morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) (10/30/90)
huxtable@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >To me, that's the point. If we don't work for a society where these >perceptions are different we probably won't get such a society. If we >do, we still might not, but at least we're trying. That's just the point of any kind of progressive movement, not to sit there in apathy but to agitate and educate children so that the next generation won't carry our monkeys on their backs. >I don't expect your feelings to be under your conscious control. Mine >aren't. Why should yours be? But you can influence your feelings by >your thoughts and you can influence your thoughts by your actions. >And yes, it takes time, is subtle, and is only marginally voluntary. Women in North America suffer from a standard of "beauty" which is unrealistic and downright unhealthy for many of them. We need to turn the clock back on this little bit of "progress", I think. More important, we need to attack the double standard which judges women much more by appearance than men. Jones Physics Department California Institute of Technology
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (11/01/90)
In some article morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >Women in North America suffer from a standard of "beauty" which is >unrealistic and downright unhealthy for many of them. All over history the ideal "beauty" has always been something that most people could not achieve. To think that you can change that is unrealistic... >We need to turn the clock back on this little bit of "progress", I think. I'm not going to decide what *I* like by Politically Correct standards, but I have no objection that you will do just that... >More important, we need to attack the double >standard which judges women much more by appearance than men. If you think that women don't judge men by their appearance then you are *wrong*.
morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) (11/01/90)
I forgot something, also from Time's new issue "Women:The Road Ahead"-- dermatologist Paul Lazar of Northwestern University Medical School found that women use 17-21 grooming products every morning. That's simply mind-boggling to me. Jones Physics Department California Institute of Technology
smann@ihlpa.att.COM (Sherry Mann) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.165944.15223@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: > I forgot something, also from Time's new issue "Women:The Road > Ahead"-- dermatologist Paul Lazar of Northwestern University Medical > School found that women use 17-21 grooming products every morning. > That's simply mind-boggling to me. Not this woman. I tried counting the grooming products I use every morning: I came up with seven: Soap, wash cloth, towel, deodorant, toothbrush, toothpaste, comb. If water is a "product," make that eight. Some mornings I also use shampoo, but I don't use it every day, and I sometimes use it at night instead ;^) -- Sammy=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The enemy of women...is not men, just as the enemy of blacks is not whites. The enemy is "the tyranny of the dull mind." Carol S. Pearson, _The Hero Within_ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
lecl@midway.uchicago.edu (elizabeth e. leclair) (11/02/90)
>In article <1990Oct31.165944.15223@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >> I forgot something, also from Time's new issue "Women:The Road >> Ahead"-- dermatologist Paul Lazar of Northwestern University Medical >> School found that women use 17-21 grooming products every morning. >> That's simply mind-boggling to me. Hmmm. Here's my contribution to the survey: 1. soap 2. shampoo 3. conditioner 4. toothpaste 5. deodorant 6. lip goo (in the winter) I know this is not much of a sample yet, but I bet the mean would be significantly different for those women that Time surveyed and those of us in soc.feminism! P.S.: Don't you love the new Ms. magazine?! No lipstick ads! Elizabeth E. LeClair (lecl@midway.uchicago.edu) (not a spokesperson for) International House (nor) University of Chicago From daemon@ncar.UCAR.EDU Thu Nov 1 13:56:14 1990 Received: from handies.ucar.edu by aerospace.aero.org with SMTP (5.61++/6.0.GT) id AA14745 for nadel; Thu, 1 Nov 90 13:55:40 -0800 Posted-Date: 1 Nov 90 21:04:56 GMT Received-Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 13:55:40 -0800 Received: by ncar.ucar.EDU (5.65/ NCAR Central Post Office 04/10/90) id AA22015; Thu, 1 Nov 90 14:55:35 MST Received: from MCSUN.EU.NET by ncar.ucar.EDU (5.65/ NCAR Central Post Office 04/10/90) id AA22003; Thu, 1 Nov 90 14:55:30 MST Received: by mcsun.EU.net with SMTP; Thu, 1 Nov 90 22:55:09 +0100 Received: from aipna.ed.ac.uk by kestrel.Ukc.AC.UK via Janet (UKC CAMEL FTP) id aa23929; 1 Nov 90 21:50 GMT To: soc-feminism@ukc.ac.uk Path: aipna!cam From: Chris Malcolm <cam@aipna.ed.ac.uk> Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Female human aesthetics Message-Id: <3416@aipna.ed.ac.uk> Date: 1 Nov 90 21:04:56 GMT References: <1990Oct29.185629.3652@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Reply-To: Chris Malcolm <cam@aipna.ed.ac.uk> Organization: Dept of AI, Edinburgh University, UK. Lines: 35 Status: R In article <1990Oct29.185629.3652@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >More important, we need to attack the double >standard which judges women much more by appearance than men. I think two things are conflated here. The first is sexual attractiveness, the biological purpose of which is to attract one to the most appropriate mate of the opposite sex for the purpose of breeding. Of course in our modern industrial civilisation we have outgrown the environemnt of evolutionary adaptedness which formed the genetic basis for these impulses, but it seems reasonable to suggest that evolution would work slightly differently on men and women in this respect, producing in men a preference for young healthy women (i.e. the usual visible concomitants), and in women a preference for succesful men (i.e. the usual visible concomitants). But what so many women complain about is not this kind of sexual judgement, but that this kind of sexual judgement is used as a basis for other judgements, e.g. job competence. The relationship is not always direct, either -- for example, there is a definite tendency among both men and women to adjust judgement of women's intelligence by a factor inversely related to the size of breasts. i.e., to suppose that women with big tits are (on average) more stupid. Once the sexual judgement is separated from other judgements, is it really true that men are less affected by judgements of their worth based on irrelevant physical parameters? It is, for example, well established that an important selection criterion in promotion up the management ladder is sheer physical bulk. And why are all these men torturing themselves for hours a day and risking drug damage to acquire huge muscles? Why do so many bald men wear toupees? -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.aipna 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
cam@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Oct29.185629.3652@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >More important, we need to attack the double >standard which judges women much more by appearance than men. I think two things are conflated here. The first is sexual attractiveness, the biological purpose of which is to attract one to the most appropriate mate of the opposite sex for the purpose of breeding. Of course in our modern industrial civilisation we have outgrown the environemnt of evolutionary adaptedness which formed the genetic basis for these impulses, but it seems reasonable to suggest that evolution would work slightly differently on men and women in this respect, producing in men a preference for young healthy women (i.e. the usual visible concomitants), and in women a preference for succesful men (i.e. the usual visible concomitants). But what so many women complain about is not this kind of sexual judgement, but that this kind of sexual judgement is used as a basis for other judgements, e.g. job competence. The relationship is not always direct, either -- for example, there is a definite tendency among both men and women to adjust judgement of women's intelligence by a factor inversely related to the size of breasts. i.e., to suppose that women with big tits are (on average) more stupid. Once the sexual judgement is separated from other judgements, is it really true that men are less affected by judgements of their worth based on irrelevant physical parameters? It is, for example, well established that an important selection criterion in promotion up the management ladder is sheer physical bulk. And why are all these men torturing themselves for hours a day and risking drug damage to acquire huge muscles? Why do so many bald men wear toupees? -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.aipna 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/03/90)
All throughout history there have been many things which are unattainable and desirable. This includes wealth, beauty, strength, etc. I'd like a Ferrari, but i don't blame Ferrari owners because I don't own one. I don't own a Ferrari because I don't value whatever it is that a Ferrari stands for. Feminine beauty is something which women wish to attain - it has nothing to do with men, just as the "Bronze Adonis" male form is something which men pursue and which equally has nothing to do with women. These forms are desirable simply because they are unattainable to the average person. Precious gemstones are precious because they are rare - not because they are "beautiful". Cubic zirconia is just as brilliant as natural diamond, if not moreso because it is flawless - yet cubic zirconia is not what men and women desire. If beauty were not a precious item which requires hard work and diligence to obtain, a new standard of beauty would develop which did have these traits. It is Mankind's selfish, greedy, and jealous nature which makes us value unattainable Beauty over Substance. Substance is far more easy to acquire, and far more people have substantive personalities than perfect bodies. Unless you have many hours to dedicate to hard work, or were blessed with a perfect body, striving to be Beautiful is something which you should give up, just as I have given up on my Ferrari. You can only lose the race if you choose to participate. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) (11/05/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >Feminine beauty is something which women wish to attain - it has >nothing to do with men, just as the "Bronze Adonis" male form is >something which men pursue and which equally has nothing to do >with women. These forms are desirable simply because they are >unattainable to the average person. Nevertheless, average women spend much more time on the pursuit of the feminine beauty standard than average men spend on the "Bronze Adonis" standard. One unattainable standard affects women's lives more than the other unattainable standard affects men's lives; it is therefore more damaging. (I think this is a very dramatic difference. A poll almost anywhere would illustrate it. An example is the recent postings here by women about how few "grooming products" they use in the morning. ALL of the lists were longer than my own.) ajr
