Ship of Fools: Breast Ironing, etc.

Thread: Breast Ironing, etc. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029964

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

For those who don't know, breast ironing is a practice in which the breasts of young girls are pounded flat using hot stones and hammers. This is considered a wise thing to do to girls to protect them from rape. In the Camaroon culture it's commonly done by female relatives.

I just heard of this and I'm so disgusted and so angry. Just because this is common in a minority culture the reports seem to be slightly sympathetic to the mothers who do this to their daughters, as though the slightest bit of research or even anecdotal evidence wouldn't demonstrated that breast plumpness has very little to do with incidents of rape.

This sort of thing is comparable to foot binding to make women more attractive and also perpetuated by mothers, but that was the 19th century and, today, no matter how uneducated and isolated your culture is, wouldn't you think a mother would need a really strong reason to visit this amount of pain on her daughter. Wouldn't she look for alternative methods to protect her from rape?

But none of this is as maddening and inexplicable to me as the practice of opening the skin of the chest to insert plastic bags of fluid in order to make oneself more attractive to men. Done voluntarily by western women.

Why are we complicit in practices of self-mutilation? Why are we pandering to the sexual fetishes of men? Men who themselves have been taught to value unnatural secondary sexual characteristics to a damaging degree? Why are there women who have so bought into this that they delay cancer surgery because they think it's their breasts that make them women? When will we stand up and say: These are our bodies! Whether they are fat or thin or our breasts are small or large, they are ours and we will not try to change them to please anyone else.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_ironing depressing, but somehow unsurprising.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If there is to be bodily mutilation to try and prevent rape it would seem more reasonable to apply the hot iron to the rapists. And, I'm not talking about flattening their nipples either.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

That is something I had never heard of before. It is extremely sad to know there is so very, very little one can do to help prevent such stupid cruelty.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I deplore cultures that do shit to females.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is of no comfort to anybody, but Darwin wins on this one. Damage the mammary glands badly enough, and the grown woman will not be able to nurse an infant. She will die without descendants, and thus the non-survival-oriented genes of her mother or grandmother, the real perps, will die out.
Darwin always wins. It's always ugly and depressing, but it will happen.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

sigh.

Mutilation of beautiful bodies* is a disgrace and an offence to God.

*That is all bodies. They are all beautiful.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If there is to be bodily mutilation to try and prevent rape it would seem more reasonable to apply the hot iron to the rapists. And, I'm not talking about flattening their nipples either.

Indeed. I have heard of breast ironing before, and there is in fact an article in today's Times. I am beyond angry and depressed about this and similar mutilation like female cutting, although there is some progress in eradicating this in some areas.

Actually in the Times' book reviews section there is one about a new biography of Katherine Howard, Henry VIII's fifth wife. Usually seen as promiscuous, this new book sees her rather as a victim of child abuse, which started when she was about 11. That depressed me too. It seems that women have always been victims of male power.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is of no comfort to anybody, but Darwin wins on this one. Damage the mammary glands badly enough, and the grown woman will not be able to nurse an infant. She will die without descendants, and thus the non-survival-oriented genes of her mother or grandmother, the real perps, will die out.
Darwin always wins. It's always ugly and depressing, but it will happen.

I might be reading you wrong, but are you saying that because you think, as per Darwin's theories, the women who practice this abuse will eventually cease to reproduce, the abuse itself will therefore die out?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is of no comfort to anybody, but Darwin wins on this one. Damage the mammary glands badly enough, and the grown woman will not be able to nurse an infant. She will die without descendants, and thus the non-survival-oriented genes of her mother or grandmother, the real perps, will die out.
Darwin always wins. It's always ugly and depressing, but it will happen.
I might be reading you wrong, but are you saying that because you think, as per Darwin's theories, the women who practice this abuse will eventually cease to reproduce, the abuse itself will therefore die out?

Well, I don't think you have to be a full-blown sociobiolgist to think that certain practices only survive because they're being handed down intergenerationally. In other words, there aren't many people who, in the absence of being taught the "virtues" of breast-ironing by their parents, will adopt the practice.

As a comparison, imagine a relgion that has ceased to win any external converts, and only survives because it's adherents reproduce. If they all suddenly decided to take a vow of life-long celibacy, that religion would be totally extinct within a century, at most.

One thing I'm somewhat dubious about, however...

quote:
Damage the mammary glands badly enough, and the grown woman will not be able to nurse an infant. She will die without descendants

I am hardly an expert on motherhood or reproduction, but I'm pretty sure it is possible for a baby to survive without being breast-fed by its mother. I would assume that, if this custom really does do such damage to the breasts, that the practitioners have found other ways of feeding their babies.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is of no comfort to anybody, but Darwin wins on this one. Damage the mammary glands badly enough, and the grown woman will not be able to nurse an infant. She will die without descendants, and thus the non-survival-oriented genes of her mother or grandmother, the real perps, will die out.
Darwin always wins. It's always ugly and depressing, but it will happen.

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I might be reading you wrong, but are you saying that because you think, as per Darwin's theories, the women who practice this abuse will eventually cease to reproduce, the abuse itself will therefore die out?

It seems a rather insensitive angle to focus on. And just plain wrong in any case I think. Human beings don't have specific behaviours that map on to genes like that. These are complex traits which are transmitted by culture as much as anything genetic.

On the behaviour itself if it wasn't so well documented I would struggle to believe it was possible. But as the OP says it seems similar to foot-binding and many other oppressive and mutilating practices which have been targeted on girls.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There are a whole suite of things: behaviors, habits, traditions -- that either improve, or depress, your chances of grandchildren. Most of us, without having to think about it, work to improve the chances.
A very minor example of the most innocuous: my father acquired a box of Godiva chocolates. When we visited he produced them, and automatically began doling them out to the grandchildren. It could be argued that all of us adults were fighting the Battle of the Bulge, and the last thing we needed was chocolate. But nobody reasoned at this level; we just did it.
I have no idea how such a dingbat idea as breast ironing ever arose. But it is no great prophecy, to say that it cannot end well. It doesn't matter how it is transmitted or why. It's doomed.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

But none of this is as maddening and inexplicable to me as the practice of opening the skin of the chest to insert plastic bags of fluid in order to make oneself more attractive to men. Done voluntarily by western women.

I am usually told on this subject that some women who have breast implants are doing it to enhance their self-esteem, feel more confident and so on (rather like "I wear pretty underwear for me, not some man").

Which may well be true, but seems to ignore the wider cultural context.

Still, most people who don't like plastic surgery consider implants for women who have had mastectomies to be reasonable, and most people consider orthodontic work to be reasonable - somehow these things "don't count" as body modifications.

