22
   

Please List Euphemisms for Unflattering Phenomena Related to the Female Body

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:49 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Let me try to explain this Cyclo...

Some people enjoy dressing up in frilly underwear. It is an expression of their sexuality and something that makes them feel special (the fact that you personally don't enjoy this is irrelevant).

The fact is that for women to do this is socially acceptable. For me to do this is a social taboo. This is a limit on men (in an area were women are free to express themselves however they see fit).
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:57 pm
@ebrown p,
Well, call the whaaaaaambulance.

If you want to dress up in frilly underwear, then go for it. You have nothing to lose but your tighty-whiteys.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:59 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
when is the last time you treated yourself to something to make you feel sexy?


You didn't answer the question.

Nor do I intend to, because it's a silly question.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 04:01 pm
@ebrown p,
The issue isn't whether men are allowed to dress up in frilly underpants. The issue is whether women are the targets of more body image-related messages than men are.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 04:03 pm
@DrewDad,
you said "frilly underpants". Shocked

spendi will be by shortly now...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 04:05 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Let me try to explain this Cyclo...

Some people enjoy dressing up in frilly underwear. It is an expression of their sexuality and something that makes them feel special (the fact that you personally don't enjoy this is irrelevant).

The fact is that for women to do this is socially acceptable. For me to do this is a social taboo. This is a limit on men (in an area were women are free to express themselves however they see fit).


Who gives a ****? The fact that you worry about what is 'socially acceptable' just means you're falling for the same stupid **** that women who paint their faces and wear heels do - you are allowing your actions to be dictated by a faceless, nameless, 'society' who has no responsibility or care for your life whatsoever.

The fact is that there's practically no limit on anyone. Only the ones you impose on yourself, because you fear what others might think more then you fear not fulfilling your need.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 04:17 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
The issue is whether women are the targets of more body image-related messages than men are.


Yes. That is the issue. You are stating that women are the target of more body image-related messages then men are. I am disagreeing with you.

I have given a lot of examples of where men are targets of body image-related messages...

- Men should be strong and fit.
- Men have a full head of hair. Men shouldn't wear toupees or comb-overs to cover hair loss.
- Men shouldn't wear anything colorful or flashy.
- Men shouldn't wear anything that expresses sensuality.
- Men shouldn't have flabby chests, or apparent butt cracks.
- Men absolutely must not move their hips when they walk.

The ideas that men must exude strength, and not be vulnerable has been exploited in ads from beer to exercise equipment to cigarettes to cars.

Then there are the messages given to men that are just as powerful (and exploitable) but not exactly about body image.

- Men should be bread-winners (although this is changing a bit).
- Men shouldn't express emotion or be nurturing.
- Men are dangerous to children.

You all are stating that there are more messages for women then men. I am very skeptical that this is the case. Probably coming up with competing lists and then counting isn't going to prove anything-- although I believe that I could match you unflattering phenomenon for unflattering phenomenon.

My point is that both men and women are subjected to lots of messages that affect how we view ourselves and can be used to manipulate us in many ways.

Teaching kids that this is unique to girls, but not boys, is both misleading and counterproductive.
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 04:31 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
Teaching kids that this is unique to girls, but not boys, is both misleading and counterproductive.

And again, you're the only one trying to make it into an either/or proposition.

Saying that women get more of these messages (specifically about body image) does not say that men get none.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 04:43 pm
@DrewDad,
Whether women get "more" (or significantly more) messages then men is an either/or proposition. I disagree with your assertion... the particular issue is whether the "more" is a "significant more".

But the real issue is the messages we are giving children. I think it is wrong to focus the messages given to girls, and give short shrift to the messages given to boy. It teaches girls that society is slanted against them... and it teaches boys that the their self-identity (should they choose to be traditionally masculine) is problematic, and that their issues and feelings are less important because they are not girls.

I am a father of a girl and two boys. I don't want to teach either of these lessons to my kids.

Right now, I feel that girls have much more freedom to choose an identity or to express themselves as they see fit. Girls are much less restricted by social expectations and stereotypes than boys are. The mixed messages that our society sends boys are quite confusing.


Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 04:55 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Whether women get "more" (or significantly more) messages then men is an either/or proposition. I disagree with your assertion... the particular issue is whether the "more" is a "significant more".

But the real issue is the messages we are giving children. I think it is wrong to focus the messages given to girls, and give short shrift to the messages given to boy. It teaches girls that society is slanted against them... and it teaches boys that the their self-identity (should they choose to be traditionally masculine) is problematic, and that their issues and feelings are less important because they are not girls.