cam@aipna.ed.ac.UK (Chris Malcolm) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Oct31.165944.15223@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >dermatologist Paul Lazar of Northwestern University Medical >School found that women use 17-21 grooming products every morning. >That's simply mind-boggling to me. Me too. Are you sure he wasn't talking about female North Americans? -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.aipna 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
llama@eleazar.dartmouth.EDU (Joe Francis) (11/06/90)
In article <9011012313.AA11775@rpp386.Cactus.ORG> John F. Haugh II writes: >Feminine beauty is something which women wish to attain - it has >nothing to do with men, just as the "Bronze Adonis" male form is >something which men pursue and which equally has nothing to do >with women. These forms are desirable simply because they are >unattainable to the average person. Precious gemstones are precious >because they are rare - not because they are "beautiful". Cubic >zirconia is just as brilliant as natural diamond, if not moreso >because it is flawless - yet cubic zirconia is not what men and >women desire. If beauty were not a precious item which requires >hard work and diligence to obtain, a new standard of beauty would >develop which did have these traits. While I would not go as far as to say the concepts of the perfect male and female forms are entirely undetermined by women and men, respectively, the unattainability of the perfect form for most people is indeed the critical factor in determining what is the perfect look. As evidence of this, examine the art of Europes past. The perfect woman was much fuller figured then. Why? Because only the wealthy could afford the leisurely lifestyle and ammount of food to achieve the proper appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
pedersen@cartan.berkeley.edu (Sharon L. Pedersen) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov1.160330.5995@midway.uchicago.edu> lecl@midway.uchicago.edu (elizabeth e. leclair) writes: >>In article <1990Oct31.165944.15223@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >>> School found that women use 17-21 grooming products every morning. > Hmmm. Here's my contribution to the survey: [Result: 6] So I bought a new facial scrub, bringing my personal count up to 10-14, depending on what you count. Does this mean I'm inching my way towards moral and political depravity of using Too Many Personal Grooming Products? No, it means that we should resist this kind of divisive statistic. The issue is not, that some women use what seems like to others of us a large number of PGP's. (And using make-up probably very quickly brings the count up to 17). The issue is, for us all to be FREE to choose whether or not to use these and not have our choice dictated by rigid societal norms. --Sharon Pedersen pedersen@cartan.berkeley.edu OR ucbvax!cartan!pedersen
) (11/09/90)
In article <9011012313.AA11775@rpp386.Cactus.ORG> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >Feminine beauty is something which women wish to attain - it has >nothing to do with men, just as the "Bronze Adonis" male form is >something which men pursue and which equally has nothing to do >with women. These forms are desirable simply because they are >unattainable to the average person. Precious gemstones are precious I disagree completely. Women are expected to be beautiful so that they can win the attention of men. We are taught that being as beautiful as possible is the only chance we have to get a boyfriend/ husband. Pick up a copy of _Mademoiselle_ or _Vogue_ next time you're at the supermarket or 7-11, and read the text that goes along with your average fashion spread. There are *constant* references to how attractive you'll be *to men* if you wear this dress or that brand of lipstick. If it were really about attaining something for yourself, then there would be far more references to self-confidence and fewer about how stunning "he" will find you on "that special night." -Leslie -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Leslie Devlin carioca@[ucscb/ucscf].UCSC.EDU foodity@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us - How many UCSC students does it take to screw in a light bulb? - Only one, but it takes six years -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (11/11/90)
In article <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu> (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: >I disagree completely. Women are expected to be beautiful so that >they can win the attention of men. But they can win the attention of men without being very beautiful. E.g. some of the net.goddesses are not beautiful (by the usual standards). Even some of those who mentioned that on the net still have a full mail-box on regular basis... >We are taught that being as >beautiful as possible is the only chance we have to get a boyfriend/ >husband. You have to be beautiful to get a *successful* husband. If you are not "looking for the gold" (e.g. earn enough) then you have a good chance to get a boyfriend/husband even if you are not beautiful. >your average fashion spread. There are *constant* references to >how attractive you'll be *to men* if you wear this dress or that brand >of lipstick. The fact is that even in a female-only env. (army, jail) most women still try to look as beautiful as possible... Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "The men of the net *are* that gullible." -- Miriam Nadel
turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (11/11/90)
----- In article <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, carioca@ucscb.ucsc.edu (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: > ... Women are expected to be beautiful so that they can win the > attention of men. We are taught that being as beautiful as > possible is the only chance we have to get a boyfriend husband. > Pick up a copy of _Mademoiselle_ or _Vogue_ next time you're > at the supermarket or 7-11, and read the text that goes along with > your average fashion spread. There are *constant* references to > how attractive you'll be *to men* if you wear this dress or that > brand of lipstick. ... The question is: to *which* men does one want to appeal? Some of us are turned off by the look and behavior promoted in these magazines. Of course, we likely the men who are considered "less than eligible". The word "eligible" (or whatever current phrase is used in the same way) is frequently used in these magazines to qualify men, and is laden with connotations. What makes a man "more" or "less" eligible? Why are these the men that (these magazines imply) a woman wants to sexually attract? What is wrong with the men who are not "eligible"? Yes, there is a social game being played. If looked at only one way, it might appear that men are controlling women, by dictating what is attractive. Looked at another, it might appear that women are controlling men, by determing who is "eligible" for a relationship. In fact, such games have a social momentum that is not fully under the control of any of the participants. Before complaining about the different status of some other group in the game, perhaps one should question whether the game should be played at all. What does it mean to step outside the game? Russell
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (11/13/90)
In article <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu> carioca@ucscb.ucsc.edu (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: In article <9011012313.AA11775@rpp386.Cactus.ORG> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >Feminine beauty is something which women wish to attain - it has >nothing to do with men, just as the "Bronze Adonis" male form is >something which men pursue and which equally has nothing to do >with women. These forms are desirable simply because they are >unattainable to the average person. Precious gemstones are precious I disagree completely. Women are expected to be beautiful so that they can win the attention of men. We are taught that being as beautiful as possible is the only chance we have to get a boyfriend/ husband. [...] I was thinking about this the other day, in a roundabout way. First, I was thinking, what do I find attractive in a woman. As I thought about it, I realized that I had a lot of the features I am attracted to. Then I realized that I dressed in a way that I would find attractive on a woman. So, my conclusion was that, in fact, I dress to be attractive to myself. I have actually thought this in the past, too...not only attractive, but interesting...for example, I have a *very* strange collection of socks. I don't like wearing socks, but it does get kind of cold, even in California, so I have to wear them...so, I get these great socks, so I smile when I look down at them. I guess the way I see it, I'm the one who has to see the stuff I'm wearing all the time, so I want it to be comfortable and attractive to me. However, it is also true that a lot of the features of the way I dress are also attractive to men, and I like that, too. Also, once I *am* seeing someone, I will tend to wear things that they like more...but I have never dressed some way for the specific purpose of attracting a man. Muffy muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
avery@ncar.ucar.EDU (Avery Colter) (11/13/90)
carioca@ucscb.ucsc.edu (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: >There are *constant* references to >how attractive you'll be *to men* if you wear this dress or that brand >of lipstick. If it were really about attaining something for yourself, >then there would be far more references to self-confidence and fewer >about how stunning "he" will find you on "that special night." This, again, as I answered to another a few weeks ago, makes one hell of an assumption about what "he" likes in a woman. All I know is, for quite a while in high school I was wondering if there was something awry with my manhood, because the "he" portrayed in those ads sure as hell wasn't me. The sexism in those ads is mainly directed against women, but by association there are a couple of bad messages in them for men who don't fit the image of the "he" these women are supposedly striving for. The question becomes, for such men, "what do I have to do to become that man they seek"? According to the ads, unfortunately, the answer seems to be to become the very kind of man that would make one an enemy of any feminist on the face of the earth. It takes two genders of images to create the trap. It takes two genders of people to reliably get around them without having sundry parts chopped off. -- Avery Ray Colter {apple|claris}!netcom!avery {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat (415) 839-4567 "Fat and steel: two mortal enemies locked in deadly combat." - "The Bending of the Bars", A. R. Colter