And is "I want an even, white smile" really much different from "I want bigger breasts"?

I think there's a distinction between things like genital mutilation and breast ironing, which are fundamentally destructive of women's bodies in aid of some imagined idea of sexual purity, and things like tattoos and piercings, which aren't. Breast implants are probably nearer the latter than the former.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There is also the consent issue. You need to be of age and able to consent, to get a boob job. (You also need quite a lot of cash up front -- cosmetic surgery is not covered by health insurance.) Mutilating a nine-year-old girl doesn't meet that criteria.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
For those who don't know, breast ironing is a practice in which the breasts of young girls are pounded flat using hot stones and hammers. This is considered a wise thing to do to girls to protect them from rape. In the Camaroon culture it's commonly done by female relatives.

I just heard of this and I'm so disgusted and so angry. Just because this is common in a minority culture the reports seem to be slightly sympathetic to the mothers who do this to their daughters, as though the slightest bit of research or even anecdotal evidence wouldn't demonstrated that breast plumpness has very little to do with incidents of rape.

This sort of thing is comparable to foot binding to make women more attractive and also perpetuated by mothers, but that was the 19th century and, today, no matter how uneducated and isolated your culture is, wouldn't you think a mother would need a really strong reason to visit this amount of pain on her daughter. Wouldn't she look for alternative methods to protect her from rape?

I don't know. I don't know what rape culture might be like in Cameroon, and how much of this barbaric practice is based on real fear of a real threat, and how much is just a nod to a barbaric custom. It is horrible either way.

It made me think, though, of reports that African American parents will teach their sons to adopt certain behaviors to minimize problems with racial profiling, especially with police-- limiting their behavior/freedom in ways that also seems regressive and pandering to racism. I have a similar reaction, but at the same time have to accept my limited knowledge of the culture/ actual situation this is coming from. I wonder if something similar isn't going on here-- and whether the mothers are to blame or the patriarchal rape culture.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
It made me think, though, of reports that African American parents will teach their sons to adopt certain behaviors to minimize problems with racial profiling, especially with police-- limiting their behavior/freedom in ways that also seems regressive and pandering to racism. I have a similar reaction, but at the same time have to accept my limited knowledge of the culture/ actual situation this is coming from. I wonder if something similar isn't going on here-- and whether the mothers are to blame or the patriarchal rape culture.

Well, I think it might depend to what extent the actors in both situations identify themselves with the cultures.

If it was a WHITE COP telling the black youth how to act so as to avoid getting a shit-beating from his more excitable colleagues, I don't think we'd consider him to be a very good guy. Especially if he continued to be best-buds with those miscreant colleagues, socializing them with regularly and extolling their virtues at Cop Of The Year dinners.

Basically, if it's at the point where a good cop has to be advising blacks about how not to get beat up by the bad cops, he needs to get off the fence, head down to Internal Affairs, and initiate the process that will hopefully lead to the bad cops being fired and eventually jailed.

I don't know much about the people in Cameroon, but I'm guessing that the women involved in breast-ironing aren't doing much to challenge the power of men to rape women. And, in fact, probably don't want to do much.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't know much about the people in Cameroon, but I'm guessing that the women involved in breast-ironing aren't doing much to challenge the power of men to rape women. And, in fact, probably don't want to do much.

How exactly would you envisage them going about challenging it?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't know much about the people in Cameroon, but I'm guessing that the women involved in breast-ironing aren't doing much to challenge the power of men to rape women. And, in fact, probably don't want to do much.
How exactly would you envisage them going about challenging it?

Well, hence my last sentence. I am doubtful that the women see anything wrong with the cultural attitudes that supposedly neccessitate breast-ironing, and wouldn't do anything to challenge them even if that society afforded them the opportunity to do so.

But I'm pretty new to this topic, so I could certainly be wrong. Is it the case that the thinking of these women is something along the lines of "Well, there are some pretty fucked up men out there, and much as I'd like to throw them all in jail, that's not feasible right now, so the only option is to disfigure my daughter's breasts"?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

But none of this is as maddening and inexplicable to me as the practice of opening the skin of the chest to insert plastic bags of fluid in order to make oneself more attractive to men. Done voluntarily by western women.
I am usually told on this subject that some women who have breast implants are doing it to enhance their self-esteem, feel more confident and so on (rather like "I wear pretty underwear for me, not some man").

Which may well be true, but seems to ignore the wider cultural context.

Still, most people who don't like plastic surgery consider implants for women who have had mastectomies to be reasonable, and most people consider orthodontic work to be reasonable - somehow these things "don't count" as body modifications.

And is "I want an even, white smile" really much different from "I want bigger breasts"?

I think there's a distinction between things like genital mutilation and breast ironing, which are fundamentally destructive of women's bodies in aid of some imagined idea of sexual purity, and things like tattoos and piercings, which aren't. Breast implants are probably nearer the latter than the former.

[Let's leave reconstructive surgery after cancer aside, that's not what we're talking about here.]

A big difference between tooth whitening and breast augmentation is that teeth can be whitened with a three dollar tube of toothpaste and the full cost of breast implants is around $10,000 d plus the fact that 25% need to be redone after 10 years or so. The same can be said about other things like make-up and hair die that are often compared in defense of the practice. Orthodontic work is expensive but is usually recommended for the health of the teeth, plus the appearance of the face effects all aspects of a person's life in a way that something under the clothing does not. The biggest difference between the things you mention and implants is that they don't require invasive, possibly life threatening, surgery.

I'm sure women who had their feet bound, had ribs removed to make their waists smaller, took arsenic to whiten their skin all "felt better about themselves," had "improved self-esteem," and felt more confident.

Yes it is different from the abuse these young Camaroon girls are having to endure, but the fact that it is being done, voluntarily, by educated post-feminist women makes it seem worse to me in some ways. The modern, western woman who does something this drastic to herself in order to please men perpetuates the world view of women as sexual objects.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ariel: How exactly would you envisage them going about challenging it?

I'm certain that there are women's organisations in Cameroon dealing with this subjects. I'd start by listening to them.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, Cnight, read up on breast surgery. The actual surgical procedure. Then read up on lipo and its potential side effects.
Breast augmentation doesn't happen in cultures where women go topless, and therefore all boobs on the boob spectrum are considered natural. It happens when women are told only one version of boob is acceptable. A women having to cut herself to feel basically good about herself is a sign of a big problem.

Brest ironing. (Sigh) There is no end to physical manifestations of women's pain, is there?

