NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6422

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 8.7 KB | 207 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!rsrodger
From: [e-mail] (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:14:33 GMT
Lines: 194

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lenore Levine) writes:
>[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>>>I note that my mother appears younger than she is; and she once
>>>got in trouble, on a bus, when an angry driver refused to believe that
>>>she was over 65. I do think the driver's reaction was sincere, even
>>>though he was a man.
>
>>    It happens, especially in interactions that last a
>>    short time.  However, it doesn't last more than about
>>    5 or 6 minutes.
>
>I know I was mistaken about my friend, Eugenia's, age for a long time --
>until she told me. We are about the same age, but we each thought the
>other was considerably younger.
>
>I note that neither one of us uses alcohol or tobacco, or wears makeup;
>and we are both of Eastern, not Western, European ancestry. I suspect
>some of these factors may be relevant.


    I, myself, cannot adequately judge the age of most asians
    (that is, east-asians but also SE asians).  This is due, primarily,
    at lack of exposure.  I can easily judge the age of most caucasians
    and blacks, thanks to exposure.  I have asian friends who can't
    judge any better than me because they grew up in predominantly
    white suburbs (w/o asian grandparents, etc..).  OTOH, I know asians
    who can peg asians without any difficulty whatsoever.

    So if you think ethnicity has something to do with it, you may
    have something, but I think it's also a matter of learning
    what the signs are.

>>    Sure it was.  If they valued other things more, well, that
>>    was then this is now and whatever.  Appearance is not
>>    "overvalued" it is simply valued higher than other things
>>    (like "cooking skill" and "child rearing skill").  Would
>>    you prefer one of these others valued highest?
>
>I would prefer that human attributes be valued in the contexts in which
>they are relevant. I think nowadays there are a great many women living
>in fear that their appearance doesn't measure up to some unrealistic
>standard; and living in this fear to the point where they can no longer
>take any sincere delight in their bodies. Yes, I would say that this
>is overvaluing appearance. (And if you have any doubt women live like
>this, or, at least, are encouraged to live like this, read Redbook...)

    Blha blah blah.  Men have *exactly* the same fear.  "Are my
    breasts too small?" "Is my penis too small?" "Am I too fat?"
    "Am I too fat?" (harder for men, BTW, since women canbe fleshy--
    men are supposed to be *hard* which cannot be accomplished
    just by dieting) "Is my nose too big?" (both) blah blah..

>If thirty years ago, women had less fear that their appearance wasn't
>perfect, and more fear that their *homes* weren't perfect, this was
>not an *improvement*. But it was an example of how things can change.


    I think it was.  A woman does not *have* to submit to judgement
    by appearance, while if she could not keep an adequate home,
    she was liable to be divorced (with no alternate means of
    support, other than leeching).

    To me, this is a *big* improvement.  Anyone who walks around
    thinking everyone does or should look like movie stars or
    models is obviously deranged.  It takes a lot more thana
    media barrage to bring this attitude about.


>And by the way, I think child rearing skill is always important,
>and should always be valued, in both men and women. If our society
>regards this skill as unimportant, it does not say much for our society...


    So do I, which is why it saddens me that so many people are having
    children for the novelty or it, or because of ignorance, and then
    raising children who are not civilized (no manners, no self
    control, rude, illiterate).  Childen are a *privelage* IMHO
    and not a "right".

me>    What is most valued in a man?  Looks, probably.  After
me>    that, probably money-making ability.  Yeah, this makes me
me>    feel all warm and happy inside.
me>    Tough.


    Failed to contrast this with the above, huh.  Well, I'm,
    no Rutger Hauer, so I sometimes feel inadequate.  But you
    don't see me blaming this on the media or on some evil
    conspiracy of women.  I do not think physical appearance is
    "over valued"it is simply valued higher than some of my
    stronger qualities.

    A long time ago a man who was a romantic was highly valued,
    and now--for most real encounters--a man who is a romantc
    ==wimp, loser, dateless wonder (unless he scrapes the bottom
    of the bucket).

    In other words, I don't much care if women think there's
    too much pressure to be attractive.  Men get the same thing--
    or worse (we get it from other men morethan women get it from
    other women) and I don't see women doing anything about it or
    even putting forth suggestions that might change the reality
    for either side.  (Not that I think it's possible)


>>    Shifting priorities.  You'll find, however--all through
>>    time that physical appearance has always been valued extremely
>>    highly.  Sure, it would do no good to marry a lowly peasant, but
>>    s/he'll make a great bedwarmer.  How many bastards did these
>>    noblemen father?  How many illegitimate children did these
>>    noblewomen bear?  Quite a few.
>
>I did not say that physical apparance was ever *not* valued; I did
>say that there have been societies in which it was valued less than
>it is in ours. In many of these societies, noblemen had many lowly-born
>mistresses, but they didn't feel any social pressure to choose mistresses
>who met a particular standard of beauty (as opposed to women they
>personally wanted to go to bed with). For example, Czar Peter III's
>publicly acknowledged mistress was a hunchback.


    Come on, why would you choose a _mistress_ for anything other
    than beauty?  Get real.  These noblemen (with few exceptions)
    chose the good looking bed-tiger, and the noblewomen (when they
    could, which was often) chose the muscle-studs.  The fact
    that you can point out a famous exception is irrelavent--
    let's stick to reality.  If they wanted conversation, they
    could talk to anyone.


>By the way, do you realize how many men there are in this culture, who
>have the attitude, "Sure, it would do no good to marry a lowly fat girl,
>but she'll make a great bedwarmer!"


    I sure do.  But I would point out that the reason they choose
    that way is because the "lowly fat girl" is what men generally call
    an easy fuck or a "low maintainance girlfriend"--say a few nice things
    and act like you care for easy sex.  Hell, I know more women who
    do that than men, as a matter of fact.

    My sister used to date this guy for a year and a half because
    he was easy sex. Whenever he would start talking she would just
    tell him to shut up.  "He'll do for now"

    None of this dispells the "sex appeal value" argument--
    ask these people if they would dump their current BF/GF
    for supermodel/movie star X and they'll mostly say, "in
    a second."

    I may find this shallowness rather depressing, but it doesn't
    mean I don't believe it.


>Cynically yours,
>Lenore Levine


    Cynic?  I _love_ cynics.


>P.S. Do you think it is acceptable to choose a candidate for a
>technical position, based on physical appearance? If you were


    *I* do not think it is acceptable.  OTOH, I think it's
    even less acceptable to try and dictate--through law or
    subversion (boycotts, protests)--who a private employer
    should choose for *any* position.


>on a committee to evaluate job candidates, and one of the other
>members of the committee said, "Don't hire that woman, she's
>a dog!" what would you do?


    I would probably start wondering about my own job safety.
    Other than that, unless I had a personal interest in
    this woman getting the job, I would probably ignore it
    and cast my vote how I felt about her competence.  To *me*
    ability is all that counts, but I am not about to suggest
    that my criteria is relavent to the example.  Is this woman
    supposed to take clients out to dinner, make presentations,
    whatever?  Then I *would* consider looks, because they *matter*
    in those circumstances.

--
    "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

         Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
            Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!