Female beauty valued above all other qualities

winking weber

Does this ever get to you?

When women are described in the media, by friends, in general conversation, their looks or lack of them are nearly always mentioned whereas this never occurs with men.

Do you ever get frustrated with this? I am guilty of it myself to a certain extent and love seeing a beautiful woman as much as the next person. But are a lot of women overlooked in society because of their relative lack of beauty?

Even in PI, the threads started my men almost always mention looks whereas the threads started by women rarely do.

IvyTheTerrible

Yes it does really bother me. Especially when it is about a woman in politics. The media will always comment on her clothes or looks without hardly mentioning her work, but they would never do the same for a man. Gets my goat.

shivvyban

winking weber wrote: »

When women are described in the media, by friends, in general conversation, their looks or lack of them are nearly always mentioned whereas this never occurs with men.

I am in conversations with the wrong men!

sunstar

we live in an image obsessed world.

this clip is very interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

pikachucheeks

winking weber wrote: »

When women are described in the media, by friends, in general conversation, their looks or lack of them are nearly always mentioned whereas this never occurs with men.

The media, largely the tabloids, make themselves out to be extremely shallow.
The language they use is often distasteful as well! I often read phrases like "Busty babe" and "Blonde bombshell".
To be honest, it amuses me more than it frustrates me.

I think it's funny how obviously shallow and looks-obsessed they are. It's ridiculous. I'm not sure why they bring looks into certain stories, it's just completely irrelevant.

"The 36DD heartbreaker has just graduated from a Science degree in Trinity"

What's the point of bringing her bust size into it?

They're just shy of saying "She's smart, but more importantly, she's got massive bangers!" :P

It just makes the journalism out to be shoddy and cheap.

winking weber wrote: »

are a lot of women overlooked in society because of their relative lack of beauty?

In a word ; Yes! You see it in many aspects of the workplace. Mary Harney is often picked on based on her appearance, rather than her professional choices, as is Mary Coughlan for her apparent lack of decent dress sense.

There's been increasing prejudice against larger women and women who prefer not to wear make-up, in the work force, with claims that they are less likely to be hired by a firm or even paid less than better-looking co-workers.

And the music industry... don't even get me started! Bar Susan Boyle, I don't think an average joe has ever got a look in with record labels!

LadyJ

pikachucheeks wrote: »

Bar Susan Boyle, I don't think an average joe has ever got a look in with record labels!

And the only reason she was so fúcking over-rated in the end was because she was thought to be such a complete troll and the world couldn't believe that someone so hideous could have a note in her head. Sigh.

pikachucheeks

LadyJ wrote: »

And the only reason she was so fúcking over-rated in the end was because she was thought to be such a complete troll and the world couldn't believe that someone so hideous could have a note in her head. Sigh.

That's true!

If she hadn't been as ... unmaintained as she was, she wouldn't have had the same appeal she did. Amanda Holden confirmed that, even though we all knew already!

ciagr297

winking weber wrote: »

Does this ever get to you?

When women are described in the media, by friends, in general conversation, their looks or lack of them are nearly always mentioned whereas this never occurs with men.

Do you ever get frustrated with this? I am guilty of it myself to a certain extent and love seeing a beautiful woman as much as the next person. But are a lot of women overlooked in society because of their relative lack of beauty?

Even in PI, the threads started my men almost always mention looks whereas the threads started by women rarely do.

for the looks part - men are visual creatures. thats what you notice first. unfortunately this means that you (i mean men) can overlook us girls just cause of the colour of our hair or something equally shallow

*shrug shoulders*

what can you do? nothing

i was talking to a friend at the weekend, and she asked my opinion of a guy we knew of. was he really good looking? (she's only heard he was, she hasn't seen him)
it took me a few mins to figure it out actually cause i know him so well and i know its his personality that i find attractive primarily.
but once i put that aside, i was able to say he is extremely good looking

i found the order in which i found him attractive amusing

Latchy

pikachucheeks wrote: »

That's true!

If she hadn't been as ... unmaintained as she was, she wouldn't have had the same appeal she did. Amanda Holden confirmed that, even though we all knew already!

Which proves the un-maintanied will get expolited as much as the well-maintained .

Will

I think it's true somewhat, but gutter rags use such language as a means of selling their papers as it's what attracts their target audience. I would doubt the irish times would use such descriptions when talking about a member of the dáil.

In relation to tv personalities, pop stars etc. it's their job to look well, they are on the tv to attract viewers and sell music. I don't think it's right but it seems to be the done thing. Switch on your tv, hard pressed to find anyone who was beaten with the ugly stick, the few that are, are usually the butt of jokes or the poor unfortunate in a soap opera.

Personally speaking, couldn't care how my female friends look. If someone asks about them I will give my opinion and outline their qualities e.g she's really funny, or mad on a night out. If there is something really different about them I will say it e.g "Claire has pink hair now, it's crazy cool", or "Laura is tiny and funny as fúck". As I'm sure they would say about me about my uniqueness.

I wouldn't value beauty high on the list of things at all. If someone is sound couldn't care how they look. Same about musicians, if the music is decent couldn't care. Can't really comment too much about tv as I hardly look at any.

Malari

Yep, bothers me.

That's why I haven't posted my image on boards! I want to express my opinions without being checked out (ok, the ladies of Da Lounge are pretty impartial but men sometimes aren't ).