It reminds me of something I meant to,put to y'all at some point-- the chastity belt. The old wink- nudge explanation for the existence of chastity belts is that they kept horny wives under control while the husband was off fighting the barbarian hordes, or whatever. I found myself wondering the other day if it was instead a method of rape prevention. Maybe even something a woman herself put on. Maybe even something a woman invented.

Early European explorers in New England wrote amused anecdotes about Native American women who would basically fill their vaginal cavities with foreign objects to prevent rape. They evidently found it cute.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
It made me think, though, of reports that African American parents will teach their sons to adopt certain behaviors to minimize problems with racial profiling, especially with police-- limiting their behavior/freedom in ways that also seems regressive and pandering to racism. I have a similar reaction, but at the same time have to accept my limited knowledge of the culture/ actual situation this is coming from. I wonder if something similar isn't going on here-- and whether the mothers are to blame or the patriarchal rape culture.

Well, I think it might depend to what extent the actors in both situations identify themselves with the cultures.

If it was a WHITE COP telling the black youth how to act so as to avoid getting a shit-beating from his more excitable colleagues, I don't think we'd consider him to be a very good guy. Especially if he continued to be best-buds with those miscreant colleagues, socializing them with regularly and extolling their virtues at Cop Of The Year dinners.

Basically, if it's at the point where a good cop has to be advising blacks about how not to get beat up by the bad cops, he needs to get off the fence, head down to Internal Affairs, and initiate the process that will hopefully lead to the bad cops being fired and eventually jailed.

I don't know much about the people in Cameroon, but I'm guessing that the women involved in breast-ironing aren't doing much to challenge the power of men to rape women. And, in fact, probably don't want to do much.

As I said, in the context of African American cultures, the narratives I have read have been African American mothers primarily speaking to their sons. Which seems to me to parallel what's being described here-- African mothers seeking extreme measures to protect their daughters. Whether those measures are warranted, or are based really on tradition/ social custom/ fear-based myths I would of course have no way of knowing. But in both cases the mothers involved would not be in a position of power to change the system-- unlike the white cop in your analogy.

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't know much about the people in Cameroon, but I'm guessing that the women involved in breast-ironing aren't doing much to challenge the power of men to rape women. And, in fact, probably don't want to do much.
How exactly would you envisage them going about challenging it?
Well, hence my last sentence. I am doubtful that the women see anything wrong with the cultural attitudes that supposedly neccessitate breast-ironing, and wouldn't do anything to challenge them even if that society afforded them the opportunity to do so.

Both of us are speculating beyond our knowledge of course, that that seems a HUGE leap to me.

[ 26. March 2016, 20:53: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
...most people consider orthodontic work to be reasonable

If the teeth are seriously mal-aligned, a person cannot chew their food properly, which may lead to digestive problems.

Moo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm really having a hard time believing that people are comparing have your teeth straightened to smashing the hell out of some 9 year old's breasts. Is this what the ship has fallen to?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

People? One person, by my reading. And several people saying, "No, that doesn't compare."

Seriously, after reading all this, that is what bothers you?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
...most people consider orthodontic work to be reasonable
If the teeth are seriously mal-aligned, a person cannot chew their food properly, which may lead to digestive problems.

Moo

If teeth are that bad they would have been since an early age, and certainly in most of the Western world would have been treated during childhood. It has nothing at all to do with an adult deciding they need their teeth straightened (except after some accident that had resulted in damage to the jaw and/or teeth - and, I don't think anyone has suggested anything wrong with plastic surgery to repair damage from an accident or illness).

But, it's on a whole different planet to women putting their young daughters through what must be considerable pain, and with major burns that pain could easily persist throughout their life, in order to make them unattractive to potential rapists in the future. Presumably making them unattractive to potential husbands as well.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, while I stand by my statement that a woman getting her breasts cut to "feel pretty" signifies a huge problem, I don't think there is any question that it is very definitely a problem of the first world variety.

Back to rape prevention in general, though-- it seems to me it's something women have had to tackle since the beginning of time. And while I understand someone's disgust at mothers doing this to their daughters, my knee jerk reaction to the idea that "they must not care enough to appeal to the authorities" is," Yeah, right." Even in our supposedly well developed country, how well does that work?

Ever heard the audio recordings of Nicole Brown Simpson's 911 calls? Ten- fifteen minutes of her going from fright to panic to fury as the dispatcher seems more focused on her controlling tone of voice than the information she is giving.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
People? One person, by my reading. And several people saying, "No, that doesn't compare."

Seriously, after reading all this, that is what bothers you?

I doubt my outrage about the practice of breast ironing would improve on anybody else's.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I think your "what is the Ship coming to??" Comment just made me misunderstand the rest of your post, which makes sense. That line still doesn't make sense, though. But whatever.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I just meant, what the hell is wrong with people who could compare smashing girls' breasts with straightening girls' teeth. I mean like WHAT THE FUCKING FUCKETY FUCK FUCK is wrong with someone who could equate those?!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
People? One person, by my reading. And several people saying, "No, that doesn't compare."

I count no people.

My post, which I think introduced orthodontics to the discussion, was comparing orthodontics to breast enhancements and other cosmetic plastic surgery. It compares "breast ironing" to FGM, and says that those are similar to each other, and different from all this other stuff.

I assume I'm your one person, and I don't see how you could have got the impression you did from my post.

Twilight's OP compares breast ironing to boob jobs. I'm not sure they're so close - I'm comparing breast enhancements, rhinoplasty and so on with orthodontics, and suggesting that cosmetic surgery is closer to orthodontics than it is to "breast ironing".

I got interrupted whilst composing the post that was going to introduce ear piercing to the discussion (boob jobs are somewhat destructive, but involve consenting adults. It is widely acceptable to pierce the ears of small children - obviously consent isn't in the question, but the damage is minimal) so perhaps I won't get to hear how I'm comparing piercing your daughter's ears with pummelling her breasts with hot stones.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I deplore cultures that do shit to females.

Then you deplore every culture in the world.
LC:
Not all plastic surgery is on the same spectrum. Boob job =\= caps.
Whilst breast augmentation is not the same thing as breast ironing, it is in the same spectrum. It is about women conforming instead of men behaving.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I agree it's about men behaving.

But, in what sense is it about women conforming? Yes, cosmetic enhancements can be about women conforming to an ideal of beauty that is often defined by men. But, surely breast ironing is diametrically opposite? It's about not conforming to what men define as desirable by deliberately making girls undesirable.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Well, I'm the one who brought up implants in the same post as breast ironing, not to say that they are comparable as to pain or damage to the tissue but as what LilBuddha says part of the whole spectrum of women's breasts needed to be artificially changed.

