Tootsie & female beauty: "I have been brainwashed"

beks101

This 2012 interview with Dustin Hoffman seems to have re-surfaced and is making waves online.

Hoffman talks about his role in the 1982 film "Tootsie", where he plays the part of Michael Dorsey, a struggling actor who dresses as a woman in a bid to find a job.

Prior to shooting, he underwent a make-up test, in which he found that he could successfully pass as a woman, but was shocked that "I wasn't more attractive". He felt that as a woman, he should be beautiful, but was told that this was impossible.

The epiphany about female beauty that followed was his reason for taking the part.

..."I think I'm an interesting woman, when I see myself on screen and I know that if I met myself at a party, I would never talk to that character because she doesn't fulfill physically the demands that we're brought up to think women have to have in order for us to ask them out.

There's too many interesting women I have not had the experience to know in this life, because I have been brainwashed.

The video:

When I watched this yesterday, this particular quote above struck me.

Because I've heard it before, from someone close to me. She's one of the most intelligent and funny people I know, with a mass of both male and female friends, but we've had some drunken heart-to-hearts when she told me that there's times when she'll find herself alone or ignored by some guys in a social setting because she's not "physically attractive", she's not someone they want to take home.

We had a conversation along the same lines recently, with her calling herself "ugly", and interestingly my immediate response was "what are you talking about, you're gorgeous!" I've never questioned this; she's a dear friend and am absolute legend; I think this is how most women would respond.

She linked me to this article:

(Headline: I am ugly, and proud of it)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/28/ugly-proud-of-it

To me, both Hoffman's "epiphany" and the above article fall under the same theme: as a woman, it's not really 'enough' to be interesting. "Ugly" is a word we must avoid, even if by society's messed up standards, it rings true. To be an 'ugly' woman, somewhat cheapens your social value ***

After reading the article, I questioned why I found it so objectionable to hear my friend describe herself as 'ugly'. I saw it as symbolic of poor self esteem, low confidence, depression. Because if I feel ugly, those are the underlying emotions.

But why can't it just be fact? Why can't it just be grand, to know and say that you're not pretty, not gorgeous, not able to 'sell' yourself on your looks? Why must a woman trade on that quality in so many social situations anyway?

What do you think? Beautiful V interesting female, are they of equal value? Have you experienced judgement or discrimination on either of these things?

*** Just to footnote this: I don't mean to turn this into a Man V Woman or man-bashing thing at all. I understand it swings both ways. But think it's far more socially acceptable and often, a source of humour, for a man to describe himself as an "ugly b@stard", without it taking away from his status, than vice versa.

fits

Gosh its mad the way he gets quite emotional about it isn't it?

Legs.Eleven

I'm going to think about this but two things: I read that article from The Guardian and the woman who wrote it is not ugly. She's not. Ugly in my world is such a strong word and I know what ugly looks like but she is not it. I read the comments on the bottom (always more insightful than the article itself) and someone made the comment that she was making a farce out of what people who are genuinely ugly have to face because she's not ugly and would never know....and she must know that herself, which made me question why she wrote the article the first place. I found the piece insincere because of this tbh. No one, not even herself, could call that woman ugly.

Secondly, Dustin Hoffman is probably one of the few Hollywood actors out there who has anything interesting to say and he makes a very good point and it's touching to see how upset he is because what he says is the absolute truth unfortunately, although like you, Beks, it's no one's fault and I'm definitely not putting the blame on men. People can't help who they're attracted to but it is a pity that if a woman falls at that first hurdle in the eyes of a man she's interested in or might be interested in her, the story ends there and that seems so harsh and so sad....but it's life.

I'm going to have a think about this and get back to you.

beks101

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I'm going to think about this but two things: I read that article from The Guardian and the woman who wrote it is not ugly. She's not. Ugly in my world is such a strong word and I know what ugly looks like but she is not it. I read the comments on the bottom (always more insightful than the article itself) and someone made the comment that she was making a farce out of what people who are genuinely ugly have to face because she's not ugly and would never know....and she must know that herself, which made me question why she wrote the article the first place. I found the piece insincere because of this tbh. No one, not even herself, could call that woman ugly.

I agree. She's completely normal looking to me, deadly hair, quirky sense of style judging on that pic alone. Attractive to many I would say.

Exactly how I'd describe my friend. She's most definitely NOT ugly either.

BUT. What's so wrong about being ugly? Why are we so afraid of that word? That's what I've been examining in myself since I read it. I hate the word, it's an "ugly" word to me and I wouldn't use it at all to describe anyone I know. To me, it's hateful, mean, malicious, a bullish word ridden with negative connotations.

