View Full Version : Female MPs
Article on the BBC news site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4074877.stm) about the discrimination against female MPs in the Commons.
Apologies to all Palimpsisters, but I couldn't but find this funny, in a schoolboyish way:
I remember some Conservatives - whenever a Labour woman got up to speak they would take their breasts - imaginary breasts - in their hands and wiggle them and say 'melons' as we spoke.
I can just imagine Thatcher doing that.
Wow. I find that article horrifying and sadly unsurprising at the same time.
There was an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1367807,00.html) in The Grauniad (well, in G2) today about female MPs getting boosts of testosterone to make them more aggressive and thus succeed.
It's still very much a man's world.
NottyImp
7th Dec 2004, 14:28
It is that, but equally it's hard not to argue that some progress has been made.* It's just so damned slow.
* In the (West or parts of it) at least. And probably at the expense of the "developing world", to boot.
Oh, there's definitely been progress. I'd have to be very naive to say otherwise! But no, not enough. And there are still too many people (men) who think women *are* equal now and don't seem to realise that actually, no, we're still effectively second-class citizens in some respects.
Norman Clature
7th Dec 2004, 14:55
Yeah, all right, love. Now you've had your little say, why don't you get back to the ironing?
Er, I was going to say welcome back to Norman, but I don't think I'll bother now.
Remember - this is informed debate, etc etc, not just trotting out the usual drivel. If you meant it as a joke, then it wasn't funny enough.
Joss, I find your link, the testosterone-therapy article, absolutely fascinating. I had no idea that women were taking T supplements to improve their competitiveness in business and so on! Good grief. And they don't mind talking about it?
Do they grow moustaches, I wonder?
youjustmightlikeit
7th Dec 2004, 16:04
It was a bit funny; and the 'melons' thing was definitely funny - although of course, terrible!
R.C. - yes, they do.
Joss - Second class citizens how?
Look at what women earn compared to what men earn. Look at the number of men in positions of power compared to women in positions of power. Look at how we're portrayed in the media.
Admittedly, regarding employment, some of it is unavoidable: if a woman wants to have children she's going to have to take some time off (and the new movement to give a year's paid maternity leave instead of 6 months paid and 6 unpaid is definite progress on that front) but there are women who don't want to have children who are still discriminated against because, "what if they change their mind?".
Media portrayal is far more insidious and (in my opinion) far more dangerous. I'll save you a screed of my issues with the media, but there are definite discrepancies between the representation of the "idealised woman" and actual women, and the social problems these have caused (most notably eating disorders) are almost exclusively a female issue, and they serve to restrict women.
"Second-class citizen" is perhaps a bit strong but I can't think of another way to word it and get across what I mean. I had this conversation the other week (down the pub, of course, where else do students have discussions? Certainly not in seminars...) with three men, who all believed wholeheartedly that they had absolutely no advantage in life over me. Sorry, not the case. I wish it was!
rick green
7th Dec 2004, 17:29
Right on Sistah!
I'll save you a screed of my issues with the media...
Please don't--we're all ears.
youjustmightlikeit
8th Dec 2004, 13:20
I live with a woman who has suffered from a whole bevy of eating disorders; and i can state quite categorically that the sections of the media that are most responsible for promoting the body beautiful and every other version of an 'ideal' woman, are aimed at, read/watched, and produced by, women.
There is a whole sector of the media that seems to grow from women's insecurities and their passions. It is also a sad fact that the people in the best position to exploit these insecurities are women themselves. It has also occured to me more than once that the most popular magazines and columnists are the ones that actively promote female self loathing, in a way that would not be tolerated by male orientated publications and writers.
I take as my prime example (because it is the most recent of a long list) the recent advertisement campaign by 'Dove' i think it was - you know the one - the one that stated it was fed up of seeing their beauty products promoted by supermodels all the time, and that it was time 'real' women were given a chance - the one with five or six female members of the public stripped down to their white underwear and seemingly loving it when smeared with the latest cream. When the advert came out i read, within a week, four columns about this campaign, all written by women, and only one was in favour of it. Three of the women columnists denounced it wholeheartedly, for reasons that seemed facile at the time to me, facile and possibly motivated by a need to 'shock' and stand out from the crowd. Two of these columnists, i hasten to add, were from The Guardian, the self proclaimed beacon of female equality.
I have just done a quick search on Google for comments on this advert; the first entry that was returned, written by a woman, contains the phrase 'hideous creatures' in reference to an article.
