to DanM is that, in my opinion, only immature, superficial women focus on appearance when selecting a mate, which may be why so many marriages end in divorce.
Genetics and good looks aren't enduring - disease can strike anyone at anytime. Honesty and willingness to help others goes a lot farther in providing evidence of a "good man." My husband is 12 years older than me, overweight, bald, uneducated, and I make a lot more money than he - nothing like the lovers I was attracted to. But when I got tired of the game, I grew up and got real - my husband is trustworthy and would do anything for anyone at anytime, much like his wonderful friends. I didn't have to parade myself around him and put on a fashion show. I just had to be willing to relax, have fun, and live simply - not an easy thing for a Type A personality to do. My relationship with my father, while not so good, nonetheless prepared me for the very lifestyle I have with my husband. My husband took me down a few notches, which obviously did me good: after 2 1/2 years, my colleagues still comment on how happy and "glowing" I look.
But I do agree that some women look for a good gene pool - attractiveness and intelligence - and using that as a measure for a "good husband" or "good father" material.
It's a shame that young girls choose "Glamour" and "Cosmo" for reading fare - they don't seem too interested in being cultured in any way, no desire for refinement - just very much into their appearance.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:01 am
Yes her ass is fat, but i'd still plow her till the sun came up if i had my way. This is of course being seen by the fems as patriarchal opression, yet Hewitt would have a far easier time getting into the male dominated porn industry than into the female dominated fashion mags. To quote Spinal Tap "the softer the cushion the sweeter the pushin."
December 16th, 2007 at 4:24 am
Shes hot dude