But why, if you're not conventionally attractive or you're at the opposite end of the 'head turning' spectrum, is it an insult, and one that degrades, that detracts from your value as a woman, to point it out?

I guess that's what I'm getting at.

The women I admire, the women who have inspired me in my life - my mother, my role models, my aunts, my colleagues, my friends - are not supermodels and have never played up to that quality.

And yet, you can fall outside the standards of physical beauty and despite a wealth of unique traits, be overlooked by many.

Wibbs

Well one could get all objective, or at least make a fist of same and get down to brass tacks and look at what makes for attraction. Primarily sexual attraction as that's what we're discussing, on the surface anyway. Now "brainwashing" or better, cultural conditioning most certainly plays into this, as what is considered attractive across culture and time does vary. Can vary quite a bit, but one could argue that variability even in extremis is narrow enough and there are some constants. Beyond the cultural, the "genetic" fitness is a lot of it. Now I don't buy either the genetics - nor it's bedfellow evolutionary biology - wholesale. It's too modish for that. However there is something to it IMHO.

In very basic terms, "ugly" is reproductively unfit expressed as an external thing, while "beauty" is reproductively fit expressed as an external thing. There's quite the bit of evidence that backs this up in real world terms. EG women with the "ideal" hip - waist ratio(regardless of body weight) have healthier hormonal levels and are more likely to have fewer fertility issues compared to women who don't. Taller men are less likely to have heart attacks and are more likely to be promoted. Men who go bald at a young age are more likely to have cardiovascular issues. So we subconsciously select for traits more advantageous, even above and beyond the cultural conditioning.

EG while very low body weight women are prevalent in our culture as ideals currently, many if not most men if faced with such women in the flesh are more likely to ignore them in favour of women more "normal" in body weight.

So yea we are brainwashed to some degree by cultural pressures, but we can also fall outside them too. The problem comes when we forget that we're not all avatars of culture and that there is a mind, there is an individual behind the physical form and that goes both ways. Very "beautiful" women(and men) can be ignored for their mind, just as much as very "ugly" women can be, though of course the former has an easier ride in life compared to the latter. For a time anyway. Luckily for the rest of us we sit near the average and that's a good thing IMH.

clairefontaine

beks101 wrote: »

I agree. She's completely normal looking to me, deadly hair, quirky sense of style judging on that pic alone. Attractive to many I would say.

Exactly how I'd describe my friend. She's most definitely NOT ugly either.

BUT. What's so wrong about being ugly? Why are we so afraid of that word? That's what I've been examining in myself since I read it. I hate the word, it's an "ugly" word to me and I wouldn't use it at all to describe anyone I know. To me, it's hateful, mean, malicious, a bullish word ridden with negative connotations.

But why, if you're not conventionally attractive or you're at the opposite end of the 'head turning' spectrum, is it an insult, and one that degrades, that detracts from your value as a woman, to point it out?

I guess that's what I'm getting at.

The women I admire, the women who have inspired me in my life - my mother, my role models, my aunts, my colleagues, my friends - are not supermodels and have never played up to that quality.

And yet, you can fall outside the standards of physical beauty and despite a wealth of unique traits, be overlooked by many.

Female insecurity is a multi billion dollar industry, that's why. You suck. Buy this. You won't feel like you suck anymore.

Self help.
Cosmetics.
Plastic surgery.
Spanx.
Home shopping channel.
100 euro moisturiser. Come on.

Keep the perfected self alive as a dream and well all feel ugly and spend all our money.

Daisy78

You only have to look at the comment john inverdale made recently about Marion baritoli to see that for the most part the outer packaging is still what seems to be important. It doesn't matter that you are a gifted sports woman who has sacrificed so much to get where you are...you ain't a looker so tough luck.

I sometimes hear comments from male friends/colleagues which floor me ....conversations about the new girlfriend of so and so who on paper would appear to be a nightmare, demanding, gold digging, clingy, you name it but all of these traits are seemingly forgivable cause the woman in question is gorgeous...a "looker", otherwise the guy in question wouldn't be putting up with her. And these are otherwise intelligent, worldly wise men with bucket loads of common sense!