Publications that the 'bees in their bonnets' blame mostly for this ideal woman fallacy are the 'lad mags'. These publications may well have a picture of a busty blonde on the front cover (never an emaciated waif, unlike other magazines that i could mention), but all, without fail, actively promote the appreciation of the fuller form in numerous 'agony' columns and countless reader surveys. On the whole they are very responsible when preaching to the younger, greener sections of our male population, advocating respect for women and the importance of a gentle loving relationship - if liberally sprinkled with jokes about having a beer while watching the football on a Saturday. Completely unlike the waif like, avaricious ideal promoted by every publication from Heat to Cosmopolitan.
The 'restriction of women' to which you refer, IS something that does need to be looked at very closely, by women themselves.
Definitely - in the world of magazines, women are their own worst enemies. The examples I've seen trotted out most is "look at the figures of women in porn" and compare them to those shown in Cosmopolitan, etc. There's distinct differences. If I had my way, I'd abolish all the crappy woman-oriented magazines, but sadly I don't have that power, so I settle for not reading them. Women absolutely have the ability to bring each other down and they exercise it all the time - the world of magazines is just a widespread public example of it.
However, there's the portrayal of women in film to consider as well - the virgin/whore idealisation is still alive and well. Buffy the Vampire Slayer might be a strong heroine (and at this point, possibly a cliche of a strong heroine, but I can't think of another tv show that's challenged concepts of heroism in quite the same way), but you never see her without her make-up, and rarely without a boyfriend. Look at the blockbuster films that came out over this past year and point me towards one female character who was anything like a real woman rather than a device to show how sexy and masculine the hero was. In fact, please show me a blockbuster where the woman was the hero that doesn't fall under the category of chick-flick.
The people in charge of the film industry are male, generally speaking. I don't know exact figures of people in controlling positions, but of the major studios I can name off the top of my head, the CEOs are male. Directors skew male, screenwriters skew male. The appearance of unattainably beautiful women in media is an American phenomenon rather than an English one; we're actually very good at putting normal people on the screen here. But because we import so much American media, it becomes part of our culture as well and we ingest those ideas.
Even reading this board, I've seen comments to the effect of "there should have been more female skin shown in Troy; look at all the near-naked men". Well, sorry, look at all the films over the years with naked women and compare that to the number with naked men. Look at the fact that someone in this thread thought it was acceptable to make a joke about me going back to the ironing.
Of course I'm not trying to argue that women are anywhere near as marginalised as we once were - huge strides have been made. But if female MPs choose to fall back on getting testosterone therapy in order to be accepted in an otherwise male-dominated field? We aren't nearly as progressive a society as we'd like to think.
John Self
8th Dec 2004, 13:40
I agree entirely, yjmli, and you've pretty much said everything I was going to. I too have gone out with a woman who had an eating disorder and although there are a whole range of other reasons why women succumb to these disorders (for example having 'control' of one area of your life when everything else seems to be out of your control), I do agree that insofar as 'perfect' body images are concerned, media aimed at women promote the perpetual thin-is-in vogue far more than men's media do. That sentence ended up longer than I planned.
It's interesting though that Dove were praised for 'breaking the mould' with their real-women advertising. I scanned the pictures (purely in the interests of research) for some time:
http://www.lynxwhitelabel.com/images/home/dove_new.jpg
- without spotting so much as a hint of belly or cellulite. Although not "stick-thin," these women are still very much a counsel of perfection in body shape. And still, of course, aimed at women. In some ways this is more destructive, as it's saying these are real women and therefore by implication this is as curvy as it's acceptable to get.
When you point out to women any of the excesses and absurdities they have used for arguments in the Blame Game of the past howevermany years, their argument of last resort is, Well, it's our turn, after what you did to us for so long. How come they don't realize that this line in an instant brings them down to base level?
It's a hugely manipulative ad. The music and voice-over was jaunty and 'join us' in a Let's Go Girls way. The concept was one we really ought to all agree with. The women were attractive (spot the munter? No, exactly). And worse, much worse, white bras and knix, white background, white creme...so what's our eye drawn to? The very attractive, attitude enhanced (not the larky expression) black woman. Hey, she might have a coupla pounds on Kate Moss, but she's great-looking. She also gets marginally more air during the ad run-time.
'Real'? Do me a favour.
EDIT: sorry, yjmli, for just concentrating on one point from your post, it's just that I hate ads that claim to be on your side. They're all trying to sell something, bottom line.