994

Well, looks are more important because women find success, wealth and status more attractive (would anyone look twice at Bill Clinton in a McDonald's t-shirt?), and men don't . And male politicians are judged on their looks too - Obama, JFK and Cowen have been much talked about based on appearance, as was that Danish PM who was going to be EU president.

And the music industry... don't even get me started! Bar Susan Boyle, I don't think an average joe has ever got a look in with record labels!

Maybe youøre listening to the wrong sort of music. Nina Simone, Janis Joplin, Mama Cass and Janis Ian weren't exactly stunners, but no-one minded.

pikachucheeks

I actually tested this whole theory, about how important looks are, before.

I was doing research for college [covering waves of feminism etc] , so I asked a few male friends their opinion of Girls Aloud.

Asked about ten of them, all but one commented on their appearance. None of the others even mentioned their music.

Macha

YESS!!!
Did anyone see the front of the Sunday Times yesterday? They had a huge photo of some blonde delegate at the Green Party convention on Saturday. Never mind the fact that something as serious as the Lisbon Treaty was being discussed, all that mattered was that there was a hot blonde attending. She also made onto the cover of the Sunday Tribune.

I also hate when they focus on the faces of women during a sports event.

Oh and were any of you aware that it's OFFICIAL Wimbledon policy to put the prettier female tennis players (Regardless of rank/skill) on the main courts? No such policy for the men. Now where is my rolley eyes smiley??

994, did you stop to think that when the normal channels of power are closed off to women, or made more difficult for them to access, they generally have to resort to achieving power through close family relatives or partners? History is full of women who wielded power through their sons and husbands, because they themselves were not able to be the person in command. I'd also like to point out that when tested subconsciously, women put 'physical attractiveness' as their no. 1 priority in a partner, just like men.

Who'd have thought it? Men don't have a monopoly on finding members of the opposite sex attractive?!

pikachucheeks

994 wrote: »

Maybe youøre listening to the wrong sort of music. Nina Simone, Janis Joplin, Mama Cass and Janis Ian weren't exactly stunners, but no-one minded.

Should have clarified, I was more so refering to mainstream, currently "trendy" music.

Speaking of which, Lady Gaga has said many times in interviews that she was never paid any attention by labels until she decided to dye her hair blonde.

Just shows how image really can make or break a person.

minidazzler

I do value Beauty more than anything else. I know that sounds shallow, but I do have a different Definition of Beauty than most.

My own definition is along the lines of beauty is seen through the actions and/or thoughts of a person rather than how they look.

Beauty /= Pretty.

I separate the two when dealing with people.

To me a beautiful woman is one who gives me a certain feeling when I think about their music or something they did or said, I can't describe the feeling but I know it when I feel it. It's the same feeling I get when I see a painting I think is magnificent. Beauty to me is from expressions I think you could call it.

Pretty is simply based on looks for me.

Will

pikachucheeks wrote: »

I actually tested this whole theory, about how important looks are, before.

I was doing research for college [covering waves of feminism etc] , so I asked a few male friends their opinion of Girls Aloud.

Asked about ten of them, all but one commented on their appearance. None of the others even mentioned their music.

Were they fans of their music though? I mean your test could easily have been showing them a picture of a bunch of random women, and asking them their opinions of them. Sure everyone knows of them but I doubt many are actual fans.

I think your results would have been different if you asked them about a band they were interested in who had female members.

winking weber

I do value Beauty more than anything else. I know that sounds shallow, but I do have a different Definition of Beauty than most.

My own definition is along the lines of beauty is seen through the actions and/or thoughts of a person rather than how they look.

Beauty /= Pretty.

I separate the two when dealing with people.

To me a beautiful woman is one who gives me a certain feeling when I think about their music or something they did or said, I can't describe the feeling but I know it when I feel it. It's the same feeling I get when I see a painting I think is magnificent. Beauty to me is from expressions I think you could call it.

Pretty is simply based on looks for me.

lovely post ^

But our initial judgement of people is still almost entirely based on their looks, and women are more harshly judged than men in that way. Its not just the media who do this either, but whether they are cause or effect of society's behaviour, I dont know.

LadyJ

Will wrote: »

Were they fans of their music though? I mean your test could easily have been showing them a picture of a bunch of random women, and asking them their opinions of them. Sure everyone knows of them but I doubt many are actual fans.

I think your results would have been different if you asked them about a band they were interested in who had female members.

Well they could have just said they think the music is shít or that they've never listened to it tbh.

Wibbs

taconnol wrote: »

YESS!!!994, did you stop to think that when the normal channels of power are closed off to women, or made more difficult for them to access, they generally have to resort to achieving power through close family relatives or partners? History is full of women who wielded power through their sons and husbands, because they themselves were not able to be the person in command.

Very true. the power behnd the throne lark. I would say the media is a funny one though. A helluva lot of women in the media in general and high ups too. Particularly in TV and print media. A lot of the time it's other women saying what wome should look like. Goes double for the fashion media. Women and gay men.

I'd also like to point out that when tested subconsciously, women put 'physical attractiveness' as their no. 1 priority in a partner, just like men.

Who'd have thought it? Men don't have a monopoly on finding members of the opposite sex attractive?!