I am a father of a girl and two boys. I don't want to teach either of these lessons to my kids.

Right now, I feel that girls have much more freedom to choose an identity or to express themselves as they see fit. Girls are much less restricted by social expectations and stereotypes than boys are. The mixed messages that our society sends boys are quite confusing.


Wait, what?

As a male who grew up in our society, I think you are completely and totally wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. America has empowered me, as a man, to be the debonair and sexy Leader of Men that I am today.

Are you sure you grew up here?

Cycloptichorn
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 05:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Isn't that the whole point of message Cyclo? If you fit the gender stereotypes, you do OK.

Men who are strong, emotionally stolid, plain dressing individuals who like to work, aren't interested in nurturing children, have an assertive sexuality and don't express themselves with flair get along fine in society.

So do women who are skinny but curvy, have a good fashion sense, care about their appearance, want to raise children and have the right amount of sensuality(alluring but not trashy).

Marlboro Men do as well in society as Glamour Girls. But this isn't freedom, it is luck. It is those of us who don't fit into the gender messages we get from society that have problems

There are social roles enforced by the messages we give to boys and girls alike.

Girls who are plain dressing, stocky, flat walking who don't want to raise children or dress up are not encouraged by society. But traditionally, neither are men who are emotionally expressive, express sensuality or wobble their hips or show an interest in nurturing children.

Increasingly we are discouraging masculine behavior in boys. So boys aren't supposed to be to "effeminate", but they aren't discouraged from being to "macho" either. The acceptable range of behavior in boys is getting very narrow indeed.

On the other hand there is a increasingly wide range of identities a woman can choose that are completely socially accepted. Traditionally feminine women are completely accepted. Athletic women are also accepted. Women can dress in dresses. Women can dress in sweats. Women can play sports. Women can dance ballet. Women can choose to have a "pristine" image. Women can be playfully sensual. Women can choose a career, or to stay home with a family. All of these different images are positively portrayed in popular media and generally accepted.

Cylco, I understand your point-- an individual can and should choose their own path social consequences be damned. But there are social consequences -- and this thread is about the social messages that we give our girls... and also our boys.

sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 05:46 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Whether women get "more" (or significantly more) messages then men is an either/or proposition. I disagree with your assertion... the particular issue is whether the "more" is a "significant more".


How about women being a 400% larger market?

Quote:
Male grooming market has enormous potential, says Datamonitor
By Katie Bird, 17-Mar-2009


Marketers need to find a way of engaging with male consumers if they want to take advantage of the significant potential that the market presents, according to a Datamonitor report.

Expanding but not as fast as expected

According to the market research company, the male grooming market continues to expand but at a slower pace than some commentators had once expected.

In the US, the male personal care sector makes up just over a quarter of the market value ($11bn out of a total market value of $38.7bn).

Similar proportions are seen in France and the UK where the figure approaches 30 percent of the market share.

Datamonitor analyst and author of the report, Mathew Taylor described the potential of the market as ‘enormous’, but he warns marketers against ignoring differences between men and women.

“The male grooming market needs a markedly different approach in order to succeed than the female market, however, due to some substantial differences in attitudes and behaviors that exist across genders,” he said.

The male grooming market is characterised by products deemed to be necessities such as oral care and personal care " in contrast to the female sector where skin care, and anti aging dominates.


(Emphasis mine.)

From:

http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Products-Markets/Male-grooming-market-has-enormous-potential-says-Datamonitor

Source (original data):

http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/datamonitor-premium-profiles/DMCM4653
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 05:48 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Whether women get "more" (or significantly more) messages then men is an either/or proposition. I disagree with your assertion... the particular issue is whether the "more" is a "significant more".

I call bullshit.

You said:
Quote:
My point is that both men and women are subjected to lots of messages that affect how we view ourselves and can be used to manipulate us in many ways.

Teaching kids that this is unique to girls, but not boys, is both misleading and counterproductive.

You're the only person who's trying to make it about something "unique" to boys or to girls.



ebrown p wrote:
I am a father of a girl and two boys. I don't want to teach either of these lessons to my kids.

Nobody is telling you what you're allowed to teach your kids.

ebrown p
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 05:59 pm
@sozobe,
Quote:

How about women being a 400% larger market?


Larger market for what? If you are saying that women are a larger market for cosmetics, then I will agree (in fact I have already conceded the point). Cosmetics are not the important issue here.