When you point out to women any of the excesses and absurdities they have used for arguments in the Blame Game of the past howevermany years, their argument of last resort is, Well, it's our turn, after what you did to us for so long. How come they don't realize that this line in an instant brings them down to base level?
Obviously I don't think that we should battle for equality and then go past it until men are oppressed; that's ridiculous. But sometimes it is really tempting to say "we've had to deal with your shit for years; now take some back", no matter how much it might lower my argument. Out of interest, what "excesses and absurdities" are you thinking of?
I found the Dove advert quite refreshing in some ways - they are all beautiful and they are all still an idealised form of woman, but because they're not tiny sticks, it's still a nice change from what's usually shown in adverts. Can I turn this around and ask more questions? Do men ever feel pressured by advertising and the media? Is there any kind of parallel at work, or is it solely a female issue? It seems to affect girls most strongly during puberty, when everything is changing and the pressure to be normal and accepted is highest, but obviously some women are affected by perceived external expectations for much longer. Do any of you (I think I'm the only female posting in this thread so far but I do apologise if I'm wrong about that) have any experience with this sort of thing affecting them?
Do men ever feel pressured by advertising and the media?
Nope, I just feel irritated. Admittedly, the season isn't helping that, but no, pressure isn't a sensation I get when bombarded with ads, it's annoyance.
John Self
8th Dec 2004, 14:17
The difficulty with the "we've had to deal with your shit for years; now take some back" response is that it's rarely justified on a one-to-one basis. To use the example you cited Joss, when I said in the Troy review that a bit more female flesh wouldn't go amiss amidst all the male skin, it's just because aesthetically I like looking at women more than men; it doesn't mean I view all women as sex objects.
Men are under pressure too, probably more so now than ever before with similarly idealised images of them in the media. I have always been a skinny so-and-so and have actively had to make an effort to gain weight - then I find when I do manage to put on a few pounds, it goes on around the waist when I'd rather have it on my arms or legs. And so I find myself struggling with stomach crunches to try to get back a six-pack - partly because I want to look good but also because it's part of the idealised male physique innit? Why am I not content with being skinny in the first place?
That's true; it isn't justified one-on-one. When I argue like this (and I do apologise if I'm coming off as completely militant and man-hating because I'm not really), I'm not accusing anyone personally of oppressing women - oppression is largely the construct of this patriarchal society and that's a historical thing, not anything that can be blamed on men I (or anyone) know personally.
I apologise too if the Troy review came off as a personal attack - it certainly wasn't meant to be; I'd rather look at naked women than naked men as well, and I too don't necessarily always mean that in a sexual way - but the idea that showing male flesh is somehow more daring than female is another pervasive double standard. Male nudity will garner a film an 18 almost without fail; breasts probably warrant a 15. Nothing about the male body is more sacred than the female as far as I'm aware, but that's how it's sometimes treated.
John Self
8th Dec 2004, 15:01
When I spoke of male flesh in Troy I should say I didn't mean "wobbly bits," - nor had I the desire particularly to see the female equivalent - just that there were lots of topless blokes. I think a penis on screen would probably be rated about the same as a vagina. It's true that showing women's breasts is considered more "risqué" than a man's chest but that reflects the social norm where in the sunny weather a man can sit around in the park bare-chested without arousing comment (except to the effect that he must be a bit of a vulgarian, heheh), whereas a woman with bare breasts would be considered a no-no. But that in turn is because women's breasts are secondary sexual characteristics, functionally linked with childbirth and so on, and so are more 'intimate' a body part than a man's chest is. In this sense the female body is treated as being more sacred than the male, and not the other way around.
ono no komachi
8th Dec 2004, 15:32
At the risk of trivialising the argument, I must admit that in I, Robot, those who were looking to gain a glimpse of male flesh were treated to rather more titillation in Will Smith's shower scene that those hoping for a glimpse of female flesh were by Bridget Moynahan's later shower scene. (Ahem, not that I was paying particular attention or anything. :oops: )
I have to also confess that I am unsure about where the lines should be drawn when it comes to objectifying people of either sex. I dislike calendars featuring 'hunky' men as much as I object to bosomy screensavers of blonde ladies.