Agreed, but that's just when testing for responses to physical attractiveness. Women tend to bring more attractiveness triggers into it than men. So when looking at couples, men and women tend to go for similar levels as themselves. Except when the mans social status comes into it. The higher his social status the better looking his partner. The reverse is far less true.

Macha

winking weber wrote: »

But our initial judgement of people is still almost entirely based on their looks, and women are more harshly judged than men in that way. Its not just the media who do this either, but whether they are cause or effect of society's behaviour, I dont know.

No, many women are most definitely guilty of complying, and thus perpetuating, the idea that a woman's value in our society is based on our looks.

When I say complying, it's obviously difficult to not care at all (I sincerely wish I didn't care as much about how I look as I do), but being harsly critical of another woman's appearance doesn't do us any favours.

You know that common assumption that women are 'catty' and 'bitchy' when a good-looking woman is around? Well if we feel we're being measured by our looks, then of course we're going to react that way! (The same way a rich man, who judges himself on his wealth, would feel when confronted with an even richer man.

But by doing that, we're buying into the idea. The best thing to do is realise looks aren't the most important thing and that we all have much more to offer.

Edit - wibbs, what study are you basing that on? You could also argue the higher the status of the woman, the better looking her partner! (think Madonna & Jesus? - what a pair of names!)

winking weber

I think both women and men are guilty of it yes. I never suggested otherwise.

LivingDeadGirl

What about Amy Winehouse? She's a minger who's doing well in the current 'trendy' music scene. Jesus I hate her....

minidazzler

LivingDeadGirl wrote: »

What about Amy Winehouse? She's a minger who's doing well in the current 'trendy' music scene. Jesus I hate her....

She has personal problems and is a Drug Addict, of course the media loves her, and her music is quite good if she is clean and sober when singing.

Dragan

winking weber wrote: »

Does this ever get to you?

When women are described in the media, by friends, in general conversation, their looks or lack of them are nearly always mentioned whereas this never occurs with men.

Sorry, the last few words of that are a complete fallacy.

winking weber

I was home alone feeling poorly and a little bit lonely this weekend and I decided to have a look at an online dating site (not for the first time). Now I wont post up photos on my profile, but I wont hold them back either. I generally exchange a few messages and then attach some photos. Now, by my own admission, I dont photograph well. I am pretty plain looking tbh. I have a nice body but my face isnt great, I'm not hideous either. I dont have a problem pulling fellows at all when I'm out, but I dont like doing that either and rarely meet someone I have much in common with.

Several times now I've established a rapport with fellows, only for them to cease replying once I've sent photos. Now, I have an awful lot going for me. Really, I do. I'm down to earth, caring, highly educated, cultured, many and varied interests, well-travelled, good job, independent. These fellows are generally very interested until the photo exchange.

And I was thinking, I would really forgive an awful lot in a fellow looks-wise if he had the qualities I have. But the same does not appear to work in reverse at all.

And then I got to thinking about how this is not just limited to online dating, although that certainly magnifies it. I will often dismiss a woman if she doesnt look right to me, men too but not to the same extent.

Its depressing really.

LivingDeadGirl

minidazzler wrote: »

She has personal problems and is a Drug Addict, of course the media loves her, and her music is quite good if she is clean and sober when singing.

She's still a minger who's doing well in the industry though, that was my point.

winking weber

Dragan wrote: »

Sorry, the last few words of that are a complete fallacy.

yeah they are actually, I meant 'to a lesser extent' rather than 'never'.

minidazzler

LivingDeadGirl wrote: »

She's still a minger who's doing well in the industry though, that was my point.

Yeah, I got your point, but my point is that if you are interesting in a different way the Media will overlook what you look like and cover you anyway.

In fact the media regularily cover her and talk about how "ugly" she is and then about her problems. So she is famous because the media is willing to cover her due to her problems.

topper75

Consider all the things that are supposed to be considered 'girly'. They nearly all revolve around looks or improving looks: hairstyles, clothing, getting nails done, spa facial. There is a whole 'industry' out there deliberatly nourishing this, creating insecurities, and then cashing in on them.

Yes, men are visual creatures, but as a man I would put a little more of the blame for this sad but true observation on women themselves.

I don't really respect such 'girly' girls that much (I find them to be monodimensional and poor conversationalists) and prefer girls who are more focused on developing other aspects of themselves, whatever they choose that to be - family, sport, business, a million other things. Being pretty/well groomed is no crime. Being overly focused on it however...

Any sister looking to move things in another direction could make a good start by dishing those trashy celeb/diet mags. They are the vanguard of this rot at the heart of femininity IMO. A lot of TV shows champion this shallowness as well.

Malari

topper75 wrote: »

I don't really respect such 'girly' girls that much (I find them to be monodimensional and poor conversationalists) and prefer girls who are more focused on developing other aspects of themselves, whatever they choose that to be - family, sport, business, a million other things. Being pretty/well groomed is no crime. Being overly focused on it however...

But there is a difference between women who don't have to work that hard on looking well-groomed and those who spend a fortune of money and time on it.

I don't have a lot of respect either for women who get their bewbs out for a bit of attention. The assumption is they are unable to get recognition any other way.

Macha

topper75 wrote: »

Yes, men are visual creatures

Why do you say this? Where's the proof?

topper75 wrote: »

but as a man I would put a little more of the blame for this sad but true observation on women themselves.

