andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-06-22 12:01 pm
andrewducker) wrote2010-06-22 12:01 pm
Entry tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
> straight from a patriarchal definition of female worth
Interesting. Because women buy into and feed and propagate that constantly.
Interesting. Because women buy into and feed and propagate that constantly.
Women are part of the patriarchal system. And it hurts lots of men too.
I'm not even sure if it's internalized oppression -- it sometimes seems there's a genuine desire to normalize and straightjacket other women.
Yep. I agree.
1) sometimes when people don't get one, they're both women.
2) if you've been told all your life that you have to conform to certain rules, and you see someone you think is breaking them, you lash out at that person.
3) As far as I know, men aren't sat down at a young age* and told "this is how to keep women in their place" - the patriarchy is a self perpuating sustem ingrained into our society. Everyone is exposed to that society, men and women alike. (Everyone is told how to play the ugly card, everyone gets to play it.)
4) Crab buckets.
And stuff. My brain isn't here.
*though maybe they are! I've always wondered what the boys were told when the girls were told about tampons
1) sometimes when people don't get one, they're both women.
2) if you've been told all your life that you have to conform to certain rules, and you see someone you think is breaking them, you lash out at that person.
3) As far as I know, men aren't sat down at a young age* and told "this is how to keep women in their place" - the patriarchy is a self perpuating sustem ingrained into our society. Everyone is exposed to that society, men and women alike. (Everyone is told how to play the ugly card, everyone gets to play it.)
4) Crab buckets.
And stuff. My brain isn't here.
*though maybe they are! I've always wondered what the boys were told when the girls were told about tampons
Crab mentality -- hell yeah.
> if you've been told all your life that you have to conform to certain rules, and you see someone you think is breaking them, you lash out at that person
That's just our hardwiring as social animals -- behaviour is to be conformed to. Triumph and tragedy all in one.
> I've always wondered what the boys were told when the girls were told about tampons
Ha! I can't remember, but whatever we were given to do we were mostly speculating on what on earth the girls would be told. I really think it might be better to tell everybody at once: this happens to girls, deal with it. I'm sure the thinking is that the girls would be embarrassed, but then taking them to one side to do it is surely only demonstrating that there's something to be embarrassed about in the first place.
And I'm sure it's already long grained in by then.
> if you've been told all your life that you have to conform to certain rules, and you see someone you think is breaking them, you lash out at that person
That's just our hardwiring as social animals -- behaviour is to be conformed to. Triumph and tragedy all in one.
> I've always wondered what the boys were told when the girls were told about tampons
Ha! I can't remember, but whatever we were given to do we were mostly speculating on what on earth the girls would be told. I really think it might be better to tell everybody at once: this happens to girls, deal with it. I'm sure the thinking is that the girls would be embarrassed, but then taking them to one side to do it is surely only demonstrating that there's something to be embarrassed about in the first place.
And I'm sure it's already long grained in by then.
(Pssssst! That was Nevada, not Utah. And he's got a really strong case if he wants to take it to court. Which I'd guess is what's happening.)
Well I guess when I read a statement like yours I automatically (and incorrectly it seems) assume that the behaviour is being ascribed to jealousy, envy, anger, etc: that it's on a personal level and there's a larger degree of volition than I suspect there really is.
"...the patriarchy is a self perpuating system ingrained into our society. Everyone is exposed to that society, men and women alike."
I think that's one of the reasons I find the word 'patriarchy' distracting and unhelpful. Similar structures tell guys they can't cry or can't be nurses. But 'patriarchy' implies someone's in charge, and it's probably the men.
I work in an all-female charity and we had a staff night out. My colleagues opened the conversation with a discussion of women's roles and stereotyping from men and how awful that was. Maybe 30 minutes later, they were bitching - in a very personal way - about some other colleagues. I brought that up and obviously got a lot of surprised looks.
Oh, I remember. I'd mentioned a friend who does glamour modelling, and my colleagues assumed she must be under some guy's thumb.
I think that's one of the reasons I find the word 'patriarchy' distracting and unhelpful. Similar structures tell guys they can't cry or can't be nurses. But 'patriarchy' implies someone's in charge, and it's probably the men.
I work in an all-female charity and we had a staff night out. My colleagues opened the conversation with a discussion of women's roles and stereotyping from men and how awful that was. Maybe 30 minutes later, they were bitching - in a very personal way - about some other colleagues. I brought that up and obviously got a lot of surprised looks.