The women who beat their daughter's breasts with hot spatulas are conforming to the idea that a woman's attractiveness is all about her breasts in the same way that a woman who gets implants for herself is conforming to that idea. Both women and men have taken a body part meant for feeding babies and sexualized it. The woman who thinks her daughter won't be raped if her breasts are flat and the 19 year-old girl who thinks men wont find her attractive unless her breasts are large and circular, are buying into the same false idea.

[ 27. March 2016, 10:33: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Both women and men have taken a body part meant for feeding babies and sexualized it.

And, what's the problem? A part of the female body has a primary function (feeding babies) but has also gained a secondary function (sexual attraction). Why can't these multiple functions co-exist? If you think that's bad, just think how bad we have it - our primary sexual organ is also our body's waste disposal chute.

Mammary glands in humans are unique in that they are a) constantly protruding and b) are unusually large relative to body size. For the purpose of feeding infants there is no physiological reason why they shouldn't only enlarge towards the end of pregnancy. Therefore, evolution has developed these unique features for some secondary purpose other than just to feed infants. Generally, such relatively impractical evolutionary developments often relate to courtship - though usually it's the male that has the gaudy feathers etc. to attract the best (or most) females to him. If the unique mammary glands in humans fulfill a similar role then it's, unusually, so that women can attract the best men to her.

But, if enlarged and constantly protruding breasts do serve a secondary sexual role that doesn't excuse men from our obsession with them. It certainly doesn't excuse men from rape. But, it also means that by deliberately damaging them women are also preventing that secondary function of attracting a good mate - which potentially leaves these poor girls facing the prospect of either no husband or a bad husband.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Both women and men have taken a body part meant for feeding babies and sexualized it.
And, what's the problem? A part of the female body has a primary function (feeding babies) but has also gained a secondary function (sexual attraction). Why can't these multiple functions co-exist? If you think that's bad, just think how bad we have it - our primary sexual organ is also our body's waste disposal chute.

Maybe you'll see the problem when your primary sexual organ is so fixed upon by the opposite sex that you're expected to wear clothing that lifts it up and sticks it out so that it's size can be easily evaluated by all and sundry and over time normal ones become simply not acceptable and so you'll be expected to have painful surgery to add lengthening attachments, or, conversely, your well meaning but ignorant parents will decide the best way to avoid unwanted attention or physical assault will be to beat it into a smaller size.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

But, that's not a problem with breasts having a secondary sexual characteristic.

That's a problem about our society being totally screwed up over sex. It's about arbitrary ideals of beauty that are unrealistic for anyone. It's about a fucked up society deciding that one particular size of breast is more attractive, for no particular reason at all as far as I can tell.

And, it's not just women who have unrealistic expectations thrust on them and finding themselves feeling inadequate. Try being a nerdy, wimpy man when everyone around is looking for the strong and muscled men - a different characteristic, but is that really that different from being a flattish chested woman?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Quite. Imagine if society took the same view of penises and this sort of NSFW thing was de rigueur in the high street.

Oppressive standards would be possible despite the objectively sexual nature of penises.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Boob job =\= caps.
Whilst breast augmentation is not the same thing as breast ironing, it is in the same spectrum. It is about women conforming instead of men behaving.

How do you feel about rhinoplasty? It involves (mostly) women altering their bodies to conform to some beauty standard - but the nose isn't a particularly sexual body part. It's a less violent operation than a breast enlargement, but in my mind, that's the only difference between the two.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I maintain that the key thing is consent, and agency. It is my body and I get to tattoo it, enhance or deflate, pierce, adorn or deform at will. The key thing is that you do not get to decide this for me.
In my lifetime the trend against circumcision at birth has nearly completely passed. Except for religious reasons, in the US it is no longer standard practice to bob a baby boy's dick. If he wants it done he can do it when he's older.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I agree it's about men behaving.

But, in what sense is it about women conforming? Yes, cosmetic enhancements can be about women conforming to an ideal of beauty that is often defined by men. But, surely breast ironing is diametrically opposite? It's about not conforming to what men define as desirable by deliberately making girls undesirable.

It is the same standard (desirability) that one is adapting one's behaviour to. The goal is different, but the standard is the same.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
How do you feel about rhinoplasty?

I think you are missing the point. Rhinoplasty and dental work are gender neutral cosmetic surgery. The individual's motivation affects what category such surgery fits. Boob jobs are gender specific and conform to male standard the overwhelming majority of the time.
For another example, consider labial modification. This is undertaken almost exclusively by hetero women. Why not gay women? Because lesbians do not feel the need to adapt to male expectation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst breast augmentation is not the same thing as breast ironing, it is in the same spectrum. It is about women conforming instead of men behaving.

What male behavior is breast augmentation meant to suppress or elicit? Liking you? (generic you) In that case isn't it more manipulation than capitulation?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
People? One person, by my reading. And several people saying, "No, that doesn't compare."
I count no people.

My post, which I think introduced orthodontics to the discussion, was comparing orthodontics to breast enhancements and other cosmetic plastic surgery. It compares "breast ironing" to FGM, and says that those are similar to each other, and different from all this other stuff.

I assume I'm your one person, and I don't see how you could have got the impression you did from my post.

Twilight's OP compares breast ironing to boob jobs. I'm not sure they're so close - I'm comparing breast enhancements, rhinoplasty and so on with orthodontics, and suggesting that cosmetic surgery is closer to orthodontics than it is to "breast ironing".

I got interrupted whilst composing the post that was going to introduce ear piercing to the discussion (boob jobs are somewhat destructive, but involve consenting adults. It is widely acceptable to pierce the ears of small children - obviously consent isn't in the question, but the damage is minimal) so perhaps I won't get to hear how I'm comparing piercing your daughter's ears with pummelling her breasts with hot stones.

I said you weren't comparing them!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst breast augmentation is not the same thing as breast ironing, it is in the same spectrum. It is about women conforming instead of men behaving.
What male behavior is breast augmentation meant to suppress or elicit? Liking you? (generic you) In that case isn't it more manipulation than capitulation?

If the game were not rigged, you would have a point. But it is biased towards what is perceived to please men.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I just meant, what the hell is wrong with people who could compare smashing girls' breasts with straightening girls' teeth. I mean like WHAT THE FUCKING FUCKETY FUCK FUCK is wrong with someone who could equate those?!

Yeah, I finally got that-- it was the comment about the Ship that threw me.

I read Twilight as saying ( in part) " and this isn't about benighted third world folk, we are just as bad, in our way," to which I kind of agree. But there are two issues at work here-- the breast beating isn't just some cultural cosmetic preference ( which would actually put it in the realm of removing a rib, or breast cutting-- let's call that what it is. ) it is a rape prevention technique. Administered by the women themselves.