wyatt@relay.EU.NET (The Mage) (11/13/90)
In article <14515@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) writes: >----- >In article <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, carioca@ucscb.ucsc.edu (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: >> ... Women are expected to be beautiful so that they can win the >> attention of men. [more, deleted] > >The question is: to *which* men does one want to appeal? Some of >us are turned off by the look and behavior promoted in these >magazines. Of course, we likely the men who are considered "less >than eligible". > (NOTE: I am new to this group. Please direct flames at ME - don't post 'em and waste bandwidth! Thankyou..!!) I agree totally. Personally, I have a tendency to just flip past any pages of fashion, etc, in any kind of magazine I may be reading, quite simply because most of the models advertising the clothes, etc are not my idea of an attractive woman. How can you like something two-dimensional?! (Most of 'em are thin as bicycle spokes anyway... yuk) I currently have no girlfriend in my life, mainly because I'm one of those men who everyone thinks is a 'really nice guy' (kiss of death...). Girls are quite happy to chat for hours, go out almost anywhere and do the craziest things, but they will almost always go steady with someone who's going to treat 'em bad. Then they'll come running to me when they get hurt. And although I'm very willing to console and comfort, because I care, it's not the easiest thing to be nice when you want to ask why they ignored _you_. It seems that the 'eligible' men are the ones who look good (not that I'm scruffy or have no dress sense...) and who drink enormous amounts of alcohol and do incredibly amusing things, like smashing windows, etc... I seem to have digressed. What I was trying to say is that this thing cuts both ways: the men who want more than a pipe-cleaner-thin model are often the ones who get ignored, simply because they're not the six-foot gorgeous hunks that the really attractive (i.e. have a mind, a personality and are fun to be with) girls want to have around. Maybe in ten years time, when they want to settle down - then maybe we'll be the ones who get noticed, huh? Steve 'Uh-oh, here come the flames... I knew I shouldn't have done it!' Wyatt
smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) (11/13/90)
In article <658245246@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: | In article <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu> (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: | | >I disagree completely. Women are expected to be beautiful so that | >they can win the attention of men. | But they can win the attention of men without being very beautiful. | E.g. some of the net.goddesses are not beautiful (by the usual standards). | Even some of those who mentioned that on the net still have a full | mail-box on regular basis... This is rather troublesome. I think it is disingenuous to suggest that it is OK to be different from society's concept of an Aphrodite or Adonis, while suggesting that this is the case because such people still can get the attention of men, or have large mail files. Women and men should not be judged on how attractive they may be. Yet, Hillel seemingly replies to the previous point by suggesting that no, women need not be beautiful, but they still will be judged on whether or not they attract copious attention. It is not just that women are expected to be beautiful that is harmful. It is the nastier point that women are expected to attract men. We see it in advertising and in popular television programming. We encounter it in the different social attitudes expressed towards independent men and independent women, even in the names ``confirmed bachelor'' vs. ``spinster''. Society condemns women who choose not to have a boyfriend or husband. Society does not condemn men who similarly choose not to have a girlfriend or spouse. | >beautiful as possible is the only chance we have to get a boyfriend/ | >husband. I think that women are taught that `grabbing' a spouse is one of the only things a woman must do, and that she must be agressive and use everything at her disposal, especially "looks". Unfortunately, there are social pressures which dictate that women should also use education, careers, money and intelligence not as ends in and of themselves but as bait for attracting a successful mate. | You have to be beautiful to get a *successful* husband. And this is an example of what happens when the social messages that advertising agencies and most media send out remain unchecked and unquestioned. I think that it is unfortunate that there is a perceived or social need to have a husband of any sort, successful or otherwise. Requiring that the man be successful is merely adding to the problem. Moreover, suggesting that women who are seeking a mate can only find a successful one if she is beautiful is at best insulting, and certainly not proven fact. | If you are not "looking for the gold" (e.g. earn enough) | then you have a good chance to get a boyfriend/husband even if | you are not beautiful. Why is there an implied need to have a boyfriend/husband at all? Firstly, some women choose to have a female lover, or a group of friends with no particular romantic interest in anyone. Moreover, I think that implying that women who are not stereotypically "beautiful" but who are seeking out "successful" partners have no chance is not at all correct. | >your average fashion spread. There are *constant* references to | >how attractive you'll be *to men* if you wear this dress or that brand | >of lipstick. Then there are the ubiquitous wedding magazines. I bridle at some of the suggestions and advice given to women about how they are to demonstrate purity and devotion in what they wear and what vows they take. The romanticism of wedding ceremonies is everywhere in popular entertainment, and seeps into most depictions of inter-personal relationships among adults in film and on telelvision. Added to the ``promise to be together forever'' myth is the social pressure to have children, which invariably accompanies the social pressure to find a mate and marry him. | The fact is that even in a female-only env. (army, jail) most | women still try to look as beautiful as possible... I doubt this "fact", as my own (limited) experience with female-only environments does not support that assertion. Womanspace is sought for a reason, and it is not so that women can be beautiful in private. It is because social conditioning makes it extremely difficult to discuss many issues or to drop certain social masks in the presence of men. Media, the messengers of society, condition everyone. They condition women and men by producing gender-role models, and by presenting the ``perfect'' people. Sadly, the ``perfect woman'' is portrayed as someone who subordinates her own wishes and her own destiny to that of a man she has ``caught'' and married, and who will take care of her and lavish her with gifts, if he is the ``perfect man''. While one could argue that the media do not shape society, but reflect it, it is clear that television and film in particular only reflect certain elements of society, and then only selectively. If they reflect society, the media are a bunch of trick mirrors. It is unfortunate that people grow up seeing nothing but a distorted reflection, or an occasional poster, pasted over the looking glass. Perhaps if the hot media in particular stopped air-brushing reality to suit their advertisers and corporate sponsors, there would be more recognition that there is diversity, and that individual differences are not unusual. Perhaps given more realistic images, the people looking into the mirror will tolerate differences in themselves and others, and not call such differences "flaws". Such a society would not produce a standard model of beauty. Such a society would not run advertisements for anti-blemish creams and pastes and plasters. Such a society would not need doctors to perform cosmetic surgery such as liposuction or tucks and lifts. Such a society would not suffer an epidemic of eating disorders. Such a society would not require women to marry or seek out boyfriends or to be "beautiful", just as the present Anglo-North-American society does not require men to marry or seek out girlfriends or to be "beautiful". Such a society would not condemn women who choose to work outside the home or to condemn women who choose to work inside the home. Such a society would recognize, value and reward everyone's contributions to it, with no thought as to the gender or race of the contributor. Despite the oppostion of corporations who have become rich catering to the women who feel that they must be beautiful or who must seek out a male partner, such a society can be built. This is one of the primary goals of the feminist movement: acceptance of people as individuals, and acceptance of individuals' choices. But such a society can only be built if people strive to rejoice in diversity, rather than fear it, and even rather than just tolerate it. -- Sean Doran <smd@lsuc.ON.CA> also seand@ziebmef.mef.org and /C=CANADA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/ID=ICS.TEST/S=TESTGROUP/@nasamail.nasa.gov
wilber@aludra.usc.EDU (John Wilber) (11/14/90)