Oh, I remember. I'd mentioned a friend who does glamour modelling, and my colleagues assumed she must be under some guy's thumb.
If that Toshiba runs Ubuntu, it might be my next netbook...
In this case I like the idea of something I can use for internet surfing and the like, that will have massive battery life. Running a very lightweight system like Android on it sounds perfect to me.
You know, now I've mulled on it, I'm thinking that ugly card blog post is not part of the solution. It's part of the problem.
It's the 'you are beautiful, all of you' thing.
No, you're not. This is the same mentality that powers the 'anyone can make it' American Dream, and it fucks up US society top to bottom because not everyone can. Not everyone is academically gifted enough to go to university, not everyone can earn above average wage, not everyone can play the guitar like Eric Clapton or football like Beckham.
Some people are plug ugly, and I don't mean only those with facial deformities. Some are just kinda not that good looking. As a friend of mine remarked after he put his picture on Am I hot or not, he's accepted he's a 7.5. There is an aesthetic ideal, like it or not, and that it is heavily warped by society and the media is a bad thing, but no, we're far from all being beautiful. Saying we are is just a plain lie.
It's the 'you are beautiful, all of you' thing.
No, you're not. This is the same mentality that powers the 'anyone can make it' American Dream, and it fucks up US society top to bottom because not everyone can. Not everyone is academically gifted enough to go to university, not everyone can earn above average wage, not everyone can play the guitar like Eric Clapton or football like Beckham.
Some people are plug ugly, and I don't mean only those with facial deformities. Some are just kinda not that good looking. As a friend of mine remarked after he put his picture on Am I hot or not, he's accepted he's a 7.5. There is an aesthetic ideal, like it or not, and that it is heavily warped by society and the media is a bad thing, but no, we're far from all being beautiful. Saying we are is just a plain lie.
Defining beauty as an objective set of physical features is limiting and harmful. Are you saying you wouldn't think Ursula was beautiful if she grew up with gap teeth and spots?
*Clicks 'track'*
This should be fun.
This should be fun.
Beauty is subjective, we all find different things beautiful. The issue is that a certain type of someone's perceived beauty, extrapolated to impossibility, is a standard of beauty we should all aspire to but one which we should all aspire to desire, also. Even though it is physically impossible.
Well then you're redefining the meaning of the word. Is someone with gap teeth and spots entitled to and worthy of respect as a person? Yes, absolutely. Should that play any part in how we react to them in life, whether at a job interview or when making friends? Absolutely not. Are they going to get their sheet ticked at speed dating? Probably not.
I think doing that kind of shifting goalposts is the wrong way to go about it. Far better to accept that beauty is something that not everyone has, *but* that it's not that big a deal.
Compare: if you're short, you're always going to be short. Saying 'Oh, you're ALL of great stature' is just ludicrous. And you won't get ticked as much at speed dating. Similarly if you're disabled: if you can't walk, you can't walk, and no amount of mealy-mouthed rephrasing is going to make a jot of difference. If you're in a wheelchair, you're not going to be climbing up Arthur's Seat: some stuff is out of reach. Not everyone can be or do everything.
I think doing that kind of shifting goalposts is the wrong way to go about it. Far better to accept that beauty is something that not everyone has, *but* that it's not that big a deal.
Compare: if you're short, you're always going to be short. Saying 'Oh, you're ALL of great stature' is just ludicrous. And you won't get ticked as much at speed dating. Similarly if you're disabled: if you can't walk, you can't walk, and no amount of mealy-mouthed rephrasing is going to make a jot of difference. If you're in a wheelchair, you're not going to be climbing up Arthur's Seat: some stuff is out of reach. Not everyone can be or do everything.
Precisely. It's the notion that we should all aspire to it. And yes, there is much wider variance in what's perceived to be beautiful than what the media shows us and what we feel we accept.
But Andrew Lloyd Webber is plug ugly by anyone's standards.
But Andrew Lloyd Webber is plug ugly by anyone's standards.
No. I'm not 'redefining the meaning of the word'. Beautiful means 'attractive and pleasing to the eye'. There are no measurements, no criteria for what makes someone or something attractive and pleasing to the eye, because it is a subjective quality. It's not a measurable quantity like being a certain height, or of a certain ability on the football field. It's completely within the eye of the beholder.
I find my girlfriend beautiful. I also find her sexy, attractive, alluring, and all those other words that mean she ticks my boxes, flips my switches, whatever. Now, you might not find her beautiful yourself, but does that mean that I am wrong? No. Does that mean she is not beautiful? Hell no.