I mentioned the explorer letters above-- basically, it was people from one of the early New World expeditions-- Drake, maybe? -- joking around about a woman who basically filled herself with sand so that nothing could get in there. I can't even type that without tears coming to my eyes. And it was the first thing I thought of when I read this-- what kind of hell must these women have been going through to decide something this brutal was the only solution?

[ 27. March 2016, 17:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst breast augmentation is not the same thing as breast ironing, it is in the same spectrum. It is about women conforming instead of men behaving.
What male behavior is breast augmentation meant to suppress or elicit? Liking you? (generic you) In that case isn't it more manipulation than capitulation?
If the game were not rigged, you would have a point. But it is biased towards what is perceived to please men.

Again, topless women. In cultures where girly boobs and ol' lady boobs swing free, women don't care what people think.

First of all, we have bras, which hold breasts in an unnatural position people begin to think of as normal. Second, we have a culture that frankly dismisses older women as useless. It's not just " youth is revered" it's "when you get to a certain age, expect shop counter assistants to ignore you, people to cut right in front of you in line as if you weren't there, people to glance at you at four way stops and not even touch the break,people holding doors for others to slam it in your face, and expect that any time you might protest you become the problem."

So, when I heard," Women get surgical procedures to feel good about themselves," what I hear is, " they are cutting themselves to create the impression that they are closer to an age that isn't invisible."

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Boob job =\= caps.
Whilst breast augmentation is not the same thing as breast ironing, it is in the same spectrum. It is about women conforming instead of men behaving.
How do you feel about rhinoplasty? It involves (mostly) women altering their bodies to conform to some beauty standard - but the nose isn't a particularly sexual body part. It's a less violent operation than a breast enlargement, but in my mind, that's the only difference between the two.

Rhinoplasty often involves removing evidence of "ethnicity"
(Agreeing with you, basically, just thought that exta layer of wrong needed pointing out.)

[ 27. March 2016, 17:46: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst breast augmentation is not the same thing as breast ironing, it is in the same spectrum. It is about women conforming instead of men behaving.
What male behavior is breast augmentation meant to suppress or elicit? Liking you? (generic you) In that case isn't it more manipulation than capitulation?
If the game were not rigged, you would have a point. But it is biased towards what is perceived to please men.

When you say "men behaving" you seem to be implying that men liking boobies of a certain configuration are misbehaving. Or is it men only dating women with acceptable body shapes who are misbehaving?

Misbehaving seems to imply moral culpability. Which is saying that men have a moral responsibility to date women they don't find attractive.

I'm not sure "men behaving" is the phrase you want there.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Or for fuck's sake, mt, that is obtuse to the point of absurdity.
A woman's value in most societies is her usefulness to men. Breast enhancement is playing to that. If men (general) were to truly value women as people, whatever floated any individual's boat would be just that. However, in most of the west, a big breast is best.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
we are just as bad, in our way,

I think this is a complicated thing. Whilst the same ethos drive the behaviour, one is clearly worse. However, this is more a result of circumstance than any moral superiority, so the statement has merit.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Oh, come on, MT, you're not that obtuse.
[crosspost edit-- fistbumps libB]

It's not that men are guilty if they aren't attracted to unattractive women-- although I would argue that mass media is really good at telling men what they can and cannot find attractive. I hung out with boys as a tween, and I remember them checking and double checking with their friends to see if the girls they liked were impressive enough to publicly admire.
It is that our culture has this added permission for people-- not just men-- to be savagely rude to people who are designated unattractive. Or to simply treat them like they don't exist. (See what I wrote above.And see above about "removing signs of ethnicity"-- often what we are told is " unattractive" is simply "other.")

Yeah, I know, it's stupid to read the comments, but in some of the FB discussions about films I get into, what always astounds me is that there is always some young douche-- usually bolstere by two or three more-- who gets really angry and militant when anyone, male or female, praises a woman he finds ugly. If men should be allowed to be attracted to anyone they please, where do these guys come from? And why do they insist with such conviction that their definition of ugly is unchallengable? Why the fuck should they care if there are guys in the world who think Melissa McCarthy is kind if hot, in a way?

Answer: our culture teaches men in a uniquely agressive way that the women they choose reflects their status. Thetefore, attraction can't be arbitrary or personal. These dudebros-- and Hollywood, and the Beeb, and every other entertainment source that profits off of people's insecurities-- need there to be a strictly defined "hot" and a strictly defined " ugly" so men like them can prove to other men that their taste in women is acceptable.
And I think this makes everyone miserable-- men and women both. Particularly young ones.

This is not an endictment of all men ( but anyone with common sense shouln't have to be told that) but of our weird-- ass, capialistic, advertizing dependent culture. It makes a lot of money off of hitting men in their weak spots, but paints it as privilege. And part of that priviledge is getting to abuse people who don't please you.

[ 27. March 2016, 18:39: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Or for fuck's sake, mt, that is obtuse to the point of absurdity.

Or your wording was obtuse. And you're being obtuse if you think I don't value women and feel like our society places ridiculous demands on them to "look right." For fuck's sake, lilBuddha. Try to read what I write and not what you think I'm saying.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Or for fuck's sake, mt, that is obtuse to the point of absurdity.
A woman's value in most societies is her usefulness to men. Breast enhancement is playing to that. If men (general) were to truly value women as people, whatever floated any individual's boat would be just that. However, in most of the west, a big breast is best.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
we are just as bad, in our way,
I think this is a complicated thing. Whilst the same ethos drive the behaviour, one is clearly worse. However, this is more a result of circumstance than any moral superiority, so the statement has merit.

Bear in mind that you edited out my quotation marks, and that I was attempting to paraphrase Twilight. I thought she wildly overstated her case, though, and my response to this was what the rest of my post was supposed to address.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Or for fuck's sake, mt, that is obtuse to the point of absurdity.
Or your wording was obtuse. And you're being obtuse if you think I don't value women and feel like our society places ridiculous demands on them to "look right." For fuck's sake, lilBuddha. Try to read what I write and not what you think I'm saying.

Read what you wrote. " Stop penalizing men for being attracted to women" is the oldest, stupidest response to the things we are discussing in the history of feminism. Of course we are gonna sneer at it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Or for fuck's sake, mt, that is obtuse to the point of absurdity.
Or your wording was obtuse. And you're being obtuse if you think I don't value women and feel like our society places ridiculous demands on them to "look right." For fuck's sake, lilBuddha. Try to read what I write and not what you think I'm saying.
Read what you wrote. " Stop penalizing men for being attracted to women" is the oldest, stupidest response to the things we are discussing in the history of feminism. Of course we are gonna sneer at it.

