22
   

Please List Euphemisms for Unflattering Phenomena Related to the Female Body

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:12 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Other women are the ones who subject women to the bullshit they have to deal with.


That's not the whole truth, Cy.


Yes it is! Men are powerless to force women to paint their faces and wear uncomfortable shoes. What more, I suspect that many men, like myself, don't give two shits about such things; silly frippery which takes focus away from the important things in life.

Cycloptichorn
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Other women are the ones who subject women to the bullshit they have to deal with.


That's not the whole truth, Cy.


Yes it is! Men are powerless to force women to paint their faces and wear uncomfortable shoes. What more, I suspect that many men, like myself, don't give two shits about such things; silly frippery which takes focus away from the important things in life.

Cycloptichorn


That's not the whole truth, Cy
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
What Cyclo said.

And the taboo that prevents most men from wearing make up is much stronger than the social expectation that encourages women to wear it. You will see more women not wearing make up then men who wear it, and when men wear make-up, the social reaction is much stronger.

Whether it is men or women who are "subjected" to these expectations is, of course, subjective.

The narrative that this is an example of women being "subjective" to anything in this case is problematic. Someone brought up Victoria's Secret. Does anyone seriously want to argue that this represents something that women are "subjected" to (I will argue that women are freer to express sexuality then men, and that in fact this is an example where men are limited by (i.e. subjected to) societies expectations).

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:31 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Other women are the ones who subject women to the bullshit they have to deal with.


That's not the whole truth, Cy.


Yes it is! Men are powerless to force women to paint their faces and wear uncomfortable shoes. What more, I suspect that many men, like myself, don't give two shits about such things; silly frippery which takes focus away from the important things in life.

Cycloptichorn


That's not the whole truth, Cy


Right, right.

What is the whole truth then? That men are exerting pressure upon women to look a certain way, and the women have no ability to resist it? This has not been my life experience whatsoever. No woman is forced to be with a man who makes her act or look a certain way, at least not in our society.

As an example, do you think that any man gives a **** which shoes any woman wears, ever? Nope, other then the fact that ladies seem to choose to wear shoes completely unsuited for walking any distance whatsoever on a depressingly frequent basis.

Cycloptichorn
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

What is the whole truth then? That men are exerting pressure upon women to look a certain way, and the women have no ability to resist it? This has not been my life experience whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn


No, that's not the whole truth either.

There is no one size fits all.

Some women have no ability to resist.
Some couldn't care less
Some are at various points in between
Some women are all of these things at some point in their lives, sometimes all on the same day.

Also, you are not every man, so cannot possibly say that a certain feature is unimportant to all.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:46 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What is the whole truth then? That men are exerting pressure upon women to look a certain way, and the women have no ability to resist it? This has not been my life experience whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn


No, that's not the whole truth either.

There is no one size fits all.

Some women have no ability to resist.
Some couldn't care less
Some are at various points in between
Some women are all of these things at some point in their lives, sometimes all on the same day.

Also, you are not every man, so cannot possibly say that a certain feature is unimportant to all.


This is true. But it's still an individual woman's duty to decide what is right and wrong for her to do, and if what's right for her is wrong for some man, maybe she should reconsider her attraction to or relationship with said man.

However, it has been my overwhelming and total life experience that women judge other women mercilessly, talk about them with each other, and are very critical of fashion and looks. Men usually don't give a crap about such things other then the time that it costs us.

My point is that any woman who blames 'men' for the extremes that modern American women go to in the name of fashion, is barking up the wrong tree. You'd be better served to tell other women to **** off, and that you look perfectly fine with the face god gave you and the flat shoes you are wearing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:53 pm
I don't think men, per se, are oppressing women via the beauty industry.

Nor that women are oppressing women.

I think people (male and female) have found that there is big money in exploiting women's fears about their appearance. That had something to do with oppression, in general, because women had less options and were more dependent on their appearance than men were. Appearances were one way for women to get power when there weren't as many ways to power as there are now.

So, this whole mucho-moolah beauty industry was born, and took root, and did its ugly work -- some things women were already insecure about, and then others they helped create insecurities because where there are insecurities, there is money to cover/ fix/ distract from the insecurity-fostering feature. This went on and on until it pretty much reached critical mass. Not too much further to go with it really.

Then sights were set on men... untapped market! Let's move! And the same process is now in motion.

Take men's t-shirts -- my husband hates to shop and I've always helped him out and bought him stuff. A Gap standard men's t-shirt 15 years ago = fairly thick cotton jersey, nondescript boxy cut. A Gap standard men's t-shirt now -- thinner, clingier jersey, much closer fit. He's in shape but if not it'd show every roll. And it becomes this whole feedback loop thing -- the ones in shape want that stuff to show off that they're in shape, then the ones who aren't in shape are embarrassed that they can't wear what the ones who are in shape are wearing, and they buy gym memberships and sports drinks and yadda yadda yadda.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:04 pm
@sozobe,
Quote:
I think people (male and female) have found that there is big money in exploiting women's fears about their appearance.
...
Then sights were set on men... untapped market! Let's move! And the same process is now in motion.


Sorry Soz, I don't think I agree with this narrative at all. Marketing has always targeted men's fears just as much as women's fears.