For existing in a society that basically projects the male, heterosexual viewer as the norm and anything outside that as 'different'? I think the blame is pretty evenly spread.

topper75 wrote: »

Any sister looking to move things in another direction could make a good start by dishing those trashy celeb/diet mags. They are the vanguard of this rot at the heart of femininity IMO. A lot of TV shows champion this shallowness as well.

I wholeheartedly agree. Let's not forget the existence of such magazines as Nuts, etc though. These magazines project a very narrow version of 'masculinity' that leans heavily towards machismo and where all men are obsessed with gadgets and ball sports. I'm sure they create a significant number of insecurities in their male readers.

I suppose the common theme between all these crappy magazines is that men are the viewers, women are the viewed. Of course this is changing a bit now, with the appearance of more naked men in women's magazines but generally the articles in the women's magazines centre around 'pleasing/getting your man' while the men's ones focus on available women.

Malari

topper75 wrote: »

Yes, men are visual creatures, but as a man I would put a little more of the blame for this sad but true observation on women themselves.

taconnol wrote: »

Why do you say this? Where's the proof?

It is true. Humans evolved their mating stategies this way because of the cost involved in bearing a child. Women appreciates power/wealth. Man appreciates looks/ability as a care-giver to offspring.

Doesn't mean we can't now analyse these patterns objectively, but they won't be easily changed.

Canis Lupus

BOOBIES \o/

Macha

Malari wrote: »

It is true. Humans evolved their mating stategies this way because of the cost involved in bearing a child. Women appreciates power/wealth. Man appreciates looks/ability as a care-giver to offspring.

Doesn't mean we can't now analyse these patterns objectively, but they won't be easily changed.

Oh there aren't enough rolley eyed smilies in the world for this.

Do you appreciate the circiular logic you just used? Are you also aware of the pitfalls of the not-so-scientific art of evolutionary psychology? Next you'll be telling me that women prefer pink because we used to collect berries


These traits are not types of biological 'truth's but constructions by our society. For example, did you know that in Ancient Greece, women used to be considered 'inside-out' men and the pinnacle of human beauty was a young male? We often fail to remember that our culture is not the only one that exists today, nor is it the only one that has ever existed in history.

Malari

taconnol wrote: »

Oh there aren't enough rolley eyed smilies in the world for this.

Do you appreciate the circiular logic you just used? Are you also aware of the pitfalls of the not-so-scientific art of evolutionary psychology? Next you'll be telling me that women prefer pink because we used to collect berries


These traits are not types of biological 'truth's but constructions by our society. For example, did you know that in Ancient Greece, women used to be considered 'inside-out' men and the pinnacle of human beauty was a young male? We often fail to remember that our culture is not the only one that exists today, nor is it the only one that has ever existed in history.

Of course it's circular, which came first - the species or the mating strategy? They evolved together. I do know a bit about evolutionary development of sexual selection, and just because you roll your eyes doesn't mean it isn't true.

I didn't say they are truths therefore that's the end of it, but it's a valid and widely accepted explanation of why these patterns exist. EVERYTHING in biology can be explained in light of evolution.

The ancient Greeks didn't have evolutionary theory to explain strategies, by the way, so I'm not sure where your little anecdote applies.

Macha

Malari wrote: »

Of course it's circular, which came first - the species or the mating strategy? They evolved together. I do know a bit about evolutionary development of sexual selection, and just because you roll your eyes doesn't mean it isn't true.

I meant your logic, not your theory.

Malari wrote: »

I didn't say they are truths therefore that's the end of it, but it's a valid and widely accepted explanation of why these patterns exist. EVERYTHING in biology can be explained in light of evolution.

"valid and widely accepted"? You still haven't proven it to be valid though, have you? The mistake you seem to be making is picking up an a Western cultural construction and treating it like a universal truth. Are you aware that in other cultures men also "appreciate power/wealth" and women "appreciates looks/ability as a care-giver to offspring"?

Malari wrote: »

The ancient Greeks didn't have evolutionary theory to explain strategies, by the way, so I'm not sure where your little anecdote applies.

*sigh* My point is that our modern, western ideas of men and women's inherent traits are very different to those expressed in cultures that exist in different parts of the world and at different times. Therefore, they are not biologically universal and therefore cannot be said to be 'explained in light of evolution', as you would like to claim.

Malari

taconnol wrote: »

I meant your logic, not your theory.



"valid and widely accepted"? You still haven't proven it to be valid though, have you? The mistake you seem to be making is picking up an a Western cultural construction and treating it like a universal truth. Are you aware that in other cultures men also "appreciate power/wealth" and women "appreciates looks/ability as a care-giver to offspring"?


*sigh* My point is that our modern, western ideas of men and women's inherent traits are very different to those expressed in cultures that exist in different parts of the world and at different times. Therefore, they are not biologically universal and therefore cannot be said to be 'explained in light of evolution', as you would like to claim.

And the mistake you seem to be making is assuming it IS a Western cultural construction and not an evolutionary development, based on sex and mating. You don't "prove" these things, you develop a theory and collect evidence. Read the Red Queen by Ridley for example.

Macha

Malari wrote: »

And the mistake you seem to be making is assuming it IS a Western cultural construction and not an evolutionary development, based on sex and mating. You don't "prove" these things, you develop a theory and collect evidence. Read the Red Queen by Ridley for example.