I DIDN'T WRITE THAT. You did. Like lilBuddha, you didn't read what I wrote. Gaaaa.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

When you say "men behaving" you seem to be implying that men liking boobies of a certain configuration are misbehaving. Or is it men only dating women with acceptable body shapes who are misbehaving?

Misbehaving seems to imply moral culpability. Which is saying that men have a moral responsibility to date women they don't find attractive.

And as I keep saying, it is not who is attracted to who that is the problem, it is the cultural attempts at governing this process that is the problem, so that whole last line is pure chickenshit, in the context of what we are talking about.

And again, anybody who can't see how people allow themselves to behave toward women who are culturally designated " unattractive" must be living in a cave, so that the idea that women adjust their appearance with the sole motive of moving a man's dick is ridiculous. Women adjust their appearance so that ( personal example) a teen Christian camp counselor won't feed his kids nasty comments to shout out when an overweight woman walks by them at the zoo.

[ 27. March 2016, 19:18: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

But all this is just our way to avoid talking about what would drive women to literally pound breasts or pound sand to avoid rape.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Bear in mind that you edited out my quotation marks,

Yeah, lazy writing. I was addressing the concept more than either one of you.

mt:
This part

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When you say "men behaving" you seem to be implying that men liking boobies of a certain configuration are misbehaving. Or is it men only dating women with acceptable body shapes who are misbehaving?

appears to miss my point entirely and sets the tome for the reading of intent.

quote:

Misbehaving seems to imply moral culpability. Which is saying that men have a moral responsibility to date women they don't find attractive.

This bit seems as logical as "Zebra's have stripes therefore purple is the best colour."
Men(collective) can have moral culpability for something without invalidating a man's(individual) preference.

quote:

I'm not sure "men behaving" is the phrase you want there.

This bit can be seen as a modifier, but it is not crystal clear. Especially as I do not think you have made a completely convincing case of proper language usage.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When you say "men behaving" you seem to be implying that men liking boobies of a certain configuration are misbehaving. Or is it men only dating women with acceptable body shapes who are misbehaving?
appears to miss my point entirely and sets the tome for the reading of intent.

And next you helpfully explain what your intent actually was. Oh wait. You don't.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And again, anybody who can't see how people allow themselves to behave toward women who are culturally designated " unattractive" must be living in a cave,

I didn't even mention that. Nor did lilBuddha in the bit I quoted. You are reading what you want to read, not what's there. You're the one who brought in the whole thing about nasty comments on the web, after lilbuddha and I had our first exchange. Now you're reading it back into what I wrote. C'mon.

[ 27. March 2016, 20:08: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

You said women change their appearence to manipulate men into liking them, or at least, you implied that that was the only conclusion you can draw from what lilB said. And you used that as an excuse to drop that dopey "I guess we can only date ugly girls" line. Come on, yourself.

Why are you avoiding the topic of how designated "ugly girls" are treated? The reason I keep bringing it up is that I think it has a huge impact on this discussion, and diverting the discussion to " you say men are bad because they like boobs" shuts down that whole avenue. You didn't bring it up, but I fuckin' did, because it matters.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
But all this is just our way to avoid talking about what would drive women to literally pound breasts or pound sand to avoid rape.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Why are you avoiding the topic of how designated "ugly girls" are treated? The reason I keep bringing it up is that I think it has a huge impact on this discussion, and diverting the discussion to " you say men are bad because they like boobs" shuts down that whole avenue. You didn't bring it up, but I fuckin' did, because it matters.

So you're having a discussion with yourself and using me as a foil. Schweet.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And you used that as an excuse to drop that dopey "I guess we can only date ugly girls" line. Come on, yourself.

Those aren't in the same post and I did not reference the first when making the subsequent comment. So you are fondly thinking you are capable of reading my mind here. Come on back atcha. FFS, nobody will read what I wrote, only what they want to interpret me as writing. And reading things that I never said, even going so far as to quote in quotation marks, international English for "this is what he actually said and not a paraphrase," something I never once said.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

No, i introduced a topic I wanted to discuss, that pertained to the subject at hand, because this is a message board and that's what they are for. If you read what I wrote, I did not address the comment you are mentioning to anyone specific. That was intentional. Because I fucking had something to say.

And it certainly pertains to this discussion as people are actually fucking talikng about what motivates women to surgically alter their appearence!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

MT grow a pair and admit the "dating ugly girls" crack was totally out of place and irrelevant. That's what set us both off, and you're doing the usual thing where you grab your dictionary and find every etymological excuse you can to avoid the consequences of saying something provocative.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
But all this is just our way to avoid talking about what would drive women to literally pound breasts or pound sand to avoid rape.

That's simple. It's because too many* men are shits. If men didn't commit rape, or permit others to do so, then there would be no need for women to take such drastic steps to try and prevent it.

* ie: one or more.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
MT grow a pair and admit the "dating ugly girls" crack was totally out of place and irrelevant.

I already own a pair, it's rather sexist against women to suggest courage requires testicles, and if you think it was out of place it proves you don't understand what I was saying.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves
Second, we have a culture that frankly dismisses older women as useless. It's not just " youth is revered" it's "when you get to a certain age, expect shop counter assistants to ignore you, people to cut right in front of you in line as if you weren't there, people to glance at you at four way stops and not even touch the break,people holding doors for others to slam it in your face, and expect that any time you might protest you become the problem.

I am eighty-two years old, and this does not describe my experiences at all.

Moo

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'd love to choose sides here but I have to say I'm completely lost in the you said that I said but I didn't say that he said and that wasn't what you said at all and how can you think she said that? I hope it is still clear to you all [Razz]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'd love to choose sides here but I have to say I'm completely lost in the you said that I said but I didn't say that he said and that wasn't what you said at all and how can you think she said that? I hope it is still clear to you all

Finally, a voice of reason.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'd love to choose sides here but I have to say I'm completely lost in the you said that I said but I didn't say that he said and that wasn't what you said at all and how can you think she said that? I hope it is still clear to you all
Finally, a voice of reason.

"You don't say" -----Groucho Marx.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Just ignoring 90% of the posts on this thread can I say that this topic is more important than almost everything you read in the newspapers. That certainly includes the US presidential elections and possibly the shitstorm that is Da'esh.

It really is worth getting angry about, picketing embassies and campaigning about, possibly through Amnesty.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Just ignoring 90% of the posts on this thread can I say that this topic is more important than almost everything you read in the newspapers. That certainly includes the US presidential elections and possibly the shitstorm that is Da'esh.

