Is Physical Appearance Completely Irrelavant?

Craven,

Who bashes males around here? We ladies all love you guys to bits............oops, gave myself away. We love you lots, I should say. ;-)

I would consider Margaret Atwood's opinions as being a little too far from the compass of everyday life for the majority of people to have much relevance to anyone. I'm not trying to be mean about her, but she is more in touch with feminist theory than with the everyday lives of people in North America. Thirty or forty years ago she lived among us--she is much withdrawn now, and inhabits the world of "ain't it great to be Margaret Atwood."

Setanta, I agree

Braces are a bitch, but at least my legs are straight now....bloody childhood rickets...

Maybe if you knew a little more about diet, you'd not have had those problems . . .


heeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


okbye

Soz, I saw that Onion article, it was hilarious. I can't find it in the archives, but here is one of Mrs. cav's fave characters, just because:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3834/keepin_it_real.html

cav, I gotta start wory'n, because I unnerstud all the wurds of dat blu cunnekshun. c.i.

The people who I think do so will undoubtedly disagree in no uncertain terms.

I'll make the case when I am ready to deal with the dark side of feminism.

Like I said, I used to be a feminist until the extreme side of feminism became as bad, IMO, as what they protest against.

Cav. Who doesn't love Herbert Kornfeld?

I have a bad habit of springing to the defense of others, whether they want to be defended or not. That has at least two possible paths of fallout -- the first is that people think I have some hidden motive, something I'm trying to say but am tiptoeing around, when really, all it is is that I observe a situation, and think "Hmmm, I bet that bothers ______."

The second is that the people who I think are bothered are not always, in fact, bothered, and I have learned to watch and wait a bit before assuming as much. (One of the biggest online fights I've gotten into is when I leapt to the defense of a friend, in opposition to another friend, only to find that the first friend wasn't particularly perturbed by what I thought was horrible rudeness... )

So, in terms of your question about how society sees ME, Lola, that isn't really the point of what I'm saying. I'm saying that I can see how OTHER people would be disgruntled by braces, or plastic surgery, or whatever, without that disgruntlement having anything to do with jealousy. Narrow point.

Now, as for the other path of possible fallout -- making assumptions -- there have been some posts that have bolstered my original reading of the situation. I don't think anyone was concerned about anyone's physical appearance, per se -- I think at least two people, one at the gathering, one observer, were concerned about the focus on a few people's physical appearance at the expense of discussing the physical appearance or other attributes of others there, and how that would make the others who were not being so discussed feel. That was my first "Hmmm, I bet that bothers _______." When Butrflynet said something similar, though in less than politic terms, which she has since taken back, and was jumped on with surprising vigor, to the point of her right to comment at all seeing as how she was a relative stranger, that was my second "Hmmm, I bet that bothers ________."

Not to say that a third "Hmmm, I bet that bothers _______" did not contain the name "Lola", but since she has been getting ample defense from herself and from others, my jumping-to-the-defense tendencies were focused on those who were not getting similar defense. You should see me watching sports.

Margaret Atwood, yeah, another thread. Might be interesting to start. Read "Cat's Eye" at about 15, loved it, found it eerily reminiscent of a very recent and very intense female relationship. Not saying it contains universal truths. Just a famous literary example of female cruelty.

It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge Soz's point about Miss Atwood--simply because i view her public persona with distaste, and find that she is currently less and less relevant to the lives we lead, does not justify a comment on my part suggesting that she has nothing, nor ever had anything, of value on the topic under discussion, and particularly on the point which Soz is making about how women will treat one another. In fact, i bought and read Wilderness Survival (think that's the title) not long ago, and was reminded again of the theme of casual cruelty among ostensible friends which runs through much of her work.

My apologies, Soz, my response was cavalier.

Oh, no problem. I agree that she has become shorthand for a certain kind of feminism that can really bother me. I liked "Surfacing" best, probably, one of her most reality-based novels.

tex-star

Big and mean!? That's really very funny. Now that I'm not on a rough and tumble manly political thread I can confess that I have been in exactly 0 fights outside of the childhood variety of hit once, get hit once, run home crying sort. I'm proudly cowardful. If my mother was still alive and I was under threat from some male, I'd still hide behind her skirt, then later on, ensuring no risk to myself, hit the bastard with a brick.

