Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    >I would think this perpetual objectification of women in the
    >aforementioned imagery is too repetitive to hold the least 
    >bit of lasting interest.  Why isn't this just a fad?  Why is
    >it not fading with time?
    
    Carla, it is a fad.  Objectification isn't a fad, but the particular
    style of woman who is "in style" this year *is* a fad.  Ever noticed
    that women can go in and out of style...one year, everyone looks like
    Twiggy. The next, we go for buxom blondes with big hips...then the
    athletic look becomes big.  Men *do* get bored of the look...but
    instead of seeking diversity, they just switch to a different look,
    until they get bored of that one too.
    
    D! who's ideal woman looks nothing like a fluffy-haired, pre-packaged
       tool of the patriarchy....:-)

    I think it's aimed at men _and_ women. First convince the
    men that _this_ is desirable. Then convince the women that
    _this_ is what the men want. (Or, convince the women that
    _this_ is chic, then convince the men that all red-blooded
    guys want _this_.)
    
    It sells lots of beer, clothes, cars, cigarettes, deodorants,
    perfumes, colognes, after-shaves, etc. so *somebody* out there
    must be thinking with their glands.
    
    Dana

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 38.1                        Quotable Women                          1 of 44
GEMVAX::KOTTLER                                       2 lines   2-MAY-1990 12:02
                               -< Adrienne Rich >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    "The woman's body is the terrain on which patriarchy is erected."
    

    That image *is* what most men want, and most women who really
    are more attracted to men than they are to other women, realize
    that in order to attract men they *have* to buy into it at least
    a little bit.
    
    I realize that there will be replies from some men saying
    that that look is *not* what they want, that that look
    Carla describes turns their stomachs and they want and/or
    have a woman who is a unique individual who doesn't buy
    into it.  But, when I say most men, I mean most of the men
    in the U.S. and Canada.  I don't mean most of the few men
    who write in womannotes in Digital.
    
    Lorna
    

	Just out of curiosity, isn't this note a little condescending to
	those women out there that ENJOY looking like that and choose to
	do so?

	I mean, my dream body would be 30 lbs lighter than I am, slim,
	long legs, well-groomed nails, beautiful hair....just like
	the "objectified woman" in .0.  And I'm working toward that.

	Is it wrong for me to want to look the way I want to look just
	because it's the type of woman that is "in" this year?


	Yes, objectification of women is WRONG.....but can't we discuss
	that objectification without trashing those women that choose to
	look like that because it's a look THEY want to look like?

	What happened to valuing people for wanting to be different than
	you?  What happened to valuing people for wanting to be who and
	what they are?


	kath

    re .6, the question is, can you imagine me jumping *into* a 
    pickup truck? :-)
    
    re bald-headed women, I think Sinead O'Connor is still beautiful
    without hair but I think she'd look even better *with* hair.
    The only reason she can get away with being bald is because
    she has an exceptionally pretty face to begin with.
    
    Lorna
    

    Kath,
    
    Er, are you sure you want to reference "valuing people for wanting
    to be different" when you claim you want to match the standard?  :-}
    
    Now, do you want to weigh 30 pounds less to look good?  Or to
    feel good?  I suspect it is the latter -- after all, objectification
    isn't *all* our society does.
    
    Now, I can't have big hair.  I know; I slept on my face for a year
    when I was fourteen because I wore rollers every night.  Now, it's
    not worth the time or effort for me.  I will never have perfectly
    groomed nails.  I'd rather peel off nail polish than put it on, and
    I won't spend the time to polish my nails.  My legs were a birthday
    present from my parents; I won't change them.  I would like to lose
    another 5 kilos, but neither for my health nor my looks.  I have
    some skirts and pants that don't really fit anymore, and I'm a
    skinflint.
    
    So, that is my attitude towards the current look.  If you've looked
    at each choice you've listed, and decided that it's worth the bang
    to buck ratio you're paying, and decided that you're comfortable
    with your motives, then no one is making a criticism of *your*
    attitude.  The criticisms are only being directed towards people
    who are unthinkingly going with the flow, because...it's the flow.
    