Beauty is subjective. There are no goalposts to move because we can't hold people to one objective standard. The fact that we try to is the basis of multitudes of self-image problems, eating disorders, and other problems that come from trying to measure up to something impossible and untrue. This is not the same as saying "this is a hill, you cannot walk up it". It is saying "this person does not find you attractive. this one does. this one would like you better if you had shorter hair." Everybody has their own criteria and the point of saying 'everyone is beautiful' is because everyone is. Not all to the same people, and not all for the same reasons. But they are.
I agree, focusing on beauty can be hurtful, and it's not a good way to judge someone at all. But I can guarantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt telling a girl 'beauty isn't important, but by the way some people are just plain ugly, period' is a great way to fuck up her thinking and give her a complex that will last years. Unless you can change everything about how society functions letting her believe that some people are just plain ugly and unattractive will have her constantly wondering if she is one of those ugly people; she'll starve herself to fit into those ideals, diet and primp and destroy her self-confidence to fit into a mold. How does telling her 'you are beautiful, even if you don't look like an airbrushed model on a magazine cover' hurt her? She might get rejected by going for people who aren't into her - but she would have anyway, and at least now she has the self-confidence to take that rejection and move on to someone who does dig her. I just don't see how it fucks up society to encourage that sort of self-image at all. I don't get it.
I find my girlfriend beautiful. I also find her sexy, attractive, alluring, and all those other words that mean she ticks my boxes, flips my switches, whatever. Now, you might not find her beautiful yourself, but does that mean that I am wrong? No. Does that mean she is not beautiful? Hell no.
Beauty is subjective. There are no goalposts to move because we can't hold people to one objective standard. The fact that we try to is the basis of multitudes of self-image problems, eating disorders, and other problems that come from trying to measure up to something impossible and untrue. This is not the same as saying "this is a hill, you cannot walk up it". It is saying "this person does not find you attractive. this one does. this one would like you better if you had shorter hair." Everybody has their own criteria and the point of saying 'everyone is beautiful' is because everyone is. Not all to the same people, and not all for the same reasons. But they are.
I agree, focusing on beauty can be hurtful, and it's not a good way to judge someone at all. But I can guarantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt telling a girl 'beauty isn't important, but by the way some people are just plain ugly, period' is a great way to fuck up her thinking and give her a complex that will last years. Unless you can change everything about how society functions letting her believe that some people are just plain ugly and unattractive will have her constantly wondering if she is one of those ugly people; she'll starve herself to fit into those ideals, diet and primp and destroy her self-confidence to fit into a mold. How does telling her 'you are beautiful, even if you don't look like an airbrushed model on a magazine cover' hurt her? She might get rejected by going for people who aren't into her - but she would have anyway, and at least now she has the self-confidence to take that rejection and move on to someone who does dig her. I just don't see how it fucks up society to encourage that sort of self-image at all. I don't get it.
Oh, you did not just compare ugliness to disability.
You are defining beauty and lack thereof as objective - they're just not. This isn't an arguable point; it's a demonstrable fact. I could post a picture of anyone - of anyone - on my journal, with a poll, and I guarantee you that there would be no firm consensus on whether or not that person was beautiful.
They could probably make a judgment on whether that person was 'conventionally physically attractive' completely separately from their own personal opinion - but that's a set of factors laid out by society, rules for us to follow, not a definition that anyone actually adheres to, whether they say they do or not.
Why do you think people have 'embarrassing crushes' or 'guilty secret fantasies' involving people who are considered by mainstream media to be unattractive? It's because those people are attractive to them. Andrew Lloyd Webber found someone who wanted to shag him just like anyone else, even if you and I consider him a disgusting little homunculus.
These people are beautiful (no matter what you say, words can't bring me down etc etc). But seriously, are you telling me that you buy into mainstream society's message that there's really such a thing as objectively 'pug ugly'? Really?
And yes, of course some people appeal to a narrower band of admirers than others - of course biological factors play a part in attraction and if you have asymmetry/a non childbearing figure/what-the-hell-ever then yes, the pool of people who consider you beautiful narrows, bit by bit. But the ability to successfully apply biological absolutes to the concept of beauty does not make 'beauty' itself an objective concept, anymore than Mozart having a wider appeal than Shostakovich due to being catchier and more accessible makes 'good music' an objective concept.