But I can't deny the pleasure I feel in observing an actor I find attractive, so how is that different? Am I any more justified in enjoying Will Smith's shower scene than my sexist pig of a driving instructor was in leering at the topless ladies in his tabloid rag? ("Women are generally worse at parking and reversing than men. And they drive more slowly. And generally take longer to pass their tests.")
youjustmightlikeit
8th Dec 2004, 15:51
100% agreed John
Amner - perhaps the faux real jolly women should stand there looking miserable, with 'advertising whore' tatooed across their foreheads? Perhaps a supermodel frolicking on a beach with a nearby wind machine would have been more appropriate.
Leonardo Da Vinci, Donato Bramante, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Titian - pigs, the lot of them.
Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Orlando Bloom, Jonny Depp - yep, as normal as i am, i'm surprised, with their ugly mugs and beer guts, women can stand to go to their films, thank heavens for their acting abilities.
NottyImp
8th Dec 2004, 16:10
Do men ever feel pressured by advertising and the media?
No - I've never had any hope of living up to the images presented of "ideal" men in the media, and came to terms with that many, many years ago. I mean, it's all a bit silly isn't it?
John Self
8th Dec 2004, 16:28
Notty: it depends. On the one hand it's healthier to be roughly average weight than to be a big fat bloater or (in my case) a scrawny skinnimalink, but outside the extremes then yes, it's all a question of image and therefore a little bit silly.
It's also about selling a lifestyle. When I was 15 I opened a Halifax Cardcash account because of the adverts - you remember them - that showed this cool guy in his docklands warehouse to the tune of Easy by the Commodores.
That's why I'm easy
Easy like Sunday morning
The logical thrust of the ad was that if you have a hole-in-the-wall card, then you can get money out to buy your cat some milk even on a Sunday morning when the banks aren't open!! The subtext, however, was a simple wouldn't it be cool to be as cool as this cool guy? "Indeed it would," I thought, and promptly opened an account. As I upgraded to a current account in 1991 when I turned 18 and went to university, and have stayed with them since and continue to put in and take out reasonable amounts of money every month, I'd say the Halifax should be pretty pleased with that little campaign.
That's the subtext of most ads aimed at men - wouldn't it be cool to be as cool as this cool guy? Well, wouldn't it? - and though I'd like to think I'm less susceptible than I was at 15, I wouldn't bank on it (and the advertisers do). For example I noticed a series running in papers and magazines recently for Pulsar watches, where there's a guy's head and filling in his body are the words that describe him - "likes black and white films," "collects vintage motorcycles," "favourite colour is red" etc - ending with "wears a Pulsar." The tagline is something like It's your watch that really says who you are. This is a line of advertising that has been aimed at women for some time, but we chaps are getting it too now - fear of people thinking less of you if you don't have the right watch/clothes/smell. Of course in the Pulsar ad the thing that really marked him out as being a cool chap whom women would instinctively warm to was the fact that he was a blindingly attractive model. And you can't buy that for £399.99.
youjustmightlikeit
8th Dec 2004, 16:33
Amner - The ad, is an ad, and as such is trying to sell us something. All ads are manipulative. We accept this, and move on.
These women look fairly 'real' to me, personal opinions on how attractive they are may vary. But surely you must recognise the difference between this ad and one for say a Chanel or Calvin Klein ad; and to say this difference is bad, is counterproductive.
youjustmightlikeit
8th Dec 2004, 16:39
I've seen the watch adverts. Adverts targeted at males can sometimes slip over into the realms pf parody, which is always good for a laugh. I'm eagerly anticipating the first 5 blade razor.
And yes, i would like to be as cool as all those guys (although secretly of course, i believe i am). Therein lies the difference, most men, if we're honest, sometimes, meet a woman and just know she fancies us, even if she's hiding behind the coatstand, giggling - just shy i bet. Inherent confidence, a thing that all to few (young) women have.
I'm eagerly anticipating the first 5 blade razor.
:D
Soon we men are going to be running out of faces big enough.
John Self
8th Dec 2004, 16:46
Yes there's a four-blade one isn't there? Wilkinson Sword Quattro or something. I see Gillette shied away from that and just made their existing Mach 3 Turbo battery-powered. Has anyone used one of these? Sounds a bit scary. My dad laughs at me for using Mach 3 (which are actually better than Mach 3 Turbo, as they give a better shave 'against the grain') at £3.69 for four blades, when he still uses Bic orange one-blade disposables at 99p for 10.