In article <m0iYaAR-0000ieC@lsuc.lsuc.on.ca> smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) writes: >In article <658245246@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: >| In article <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu> (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: >Society condemns women who choose not to have a boyfriend or husband. >Society does not condemn men who similarly choose not to have a >girlfriend or spouse. If you think that, you must have never met my grandmother. ;-) Seriously though, the reason the media portray the situation as they do is primarily because most people DO want to have a close relationship with a member of the opposite sex. I think you have your cart before your horse. People may be a little more tolerant of single males than single females, but there's still some pressure on both sexes to have an SO. >I think that it is unfortunate that there is a perceived or social >need to have a husband of any sort, successful or otherwise. >Requiring that the man be successful is merely adding to the problem. >Moreover, suggesting that women who are seeking a mate can only find a >successful one if she is beautiful is at best insulting, and certainly >not proven fact. I don't know about scientific proof, but it would seem to me that a beautiful woman would have a much better choice of men than an unattractive one (and of course the same is true in the other direction as well) intuitively. >Why is there an implied need to have a boyfriend/husband at all? >Firstly, some women choose to have a female lover, Because most women aren't homosexuals, silly. Most women I know would find the thought revolting. Lots of people (especially relatives) are interested in the creation of children (especially, potential grandparents). That's pretty hard to do in a homosexual or asexual relationship. >| >your average fashion spread. There are *constant* references to >| >how attractive you'll be *to men* if you wear this dress or that brand >| >of lipstick. >Then there are the ubiquitous wedding magazines. I bridle at some of >the suggestions and advice given to women about how they are to >demonstrate purity and devotion in what they wear and what vows they >take. Yeah, I can't figure out how those things can make any money. I can imagine that a month or two before being married someone might read one to get ideas and information about how to put a wedding together, but some people actually subscribe to the things for years even when they have not intention (or opportunity) to be married. Wierd. >Media, the messengers of society, condition everyone. They also respond to the existing mental condition of the viewers. Why do they use sex in ads so much? Not to encourage sexual feelings. They do it because people want sex and think about it a lot and they want to jump on the bandwagon. The ads are at least as manipulated by the minds of the viewers as the minds of the viewers are manipulated by the ads. >While one >could argue that the media do not shape society, but reflect it, it is >clear that television and film in particular only reflect certain >elements of society, and then only selectively. Sure they do, but what do you want/expect? Failure and ugliness exist in the world, but do you want to have your product associated with those things? When you come home after a long day at work do you want to spend your free time looking at starving children, drug addicts, spouse abuse, and lonely senior citizens? If not, why should the media be exptected to spend much time on these? If anything, I think the entertainment media spend too much time on unpleasant and painful issues that are best portrayed in the non-entertainment media where they can be examined factually and rationally. Tell me, are you a David Lynch fan? ;-) >Despite the oppostion of corporations who have become rich catering to >the women who feel that they must be beautiful or who must seek out a >male partner, such a society can be built. Since even without media influence the desire for heterosexual mates and physical beauty would exist in a majority of the population (think about the social pressures on women BEFORE TV!) the only way you could accomplish this is with some kind of coercive action. Is that what you are proposing? >This is one of the primary >goals of the feminist movement: acceptance of people as individuals, >and acceptance of individuals' choices. It seems you are breaking your own rule here. Is your opinion of make-up wearing heterosexual marriage-minded woman who wants to stay home and raise children any less positive than a plain-looking homosexual who hates men for being creeps and works on a loading dock? What's wrong with their being allowed to make that choice if they wish to? >But such a society can only >be built if people strive to rejoice in diversity, rather than fear >it, and even rather than just tolerate it. This "rejoicing in diversity" business doesn't sit well with me because it usually is accompanied by a demand for some kind of public support for an unpopular (or sometimes immoral) activity. The best perspective is that people doing unpopular things that don't harm others should be left alone. They cannot and should not expect that everyone should "rejoice" in their unpopular behaviors. When it comes to immoral activities (and in my view, this means that they DO harm others) we should not rejoice, but condemn them. We should not rejoice in the existence of "gang culture" or "terrorist culture". To do so is to condone their immorality. Since I am a reasonable person, you can expect that if you ask me to tolerate such things as homosexuality or drug use, I will. Asking me to "rejoice" about it is going too far.
tjlee@iastate.EDU (Lee Thomas Jennings) (11/14/90)
In <14515@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) writes: >The question is: to *which* men does one want to appeal? Some of >us are turned off by the look and behavior promoted in these >magazines. Of course, we likely the men who are considered "less >than eligible". I'm not attracted to the women in the magazines either. In fact, on an everyday basis, I notice people who don't look like "everybody else" first. I find women who aren't fashion plates more attractive than those who are; I guess it's because I think they're more creative. Being unafraid to do your own thing is a virtue. (Now if I could only convince Tammy Jo that she is not fat and that I'd love her even if she were!) * * * * * * * * * Tom Lee | BITNET: TAB47@ISUVAX | Gentleness | "The Lamplighter" | Internet: tjlee@iastate.edu | - is - | IX
judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) (11/16/90)
I remember an interesting theory of beauty which drew a significant correlation between what is considered beautiful and the diseases of that time period. The conclusion was that beauty = health. In the Renaissance period, consumption was a major cause of death. The inflicted person literally wasted away to skin and bones. During this period fat was considered beautiful (Reuben would have loved my post pregnancy body). In the 60s heart attacks became a prime killer of humanity. And there was a direct link made between obesity and heart failure. So "think was in". Lately, AIDS is the greatest fatality fear. Since AIDS victims tend to become quite skinny, there is an increase in weight seen in models. If you compare the swimsuit models of today with those of 10 years ago, you will notice that there are fewer rib cages showing and more muscular thighs and buttocks. I believe that we are seeing healthier looking models. And I thought the idea of healthy being beautiful made a lot of sense for both genders. My $0.02, Judy
rebecca@athena.mit.edu (Rebecca D Kaplan) (11/16/90)
I agree with sean, that the basic problem isn't necessaerily in the content of 'how women should look to get a man', but the problem is that there even is such a thing as how women should look to get a man, and that women's existence is only validated by association with men, someone, i forget who, said | The fact is that even in a female-only env. (army, jail) most | women still try to look as beautiful as possible... Umh, how can i put this tactfully, umh, BULLSHIT. I don't know who posted this, but i doubt that they have ever been in a women-only space. I spent a summer living on army bases, even where it was coed, there was very little effort put into appearance, simply because it was impractical to impossible. Have you heard of michigan womyn's music festival? It's a gathering of 7,000 womyn for 5 days. And at it, almost no one wears makeup, there are no mirrors. This, itself is an amazing psychic experience, spending a week in an environment with NO mirrors. Totally can alter one's perspective on aesthetics. peace, love and tofu rebecca
rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) (11/16/90)
In article <658245246@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu> (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: >>I disagree completely. Women are expected to be beautiful so that >>they can win the attention of men. >But they can win the attention of men without being very beautiful. >... >The fact is that even in a female-only env. (army, jail) most >women still try to look as beautiful as possible... What this shows is only that wanting to be "beautiful" is much more of an unconscious process, a part of one's identity and self-image, than a conscious process of wanting to be attractive. Women are, in our society, objects of spectacle MUCH more than men are: the movies make this clear even more than advertising, fashion magazines etc. A little review of feminist film criticism is probably in order here. The earliest articles, especially Laura Mulvey's highly influential "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", make this point most strongly: the position of spectator is a male one, that of spectacle a female one. Men look, women are looked at. According to Mulvey, this is fundamental to the pleasures of (Hollywood) cinema, pleasures which are available to women only if they adopt a male viewing position. Of course these spectator/spectacle roles are purely social conventions -- it happens to be this way for one social reason or other, but certainly not due to biology or hormones or any inevitable law of nature. In other words, this is an aspect of the oppression of women (since the position of spectator is clearly the more powerful one), not a cause of it, except insofar as existing social facts tend to replicate themselves from one generation to the next. More recent articles have taken issue with some of Mulvey's conclusions. Or rather the simple conclusions have been made more problematic. One very interesting article on the general topic of spectacle and gender, but which approaches it from fashion rather than cinema, is "Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse", by Kaja Silverman (in STUDIES IN ENTERTAINMENT, ed by Tania Modleski). Silverman considers the history of what she calls The Great Masculine Renunciation (of fashion and, consequently, male spectacle). In a concluding paragraph, she writes Class distinctions have "softened" and gender distinctions have "hardened" since the end of the 18th century. In other words, sexual difference [in dress] has become the primary marker of power, privilege, and authority, closing the specular gap between men of different classes, and placing men and women on opposite sides of the great visual divide [ie, spectator and spectacle]. The most recent issue of Camera Obscura is dedicated to the problems of gender and spectacle, and features brief articles by both Mulvery and Silverman, as well as many other feminist theorists.
