NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6496

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 7.1 KB | 178 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!levine
From: [e-mail] (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:49:16 GMT
Lines: 166

[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:

>>>    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..
>>
>>Of course men have the same fears. Does this make such fears OK?

>    Yes, that is precisely what it does.  Every person has
>    these fears -- people who feel them are not freaks.

I am not saying that these fears will ever be *eliminated*. But I
think they are encouraged in this culture to an inappropriate extent.
Once again, read Redbook...

>>>    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).
>>
>>A woman might be divorced (then or now) if she does not keep an adequate
>>standard of appearance.

>    Men too, but I think the incidence of both is pretty low.

I think you're an optimist.

>>And many women nowadays are still in situations
>>where their economic options are extremely limited.

>    Want to back this one up?  None of that $.69/$1, please,
>    as we all know the validity of *that* statistic.

I am not talking about discrimination, which is a separate issue. Just
the fact that many women don't realize that acquiring a job skill is
important; and these women end up with small children, no man, and
no leisure to acquire the skill they should have acquired before they
acquired the children.

In particular, I am a teaching assistant at the University of Illinois.
There are too many women in my classes who obviously aren't serious
about their education; who feel they are cute enough they don't
need to learn anything. It really breaks my heart. I know a decade
from now, many of these women will be on the welfare rolls...

Of course, this is just my personal experiences. But you said you
did not want statistics.

>>But part of feminism *is* educating women to take advantage of
>>options the society does offer them. In particular, I think that even
>>women who plan on being homemakers should have other job skills, so
>>they are not too economically dependent.

>>I also think it unfortunate that romanticism is not highly valued.

>    I find it a bit more disturbing that certain kinds of
>    romanticism are still held on to, even if no man can live
>    up to them.

There is romanticism and romanticism. I suspect we would be in
agreement on which kinds are reasonable.

About "scraping the bottom of the bucket"; I wish you had made
it more clear, that your use of this language to describe
people with limited social options, in no way reflected your own views.

>>You seem to be saying, that sexual attraction is only in proportion to
>>beauty. I don't think so; if this were true, we would all be sleeping
>>with 15-year-old Mexican schoolgirls, or snow leopards.

>    Everyone has their own little fetishes.  Some of mine
>    are ghastly thinness, long hair and self-centeredness.
>    What is important is, outside of these, what I find attractive
>    is what is generally considered attractive--health, beauty,
>    etc. etc.

Your preference for "ghastly thinness" and "self-centeredness" does
not seem a preference for health and beauty.

Some people are naturally extremely thin; one of my closest friends is.
But many young women are ghastly thin, because they have eating
disorders...

>>For more expert information on human sexual fantasies, I suggest
>>you post to alt.sex for individual accounts, and written references.

>    Read it.  It strikes me that a lot of what you read on a.sex.*
>    is either pure fiction or adulterated in some way.  It certainly
>    isn't real life.

>    (that "Read it" is "red it"--not "(you) reed it"... I hate
>    English orthography..)

I am not saying that the stories on alt.sex are true; just that
they represent the *fantasies* of the persons posting on them.

I've never read alt.sex; I OD'ed on reader-written sexual fantasies a
long time ago. But when I read them, I did note, that they are much
less standardized than people think.

(That is, "red them," not "reed them.")

>>>    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"
>>
>>I am sorry those you love have such values. (I have a sister whose
>>values I am uncomfortable with too.)

>    I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, it was merely
>    an observation (people pick the lowly for utilitarian purposes).

>    If you're interested, I *do* object to this, butmostly because
>    I think it lacks dignity.

Such actions lack more than dignity.

>>I don't think this comment would apply to *any* of my friends. Of course
>>I'm 43; I'm sure when I was 23 I had less mature friends.

>    Ah now, these people are actively dating?  The sphere
>    I was referring to is the <30 casual dating circuit.

Some of these people are actively dating, but most of them are over 30.

You're right, that people's tastes, both culinary and sensual, do
change with age. I remember when I was little I used to sneak sugar
cubes and eat them. I know a friend's preschooler likes Teenage Mutant
Ninja Turtle Pies (you cannot imagine how sickly sweet and green those
things are!).

Nowadays, I prefer sushi to sweets. I also find character plays a
larger role in physical attraction, than it did when I was young.

>>>    *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.
>>
>>Why are boycotts unacceptable? They are just another exercise of the
>>free marketplace.

>    Not the type of boycott I'm referring to.  The type of boycott
>    I'm referring to (feminists marching outsode the building spreading
>    subversive "evidence" of sexism) is sad and immoral--it's right
>    up there with Operation Rescue and Lambs of Christ in terms
>    of sleaze.

>    Using force and manipulation to push the views of an otherwise
>    uninvolved minority onto the people involved.

>>(Do you find the Montgomery bus boycott
>>unacceptable?)

>    Assuredly not.

The difference between the Montgomery bus boycott, and the feminist
boycotts you describe, is in the goals, not the tactics.

If you want me to comment on the *goals* of a *specific* boycott,
you have to describe them.

Lenore Levine
[e-mail]