Cures for baldness have always been big money. As have products that would turn men from 90 lb weaklings into "real men". When hairy chests were in style there were products to add and emphasize hair. When hairy chests were out of style, there were products (as painful as any women experience) to remove hair. And then there have always "virility products" which have always been market as well as fringe products to deal with a man's "size".

And of course, a man's masculine image has been used to sell everything from cars to booze and cigarettes (which is exactly the same way femininity is used).

Add to this the expectation that men are the bread winners (and the extreme stress on men in past generations who weren't successful). And add the common (and old) belief that men are dangerous to children.

I don't think that women were targeted by marketers or by society in general any more than men are.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:06 pm
@ebrown p,
I'm not saying that men haven't been targeted at all. The scale, however, has been way, way different.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:09 pm
@sozobe,
Quickie Google search yields this:

Quote:
UK sales of male beauty products have grown by a third in just five years. Sales of skin care products have increased by a phenomenal 900%.

"Our real long term challenge is to make this sector of male skin care as big as it is currently for women," says Joanne Mintz, marketing manager for Nivea for Men in the UK.

"That's clearly the utopia, and there's no reason why that could not happen within the next 10 to 15 years."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3872805.stm
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:10 pm
@sozobe,
It is not all about skin care. It is about products that exploit a man's fears about his appearance.

Sales and marketing of hair replacement products have always been strong. As have strength programs (from gyms to "supplements"). Gyms are being marketed more to women then ever. Skin care is being marketed more to men.

But the important fact is that both men and women have always felt equivalent pressure to meet society's expectations, particularly in areas of image-- and these fears have always been exploited for marketing.




sozobe
 
  4  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:15 pm
@ebrown p,
That's one thing. (And something that is very much an industry for women, too, if a quieter one. Men have a choice to be bald or not, and so marketing is needed. When women suffer hair loss -- and women suffer hair loss -- they do not really have the same choice, so are more likely to go ahead and find the solution [and pay mucho moolah for it] without any prodding.)

And something else that has changed significantly in my lifetime. When I was a kid, hair plugs were for the occasional highly-paid actor or maybe a CEO. Now my neighbor gets them and doesn't seem to think it's that big of a deal. Hey, he can afford it.

Anyway, again, I'm talking scale. There is definitely stuff marketed to men... and way more marketed to women. Various beauty industry elements are cottoning to the money that can be made off of men and are doing something about it. But it's still not at the same level.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:25 pm
@sozobe,
Quote:
There is definitely stuff marketed to men... and way more marketed to women.


This doesn't sound right... and even if it did, wouldn't this be a sign of women's empowerment? The fact that black people weren't marketed to in the 1970's was a sign of disenfranchisement.

I think much of this is based on a self-supporting myth. Women aren't shown marketed to as bread-winners is a sign of the subjugation of women. Men aren't shown as care-givers is a sign of the subjugation of women. Every difference between men and women can be made into a sign of the subjugation of women.

A great example is that someone brought up Victoria's Secret as an example of what women are "subjected" to...

Let me ask DrewDad (or any other man here)... when is the last time you treated yourself to something to make you feel sexy? The fact is, we aren't allowed to enjoy this sort of thing-- a limit on men, not on women.

sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:30 pm
@ebrown p,
Guh-wha?

Objectification of women = empowerment? Men just want to be objectified already?

Hmmm...
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:31 pm
@ebrown p,
The messages are there for both sexes. Nobody is denying that.

But there are (currently) many more messages for women than there are for men.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:33 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
Let me ask DrewDad (or any other man here)... when is the last time you treated yourself to something to make you feel sexy? The fact is, we aren't allowed to enjoy this sort of thing-- a limit on men, not on women.

I don't know about you, but I'm not limited.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:35 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
when is the last time you treated yourself to something to make you feel sexy?


You didn't answer the question.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:41 pm
@sozobe,
Quote:
Objectification of women = empowerment? Men just want to be objectified already?


What do you mean by "objectification"? Are you saying that selling sexy underwear to women turns them into an "object"? I thought I was challenging a myth-- now I feel like I am blashpheming some sacred religious tenet.

It seems clear to me that women are much freer to express sexuality, and this seems to me to be a good thing for women (and a bad thing for men). Women have much more socially acceptable options then men to choose an identity. Women are much less likely to face embarrassment then men are. Men are much more likely to run afoul of social taboos.

Some men (at a great social cost) choose to wear sexy underwear. How does this fit into your narrative?

Are transvestite men "objectified"?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:44 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:

Let me ask DrewDad (or any other man here)... when is the last time you treated yourself to something to make you feel sexy? The fact is, we aren't allowed to enjoy this sort of thing-- a limit on men, not on women.


People need stuff in order to feel sexy?

I find this to be baffling... what could you possibly treat yourself to that would make you feel 'sexy?' I feel sexy all the time, because I am completely comfortable with my body just the way it is. Sad to think that others don't feel the same way.

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:46 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
What do you mean by "objectification"? Are you saying that selling sexy underwear to women turns them into an "object"?


Mostly, I'm saying something pretty straightforward -- that women have been the focus of the beauty industry more than men, and although that's starting to change, they still are MORE the focus than men are.

Then all this other stuff gets thrown in the mix and I say stuff like "guh-wha?"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Drs. = female doctor? - Question by oristarA
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 05:22:00