"You're not beautiful, but that's okay - some people are just ugly" is the wrong answer. Oh my God, Joachim. How could you say that? Think about it for a minute. How could you?
The right answer is, "So not everyone finds you beautiful. But some people will, and do, and so should you."
We're not telling people to go try out for America's Next Top Model here. We're telling them that what society tells them is beauty is fine for some, and not for others. And as those others, we need to find what makes us beautiful, and get right on celebrating it.
You are defining beauty and lack thereof as objective - they're just not. This isn't an arguable point; it's a demonstrable fact. I could post a picture of anyone - of anyone - on my journal, with a poll, and I guarantee you that there would be no firm consensus on whether or not that person was beautiful.
They could probably make a judgment on whether that person was 'conventionally physically attractive' completely separately from their own personal opinion - but that's a set of factors laid out by society, rules for us to follow, not a definition that anyone actually adheres to, whether they say they do or not.
Why do you think people have 'embarrassing crushes' or 'guilty secret fantasies' involving people who are considered by mainstream media to be unattractive? It's because those people are attractive to them. Andrew Lloyd Webber found someone who wanted to shag him just like anyone else, even if you and I consider him a disgusting little homunculus.
These people are beautiful (no matter what you say, words can't bring me down etc etc). But seriously, are you telling me that you buy into mainstream society's message that there's really such a thing as objectively 'pug ugly'? Really?
And yes, of course some people appeal to a narrower band of admirers than others - of course biological factors play a part in attraction and if you have asymmetry/a non childbearing figure/what-the-hell-ever then yes, the pool of people who consider you beautiful narrows, bit by bit. But the ability to successfully apply biological absolutes to the concept of beauty does not make 'beauty' itself an objective concept, anymore than Mozart having a wider appeal than Shostakovich due to being catchier and more accessible makes 'good music' an objective concept.
"You're not beautiful, but that's okay - some people are just ugly" is the wrong answer. Oh my God, Joachim. How could you say that? Think about it for a minute. How could you?
The right answer is, "So not everyone finds you beautiful. But some people will, and do, and so should you."
We're not telling people to go try out for America's Next Top Model here. We're telling them that what society tells them is beauty is fine for some, and not for others. And as those others, we need to find what makes us beautiful, and get right on celebrating it.
> But the ability to successfully apply biological absolutes to the concept of beauty does not make 'beauty' itself an objective concept, anymore than Mozart having a wider appeal than Shostakovich due to being catchier and more accessible makes 'good music' an objective concept.
You're kind of making my point for me... to that I say, why not? Obviously it's naive and very limiting to constrict the whole range of qualities of a piece of music to a single metric of good/bad. It's a huge complex multidimensional thing, same as how we find people attractive. But somehow, some stuff is at the bottom of the heap and some at the top.
You're kind of making my point for me... to that I say, why not? Obviously it's naive and very limiting to constrict the whole range of qualities of a piece of music to a single metric of good/bad. It's a huge complex multidimensional thing, same as how we find people attractive. But somehow, some stuff is at the bottom of the heap and some at the top.
But it's not. There's very little (and possibly nothing) that some people out there don't actively prefer. There is no objective standard for beauty, just lots of subjective people making separate judgements.
By that logic you should be okay with the concept that Andrew Lloyd Webber is a better composer than Maurice Duruflé - somehow, ALW has floated to the top and Duruflé is pretty obscure unless you're a classical buff... that makes him better, right?
Well, of course it doesn't. You have to put in a bit of effort with Duruflé. Duruflé isn't initially easy to like - something can jar about what he does with harmony, you've got to really explore him, let him grow on you. Some people - most people - will never like Duruflé. He's kind of an acquired taste.
I guess that means he's a bit shit?
Well, of course it doesn't. You have to put in a bit of effort with Duruflé. Duruflé isn't initially easy to like - something can jar about what he does with harmony, you've got to really explore him, let him grow on you. Some people - most people - will never like Duruflé. He's kind of an acquired taste.
I guess that means he's a bit shit?
But something common bubbles up out of it.
Or let's take the music thing from another angle: some people will write a song that lives in the hearts of others for years, whether it's Greensleeves or Let it Be.
Some people will write a song that nobody but their mum likes.
Some people will never even write a song.
Or let's take the music thing from another angle: some people will write a song that lives in the hearts of others for years, whether it's Greensleeves or Let it Be.
Some people will write a song that nobody but their mum likes.
Some people will never even write a song.
Page 1 of 4