I also don't think the girl in the article is ugly. She is distinctive, kinda quirky but she is proababy right in saying that her overall appearance doesn't fit the mould of what is considered to be "hot" which has such a narrow definition nowadays that most women wouldn't make the cut anyway. It's why I don't watch tv anymore...the super skinny, "flawless" amazonian types that are to be found in soaps, films, and god help us reality tv programmes are in no way representative of my type of feminity. They are like an alien species to me

Frito

Daisy78 wrote: »

"flawless" amazonian types...they are like an alien species to me

I come in peace.

fits

Attraction based on looks is one thing. But dismissing people out of hand because of their appearance is quite another. And I think this is what Dustin Hoffmann is so upset about. The fact that if he met his female self at a party, he would have dismissed her out of hand as an invalid being because of her appearance.

I don't think the guardian author is ugly either but then neither neither do I think Marion Bartoli is and look what happened her. With these kind of reactions is it any wonder so few women are prepared to go into positions like politics for example. The venom directed at people like Angela Merkel, Julia Gillard and Mary Harney here.

beks101

fits wrote: »

Attraction based on looks is one thing. But dismissing people out of hand because of their appearance is quite another. And I think this is what Dustin Hoffmann is so upset about. The fact that if he met his female self at a party, he would have dismissed her out of hand as an invalid being because of her appearance.

Spot on.

I think you've articulated what unsettles me most. It's not an attraction argument as far as Im concerned; we each like what we like. It's the fact that a woman who doesn't fit the "hot" protocol that someone has, isn't worthy of time, attention, respect or regard. Almost as if it de-humanizes her, defeminizes her.

When I hear of that happening, someone fantastically intelligent, insightful, hilarious and with a truckload to contribute being marginalized, or made to feel inadequate because they're not deemed physically desirable...it doesn't sit well with me or the values I hold. It makes me feel uncomfortable and anxious as a woman. It's discrimination really.

Legs.Eleven

I come across it a huge amount here (Spain...yes, I can't write a post without mentioning Spain ). The Spanish word for ugly ("Feo") is bandied around so much that it actually makes me angry. I've brought in videos for my students (my students are all adults who are at least 25 years old) that have nothing at all to do with beauty and I've got the "Que feo!" (how ugly) comments from them and I've had to hold myself back from biting the heads off them to say, "What has that got to do with anything? She's a respected scientist in her field.", for example. Some serious tongue-biting had to be done to restrain myself. The comments seemed completely unnecessary and totally out-of-place.

And recently, I went home to Ireland and my academy had a teacher sub my class. I went in the next day and the first thing they said to me when I asked them how it went was, "She's very strange-looking" and the 3 of them went into detail about how weird her face was and how much better she could be if she did this, this and this. I was in total shock. I happen to know this teacher is ridiculously nice and extremely clever (Romanian but is bilingual in Spanish and English) and a fantastic, popular teacher among students and her niceness would be the first thing I'd comment on. It made me angry that I was having this conversation with 3 people in their 30s.

While i was home that time in Ireland, I saw a lot of my niece who's 10 months old and she's a particularly gorgeous baby. I remember reminding myself and everyone (half joking) to not keep calling her beautiful and gorgeous and cute etc and to concentrate on her her other attributes like gentleness, placidness, happiness, cleverness etc. I don't want to drill it into my nieces head that the fact that she's beautiful is not the sum of all she is.

OnTheCouch

The woman writing the piece may be taking a somewhat 'tongue-in-cheek' attitude to the article or has insecurity issues, because she is certainly not ugly. You see far, far worse any day of the week walking around our streets.

I don't know if this was deliberate or not, but sartorially she could have done a lot better in the selected photo for the article. Her top and her hair clash horribly, which leads to an unpleasant visual effect, but take that away and she's a perfectly normal looking female.

I also understand where Dustin Hoffmann is coming from, I often feel very guilty as a male that so much of the value we place on females comes from their looks and we often put up with bad behaviour from them if they happen to be visually appealing. And at the same time ignoring their admirable qualities such as friendliness, compassion, listening skills, reliability etc.

It is something that I often try and ignore, but in a similar vein to eating meat, sometimes when I look at the bigger picture and observe my actions objectively, I do not feel great about myself.

cantdecide

Not to mention the pressure that women receive from other women to look well. That's the real brain bender.

Addle

cantdecide wrote: »

Not to mention the pressure that women receive from other women to look well. That's the real brain bender.

There's a big difference between looking well and being born good looking/attractive.

meeeeh

beks101 wrote: »

I agree. She's completely normal looking to me, deadly hair, quirky sense of style judging on that pic alone. Attractive to many I would say.

Exactly how I'd describe my friend. She's most definitely NOT ugly either.

