Delicious LiveJournal Links for 6-22-2010

[andrewducker]

• Playing The Ugly Card
  (tags: feminism women)
• Gay Walmart Employee Forced To Wear Identifying Clothes
  Huzzah for Utah!
  (tags: gay usa EpicFail)
• The Toshiba AC100 Android laptop. If they can iron out the niggles then I want one...
  (tags: android laptop technology)

Comments

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

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.

[erindubitably.livejournal.com]

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?

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

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.

[erindubitably.livejournal.com]

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.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

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.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

> 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.

[andrewducker]

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.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

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.

[nameandnature]

There may be no objective (in the sense of would convince a ghost of perfect emptiness) beauty. Nevertheless there are facts about what sort of thing most people within a culture like, plus maybe some things that most humans like. Similarly, there are facts about what people don't like (and in fact, I'd say there are more likely to be cross-cultural facts about that).

These facts do serve the same sort of role as an objective standard in a lot of the cases of interest. I don't see why everyone is getting so excited about that fact.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

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?

[erindubitably.livejournal.com]

I don't know why you haven't replied to my comment yet, but if you don't want to address all of it at least tell me what harm it does to tell people they're beautiful. How does that harm them and society? I really want to know what your reasoning is so I can attempt to understand your statements.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

We're dealing with a word that's very loaded and I feel we're perhaps bringing different ideas to it.

Say 'wonderful'. I have no problem at all saying that everyone is wonderful, and will be especially wonderful to some other person.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Don't you dare try to turn this into a semantic argument. We are not arguing about different concepts here - we are both talking about physical appearance, about what society says about physical appearance, what the majority say about physical appearance, and whether that standard can be considered to be an objective concept and whether doing so is harmful or otherwise.

[erindubitably.livejournal.com]

I don't understand how you commented supportively on my post yesterday and yet you can say things like this. If you want to change things you're going to need to do things that make you uncomfortable, including look at your definition of 'beautiful' and the way it's used in society and then changing how you use it.

I'm not going to say 'wonderful' because that's not what I mean. I mean 'beautiful' because I believe that everybody is attractive to somebody, and that telling them that is not setting them up for failure but instead hopefully contributing to a positive self-image so that they can find that someone (if they want to) someday.

Criticize the American dream all you like but I don't understand how telling someone something positive about themselves is ensuring disappointment. That seems defeatist and untrue.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

I certainly wouldn't love her any less, but if she grew up to be short and round with gap teeth and spots and had her heart set on a tanned adonis football player, I'd have to tell her she's probably going to be disappointed. It *may* be he falls for her sense of humour or her intelligence or her general charm and poise. But saying she has an equal chance to the leggy blonde would be a cruel lie.

It's like I said about the American notion that all can succeed -- it sets you up for a fall and the ensuing disappointment is all the more unbearable.

[erindubitably.livejournal.com]

But that's a terrible sentiment! I'm not espousing lying to kids, but it's not lying to tell your daughter she's beautiful and that other people will think that as well, no matter what she looks like. You don't know what this tanned football player fancies - if she's going to get her heart broken she might as well understand that it's because maybe she's not his particular brand of beautiful, not because she's just plain ugly and won't have a chance with anybody.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

Well I certainly wouldn't say she doesn't stand a chance with anybody!

But it's about probabilities. Take just one simple component, like height. If you're a really tall woman or a really short man you're not going to have as big a pool of people who might find you beautiful. I doubt anything is going to change that.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

You may not be able to widen the pool to include as many people as are going to buy into the lowest common denominator ideals of beauty, but there is a hell of a lot that can change the size of that pool by a huge amount. See my comment re: 'ugly' guys getting 'hot' chicks when it doesn't ever really work the other way round.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I am short and round with wonky teeth and I traditionally get exactly what I want - including conventionally gorgeous adonises (or rather aphrodites), should the mood take me.

Now, I know what you'll say - that's because I'm confident, charming, and let's not forget exceptionally talented.

And I used to agree, but then I realised that that was bullshit. There is singly no chance in hell that a gorgeous girl would turn around to me and tell me how sexy I was if I wasn't able to believe it of myself. No way in hell.

Furthermore, this whole concept is deeply sexist, and reeks of the P-word. Nobody has ever questioned whether 'ugly' dudes have just as good a chance of pulling gorgeous women as good looking ones - it's demonstrably the case that they can. Why should men shoot for the stars and women dial back their expectations?

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

> Nobody has ever questioned whether 'ugly' dudes have just
as good a chance of pulling gorgeous women as good looking ones

Of course they have. And short ones too.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

What? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me here? If you're disagreeing, you're wrong. Famously ugly men almost always marry famously beautiful women.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

*Clicks 'track'*

This should be fun.

[henriksdal.livejournal.com]

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.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

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.

[luckylove.livejournal.com]

But Andrew Lloyd Webber is plug ugly by anyone's standards.
I know someone who proves that statement is wrong.