Men in adverts are often even more OTT than women, largely musclebound hunks who spend so much time in the gym they must surely be gay, but are always happily coupled to a stick-thin female model type. (Except for beer ads, where it's always three blokes - not one, because that would look sad and lonely, or two, because that would make them look like a gay couple.) Indeed, this oddity was brilliantly raised in last week's Guardian Guide, in the Hard Sell column:
How did those ad-masterminds at Nivea manage to find a man who so perfectly embodies their marketing message? "Nivea man should be hunky, gruff and dangerous!" one creative genius might have loudly suggested across the open-plan office from the comfort of his creativity-enhancing ad-man hammock.
"Yes, but won't that alienate those who aspire to a smoother, more sophisticated model of 21st-century masculinity?" his colleague might counter down the conference-call phone line from his hotel suite in New York while being secretly fellated by an expensive rent boy.
"Good point!" barks their boss (whose name I like to imagine is CJ) from the jar in which his brain and voice box have been accommodated since his physical death in 1993. "We don't want to make him too manly. He is, after all, using grooming products. Which, if you think about it, is all a bit gay..."
Suddenly, hammock man has swung out of his perch and is buzzing excitedly about the brainstorm zone on his micro-scooter. "That's it! Gay! Nivea man should be completely gay! That's what men want to see! Other men who are gay!"
There's a strange moaning sound down the line from New York followed by the contribution: "Yes, not too gay, mind. Might put the non-gay men off. Why don't we give Nivea man a girlfriend?" There's a dramatic pause. Then CJ pipes up from his jar. "A girlfriend? Doesn't sound very gay to me." Suddenly the creative process hits a brick wall.
"What," ventures our man in the Big Apple as he pays his rent boy and fends off a growing sense of self-hatred, "if we make him hate his girlfriend and resent her for constantly using his clothes, creams and rubber ducks." "Brilliant!" quacks CJ. "Masterful!" applauds scooter-boy.
"That's decided then," CJ concludes. "Nivea man will be a woman-hating gay who speaks in a camp voice about his broad collection of domestic neuroses. Finally someone to cut across social, racial and economic boundaries and convince men all over Britain that a nightly skincare routine needn't be something to be ashamed of. Right, I'm off to lunch. Groucho's anyone?"
Horribly, this is an exactly accurate portrayal of the ad in question.
Amner - The ad, is an ad, and as such is trying to sell us something. All ads are manipulative. We accept this, and move on.
These women look fairly 'real' to me, personal opinions on how attractive they are may vary. But surely you must recognise the difference between this ad and one for say a Chanel or Calvin Klein ad; and to say this difference is bad, is counterproductive.
Ah, oui. I suppose I was trying to make some point about ads-that-try-to-be-your-mate, only not very well. Move on, as you say.
As for 'cool', though, I gave up the battle to even attempt that ages ago. But then, I'm playing with a loaded (against me) deck.
John Self
8th Dec 2004, 16:51
I know what you mean (not about you mate: I've met you and you are pretty cool. But then, is the evaluation as "cool" by a four-eyed skinny webgeek something people would want to cultivate?). I think you worry less about these things as you get older. I know I do.
Ads and trying to live up to the images they create? Not so long ago, the papers carried a picture of Kate Moss airbrushed to glossy heavens, looking long and sleek and utterly perfect. That very day I happened to watch the video of Iris. That same sleek perfection was suddenly rendered white and flabby, with crevices and folds and cellulite in abundance - and no doubt a thousand fellas everywhere were still left drooling. After all - the image was of a female in her birthday suit - albeit a bit of a cuddly one.
Men like to look at naked women; hell - they're pretty partial to fully-dressed women too: it's biological programming. Argue against that and you are playing Canute. As to women getting upset because of it - Why do they? Well, those that do have frequently (am not making sweeping statements here, note!) persuaded themselves they aren't as cute as they ought or would like to be. Is this the fault of advertisers and evil film directors (all men of course) who persist in chasing such ideals? No. It's those women choosing not to see the reality of Kate Moss as she appeared in Iris cuddly and imperfect, as opposed to the airbrushed nonsense flaunted in the papers.
I hate to play cutesey but it pays to remember: the packaging may get you to take that box off the shelf, but it's the contents that make you buy, and go back for more.
Bravo, Honey. The voice of reason.
Thank you R.C. Have got to go get reasonable with a stove and the ingredients for a casserole right now. And I don't find that demeaning either - just very practical. Back later.
I would just add that I think it's too bad that all of us have those images of spectacular-looking people shoved in our faces all the time, it' an unnatural state of affairs, it warps our aesthetic sense to some extent. There are so many kinds of beauty but, as has often been said before, our society promotes one kind to the exclusion of others. That is a loss to all of us.