BUT. What's so wrong about being ugly? Why are we so afraid of that word? That's what I've been examining in myself since I read it. I hate the word, it's an "ugly" word to me and I wouldn't use it at all to describe anyone I know. To me, it's hateful, mean, malicious, a bullish word ridden with negative connotations.

But why, if you're not conventionally attractive or you're at the opposite end of the 'head turning' spectrum, is it an insult, and one that degrades, that detracts from your value as a woman, to point it out?

I guess that's what I'm getting at.

The women I admire, the women who have inspired me in my life - my mother, my role models, my aunts, my colleagues, my friends - are not supermodels and have never played up to that quality.

And yet, you can fall outside the standards of physical beauty and despite a wealth of unique traits, be overlooked by many.

What is wrong with being last or being the stupidest or poor? Nobody wants to be that either. There is some weird perception that only beauty is achieved effortlessly and the rest depends solely on merit. And yet genes, environment influence significantly all of the above. And a lot of people are overlooked because of it. Beauty actually is in the eye of the beholder although it helps if someone is presentable and makes an effort to be suitably dressed and so on. our looks are also not just something we are born with. I'm not talking about making a huge effort but way more but some slob with classical features will be ignored just as easily as someone less beautiful.

There are people who have disabilities or some features that really affect their prospects of being attractive to anyone. But the same goes for all extremes. Most of us though are not ignored because we are not attractive enough but because we are boring or annoying or messy or something similar. We might be not the first to be chatted to but we are not ignored either. Besides ask really pretty people and they will tell you that often others are intimidated by them.

The issue is a lot more complex and some fashionably quirky (it seems to be the look preferred among columnists and BBC chefs) and far from ugly comedian is not doing anybody any favors with her article. If she would write average looking I'd have no complaints and she would represent a lot of us.

Legs.Eleven

I remembered something on the way home from work and it was a comment someone wrote on this forum and it was probably one of the saddest things I've ever had the misfortune of reading. It was a discussion about approaching women in a bar and there was the usual comments you've come to expect on those threads but one comment struck me and it was from a poster who said his uncle had told him that all women are nothing in the end - even the really hot ones are nothing in the end. He was basically saying that all women age, lose our looks and we're left with nothing.


I read it and if I wasn't someone with a decent amount of self-esteem, it could've really had an impact on me. Supposedly, the eyes of some people, we're nothing without our looks. How deeply depressing is that attitude?

meeeeh

Are you sure it wasn't meant that we are all dust in the end? Because I heard similar sayings before. i don't know the context of the post but I know plenty of comments in the sense that "everybody's ****e stinks" meaning that everybody has faults or similar... And usually they are meant as an encouragement not to be intimidated when approaching someone.

Legs.Eleven

meeeeh wrote: »

Are you sure it wasn't meant that we are all dust in the end? Because I heard similar sayings before. i don't know the context of the post but I know plenty of comments in the sense that "everybody's ****e stinks" meaning that everybody has faults or similar... And usually they are meant as an encouragement not to be intimidated when approaching someone.

....


You know what? It might've been. I suppose the fact that it was specifically directed at women and the context of the comments that made me think otherwise but tbh, I didn't question what he meant so I can't be sure. I hope so!!

WindSock

fits wrote: »

Gosh its mad the way he gets quite emotional about it isn't it?

Fairly dismissive of me myself, but I sometimes find it difficult to trust if the emotions displayed by a professional actor are genuine.

kylith

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

....


You know what? It might've been. I suppose the fact that it was specifically directed at women and the context of the comments that made me think otherwise but tbh, I didn't question what he meant so I can't be sure. I hope so!!

TBH I think your initial assumption was right; I've heard similar things before, but generally more 'Go for a woman who can cook. Her looks will fade, but her Shepherd's Pie will only get better'.

fits

WindSock wrote: »

Fairly dismissive of me myself, but I sometimes find it difficult to trust if the emotions displayed by a professional actor are genuine.

I thought it was a weird self pity.

"If I was a woman noone would want to talk to meeee.. And I'm really interestingggg"
I do like Dustin though.

Legs.Eleven

kylith wrote: »

TBH I think your initial assumption was right; I've heard similar things before, but generally more 'Go for a woman who can cook. Her looks will fade, but her Shepherd's Pie will only get better'.

And the poster didn't come across as the most philosophical of posters judging by the other stuff he posted (which was more of the usual fare on this type of thread). I didn't read it as someone with a profound thought on exentialism but as someone simply saying all women lose their looks in the end, so they're not worth putting on a pedestal. I don't think it's very hard to believe a comment like that would be made when you read enough guff on the internet.