Sorry, I do actually find it important to "prove" the things I claim, rather than making up a nice-sounding story around my 'facts'.

So how does the following fit in with your 'theory'?

our modern, western ideas of men and women's inherent traits are very different to those expressed in cultures that exist in different parts of the world and at different times. Therefore, they are not biologically universal and therefore cannot be said to be 'explained in light of evolution', as you would like to claim.

You cannot claim that women in EVERY culture crave wealth/power more than men and that in EVERY culture men crave physical attractiveness more than women. Unfortunately for you, that's exactly what your theory is based on.

Wibbs

taconnol wrote: »

*sigh* My point is that our modern, western ideas of men and women's inherent traits are very different to those expressed in cultures that exist in different parts of the world and at different times. Therefore, they are not biologically universal and therefore cannot be said to be 'explained in light of evolution', as you would like to claim.

I would somewhat agree. Culture plays a huge part in this and our ability as a species to subvert more latent tendencies. Beards on men are a case in point. Beards are a secondary sexual characteristic in men. It shows even at a distance if a man is sexually mature or not. It's not far off breasts in women as a secondary sexual characteristic denoting maturity. Yet many cultures remove this on a daily basis. It has been said that no US president hopeful would ever win wearing a beard. The lack of one in many cultures was seen as "civilised". Yet in others a sign of manhood and authority. God tends to be shown with a beard. Jesus even gave his name to one:), yet we have no clue if he had one or not. The earliest portraits of him don't. Though again a cultural thing as the Romans and Greeks had a similar thing going on with beards on men as the US appears to have.


Though many are biologically universal and not so time and culturally specific.

The hip waist ratio of .7 is one, basically because quite a few studies have found that women with that ratio have higher oestrogen levels and are more fertile(Kate moss, Marilyn Monroe, the Venus de Milo and Rubens nudes are all very close to the .7 ratio). The actual size of the women through culture and history seems to be more based on availability of food resources.

Same goes for small jaws, full lips, large foreheads, big eyes(small facial features in general) and symmetry in women. All indicators of health and healthy development. Youth is another one that is considered consistently more attractive in women, simply because of the more finite reproductive window in women, which peaks earlier and lasts for a shorter time than in men. So smooth wrinkle free skin is another attractive indicator(and smooth blemish free skin also indicates lack of parasites). Glossy hair and toned bods(accross a range of sizes) ditto. Some have considered that long legs in women is considered attractive becuase women's leg bones grow fastest in puberty as they're reaching sexual maturity. That gangly look is telling men that she is young and at or very close to her reproductive peak. As women age the rest of their body catches up.

In men symmetry, toned bodies with toned bums and shoulders again show youth and health. Large jaws, stronger features show testosterone and those features, like the women's are pretty consistent across all cultures and times.

Even in that women show a wider preference than men. Some prefer more androgenous looking men. More "intellectual" looking men, some prefer "jocks"

But on top of that consistently across cultures and time, men of means and high resources and/or social power have attracted more women and more beautiful women. Certainly more than the other way around.

Yes we can see examples of that reverse, but it is much rarer and stands out as such. There are far far more reverse examples of the Madonna/Jesus coupling out there. Most of us can think of at least one. This may well change with women gaining more and more of the positions that men held in the past, though in many ways even there I doubt it. Many high powered women are still looking for men equal or above them. I would put good money if you surveyed divorce rates among high powered women with low powered males the rates would be far higher than the other way around. I do suspect that that is more of a social, not biological construct though.

I agree about the pink notion. Utter BS. Pink was a boys and mans colour not so long ago. Women do have a better sense of smell than men and better colour vision. More cones in the retina. It has been theorised that this is something to do with food gathering and working out the freshness of food. Doesn't mean women prefer pink though:rolleyes:

Oh The Humanity

Female beauty IS definitely prized and valued above all other qualities. So it has always been and so will it always be.

Its not right or fair but its so. There is no point fighting it or getting upset about it as it is just fact.

midlandsmissus

taconnol wrote: »

No, many women are most definitely guilty of complying, and thus perpetuating, the idea that a woman's value in our society is based on our looks.

When I say complying, it's obviously difficult to not care at all (I sincerely wish I didn't care as much about how I look as I do), but being harsly critical of another woman's appearance doesn't do us any favours.

You know that common assumption that women are 'catty' and 'bitchy' when a good-looking woman is around? Well if we feel we're being measured by our looks, then of course we're going to react that way! (The same way a rich man, who judges himself on his wealth, would feel when confronted with an even richer man.

But by doing that, we're buying into the idea. The best thing to do is realise looks aren't the most important thing and that we all have much more to offer.

Edit - wibbs, what study are you basing that on? You could also argue the higher the status of the woman, the better looking her partner! (think Madonna & Jesus? - what a pair of names!)