synth@yenta.alb.nm.us (Synth F. Oberheim) (11/16/90)
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In some article morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >>Women in North America suffer from a standard of "beauty" which is >>unrealistic and downright unhealthy for many of them. >All over history the ideal "beauty" has always been something that >most people could not achieve. To think that you can change that is >unrealistic... It is also narrow-minded and prejudicial to sit back and accept attitudes that are clearly unproductive and unhealthy ... >>More important, we need to attack the double >>standard which judges women much more by appearance than men. >If you think that women don't judge men by >their appearance then you are *wrong*. Read more carefully: the statement was "women are judged *more* by appearance than men", which is most certainly (and sadly) true. There are scores of double-standards that are flying around our society: women are definitely more conscious of their weight as it affects their appearance, their attire, makeup usage. Now, would you assert that men worry about these things as much as women? Women are taught in our culture from Day One to be conscious of these things, and men certainly play a role in perpetuating this stigma. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :: :: :: :: :: Synth (F. Oberheim) yenta unix pc (((((In Stereo))))) :: :: :: :: :: :: :: synth@yenta.alb.nm.us Albuquerque where available ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fascinating, captain ... my tricorder appears to be going ape-shit.
jeffd@techbook.com (Jeff Danforth) (11/16/90)
In article <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu> carioca@ucscb.ucsc.edu (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: >.......... Women are expected to be beautiful so that >they can win the attention of men. We are taught that being as >beautiful as possible is the only chance we have to get a boyfriend/ >husband. Pick up a copy of _Mademoiselle_ or _Vogue_ next time you're >at the supermarket or 7-11, and read the text that goes along with >your average fashion spread. There are *constant* references to >how attractive you'll be *to men* if you wear this dress or that brand >of lipstick. If it were really about attaining something for yourself, >then there would be far more references to self-confidence and fewer Before I begin, let me say I have "unsubscribed" to soc.men because it DOES seem to represent the worst sorts of stereotypes men are so often accused of. Oh, well. Aargh! Now, on all this "Personal Grooming Products" stuff and women's sense of need re: appearance - Anyone not too squeamish might try reading a classic book, "Feminine Psychology" by Karen Horney. It is guaranteed to infuriate some of you. I read this book last year thinking it might help me understand and better relate to women. What I came away with was a better understanding of myself is about all - or at least a view of some of the potentially darker potentials we might all have. It's not very uplifting, but if might be interesting. The author's thesis, recognizing she is a Freudian psychoanalyst, is pretty much based on classical Freudian lines. I hesitate to be more explicit, knowing I may be blasted. I just READ the book - I didn't write it. -- jeffd@techbook.COM ( Jeff Danforth )
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) (11/16/90)
In article <9011012313.AA11775@rpp386.Cactus.ORG> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >Feminine beauty is something which women wish to attain - it has >nothing to do with men, just as the "Bronze Adonis" male form is >something which men pursue and which equally has nothing to do >with women. This assumes that there is a Platonic "beauty" -- a perfect beauty to which all aspire. This is, of course, bullshit. Many cultures have no "perfect" beauty, while other cultures have *different* perfect beauties. One of the more dangerous creations of religion and patriarchy both has been that of the "ultimate truth" which can only be known/taught by a select few. In this case, the "beautiful female" has been created by a male-controlled fashion industry. I would add that there is a "beautiful male" created by some of the same people, but there's much less pressure for men to adapt to this standard. -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Manager - University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 EastEnders list: eastender@karazm.math.uh.edu Skate UNIX(r)
K.Spagnolo@massey.ac.nz (Ken Spagnolo) (11/17/90)
In article <1990Nov13.074541.22400@athena.mit.edu> rebecca@athena.mit.edu (Rebecca D Kaplan) writes: >someone, i forget who, said >| The fact is that even in a female-only env. (army, jail) most >| women still try to look as beautiful as possible... > >Umh, how can i put this tactfully, umh, BULLSHIT. I don't know who >posted this, but i doubt that they have ever been in a women-only >space. I spent a summer living on army bases, even where it was coed, >there was very little effort put into appearance, simply because it >was impractical to impossible. Have you heard of michigan womyn's >music festival? It's a gathering of 7,000 womyn for 5 days. And at >it, almost no one wears makeup, there are no mirrors. I don't think its bullshit, though I can accept that the examples you state don't support the theory, which I would state more generally as "people don't dress to look good for members of the opposite sex, but for members of their own". This applies for men as well as women. I'm not saying this points to who is at fault for the standards, but for instance, the vast majority of men I've asked the question "Do you prefer women wearing makeup?" say they do not. If this be true, then why do women do it? To live up to someone's standard, but not necessarily men's. A friend who wears no makeup went to a University where she was a real minority. So much pressure was put on her to wear makeup that she actually started doing so, until she realized it wasn't worth it and transferred. She said she got no pressure from men; it came entirely from other women (this was an American university, btw). I find this easy to believe, because, for most people, lovers may be of the opposite sex, but the main peer group, who exerts the most presure to conform, is not. Same with the macho male. Men care mainly how they stack up in the minds of other men That's who the competition is really with, even though the criteria for judging may suck to the point that its counterproductive in attracting the opposite sex. -- Ken Spagnolo - Systems Programmer, Postmaster, Usenet Administrator, etc. Computer Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand K.Spagnolo@massey.ac.nz Phone: +64-63-69099 x8587 New Zealand = GMT+12
dhw@ncar.ucar.EDU ("David H. West") (11/17/90)
In article <1990Nov11.171709.25842@arris.com> rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: >Women are, in our society, objects of spectacle MUCH more than men >are: the movies make this clear even more than advertising [...] >Men look, women are looked at. According to >Mulvey, this is fundamental to the pleasures of (Hollywood) cinema [...] >the position of spectator is clearly the more powerful one [...] It's quite unclear to me that there is any power difference; in "everyday life", the spectatee is free to spectate right back, and in situations like cinema and fashion shows, the spectatee is being paid to do a job, but not by the spectators, who, though they pay for the right to spectate, have no direct control over the spectatees. If what you are saying is that there is more power upstream of a money flow, that's true but not gender-specific. >Of course these spectator/spectacle roles are purely social >conventions -- it happens to be this way for one social reason or >other, but certainly not due to biology or hormones or any inevitable >law of nature. Well, that's a relief. Few biologists, though, express this degree of certainty. -David West dhw@iti.org
cel@cs.duke.EDU (Chris Lane) (11/17/90)
In article <19158@oolong.la.locus.com> judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes: >I remember an interesting theory of beauty which drew a significant >correlation between what is considered beautiful and the diseases of >that time period. The conclusion was that beauty = health. >In the 60s heart attacks became a prime killer of humanity. And there >was a direct link made between obesity and heart failure. So "think >was in". Oohh-- USAocentric statement there. These connections you're showing are true, but these examples are western industrial. >Lately, AIDS is the greatest fatality fear. Since AIDS victims tend >to become quite skinny, there is an increase in weight seen in models. >If you compare the swimsuit models of today with those of 10 years >ago, you will notice that there are fewer rib cages showing and more >muscular thighs and buttocks. How is this working in Africa? Do they even have the same saturation by media/fashion people that our culture breathes in? Also, is it that beauty == the negation of fear of death, or that beauty == health? Why does our culture keep putting up images of the ideal human body? To relate to feminism, the idea of "correct bodies" seems to have more function in harming people, separating them from their assigned gender role (making them uneasy and hence willing to spend money and betray friends and deny feelings to re-emphasize their gender) in many cases, physically harming people (from corsets to anorexia) Also in giving them something personal to work on, absorbing energy from trying to change society. Dieting both takes actual work and concentration, and lowers metabolism and general energy. In my opinion, the idea of an ideally beautiful body is based on a loathing of actual bodies. >My $0.02, >Judy Chris Lane -- cel@cs.duke.edu Confusion can be both pleasant and helpful. I am moving from North Carolina before the seating of the next congress.