    						Ann B.

    I think a part of Carla's question is how in the WORLD does this
    structure continue to stand?
    
    And, perhaps, what do we wonderful typical and atypical women do to
    help prop it up?
    
    Briana

    Ann.

>    Er, are you sure you want to reference "valuing people for wanting
>    to be different" when you claim you want to match the standard?  :-}

    "valuing people for wanting to be different than YOU".  Is it wrong
    for a woman to see someone in a magazine and say "I would like to
    look like her"?   In every 'look' you see it--a lesbian sees a
    "dyke-cut" that she likes and she gets it, she doesn't wear nail
    polish because "it's not something lesbians do"...  We buy black
    leather, we get a harley, we wear black stockings, we do/we wear/we
    are.....the image that we want to portray.

    The point is that everyone comforms in some way to an image of what
    they want to be.

    I find nothing wrong with that, whether it's the model-image, the
    dyke-image, the alternative-image, the business-image, etc.  We are
    who we want to be.

    The problem with objectification is not in what image we CHOOSE to
    be and for what REASONS we choose that image, but rather in the
    expectations of others that we should look a certain way, talk a
    certain way, act a certain way.

    Women that choose to look the way that men currently "objectify
    their women" are not at fault for choosing that image.  Women
    should be accepted for whatever image is that they CHOOSE to be,
    regardless of "objectification."

    Rather, I feel we should be addressing WHY it is that we choose the
    image that we do.  There are just as many "mindless followers"
    of the current "beauty in the mags" as there are followers in the lesbian
    community, in the business community, in the alternative community.

    I just feel it's better to examine the motives of why we ALL choose
    the image it is that we choose instead of attacking real people that
    could very well read this conference for the choices they have made.

>If you've looked
>    at each choice you've listed, and decided that it's worth the bang
>    to buck ratio you're paying, and decided that you're comfortable
>    with your motives, then no one is making a criticism of *your*
>    attitude.  The criticisms are only being directed towards people
>    who are unthinkingly going with the flow, because...it's the flow.


   My point is that maybe we should all criticize our OWN motives for
   choosing the image that we do....and maybe they won't be so different
   or "better" than the reason these women choose the image that they do.

   The problem with objectification is not with people that choose that
   "style" but rather with the REASONS they choose that style, and, even
   more so, with the people that OBJECTIFY these women in the first place.

   Irregardless of the image it is that I "choose" to portray.  Even if
   I chose the "classic dyke look", I'd hardly think that a woman that
   chose differently than me was brainwashed or a mindless follower.  Why
   can't we examine the root of the problem instead of implying that
   we're "better" than women who could very well be reading this file
   looking for support.


   I think I've said enough.


	kath


	

    
    
    Kath's reply brought up a lot of thoughts and questions for me.
    
    It seems like we're getting into that gray area between choice and
    manipulation.  I think you made some good points.  In a way, my
    choosing a certain haircut or style of dress because I find it
    appealing in women I like or would like to look like or whatever could
    very well be the same process for a women who sees a different type
    of look in a woman and wants it for herself.  
    
    What concerns me, though, is that there seems to be so little room
    for variation (not over time but at any one time).  Only certain
    kinds of women are considered attractive, so they're the ones we see
    in movies, in ads, etc.  Some (many!!!) women starve themselves
    and have surgery (and surgery is always dangerous) and use chemicals
    on their hair, skin in order to fit a certain image.  A woman choosing
    to lose weight or die her hair or wair makeup is not necessarily
    evidence of brainwashing, but...  what about all the women who end
    up with life-long eating disorders, or worse who die from hunger in
    a land of plenty?!  Where do we draw the line?  How do we know someone
    is in trouble?  
    
    Is it possible to express anger at the limited view our mainstream
    culture has of female beauty without insulting the women who actually
    fit and/or find appealing the look that happens to be in fashion
    right now?  
    
    
    Justine

    
    .9 -
    
    What's the mystery? Someone's making a whole heck of a lot of money off
    promoting/selling "the look." Where would the cosmetics and fashion 
    industries be without all the women who buy into it? Why else would we 
    have all those ads telling us to buy into it or else? Why does it keep
    changing, if not to make sure women throw out the old and buy the new?
    