This topic is of vital importance, and certainly worthy of the actions you mention, but do you not think Da'esh kills and tortures girls and women?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Or, indeed even promotes the sort of idiocy about gender roles and physical appearance (what is all this stuff about women being veiled from head to toe except a statement that men can't be trusted when they see a woman - and that it's the fault of the woman) that leads them to think rape isn't wrong (again, perhaps because women let themselves be seen then they should expect some man to get out of control lusting over her).

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'd love to choose sides here but I have to say I'm completely lost in the you said that I said but I didn't say that he said and that wasn't what you said at all and how can you think she said that? I hope it is still clear to you all

I love that so much. It would fit nicely in the middle of half our threads and would make an excellent sig if it wasn't a bit lengthy.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Just ignoring 90% of the posts on this thread can I say that this topic is more important than almost everything you read in the newspapers. That certainly includes the US presidential elections and possibly the shitstorm that is Da'esh.
This topic is of vital importance, and certainly worthy of the actions you mention, but do you not think Da'esh kills and tortures girls and women?

That's why I said possibly. Violence against women is as despicable and widespread as violence gets. Moreover this, FGM and 'honour killings' are regarded as "cultural" which makes them even worse, AFAIAC.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Isn't all violence against women cultural?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't all violence against women cultural?

I'm not sure that domestic violence really is - or at least not completely. The cultural aspect would be whether it's acceptable to give the little woman a slap for burning the toast or whatever, but AIUI, most domestic violence these days happen in secret, behind closed doors. The culture doesn't get a look-in: it's one violent (usually)* man, and one victim (usually a woman).

*Yes, women batter their husbands, and gay men and lesbians batter their spouses too. Men beating up women is more common, though.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't all violence against women cultural?
I'm not sure that domestic violence really is - or at least not completely. The cultural aspect would be whether it's acceptable to give the little woman a slap for burning the toast or whatever, but AIUI, most domestic violence these days happen in secret, behind closed doors. The culture doesn't get a look-in: it's one violent (usually)* man, and one victim (usually a woman).

*Yes, women batter their husbands, and gay men and lesbians batter their spouses too. Men beating up women is more common, though.

Yes, this is true. But it is also true that some societies accept this, some promote it, and some abjure it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Except for religious reasons, in the US it is no longer standard practice to bob a baby boy's dick. If he wants it done he can do it when he's older.

It might not be "standard practice" but it's still reasonably common. With our boys, we were offered the choice in a matter-of-fact way, rather as though we were being offered refreshments. Tea or Coffee? Foreskin or no foreskin? The thing I find most bemusing about the circumcision issue is the apparently significant number of fathers who want their sons done so that they "look like Dad" [Ultra confused]

Infant penes don't look like adult penes, and what kind of adolescent boy spends his time comparing his penis to his father's?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, indeed even promotes the sort of idiocy about gender roles and physical appearance (what is all this stuff about women being veiled from head to toe except a statement that men can't be trusted when they see a woman - and that it's the fault of the woman) that leads them to think rape isn't wrong (again, perhaps because women let themselves be seen then they should expect some man to get out of control lusting over her).

Back to the women in Cameroon-- while I am certainly not condoning what they do, I am still trying to think what provoked it. If the cultural mindset is so hopelessly skewed in the direction of rape -- facilitation? Permissiveness? I can see women getting pretty desperate about it.

Back again to chastity belts- I still think they were less about fidelity than they were something similar to the OP. Other than tongue in cheek shaggy dog stories, do we know how they were used?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Actually, back to this:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, while I stand by my statement that a woman getting her breasts cut to "feel pretty" signifies a huge problem, I don't think there is any question that it is very definitely a problem of the first world variety.

Back to rape prevention in general, though-- it seems to me it's something women have had to tackle since the beginning of time. And while I understand someone's disgust at mothers doing this to their daughters, my knee jerk reaction to the idea that "they must not care enough to appeal to the authorities" is," Yeah, right." Even in our supposedly well developed country, how well does that work?

Ever heard the audio recordings of Nicole Brown Simpson's 911 calls? Ten- fifteen minutes of her going from fright to panic to fury as the dispatcher seems more focused on her controlling tone of voice than the information she is giving.

Sorry, Alan, I see you tried up there.

[ 28. March 2016, 02:59: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Again, topless women. In cultures where girly boobs and ol' lady boobs swing free, women don't care what people think.

Not sure that's quite cause and effect - people have nose jobs despite the fact that in our culture, noses of all shapes are publicly displayed.

I agree with you that our attitudes towards women's bodies are problematic - I just don't think it's because we wear clothes.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I don't necessarily think clothes are the problem, but the fact is people in free boob countries just don't freak out about boobs the way we do. And women don't feel like they have to don a shroud when they reach drooping age.

The way we treat nudity, rather, is a problem-- it is oppressively connected to sexual activity. Every time we discuss public nudity on the Ship, some wiseass always swoops in with, " it's always the wrong people who want to be nude." This is crap. This implies only people with perfect bodies should be comfortable with them. That it is your civic duty to be invisible if society thinks the package you come in isn't visually entertaining. Rather than, "She's a Porsche, I'm a Volkswagon, but we both have important places to go."

What can you do except retort, " God didn't consult you about the blueprint, so shut up!"

But then even clothed imperfect people get those attitudes. Nudity just enhances things,

[ 28. March 2016, 05:14: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
...... attitudes towards women's bodies are problematic - I just don't think it's because we wear clothes.

I believe it's down to males desiring female bodies and females having some kind of problem, (I don't know what), with their own bodies.

On the matter of nudity I just wonder--- Is sexual assault, harrasssment, and what have you a proportionally greater problem in nudist colonies or boob free societies?
My guess is that is not such a problem, which would therefore suggest the Fig Leaf of shame does indeed have rather a lot to do with it.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I believe it's down to males desiring female bodies and females having some kind of problem, (I don't know what), with their own bodies.

Wow.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Well, and males possessing and long having possessed control of the narrative. Although there is something of a problem with the narrative, and long has been. On the one hand, women are evil seductresses, leading virtuous men astray with their wiles, whereas on the other hand, men are animalistic, and can't control themselves and need women to be demure to instill sexual continence in the raging beast.