rshapiro@ncar.ucar.EDU (Richard Shapiro) (11/18/90)
In article <1990Nov16.161821.17287@iti.org> uunet!mailrus!sharkey!hela!iti.org!dhw@ncar.ucar.EDU ("David H. West") writes: >It's quite unclear to me that there is any power difference > [between being the looker and being the object of the look] > in "everyday life", the spectatee is free to spectate right back This is a typical "free will" argument, and suffers the usual difficulties. Human beings are not autonomous, independent subjects. We are utterly social creatures: our very sense of self, our subjectivity, is highly constrained by the various social groups to which we belong. This has long been one of the crucial, and central, arguments of feminism and the study of gender. The "freedom" you describe is illusory. >, and in >situations like cinema and fashion shows, the spectatee is being paid >to do a job, but not by the spectators, who, though they pay for the >right to spectate, have no direct control over the spectatees. What's the relevance of this? The point is: the position of being a spectator is, like most social positions, gendered. This is not to say that only men can be spectators; it is to say the spectator position has long been a "masculine" position. Even a cursory look at classic Hollywood cinema will make the gendering obvious: the photography, lighting, camera angles etc that are used when the camera (the original spectator) looks at the female lead are quite different from the photography etc used when the camera looks at the male lead. The woman is *displayed*, the man is neutrally depicted. This is simply one aspect of the general tendency to display images of women as spectacles. There are many others (strip shows, pornography, cosmetics and fashion, etc). There are a few general cases of male spectacle (sporting events come to mind), but these are notable for being exceptions. There's an undeniable social fact, at least in this country: women are FAR more conscious of their appearance than men are of theirs. The gendered nature of spectacle helps to explain why this should be so, and also suggests that this is important ground for feminism. Ending women's status as objects rather than subjects, the object seen rather than the seeing subject, must involve consideration of women's own self-identity, insofar as that identity is formed according to gendered positions of spectator and spectacle.
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (11/22/90)
In article <1990Nov11.171709.25842@arris.com> rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) writes:
-Women are, in our society, objects of spectacle MUCH more than men
-are: the movies make this clear even more than advertising, fashion
-magazines etc. A little review of feminist film criticism is probably
-in order here. The earliest articles, especially Laura Mulvey's
-highly influential "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", make this
-point most strongly: the position of spectator is a male one, that of
-spectacle a female one. Men look, women are looked at. According to
-Mulvey, this is fundamental to the pleasures of (Hollywood) cinema,
-pleasures which are available to women only if they adopt a male
-viewing position.
-
-Of course these spectator/spectacle roles are purely social
-conventions -- it happens to be this way for one social reason or
-other, but certainly not due to biology or hormones or any inevitable
-law of nature. In other words, this is an aspect of the oppression of
-women (since the position of spectator is clearly the more powerful
-one), not a cause of it, except insofar as existing social facts tend
-to replicate themselves from one generation to the next.
-
-More recent articles have taken issue with some of Mulvey's
-conclusions. Or rather the simple conclusions have been made more
-problematic. One very interesting article on the general topic of
-spectacle and gender, but which approaches it from fashion rather than
-cinema, is "Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse", by Kaja Silverman
-(in STUDIES IN ENTERTAINMENT, ed by Tania Modleski). Silverman
-considers the history of what she calls The Great Masculine
-Renunciation (of fashion and, consequently, male spectacle). In a
-concluding paragraph, she writes
-
- Class distinctions have "softened" and gender distinctions have
- "hardened" since the end of the 18th century. In other words, sexual
- difference [in dress] has become the primary marker of power,
- privilege, and authority, closing the specular gap between men of
- different classes, and placing men and women on opposite sides of
- the great visual divide [ie, spectator and spectacle].
Unfortunately, this article teasingly hands out only some
conclusions from the sources without any explanation of the arguments
used to justify these conclusions. Perhaps you could expand on the
reasoning used, because some of the conclusions seem as if they could
only be reached by taking a very biased viewpoint.
For instance, the cinema is all about being a spectacle; going to
the movies is all about being a spectator. It's one of the purest
forms of spectacle/spectator situations, because under no
circumstances can the spectator participate; under no circumstances
can the spectacle observe the audience.
What a perfect test case for the theory that women primarily are
spectacles and men primarily observe! If this were true, we would
expect to see mostly women on the screen, and mostly men in the
audience. A man, whose role is to observe and not be observed, would
never want to put himself in the position of spectacle; a woman, whose
role is to be observed and who isn't expected to observe would have no
interest in going to the movies.
Yet, this is not the case. Audiences do not appear to me to be
gender-biased (more men than women); and there are actually *more*
male star roles, and more *primary* roles, in the movies than there
are for women. Does this mean that an impressive number of men are
adopting the female role of spectacle, and an impressive number of
women are adopting the male role of spectator? I submit that after a
while, it becomes silly to call either role "female" or "male". Women
are quite prepared to spectate; men, equally prepared to become
spectacles.
So, any attempt to use the cinema to justify a gender division in
these terms has to ignore the fundamental experience of the cinema!
If it still seems unclear, ask yourself the following two
questions, based on the assumption that the male/female
spectator/spectacle relationship is true: why would men make what
would have to be a supreme effort to go to the movies and watch
*mostly men*, when their conditioning is to watch spectacles (women)?
Why would women make what would have to be supreme effort to go to the
movies at all when all their conditioning fails to prepare them to be
observers?
In more general terms, if my fundamental role is to observe, and
women's fundamental role is to be observed, why do they seem to be so
much better at it than I am? This is obviously personal experience,
and there will of course be exceptions, but I run into the following
situation all the time: I am talking to woman one about woman two, who
she met through me once in a group situation, , and woman one asks,
"Oh, is that the one who was wearing the blue jumpsuit with the red
sneakers?" I'm asked this question with dead seriousness, as if I
might have some idea, and I haven't a clue. Who was observing woman
two harder? Why does my wife remember what I wore when I proposed, and
what I wore on our first date, if all she's concerned about is how she
looked?
The whole point of making this incorrect division seems to be to
allow it to be used in conjunction with another bad assumption: that
the role of spectator is "clearly the more powerful one". This
statement was just tossed off in the posting as if it were universally
known, but the fact is that the role of spectacle is actually the more
powerful of the two.
I have one precious memory of the moment in my life when I had the
most power over others that I will ever have. I was in community
theatre, and was playing the role of an insane murderer. At one point
I said something that allowed the audience to discern my true nature,
and I heard the audience, as one, gasp. I can't begin to express the
incredible feeling of power that came over me at that moment. I can
tell you that that is one of the major reasons an actor does what he
or she does. The actor controls the audience; if he or she cannot,
they will not succeed.
Not exactly an actor, but still: the other day, I was watching a
documentary on HBO. The subject was a Canadian stripper (female) who
teaches a class for women on how to strip. One of her more memorable
quotes was the "Stripping is...an empowering experience". Why do you
suppose she said that?
Movie actors are a good example of spectacles who gain power in an
even more tangible way; people will actually pay them huge sums of
money to do what they do. People tend to think that the person paying
is the powerful one, but that's not necessarily the case. Power is the
ability to control your environment to your satisfaction. A person
becomes powerful in a barter situation ( think, for a moment, of money
as a product in a barter ) when they tend to gain more in value from
the barter than they lose. I walk away from the theatre with a warm
memory, but that memory will not allow me to control my environment
any better. The actor walks away with lots'n'lots of money, and that
does allow them to control their environment better. So who's the
powerful one: me, because I can cause an actor to want to do something
that will give me a good memory (although I cannot force the actor),
or the actor, because he or she can demand a portion of my power base?
( And with ticket prices lately, they can demand a larger portion of
my power base than I would prefer, which shows some measure of their
true power ).
The fundamental error in the concept that the spectator position
is clearly the more powerful one is that it could be true (all other
things being equal, which they aren't0 *if the spectator were able to
force the spectacle to behave the way the spectator desires*. However,
by definition, if the spectator can do this, they are a participant,
not a spectator! A true spectator is completely powerless, and in fact
is completely passive, as opposed to the spectacle, who is completely
active. Is this powerless role really the one you envision for men?
Showmanship, the ability to make yourself an appealing spectacle,
is the keystone to some types of power; that's why politicians are
relying more and more on those who can tell them how to *appear* good,
and *put on a good show*, rather than concentrating on political
issues.
The fundamental error in the first concept, that of a gender
division between spectacle and spectator, is that the division is not
between spectator and spectacle, but between the *nature* of
observation, and the *nature* of the spectacle. Men and women both
observe and are observed all the time, by both sexes, but *what* is
being observed is different. For women, their appearance is what both
men and women judge. For men, the appearance of wealth or power is the
yardstick, again judged by both men and women. This means that women
spend a lot of time on their appearance, and men spend the same time
working ever harder at their jobs (becoming walking pocketbooks and
dying young), both working to make themselves a better spectacle for
everyone.