    D.

    
    you should have come to brunch ;^)
    

    re. Note 424.4             
    GLITER::STHILAIRE "Food, Shelter & Diamonds"         15 lines   9-OCT-1990 09:38

    >That image *is* what most men want, and most women who really
    >are more attracted to men than they are to other women, realize
    >that in order to attract men they *have* to buy into it at least
    >a little bit.
    
    >Lorna
    
    True. However, we men don't form our opinions, tastes etc. in a
    vacuum. We see the same ads, the same shows, the same things that
    women see, and come to the same conclusion - that that image *is*
    what is sexy/desirable. 
    
    Naturally we all want a partner who has a great face, great hair,
    great body, great sense of humor, great intelligence (just as but
    not more than us :-) ) great political sense etc. After a while,
    we all have to prioritize our list according to what really means
    most to us, and take pot luck on the lesser items. The stereotype
    seems to try to keep looks and fashion sense at the very top of the 
    list, hampering our efforts to find what it is that we, individually,
    value most. (For instance, fashionable clothes do little for me,
    personally, but a daffy sense of humor is very important. And all
    the looks in the world aren't gonna compensate if she votes for
    _________ :-) )
    
    Take time out and prioritize your list according to 'must-have'
    and 'nice-but-optional' and then you can laugh at the Budweiser
    ads.
    
    dana
    
    

    
    re .16, laughing at the Budweiser ads - 
    
    I agree that this is probably our only hope. Only it's not that easy to
    get to the point of being able to do this; even if you're laughing, you
    know a zillion other people aren't. But I wonder if the effort of
    trying to laugh (and maybe getting your kids to), is what Daniel Katz 
    meant by "subversive education" ...
    
    D.
    

    re .16, Dana, I agree. That's real life.
    
    Lorna
    

    There are many things which humans `automatically' find attractive.
    
    The first one I learned was the most beautiful sound in the whole
    world.
            Your name.
    
    Horses are very attractive.  Riding in a car full of supposed
    adults, exclaim "Horsies!" and point.  Snap!  Every eye will turn
    to look.  (And there had better be horsies or you are in trouble.)
    
    Bright, cheery colors draw eyes and compliments (and the h--
    with what colors the designers say are in this year), even if
    they are hard on those rare earth phosphers.  (Are they?)
    
    Babies, children, and young animals are real attention getters.
    (See Stephen Jay Gould's `analysis' of the evolution of Mickey
    Mouse.)  There is a genuine, evolutionary impulse for us to snatch
    up babies (our own, other people's, animals'...) and keep them.
    (I had this explained to me by Jack Cohen, shiny new author of
    _The_Privileged_Ape_.)
    
    And, of course, members of the appropriate gender catch our eye.
    It's all very well and good to claim that looking at attractive
    people makes one feel good, but it's rather silly to dismiss the
    sexual aspect.  That *is* the mechanism of racial and individual
    genetic survival, after all.
    
    So... why don't we see all these things?  Why is it all post-pubescent
    women?  And (I am told -- I can't tell ages) just barely post- at that?
    
    Think about it: Where are the cuddly puppies, the winsome children,
    the fluffy kitty-cats?  Where are the men?  (Yeah, yeah, I know:
    They're the ones being draped in womanflash.)
    
    There are many answers possible:  It's no plot; Madison Avenue is
    just stuck in the if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it mode.  It is a
    cunning plot by the Tong of the Tenth Dragon, the Monks of the
    Post-Carolingian Infix, and the Steps of Devon to lull us into
    sterile homosexuality.  It's something in between.  It's something
    off in another direction entirely.  Consider the question.
    
    					Ann B.

    re .21 underestimating
    
    In view of Anheuser-Busch's sales I don't think so. Who was it
    that said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the American 
    public" ?

    I have a friend who will never miss a commercial for Busch beer;
    she loves the "critters".  (The only one I can remember is the
    rearing horse.  See my previous reply.)
    
    						Ann B.