I'm sure we all have experiences with varieties of feminism that we find extremely valuable, and varieties we have found less agreeable. All movements have an extreme edge, and likely NEED an extreme edge, but which will later fade into a historical footnote. I am definitely not in favor of turning the clock back on women's issues simply because Katherine McKinnon or Andrea Dworkin are part-time lunatics.

Darn tootin'.

The need for an extreme edge is a really interesting point, one I've talked about in terms of Deaf culture/ activism. Maybe another thread idea? (I think a good way to measure the success of a discussion is how many interesting sub-topics arise from it, and there have been a lot here. Thanks for starting this, Lola.)

soz

Are you talking about the social pressure to conform to an arbitrary standard? I think that hits all of us in numerous ways, and probably always has. I don't think this is strictly an element within 'modernity', but a variably unpleasant fact of social life. If not some local standard of appearance, some standard of piety or of wealth or of fecundity. If I understand Lola's notion of 'competition' correctly, she is talking about the fact that social life is commonly mediated by such standards, and each of us finds ourselves in some position relative to those around us. Like Jes, I often don't give a damn, and can sometimes even escape interior concerns about it all. But other times, I can't - I'll feel pressured to act or appear or to produce something I'd really rather not bother with. Then I get grumpy, and take it out on children and really old people.

Sometimes I think I give waaaaaaaaaaay too much benefit of the doubt.

In any case, I don't think anyone was being slighted on the SW Gathering Thread. I think some were not jumping in for whatever reason they had. And if a person's husband gives them herpes and it's none of their fault, that's a bummer. But I don't think it's any reason to be making excuses for having a miserable, sexless life. Most of us can make ourselves either ugly or beautiful given enough motivation in either direction. And we can make the most of what we've got or make excuses for why it's everyone else's fault that we don't. We each make our own choices for very complex reasons.

I don't mind being called a "hot mama" and I don't apologize for enjoying it. I don't think it's "juvenile" and I accept the compliment in the spirit in which it was offered. I agree with Craven about feminists. I used to be one myself and I still am in the tradition of Camille Paglia and Carol Tavris (not agreeing with everything either woman says). But I think the idea that people are made victims rather that that victims largely make or at least perpetuate their own victimization themselves, is a mistake. One must speak up for what one wants rather than blame those who have what's wanted.

The complaint made on the SW gathering thread was about (and still seems to be) that some of us were getting more attention than others. Or that some aspects of the experience were being emphasized more than others. Or that some of us were being "juvenile." Whether that was jealousy or not, isn't the point, I agree. My point is that if a person doesn't like what's going on, if they feel the conversation is going in a way that is uninteresting to them, they can either bring up what is interesting (hopefully without devaluing the fun of others) or they can disappear. It's the devaluation I object to.

A week late and a dollar short i jump into this thread with the assumption that it started with the western gathering thread. It seems to me that when we all met appearances were virtually meaningless, Blatham found me in the lobby of the motel and immediately began a dialogue of nearly intimate friendship within seconds soon followed by Lola and Diane. I was totally unaware of any appearance evaluations going on. Personality was the forefront and remained so throughout the gathering. While i think everyone was a bit taken aback by Asherman's loss of beard, it was more in context to our image of him than anything else. With all of us sitting about on Asherman's patio thru the afternoon it was animated and lively chatter and banter and i do believe by the end of the gathering there was far greater empathy for all in attendance, flaws and all. Then in spurts i read the posts and wonder what all the talk is about regarding appearances. The bottom line for me is that everyone was themselves and i think everyone delighted in that simple fact. (althought the constant references to my hands has me puzzled) btw absolutely everyone was beautiful.

Hmmm, when, Blatham? The part where I was talking about "what society expects" was, again, a pretty narrow point having to do with jealousy.

I think that disgruntlement can happen without jealousy -- that the disgruntlement happens not because the disgruntled person wants to be like someone, but almost the opposite.

Edits... more posts snuck in... gotta go now though.

A DOLLAR short!? My god man, your down a grand minimum here. We are into Katherine McKinnon and eye shadow, for the love of christ.

soz

I do believe we are talking of the same thing here, though we just haven't managed to swing the language and anologies around to make it more plain.