The important issue is body image... particularly how fears about body image are used to market to men and women alike.

Aren't hair replacement products, gym memberships home rowing machines and herbal supplements not to mention cars and tobacco, that are marketed to a man's self-image (and play to a man's fear of not being masculine) the same thing as the body creams and hair dyes marketed to women?

0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 06:02 pm
@DrewDad,
I agree that men have got/get messages which have been enormously restrictive and damaging to them (and to women because of the results....what affects one half of the human race is of deep import to the other.)

Women have also received many deeply deleterious messages, similarly to the detriment of both men and women.

(People likely forget how recently women in western countries were even allowed to own property or recognized as actual citizens or allowed to work in most industries or allowed to work after marriage or receive anything even remotely like equal pay.)


Women have been leaders in fighting this stuff for us.....it seems to me that men are now fighting this battle also.


Of course, the fashion and suchlike industries are always in and exploiting whatever there is to BE exploited to sell their stuff.


Such is life.

I am all for men being able to wear frilly panties should they so desire...(lots of them do, as it happens, as the thriving transvestite community attests...and it has been my personal experience that, give Aussie men a chance to put on a nice frock and a pair of high heels, they enjoy themselves immensely.)


I am not really sure what all of this has to do with the thread, really...but there it is.

0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 06:10 pm
@ebrown p,
I've agreed with a lot of people on this thread, Soz, Chai, much of Cyclo, Drew Dad (I'm probably forgetting someone), and sometimes with Ebrown re concerns re messages to boys being not so noticed.. in part because it actually isn't all about cosmetics. But, I still perceive a large disparity.

This sentence interested me, ebrown - I figure it's a typo of sorts:
ebrown p wrote:

Increasingly we are discouraging masculine behavior in boys. So boys aren't supposed to be to "effeminate", but they aren't discouraged from being to "macho" either. The acceptable range of behavior in boys is getting very narrow indeed.


Did you mean they are discouraged from being too macho, instead of aren't?
Sometimes I take you as quite a machismo enthusiast, as you know, and then rethink that.

(interesting conversation, even if it has veered from Gargamel's question)

ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 06:36 pm
@ossobuco,
Osso,

Yes, I mistyped. That should read something like "So boys aren't supposed to be too "effeminate", but they are discouraged from being too 'macho' as well." (I half changed the sentence after I wrote it).

I wouldn't call myself a "machismo enthusiast", and I doubt very much anyone in real life would call me "macho".

My point here to challenge the narrative that I see as overly simplistic and often makes being male difficult in today's society. You can be "macho" without being a bad person (i.e. oppressing anyone or taking away anyones rights). Yet being "macho", i.e. traditionally male, is more discouraged than being traditionally feminine is.

I strongly support boys or girls (and men and women) in whatever identity they choose to take, provided they don't stamp on other peoples rights; i.e. violence against women is clearly unacceptable, but being in a consensual relationship with traditional gender roles is part of an individuals chosen identity.

Buying frilly underwear is part of this whether one is a male or a female-- and I don't see why it is wrong for Victoria's secret to market frilly underwear in the way that draws in customers.



Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 06:41 pm
@ebrown p,
"Macho" is not the same thing as 'masculine' or 'traditionally male.' It's some asshole idea that men have to be jerks. It is taking masculinity to the extreme.

We discourage this because it leads to puffy chests and asshole behaviors. It's not directly comparable to traditional feminism.

Cycloptichorn
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 06:43 pm
@Gargamel,
Quote:
Please List Euphemisms for Unflattering Phenomena Related to the Female Body


Stendhal used the expression "her machine" in his advice to young officers stationed in a town on how to deal with the wives of the local officials and tradesmen.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 06:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
"Macho" is not the same thing as 'masculine' or 'traditionally male.' It's some asshole idea that men have to be jerks. It is taking masculinity to the extreme.

We discourage this because it leads to puffy chests and asshole behaviors. It's not directly comparable to traditional feminism.


Whether a behavior is "macho" or not is a subjective judgment (as is whether a behavior is asinine or not).

The term is definitely associated with traditionally masculine traits. If it is always derogatory term for traditionally masculine traits, that makes it offensive. In that "macho" would be analogous to the derogatory word for women acting like jerks in a feminine way, which is "bitchy".

If you are going to make "macho" a derogatory word, that seems to leave a whole in the English language. Is there a word for traditionally masculine traits that has positive connotations?

 

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 0.07 seconds on 01/21/2022 at 12:16:50