Bertie
8th Dec 2004, 17:39
Where did these 'ideals' come from? I don't get it. It's all really quite daft. The ideal woman as portrayed by the media is a nonsense. Despite what men say about what a woman should look like, every man's ideal woman is the one who's prepared to have sex with him and doesn't laugh at his todger and his knobbly knees when he gets naked.
At the same time, the ads are telling women that the ideal man is a clean shaven fireman with a healthy tan who likes cradling babies, rescuing puppies, cooking dinner and buying her expensive gifts, when really we're all quite happy settling for someone who'll do the washing up and take the rubbish out on bin day.
kumquat
8th Dec 2004, 23:21
Thought I'd join in so Joss isn't the only girl here :)
I grew up in a house that equated femininity with floral print skirts and cookery skills. Naturally, I ran as far away from that as I could!
I can feel my indignation grow as I read this thread and remember that I'm lucky enough to have a man who is far too terrified to make a sexist comment in my hearing. My concern now is how best to brain wash my son. :lol:
But seriously, I wonder if it is true that men can shrug off the notion of the ideal male more easily than women can laugh off the unattainable ideal female? I know more intelligent women, who still struggle with not looking constantly athletic, than intelligent men who are seriously trying to get a six pack. Maybe that's too localised an example.
If you could snap your fingers and either be thinner, cleverer, more attractive or richer, which would it be?
kumquat
8th Dec 2004, 23:24
ok i took that long to reply that other women are contributing - don't get me wrong!
I guess I'll get into the frey. Add my two cents worth.
The thread started out with equality issues and evolved into sort of a physical appearance thing.
As far as equality goes IMHO women have spent far too much time trying to prove that we are the SAME as men. This just isn't so but we do have a right to be equal. Unfortunately, as long as we place the value of a person on how much they earn, rather than on who they are, women are going to come up short. The things we, as women, do well are not rewarded as well as that which a man does. For example, Physical strength, which men possess simply because of their body structure, can lead to professions that pay very well. A woman secretary, a job often requireing multi-tasking, which is a skill women are better at, is often paid below poverty level. This is only one example. It just seems that more monetary value is placed, on those things men by nature, do better than women. ( my husband can do algebra in his head but he can not see what needs doing in order to clean a room) This leads to the impression that the man is "better" or "above" the woman. Women who do the same jobs as men and are paid less can only change this themselves. I know it sounds easier than it actually is but women need to not settle for less. Women, as a group, have tremendous power when it comes to this. As long as there are those who are content to "settle" the battle will go on.
As far as the physical exploitation of women and/or men, I do think that most men are attracted more by the physical appearance than most women. The qualities a woman looks for are often based on more than appearance, while a man will fall for a physical image. (not that I don't like looking at Johnny Depp) An example of this would be how often actresses attract stalkers who insist that they are in love with their victims. I realise that this also happens the other way around but I would venture to guess, most often men become the stalker.
This whole thing has been exploited by television, movies, magazines, what have you...........but I think it is changing and I think men are starting to get the same treatment. The focus is starting to change also. We are not supposed to get old. Both men and women must maintain beauty AND youth at all costs.
It is a shame that there seem to be so many people who have allowed the media make them feel inadaquate. It is hard not to do so because we are bombarded with adds on a daily basis. The older I get, the less I really care but I feel for those young girls and boys who are unfortunate enough to not quite fit the mold.
One of the things parents are giving young girls for graduation (at least in this country) are breast implants. This makes me unbelievably sad. Not only can this be dangerous but what kind of message is the girl getting from her parents ? How can we, as parents, instill a sense of self worth in our children, if we give them the message that they somehow need to be altered ?
I once read a poem, written by one of our Native people. He was a young man and he was discribing a beautiful woman. He describes her face, her skin, the way she dresses and her personality. At the end of the poem, the reader finds that he is describing his grandmother. I wish I knew where to find that poem. I don't remember where I read it but I will never forget it.
Did anyone ever wonder what it was like before mirrors were invented ?
Imagine how much that one invention changed the way a person preceives themselves.
Well, so much for my rambling. I just thought I'd add another woman's point of view. :roll:
NottyImp
9th Dec 2004, 10:52
Did anyone ever wonder what it was like before mirrors were invented ?
Imagine how much that one invention changed the way a person preceives themselves.