That's interesting. When I was in school I was considered to be one of the best looking in our year. I hated it. The cattiness,the bitchiness,the glares whenever you walked in a room.
People would not leave their boyfriends alone with me in case I 'stole' them. I would never have done that but apparently I couldn't be trusted because of my looks. I remember girls with boyfriends that wouldn't let them give me a kiss on the cheek for my kisses at my 21st.
I was also very shy so there was never a moment I enjoyed it. You don't wake up thinking 'Oh my God I'm so stunning' you just brace yourself for the bitchy comments of a new day.
Girls don't like good looking girls. I went to a wedding once with my then boyfriend and seriously the glares when I entered the room were absolutely awful. You feel you haven't a hope of people liking you because they already don't like you.
This might sound a bit weird but as I've got older I've definitely got worse looking - skin is worse, wrinkles, put on a bit of weight etc, and I'm much more comfortable in my skin. Women like me now. It just shows how judgemental our own sex can be.

Latchy

minidazzler wrote: »

To me a beautiful woman is one who gives me a certain feeling when I think about their music or something they did or said, I can't describe the feeling but I know it when I feel it. It's the same feeling I get when I see a painting I think is magnificent. Beauty to me is from expressions I think you could call it.

Yes, it's like I get the same reaction when I hear somebody like Mama Cass Elliot sing ,somebody who had a serious weight problem but her voice was from the soul and that's what's important , not her looks or figure .

Macha

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It just shows how judgemental our own sex can be.

But that's my point: if you tell a certain group of people in society that their success depends on how attractive they are to men, then that's the basis on which they will compete.

Men don't compete so much on looks because our culture doesn't tell them that looks is what is important for them. Instead, men are told that wealth/power/status are what they will be judged on and so they that's what they're more likely to compete about (I know there is some seerious generalisations going on here).

Very interesting post wibbs. As you rightfully point out, even the standards by which society judged beauty in men and women are not written in stone. Although, of course, what the average guy/girl finds attractive doesn't vary as much.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes we can see examples of that reverse, but it is much rarer and stands out as such. There are far far more reverse examples of the Madonna/Jesus coupling out there. Most of us can think of at least one. This may well change with women gaining more and more of the positions that men held in the past, though in many ways even there I doubt it. Many high powered women are still looking for men equal or above them. I would put good money if you surveyed divorce rates among high powered women with low powered males the rates would be far higher than the other way around. I do suspect that that is more of a social, not biological construct though.

Thank you, you put it very well.

Oh The Humanity wrote: »

Female beauty IS definitely prized and valued above all other qualities. So it has always been and so will it always be.

Thank you, Oh The Humanity, for proving my point. Prized and valued by who? What you meant but didn't say is "by men" of course. In our culture, the assumed audience or viewer is the heterosexual (white) male. And we still see evidence of that everywhere in the media. From Wimbledon's policy to pick pretty women for Centre Court to Sasha Baron Cohen's stupid naked poses, meant to highlight how ridiculous it is when men try to be sexy.

I mean, just look at this Lego ad from 1981 - would you EVER see anything like it these days? No way, the girl would be blonde, all dressed up in pink and building something like a kitchen or mermaid (if they even used a girl for the ad!):

Oh The Humanity wrote: »

Its not right or fair but its so. There is no point fighting it or getting upset about it as it is just fact.

Oh on the contrary, I think you'll find it isn't a fact, there is a surprising amount at stake and it certainly is something worth fighting.

Wibbs

taconnol wrote: »

But that's my point: if you tell a certain group of people in society that their success depends on how attractive they are to men, then that's the basis on which they will compete.

True but to one degree or other beauty in both sexes was valued to varying degrees in all cultures and times. It was even considered more virtuous just by being beautiful. Blessed by the gods etc. The ugly or those outside the standard(which is remarkably consistent considering) were considered lesser. Modern media at the present time has made it more focused though, that's for sure.

Men don't compete so much on looks because our culture doesn't tell them that looks is what is important for them. Instead, men are told that wealth/power/status are what they will be judged on and so they that's what they're more likely to compete about (I know there is some seerious generalisations going on here).

True but both men and women early on see what works and what doesn't. While the beautiful(especially women) may have a hard time when they're young with crap from their peers, they tend to have better lives. Much of the crap they get from their peers stems from the knowledge of the peers that chances are they'll have an easier ride through life. Hell even tall men have a tendency to live longer and have better salaries as height in males is selected as a good thing. Men also see that better looking taller men with social power and status consistently get "better" women and more of them. Oh sure you have the Johnny Depp extremes, but it filters down to the general and is just as applicable in the school disco and beyond.

Very interesting post wibbs. As you rightfully point out, even the standards by which society judged beauty in men and women are not written in stone. Although, of course, what the average guy/girl finds attractive doesn't vary as much.

Yea pretty much. Fashion comes and goes, but Botticelli's Venus would still attract more average men, than a plain woman and Leonardos example of the ideal renaissance man would still attract women hand over fist walking down a beach.

Thank you, you put it very well.

I get lucky sometimes.:D

Thank you, Oh The Humanity, for proving my point. Prized and valued by who? What you meant but didn't say is "by men" of course. In our culture, the assumed audience or viewer is the heterosexual (white) male. And we still see evidence of that everywhere in the media. From Wimbledon's policy to pick pretty women for Centre Court to Sasha Baron Cohen's stupid naked poses, meant to highlight how ridiculous it is when men try to be sexy.