But again, I could be wrong.

--Kaiser--

Is Dustin Hoffman that much of an idiot? Why did he think he'd make a good looking woman? Does he not realise that men and woman generally have quite large differences in facial features and bone structure and attractive qualities of each gender are not always the same?

Legs.Eleven

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Is Dustin Hoffman that much of an idiot? Why did he think he'd make a good looking woman? Does he not realise that men and woman generally have quite large differences in facial features and bone structure and attractive qualities of each gender are not always the same?

Whatever about his sincerity, he still made a valid point, didn't he?

--Kaiser--

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Whatever about his sincerity, he still made a valid point, didn't he?

I wasn't doubting his sincerity, more incredulous at his ridiculous assumption that he'd be good looking if he was made up as a woman.

And what was his point? That he's been brain washed into not asking out less attractive woman? Nope, that's rubbish. If you're not attracted to someone then it's not your fault, attraction is not a choice. Is he suggesting that people ask out people they're not attracted to? Why? I certainly wouldn't want to go out with a woman who didn't find me attractive, however likely or unlikely that may be

B0jangles

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

And what was his point? That he's been brain washed into not asking out less attractive woman? Nope, that's rubbish. If you're not attracted to someone then it's not your fault, attraction is not a choice. Is he suggesting that people ask out people they're not attracted to? Why? I certainly wouldn't want to go out with a woman who didn't find me attractive, however likely or unlikely that may be

I don't think that was his point; it was more that if he had met a female version of himself "Justine Hoffman", he wouldn't have even bothered to speak to her at all, he would have dismissed her outright as a person (not just as a possible lover/partner).

I get the impression D is a bit of an egotist, and the very idea that if he had been born "Justine Hoffman" - same person, basically same appearance but female, then men like him would have ignored her completely - solely because she was unattractive, and this absolutely horrified him.

--Kaiser--

B0jangles wrote: »

I don't think that was his point; it was more that if he had met a female version of himself "Justine Hoffman", he wouldn't have even bothered to speak to her at all, he would have dismissed her outright as a person (not just as a possible lover/partner).

I get the impression D is a bit of an egotist, and the very idea that if he had been born "Justine Hoffman" - same person, basically same appearance but female, then men like him would have ignored her completely - solely because she was unattractive, and this absolutely horrified him.

The thing about attractive people is in the name, they're more attractive. People are drawn to them and studies show people assume them to be more popular and successful without knowing anything else about them. I wouldn't call it brainwashing, it's more the way our brains are hard-wired (for example, even babies and infants are more attracted to more aesthetically pleasing faces)

ash23

I've been experiencing this for years. I wouldn't say I'm ugly because I know some men have been attracted to me on sight and I like some of my features. But I'd say my body shape wouldn't be to everyones taste and that's ok.

But the number of times I've been stuck beside a man, lets say at a party or a wedding or in a bar, and tried to make conversation and found them being somewhat evasive, trying to move away or act disinterested. And then sometimes they'll give up and engage in a conversation with me and I can nearly see them changing their minds about me. It's very hard to describe but it's a common enough occurrence for me and I'm sure for other women too.

It's like at the start they're looking for something better than this average woman they're stuck beside but there's no escape so they make chat. And then realise that this average person is just average in looks only but is funny and personable and interesting and good fun to spend time with. Even if there's no physical attraction to me, they realise they still enjoy my company.
Inevitably some usually try to lob the gob. But yeah, unless they were under duress to actually speak to me, they'd never have bothered.

meeeeh

kylith wrote: »

TBH I think your initial assumption was right; I've heard similar things before, but generally more 'Go for a woman who can cook. Her looks will fade, but her Shepherd's Pie will only get better'.

I actually see nothing wrong with comments like that. If people would be judging solely on looks most of us wouldn't have a chance. In the same way most people wouldn't have a chance if being a good cook was the only criteria.

I actually agree with a lot what is said in the Guardian article I just don't think it is credible from an "ugly point of view".

old hippy

When I see words like "ugly" used on boards (obv. not this discussion) it saddens me. It used to anger me but I just gave up on discussing it with the individuals who are all to happy to dismiss someone because of their perception of how a woman should "be". True ugliness tends to well up from the inside and those that use the term against women tend (IMHO) to be full of it.

mariaalice

The woman who wrote the article is not ugly she is quirky, I actually think ugly ( in the sense of looks not personality ) is interesting in women and men because it out side the norm, some rugby players would not win any beauty contests but woman still find them attractive. Its the average who get over looked.