That's an interesting question, although of course there are natural mirrors: a pool of still water on a clear day will do pretty well, and I'm willing to bet our predecessors would have a good look to see if they'd braided their hair or beard correctly, given the chance.
And we wouldn't have had Narcissus, of course.
youjustmightlikeit
9th Dec 2004, 12:06
Here here Maggie!
rick green
10th Dec 2004, 0:14
Excellent forum! I don't know where to begin. Perhaps with the movies.
Look at the blockbuster films that came out over this past year and point me towards one female character who was anything like a real woman rather than a device to show how sexy and masculine the hero was. In fact, please show me a blockbuster where the woman was the hero that doesn't fall under the category of chick-flick.
I watched The Bourne Supremacy the other night and was very impressed with Joan Allen's character. While there's no question that Matt Damon's character is the "hero," Allen is the nearest thing we have to a female lead. Her role may not be perfect, but at least it's not of the sex-object species. In fact, she embodied something of a reactionary stereotype: the sexless female professional.
Two other recent movies that tweak the body image standard are About Schmidt and My Wife is an Actress. The first has as funny hot-tub scene with Kathy Bates & Jack Nicholson. The latter, a roll-on-the-floor funny scene with many body types. I don't want to give anything away, but really, this movie is a riot! Yvon Atal directed himself and his lovely wife Charlotte Gainsbourg in the lead roles.
Anyway, to come full circle, there is clearly something wrong when elected officials (they are elected aren't they?) stoop to behavior that would be unacceptable in a juvenile. What were they thinking? And for people to laugh about it? I mean if the same guys made pouty lips and mouthed "darkie" when a black MP took the floor I should hope they'd be publicly excoriated!
Now elsewhere in these forums the surging interest in "media studies" has been linked to the general decline in educational excellence. I have to take exception. The fact is that our living space is saturated with media, the foremost aim of which is to manipulate. It's fine for us, cultivated adults that we are, to stand aloof and shower contempt on advertising and those who study it alike. But what about the kids? When 11 & 12 year olds stand aloof and ridicule the blatant pandering of their TV sets then we may rest easy. But that's not going to happen without media studies or serious parental intervention.
And another thing, the bias against media studies is a case of temporal parochialism. I mean, would any serious academic of the latter 19th century have deigned to put Dickens on his syllabus? The mass media, like it or not is history in the making. When we are moulding in the grave, Friends, The Howard Stern Show, And Bridget Jones will live on. And serious academics will look to them to find out who we were. In other words, media is going to be taken seriously at some point--why not now when it has the most power to mold opinion?
Whew!
If I could snap my fingers and become a better person, maybe I'd like to be more succinct. Or more principled. I think it's a shame that we should identify with virtues "the system" values (good looks, cleverness, wealth) instead of virtues that are of real importance in the world (compassion, forgiveness, tolerance).
bakunin_the_cat
13th Dec 2004, 21:40
Rick,
I don't think people were attacking media studies but the media itself and its constant idolatry of the body beautiful. Media studies is a critical weapon in this same fight. A taking off of sunglasses that blind you. Or if you can't take them off then it at least makes you aware that you're wearing them and their effects.
Personally I think virtually all ads are saying if you buy this product, you'll be sexier, cooler, happier, more successful. Or to see it from the other side they exploit the fears and weaknesses that every human being has. If I could just buy more Carlsberg and use more Nivea, I'd be better, I'd get somewhere that Polish girl. I'd have more friends. My colleagues would respect me. The trouble is ultimately they never really make you any better than you were before. And though we on a rational level do know that it won't really make a difference, we still keep buying into this myth because we're so desperate. This time it'll be work. I'll wake up and be supercool, or superrich or superhappy.
Ultimately I guess the lesson is that we should learn to accept ourselves as we are, and learn that brands however nice, can't help. That's not to say we should abandon pleasure and don loincloths. Just to know its limitations. A pint of Old Speckled Hen, poured correctly is a thing to be savoured and enjoyed but it's not going to make you Edward Norton, or drastically improve your life.
rick green
14th Dec 2004, 13:48
bak, I was refering to some ancient Palimpsic history.
Here it is. (http://palimpsest.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=513&start=30) But maybe I got it all wrong?
youjustmightlikeit
23rd Apr 2005, 17:14
Another female journo slagging off the Dove campaign - see Zoe Williams in her 'Is it just me or...' column in todays Guardian Weekend mag.