Ok fine, but and it's a big but, women have as much control of this if not more in certain arenas. Who writes and reads the magazines that go on about the latest diet or the pictures of the dolly bird de jour and her fat thighs on the beach? The same dolly bird straight men are mooning over(AKA "that bitch"). Who consumes the stuff about the latest starlet and how she's let herself go or has gotten skinny again? That would be women. Who are more bitchy about pretty women? That would be women again. Oh yes men may call some woman a bitch because she didn't go for their advances, but real consistent bitchy putdowns and pressure comes mostly and consistently from other women. Women are far more socially competitive than men IMHO. Men are competitive, but lines tend to be drawn early on and that tends to be that.

Then we look at fashion, which is mostly populated by models that most straight men wouldn't look twice at. Not since the "supermodel" phenomena of the late 80's anyway, where they did appeal to straight men. The fashion industry is largely driven and controlled by gay men and straight women and it could well be argued is more detrimental to women's self image than Nutz etc ever was.

Hell, porn is populated by women of all sizes and you would find far more sites on google if you search for fat or even obese women than skinny. Far more. Even the term BBW(big beautiful women) which seems to have been largely a porn invention is entirely aimed and consumed by straight men.

Again I would say while straight men have some part to play, they do not have the majority part by any stretch. They may be playing along with the cultural ideal, but not within an asses roar of the way women are playing into it and feeding it. How many men do the women on here know who are up with the latest women's fashions the same way most women are? Few enough. How many women would trust their men to dress them entirely for a year? Your gay mates or other women? I suspect they would win that one. How many men have you heard complain about cellulite? Or fat thighs? The list is long. men in general boil down to; I would. I wouldn't. I would with a few drinks. They may dress it up more if pushed but it boils down to that and the cloths a woman wears while helpful at times, comes into it very little.

I mean, just look at this Lego ad from 1981 - would you EVER see anything like it these days? No way, the girl would be blonde, all dressed up in pink and building something like a kitchen or mermaid (if they even used a girl for the ad!):

No I agree, chances are very high you wouldn't. Children have become more sexualised in the media. To a disturbing degree and are judged more on how adult women are thought to supposed to look. When I walk through a shopping centre and I see 9 year old girls, children wearing makeup and "slutty" style clothes it really gets my goat. I really don't remember any of that when I was a kid(around the time your ad was out). OK so who is pushing this? I seriously doubt many men are buying their daughters playboy bunny tee shirts and the like. I would further doubt that many men are designing them. Peer pressure has a part to play of course. Advertising too, but I would not lay this at the feet of straight men as much as many do.

Oh on the contrary, I think you'll find it isn't a fact, there is a surprising amount at stake and it certainly is something worth fighting.

Agreed, but the right battles have to be picked too. Parents, male and female should stop tarting up their children. The fashion industry should be brought to book and that can only happen if women, not men, women, stand up and say no.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

But that's my point: if you tell a certain group of people in society that their success depends on how attractive they are to men, then that's the basis on which they will compete. .

Yeah, it drives me mad that the first thing my mother comments on about women, strangers, relatives doesn't matter, is how they look. The second thing is who they've married.... I find it so frustrating but I understand that's how she was judged and valued and so in turn that's how she judges and values other women.

I'd like to think I don't judge other women on their looks but how can that be if, sadly, I kind of judge myself by those standards? I know it doesn't reflect on the type of person I am, or what I do, but I still do it.

So, does that mean fast forward 20 years and I'll be telling my daughter I bumped into so-and-so and she's looking amazing and didn't she do well for herself marrying a doctor!!! :rolleyes:

Macha

Wibbs wrote: »

True but both men and women early on see what works and what doesn't. While the beautiful(especially women) may have a hard time when they're young with crap from their peers, they tend to have better lives. Much of the crap they get from their peers stems from the knowledge of the peers that chances are they'll have an easier ride through life. Hell even tall men have a tendency to live longer and have better salaries as height in males is selected as a good thing. Men also see that better looking taller men with social power and status consistently get "better" women and more of them. Oh sure you have the Johnny Depp extremes, but it filters down to the general and is just as applicable in the school disco and beyond.

I agree, but we have a tendency in our culture to emphasise the benefits of female beauty and minimise the benefits of male beauty (and in doing so, cause these differences to come into existence). A symptom of this is the rake of teen movies that are based on the ordinary-looking guy getting the good-looking girl (eg 'American Pie' and 'The girl next door', among others). These movies help to perpetuate the idea that men need their partner to be attractive, whereas women need their partner to be interesting or have a high social status). An example of this strong emphasis on women as beautiful objects and how men could never be considered as such, look at this ad to get women to have a smear test:



And I quote the brilliant commentary from the site:

The message is essentially that pap tests have the potential to save the lives of women, but rather than pointing out that, you know, this is good cause… women deserve the opportunity to live a long and meaningful life in whatever way they may wish, or whatever… [But this isn't the message, instead] they use the ad to scare us into thinking, “if all our women were to die, well then who would we objectify? men? gasp! wouldnt that be horrible”…

…it also sends a very clear message that one of the requirements of women in our North American society is to stand as objects for our admiration. Of course this is only certain kinds of women as this ad could easily be used for some sort of diet pill with an ‘overweight’ woman replacing this man with the statement “the world needs skinny women.”

Wibbs wrote: »

Ok fine, but and it's a big but, women have as much control of this if not more in certain arenas.