Spectator/spectacle is not a meaningful division along gender
lines. The nature of the spectacle is.
------
This is becoming long, so a quick response to the last part of the
posting: strangely enough, once a man has accomplished the
society-dictated spectacle goal of achieving success, he often becomes
more interested in fashion. The fashion choices are more limited for
men, but looking good becomes the next goal. A man in a $10,000 suit
is a spectacle, and suddenly finds himself on the other side of the
"visual divide". Rather than ignoring class distinctions, clothing
ceases to be a divider at all with the rich. The powerful mostly all
dress nice, men and women, making dress a mark of power and privilege,
but not along gender lines.
Robert C.
--
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) (11/23/90)
In article <19158@oolong.la.locus.com>, Judy Leedom Tyrer <judy@altair.la.locus.com> wrote: | I remember an interesting theory of beauty which drew a significant | correlation between what is considered beautiful and the diseases of | that time period. The conclusion was that beauty = health. I am not entirely sure that this is a particularly good theory. During the Victorian era, European women bound themselves up in corsets in order to conform to society's image of a beautiful woman: a very very narrow waist with large hips. This practice evolved to the point that women collapsed their abdominal cavity into a waist of about 12 to 20 inches. Naturally, this sort of squeezing led to some serious health complications among fashionable women, and soon many women were unable to walk up or down small inclines without assistance or time to breathe between steps. Being beautiful in the Victorian era led to being very very ill. There is also the old practice of binding the feet of Chinese women, in order to make the women beautiful. The binding did such damage to the feet that the arches of many women were completely folded, with the toes forced under the sole of the foot. This did not lead to the good health of women, who often suffered foot, leg and back problems as a result of their fashionably deformed feet. | In the Renaissance period, consumption was a major cause of death. | The inflicted person literally wasted away to skin and bones. During | this period fat was considered beautiful Among both men and women of the various eras during which fat was thought to be a sign of fashion and beauty, I am sure that many people did not have particularly good hearts or unclogged arteries or healthy livers. Fat may have been considered beautiful, but could these men and women really be considered healthy in retrospect? Moreover, I would not agree with your suggestion that fatness during the many periods that it was a sign of beauth was a response to illness. During Henry VIII's time, for example, and during parts of the Victorian era, people became fat to proclaim themselves as rich landowners who could afford to eat, and to eat fatty meat and rich foods at that. Certainly during those periods, there was no plague of wasting diseases. | In the 60s heart attacks became a prime killer of humanity. And there | was a direct link made between obesity and heart failure. So "think | was in". In the 60s heart attacks were a major cause of death only in North America, and mostly in certain areas of the U.S. and Canada. While it seems reasonable that the high incidence of fat-related disease and the attendent publicity may have affected both personal attitudes and fashion, in retrospect, it was not for the better. Presently, a great number of young women suffer from various sorts of eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia. Most young women in North America do not consume enough food to meet their energy needs, and many have suffered a lack of homeostasis or auto-digestion of body proteins. This is more likely because of current fashion trends and the contemporary definition of 'beauty' than any real fear of disease. After all, the health risks faced by someone suffering chronic undernutrition are far more serious and more dangerous than someone who overeats. With present fashion trends favouring pencil-thinness, I cannot agree the principle that beauty == health, or in this case, even what is thought to be healthy. I suggest that even if there were a heart-attack plague during the 50s-60s in North America, there was none during the various periods before or during the times when thinness was considered a sign of beauty, and when women and occasionally men underate or bound themselves in corsets to look 'beautiful'. Perhaps the public health scare about fat may have influenced fashion, but it was not likely the sole cause, and it most certainly would not have been the cause in the more distant past. | Lately, AIDS is the greatest fatality fear. Since AIDS victims tend | to become quite skinny, there is an increase in weight seen in models. | If you compare the swimsuit models of today with those of 10 years | ago, you will notice that there are fewer rib cages showing and more | muscular thighs and buttocks. This is reflected in the fashionable, trendy popularity of aerobic exercises, and I expect that since this trend has been developing since the very early 80s, AIDS has very little to do with it. People with AIDS firstly are generally indistinguishible from the person without AIDS, until the disease is in its terminal late-stage. This is the case for most fatal chronic diseases, such as cancer. Until a PWA develops e.g. pneumonia, she or he will be able to eat and metabolize normally, and will often do so unless hospitalized. Secondly, people who are known as people with AIDS tend to be people who are treated as outcastes, paraiahs, people who are excluded from society at large. PWAs are not discussed, and have never been given a large amount of publicity, and consequently most likely have not been a real factor in changing fashions. Moreover, considering that AIDS is perceived to be a sexually transmitted disease, I would bet that if AIDS were having any effect on fashion, it would be to promote "safer sex", not to promote muscle tone. I suggest that Jane Fonda's workout has had more effect upon the fashion industry and North Americans' concept of beauty than has AIDS. | I believe that we are seeing healthier looking models. And I thought | the idea of healthy being beautiful made a lot of sense for both | genders. I think that if models are becoming less thin, it is likely because of the very real health problems women suffer to look as beautiful or as fashionably meatless as fashion models. As in the past, when people recognize that it is a great effort or physically taxing and harmful to look fashionable, they may neglect fashion, or adopt an alternative, new style. This may be happening, but I doubt that it is happening because of AIDS or the spectacle of emaciated people. I believe that if in fact models are growing less thin, that it is because women are rejecting the ridiculously small-waisted clothes they have been advertising, since it is difficult to fit into them in many cases. Fashions only last as long as they are accepted by the majority of people, and when the avant-garde or the trendy set begin to prefer another, new style, possibly one that is easier to ape, then fashion will change, and with it, the definition of what is beautiful. All things change, when something newer, better and easier is introduced. This eternal change has been with humanity since long before plagues or AIDS. Occasionally the change is forced by events (cf. the Chinese Cultural Revolution), or influenced by social prejudices (e.g. the Purdah), but I doubt very much that a real case could be made for suggesting that fashion and definitions of beauty tend to change because of disease. -- Sean Doran <smd@lsuc.on.ca>
avery@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Avery Colter) (11/23/90)
cel@cs.duke.EDU (Chris Lane) writes: >physically harming people (from corsets to anorexia) Also in giving >them something personal to work on, absorbing energy from trying to >change society. Dieting both takes actual work and concentration, and >lowers metabolism and general energy. "If women spent the energy learning combat arts that they do dieting, they could take the government by storm in three days." - I think Carrie Hemenway, but not completely sure -- Avery Ray Colter {apple|claris}!netcom!avery {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat (415) 839-4567 "I feel love has got to come on and I want it: Something big and lovely!" - The B-52s, "Channel Z"
feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) (11/23/90)
>In article <1990Nov11.171709.25842@arris.com> rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: > >-Women are, in our society, objects of spectacle MUCH more than men >-are: the movies make this clear even more than advertising, fashion >-magazines etc. AND in article <1990Nov22.003657.14371@informix.com> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) replies: > For instance, the cinema is all about being a spectacle; going to >the movies is all about being a spectator. It's one of the purest >forms of spectacle/spectator situations, because under no >circumstances can the spectator participate; under no circumstances >can the spectacle observe the audience. > What a perfect test case for the theory that women primarily are >spectacles and men primarily observe! If this were true, we would >expect to see mostly women on the screen, and mostly men in the >audience. I think you're missing a fundamental point about movies: the objective of a movie is to present a story such that the audience becomes as one with the subjective experience of the characters. If it were as simple as the audience being spectators, there would be no suspension of disbelief, no involvement with the characters. Thus, given the formulation of men as see-er, women as see-ee, we would expect that men be the central characters in movies while women be part of the pretty scenery. As a matter of fact, that's what we see. Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) I know it's over, and it never really began, but in my heart it was so real - The Smiths
avery@ncar.ucar.EDU (Avery Colter) (11/27/90)
rebecca@athena.mit.edu (Rebecca D Kaplan) writes: >was impractical to impossible. Have you heard of michigan womyn's >music festival? It's a gathering of 7,000 womyn for 5 days. And at >it, almost no one wears makeup, there are no mirrors. This, itself is >an amazing psychic experience, spending a week in an environment with >NO mirrors. Totally can alter one's perspective on aesthetics. The killer is, they probably really are more beautiful without all the processed gunk on their faces. Never been in woman-only space (obviously), but if it is a way for them to find true beauty and true harmony with their physical elements, then I'll gladly give wide berth. -- Avery Ray Colter {apple|claris}!netcom!avery {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat (415) 839-4567 "I feel love has got to come on and I want it: Something big and lovely!" - The B-52s, "Channel Z"
avery@ncar.ucar.EDU (Avery Colter) (11/27/90)
judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes: >Lately, AIDS is the greatest fatality fear. Since AIDS victims tend >to become quite skinny, there is an increase in weight seen in models. I have heard of men who look very much like myself, getting turned away from apartments because they were feared to be AIDS carriers. Basis for the suspicion: they were very thin. "....When they came for me, I was damned glad I protested when they came for the gypsies....." -- Avery Ray Colter {apple|claris}!netcom!avery {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat (415) 839-4567 "I feel love has got to come on and I want it: Something big and lovely!" - The B-52s, "Channel Z"
avery@ncar.ucar.EDU (Avery Colter) (11/27/90)
I sense a very broad collectivization of the genders which seems to
stand in stark contrast to the whole core of our capitalist system.