Quote:
'I worked out today why that's so annoying - it's one thing to say "not all women are thin", but they seem to expect us to be grateful! Like they've won us the vote or something!'
And so the hypocrisy rolls on... and on....
Enjoy it dear. This from the woman whose picture at the head of her column every week includes that sickening little pout, which i can only assume she believes makes her more attractive. You go for that model ideal sister, you can be as attractive as Naomi or Kate, because let's face it, if you're not, what's the point. Silly bitch.
youjustmightlikeit
23rd Apr 2005, 17:22
Thinking about it, 'Is it just me or...'? YES, it is. Why do i read your weekly 250 words of bullshit?
'Is there something terribly comforting about seeing Charles Kennedy's face about the place'
WHO CARES? 'Terribly', 'TERRIBLY'; 'about the place' 'ABOUT THE PLACE'. Note the playful juxtaposition of the ever so posh terribly with the ever so right on working class about the place. Go away you horribly out of touch inconsequential hack.
Lucoid
28th Apr 2005, 13:58
Reading through all of this, I've been trying deserately to think of some way to lever myself into the discussion. Thanks YJMLI, you've given me that opening. Your outburst is just what I like to see - a personal opinion about a woman that does not focus on her gender (something men in particular are often guilty of). One of the 'hidden' things in our society, one of the throwbacks to the days before 'equality', is in the everyday use of language, both in the media and in normal society. People still say 'poetess' (well, some do anyway), or 'female firefighter' and so on. No one would say 'male firefighter' unless it had some significance to the story (but then you do get 'male nurse', I suppose). Anyway, it drives me crackers!
My boyfriend has a friend who even thinks it's ok to call women 'it', which just makes me want to slap him. And he wonders why he can't get a girlfriend.
And going back to the whole make-up on TV issue - anyone ever seen a girl in Hollyoaks (as an example) go to bed with no make-up on? We're fed the idea that if we don't cake ourselves in the shit we're not serious enough about ourselves to be any good at our jobs or our relationships.
Digger
28th Apr 2005, 14:52
anyone ever seen a girl in Hollyoaks (as an example) go to bed with no make-up on?
Hiowever, Lucoid, no one in Hollyoaks is in any way even remotely close to being representative of anyone or anything in the real world. I don't think they even try to get close. Mind you, I cant say that I've been to chester, so I might be wrong! If so, oh my goodness! :shock:
NottyImp
28th Apr 2005, 15:30
Oddly enough, I find "poetess" quite poetic. But I take your point. Having said that, my paternal Grandfather was always described as a "male nurse".
youjustmightlikeit
28th Apr 2005, 16:59
The 'it' thing is obviously a hang over from 'Alfie', and i'm sure he thinks it's cool. He's a dick.
He obviously didn't realise that Alfie was a sad sack.
Lucoid
29th Apr 2005, 13:16
I'm not sure he's seen Alfie (his viewing is very conservative) but if he has it wouldn't surprise me if he has taken it all on board as a serious guide to life, to be stored up for use when he gets guts.
no one in Hollyoaks is in any way even remotely close to being representative of anyone or anything in the real world
I guess that was a bad example but I couldn't think of another specific one at the time (but then, surely Hollyoaks is just an extreme example of the removal of the images we're presented with from the realities of normal society).
Also, I must apologise for generalising so much in my last post - I was in a bit of a rush.
bakunin_the_cat
30th Apr 2005, 12:36
I'm not defending Hollyoaks but it's only doing what generations of programs, and especially those from across the pond, have done. I guess people prefer to watch a Barbieworld where people wake up and go to bed beautiful, and spend all the time in between being beautiful. They're saying you too could imagine yourself in this fantasy and it will take the pain of reality away at least for long enough to keep you going.
The trouble is, that people are forced to compare themselves with these images and think they're failures and misfits because they don't look like Sarah Michelle Geller. I'm sure SMG looks like a bag of shit in the morning too, but because you don't see it, you think it isn't true.
Ultimately, it comes back to the usual problem, trying to sell stuff . If people were happy with their self image, they wouldn't have to spend all this money on gunk to try and make themselves look like TV stars. Keep reminding them of the perceived gap and you can't fail to sell unnecessary cosmetics and surgery. The cosmetic firms are happy because they're selling like mad. The TV channels are happy because of all the money they're getting for adverts. Everybody wins. Well except of course, for the individuals caught in the trap and the long term consequences for society, but heh who cares about such trivialities when there's money to be made.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.