Well...I wouldn't say we have just as much control. I mean is it women making that decision at Wimbledon? No, it's a man. I don't think as many women are in these decision-making positions as we'd like to think.
BUT, of course some women are in significant positions of power, particularly in the fashion/media industry and they do little or nothing to help change things. I would also argue that buying thos god-awful magazines that beat celebrites with the "body judging" stick (too fat, too thin) are just the most horiffic thing - I certainly don't buy them.

Wibbs wrote: »

Women are far more socially competitive than men IMHO. Men are competitive, but lines tend to be drawn early on and that tends to be that.

Again, I would argue that because many women feel they are judged on social aspects of their lives (eg their house design/cleanliness, entertaining skills, child rearing, physical appearance) so it follows that women will feel more insecure, threatened and ultimately competitive in these areas.

As for fashion, I think it has become a more simple case of being able to sell people more things, when they feel inadequate. Fashion isn't about needs: it's a luxury and so you have to create that sense of desire in consumers to have that dress/pair of shoes/eyeliner to feel better about themselves. How better to do that than to parade around women with unattainable bodies and faces? Then, it doesn't matter how many pairs of shoes she buys, she'll never look like the girl (I say girl, because many are under 18) in the ad. More pressure is being heaped on men too, as marketers realise that male insecurities could be just as profitable as women's have been.
(BTW, totally agree with your analysis of what most men probably think about fashion - very little!)

Wibbs wrote: »

Agreed, but the right battles have to be picked too. Parents, male and female should stop tarting up their children. The fashion industry should be brought to book and that can only happen if women, not men, women, stand up and say no.

Definitely. I used to work in a bookshop and we had what I used to call the BARF section (Ballerinas and Rainbow Fairies section) full of pink and sparkly little books for little girls. More often than not it was a mother, aunt or grandmother that would come in asking for something "appropriate" for a little girl. Efforts to steer them towards even something like Nancy Drew were rebuffed with suspicious looks and mutterings about them being too "adventurous" for such a little angel.

Yeah PinkSphinks, I have an aunt like that - I really feel they're the product of their generation.

winking weber

Oh The Humanity wrote: »

Its not right or fair but its so. There is no point fighting it or getting upset about it as it is just fact.

It is so worth fighting. It really is. I think we all would want our daughters to be appreciated holistically rather than accepted or dismissed based on their appearance. The insecurity us women have and live with every day about our looks is a crock of sh1t and I wouldnt wish it on anyone.

And I am not dismissing sexual attraction and saying that it does not need to be there. Of course it does. But the emphasis on beauty to the exclusion of other qualities is as much society and culture driven as it is by actual I dunno, evolutionary needs.

Btw did anyone read about Salman Rushdie propositioning an 18 year old woman in the Sunday Times last week? Apparently she politely declined his invitation to dinner and he retorted with 'but I'm a famous author you know'. Berlusconi is another eejit. Cartoonish behaviour. They deserve to be lambasted.

liah

Haven't read the whole thread tbh so I don't know if anyone's said this yet, but it's a highly unpopular opinion so I doubt anyone has;

Erm..

..why would you want to see unattractive people plastered all over the media?

It's nice to be able to see something above average on the big screen or on the front page of the paper. We see normal, average looking people every single day. Seeing something beautiful is appreciated. Humans are visual creatures; why chastise ourselves for it? It may be cruel, but it's natural to like beauty.

Now, I don't want to undermine the unattractive people who have acheived great things. They should get the exposure they deserve too. I'm just saying, there's also nothing wrong with wanting to look at pretty things. People who say there is just want to parade around and say they're on some higher moral ground because they don't care about looks like everyone else.

LadyJ

liah wrote: »

why would you want to see unattractive people plastered all over the media?

It's nice to be able to see something above average on the big screen or on the front page of the paper. We see normal, average looking people every single day. Seeing something beautiful is appreciated. Humans are visual creatures; why chastise ourselves for it? It may be cruel, but it's natural to like beauty.


Now, I don't want to undermine the unattractive people who have acheived great things. They should get the exposure they deserve too. I'm just saying, there's also nothing wrong with wanting to look at pretty things. People who say there is just want to parade around and say they're on some higher moral ground because they don't care about looks like everyone else.

I think the problem is that the media seem to portray only one kind of beauty and this is the stereotypical kind. They leave little room for anything beyond it so anyone who isn't in that category is excluded.

"Unattractive" is really a subjective term, as is "beautiful".

midlandsmissus

liah wrote: »

Haven't read the whole thread tbh so I don't know if anyone's said this yet, but it's a highly unpopular opinion so I doubt anyone has;

Erm..

..why would you want to see unattractive people plastered all over the media?

It's nice to be able to see something above average on the big screen or on the front page of the paper. We see normal, average looking people every single day. Seeing something beautiful is appreciated. Humans are visual creatures; why chastise ourselves for it? It may be cruel, but it's natural to like beauty.

Now, I don't want to undermine the unattractive people who have acheived great things. They should get the exposure they deserve too. I'm just saying, there's also nothing wrong with wanting to look at pretty things. People who say there is just want to parade around and say they're on some higher moral ground because they don't care about looks like everyone else.

True to an extent.That is why so many celebrities have plastic surgery and why there is such a huge airbrushing industry. NOTHING you see in the media is real.
Megan Fox, the stunning actress of the moment, has had numerous plastic surgeries already and she's only what, 20?
She explained this by saying "people only want to see good looking people in the movies, they want to escape from reality"