While I think there may be validity in having to look a certain way to
be attractive to a particular person, I think it problematic in the
least to try to deal with any idea of something being attractive to
any group of people who are grouped in any way other than a stated
preference for the quality in question.
--
Avery Ray Colter {apple|claris}!netcom!avery {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat
(415) 839-4567 "I feel love has got to come on and I want it:
Something big and lovely!" - The B-52s, "Channel Z"rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov22.003657.14371@informix.com> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) writes: >In article <1990Nov11.171709.25842@arris.com> rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: >.... The earliest articles, especially Laura Mulvey's >-highly influential "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", make this >... >-cinema, is "Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse", by Kaja Silverman >-(in STUDIES IN ENTERTAINMENT, ed by Tania Modleski). > Unfortunately, this article teasingly hands out only some >conclusions from the sources without any explanation of the arguments >used to justify these conclusions. Actually, I did give a summary of the arguments. For the details, you'll have to read the originals. Both of these writers employ a very lean style -- no waste. I couldn't cover their arguments in full without replicating the articles in toto. >Perhaps you could expand on the reasoning used, because some of the >conclusions seem as if they could only be reached by taking a very >biased viewpoint. I'll expand a bit more by replying to specific points: >For instance, the cinema is all about being a spectacle; going to the >movies is all about being a spectator. No, it's only in small part about being a spectator. Movies are as much about identification and the imaginary as they are about spectacle, at least movies in the realistic style (ie nearly all mainstream movies). The simple fact that you're watching the movies doesn't mean that your relationship with every character must be one of spectator/spectacle. Many other relationships are possible. >What a perfect test case for the theory that women primarily are >spectacles and men primarily observe! If this were true, we would >expect to see mostly women on the screen, and mostly men in the >audience. This is because you're ignoring identification. In fact, what we should expect to see are (1) relatively active male protagonists, photographed and presented in a neutral, naturalistic way and (2) relatively passive (or helpless) female protagonists photographed and presented (costume, etc) in a very "spectacular" way. And this is what we do see, much more often than not (in mainstream cinema). In other words, men are typically depicted as subjects and women as objects. Any viewing perspective would, by definition, have to identify with the subject and gaze at the object. Thus, the viewing perspective favored by conventional movies is a masculine one (which can of course be adopted either by men or women). >Yet, this is not the case. Audiences do not appear to me to be >gender-biased (more men than women); and there are actually *more* >male star roles, and more *primary* roles, in the movies than there >are for women. Exactly. A "primary" role is precisely one in which the character has relatively full subjectivity. The make-up of the audience is another issue entirely, since going to the movies is something frequently done by couples. This is one reason why you see a gender balance in the audience. >In more general terms, if my fundamental role is to observe, and >women's fundamental role is to be observed, why do they seem to be so >much better at it than I am? This is obviously personal experience, >and there will of course be exceptions, but I run into the following >situation all the time: I am talking to woman one about woman two, who >she met through me once in a group situation, , and woman one asks, >"Oh, is that the one who was wearing the blue jumpsuit with the red >sneakers?" This is a good observation, but it shows exactly the opposite of what you want it to show. As I pointed out before, this spectator/spectacle issue has as much to do with women's self-image as with actions taken by men against women. What you show here is precisely that women are "on display" in a way that men aren't -- to men, to other women, and to themselves. >The whole point of making this incorrect division seems to be to >allow it to be used in conjunction with another bad assumption: that >the role of spectator is "clearly the more powerful one". This >statement was just tossed off in the posting as if it were universally >known, but the fact is that the role of spectacle is actually the more >powerful of the two. I have to disagree, and for a very simple reason: the spectator is a full, complete *subject*, a mensch (as my grandmother would say); the spectacle is an *object*, like clothes on a mannequin. In "Discipline and Punish" (Foucault), there's a long discussion of the panopticon and related forms of power: a system in which the powerful observe the powerless with a one-way gaze. Foucault isn't interested in gender in this case, but the situation is analagous. Prisons were designed on this basis, precisely because the observer has power over the observed. From the world of the movies, consider "Blue Velvet". The very powerful bad guy Frank objectifies the powerless Dorothy by refusing to allow her to look at him, even while he takes pleasure in looking at her. Dorothy's even more powerless husband has an ear cut off by Frank (that is, he's unable to be an aural "spectator"). The semi-hero Jeffery hides in a closet watching Dorothy undress, and eventually kills Frank from the same closet (the same perspective of unseen see-er); and when Dorothy catches Jeffery in the closet, she attempts (unsuccessfully) to gain power over him by the same means that Frank uses over her (not allowing him to look at her). Much of the force of this very forceful movie comes precisely from showing power relationships between see-er and seen. >I have one precious memory of the moment in my life when I had the >most power over others that I will ever have. I was in community >theatre, and was playing the role of an insane murderer. At one point >I said something that allowed the audience to discern my true nature, >and I heard the audience, as one, gasp. I can't begin to express the >incredible feeling of power that came over me at that moment. In what sense is this about "spectacle"? Were you wearing a glamourous evening gown? Was the lighting softened to make you look slightly ethereal? Did you strike poses of sexual availability, or of child-like helplessness? Was this what caused the gasps? People gasp at revelations about characters when they read novels, for reasons that have nothing to do with spectatorship. The fact that you could get the same kind of gasp makes you an effective actor, and it gives you an emotional power of sorts over the audience. But this has nothing to do with spectacle. It isn't simply being on stage, or on-screen that makes a spectacle; it's how you are depicted or how you depict yourself, on stage or off.
wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) (11/30/90)
In article <17316@netcom.UUCP> ames!claris!netcom!avery@ncar.ucar.EDU (Avery Colter) writes: >I sense a very broad collectivization of the genders which seems to >stand in stark contrast to the whole core of our capitalist system. Just what does this mean? Is "collectivization" the same thing as segregation? Or is it sexism? Or is it sexual integration? What makes you think we have a "capitalist system"? We have a mixed economy (unfortunately) where it is possible for the government to enforce various social norms on the population. Is it the government intervention you are complaining about? Or is it private groups (like companies, churches, clubs, etc.)? Is this even a complaint? Just Wondering.
avery@apple.com (Avery Colter) (01/02/91)
wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) writes: >In article <17316@netcom.UUCP> ames!claris!netcom!avery@ncar.ucar.EDU (Avery Colter) writes: >>I sense a very broad collectivization of the genders which seems to >>stand in stark contrast to the whole core of our capitalist system. >Just what does this mean? Is "collectivization" the same thing as >segregation? Or is it sexism? Or is it sexual integration? Sorry if that wasn't clear. I meant that something like a taste for certain human qualities is individual to individual, and a lot of generalizations try to cast these tastes as global things. I meant that one can say that someone who is X can be said to be attractive to the group of people who state a preference for X, but that it would not be possible to take any other group Y and say, "people with X are attractive to group Y". Ugggh, hard to put into words.... -- Avery Ray Colter {apple|claris}!netcom!avery {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat (415) 839-4567 "I feel love has got to come on and I want it: Something big and lovely!" - The B-52s, "Channel Z"