This disconnect should c cause migraine inducing cognitive dissonance in anyone with enough brain cells to get a migraine, but somehow both horns of the dilemma maintain their traction in the male chauvinist narrative. And continue to wreak great damage in boys and young men, who absorb this shit unthinkingly, and of course in the women and girls who suffer at their hands.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Is this the Madonna-whore complex?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

But specifically in terms of women having some- problem - I don't - know - what with their body image, it is a small segment of male run institutions dictating to both men and women what acceptable versions of attractiveness are.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

...mass media is really good at telling men what they can and cannot find attractive. I hung out with boys as a tween, and I remember them checking and double checking with their friends to see if the girls they liked were impressive enough to publicly admire.
It is that our culture has this added permission for people-- not just men-- to be savagely rude to people who are designated unattractive. Or to simply treat them like they don't exist. (See what I wrote above.And see above about "removing signs of ethnicity"-- often what we are told is " unattractive" is simply "other.")

*Yeah, I know, it's stupid to read the comments, but in some of the FB discussions about films I get into, what always astounds me is that there is always some young douche-- usually bolstere by two or three more-- who gets really angry and militant when anyone, male or female, praises a woman he finds ugly. If men should be allowed to be attracted to anyone they please, where do these guys come from? And why do they insist with such conviction that their definition of ugly is unchallengable? Why the fuck should they care if there are guys in the world who think Melissa McCarthy is kind if hot, in a way?*

Answer: our culture teaches men in a uniquely agressive way that the women they choose reflects their status. Thetefore, attraction can't be arbitrary or personal. These dudebros-- and Hollywood, and the Beeb, and every other entertainment source that profits off of people's insecurities-- need there to be a strictly defined "hot" and a strictly defined " ugly" so men like them can prove to other men that their taste in women is acceptable.
And I think this makes everyone miserable-- men and women both. Particularly young ones.

This is not an endictment of all men ( but anyone with common sense shouln't have to be told that) but of our weird-- ass, capialistic, advertizing dependent culture. It makes a lot of money off of hitting men in their weak spots, but paints it as privilege. And part of that priviledge is getting to abuse people who don't please you.

Cutting out the distracting bits and highlighting a particularly important bit.

Background-- I participated in some Nerdist board discussions about the new female Ghostbusters reboot. The comments were about 50/50 as to how ( reasonable) people thought it would go, so please let's not make that a tangent. But in the midst of about 150 people vigorously but reasonably debating-- think Purg-- there were like the same five guys who kept leaping in and making comments like " they should have cast McCarthy as Stay- puft" , making these impassioned declarations about how the movie would suck and that was all there was to it( bear in mind it hasn't opened yet) and getting furious at anyone daring to praise McCarthy's talent or looks. And yes there were a couple guys who thought MM is sexy. They were told they were appeasing pussies who pretended to be feminist to get laid.
Seriously, it was psycho. They were like the dudebro status quo cops. And the more people said, "Why don't you have your own little opinion and let others have theirs?" The more insistent they were that opinion didn't enter into it, they were just right.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

(To add) the sense I got was that their behavior was anxiety- based-- for some reason I cannot grasp, except my general guess above, the boys involved really needed to get the approval of the (male members of) pack, and the fact that some of the pack weren't agreeing with them really unsettled them.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I believe it's down to males desiring female bodies and females having some kind of problem, (I don't know what), with their own bodies.
Wow.

Yeah, a serious WTF?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(To add) the sense I got was that their behavior was anxiety- based-- for some reason I cannot grasp, except my general guess above, the boys involved really needed to get the approval of the (male members of) pack, and the fact that some of the pack weren't agreeing with them really unsettled them.

I strongly suspect that somewhere in there is a sense of identity problem. I haven't got a clue what with, but people do get disproportionately challenged if you question the probity of certain cultural identities. Maybe you would need to know more about who they associated with outside that milieu.

On the OP topic, which I don't want to be guilty of diverting, I'm not entirely convinced by some of the theorizing so far, but I need to get my head around it a bit more.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

First of all, thanks, Ron. Every time we have a conversation about female appearence issues, I try to introduce the lines of debate above-- " we get how women are effected by mass media, but how are men's attitudes toward female appearance affected by a select few making decisions about what constitutes beauty? " And "Really, don't date someone you've decided is ugly, she deserves better, but why do some guys make such an issue about getting everyone to agree about the same version of ugly? If your friend thinks someone is lovely, who the fuck are you to ask him why he's with that dog?" And "why is there a significant cultural trend toward people attacking a woman's looks and shaming her for showing reasonably common flaws?" And every time that seems to lock the conversation down. So genuinely, thanks for taking a stab at it.

I think it is important, because I think it is the post modern version of the burqa. If you promote an idea that only a small segment of the female population has value, based on specific criteria and for a specfic purpose, and it is ok to freely mock and shame those who don't fit the criteria, then you get to ignore the voices of the vast majority of women, who are naturally not going to measure up.

So I think at some point men need to be encouraged to really, seriously examine what is being told to them about women, if anything is going to change. Whether or not you buy into it, look at it anyway, and consider that there are men who do. Men with clout.

All this female self impowerment and " fuck the world and love yourself! You, you you, are the only best friend you need!"Is well and good, but it is draining. And lonely. We could use help.

[ 29. March 2016, 18:04: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

One aspect I forgot about the dudebro cop thing-- they get furiously angry with women who describe themselves as attractive when they don't agree with it. Again, fuck whoever you want, but how does a woman liking her own appearance affect a dudebro's personal preferences in any way shape or form? If you're not gonna fuck her anyway, dudebro, what do you care if she likes how she looks?

I know, "Don't read the comments, Kelly." But that is where the younger generation of women are fighting. And they are getting absolutely slammed with this shit.
To relate this to the OP-- two things game up, what would drive a woman to mutilate herself to protect herself, and what would drive a woman to cut into her own flesh to appear attractive?"

One of the answers was, " to make herself feel more pretty" and my response is, " oh, no, it's way more complicated than that. Where is she getting the idea that the only way to feel pretty is to cut herself?"

And class hasn't really come up yet. Back to my postmoderm burqa. How convenient is it to people with clout that the only way to ensure you are a woman of value is to spend a lot of money? Poor, older women will never make the list. And that's a hell of a lot of women.

[ 29. March 2016, 18:50: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
they get furiously angry with women who describe themselves as attractive when they don't agree with it. Again, fuck whoever you want, but how does a woman liking her own appearance affect a dudebro's personal preferences in any way shape or form?

If describing someone as "attractive" has any meaning, it must mean "...according to generally prevailing standards of attractiveness." IOW, I think there's a semantic difference between "I find X attractive" and "X is attractive".

So your loud and obnoxious dudebros are establishing what their community attractiveness standard is. It's especially unpleasant because it's about other people, but I see the same kind of behaviour in dudebros and whatever the female equivalent is loudly proclaiming that particular clothing styles, foodstuffs and whatever else are either acceptable or unacceptable. "Lord of the Flies" just came up on another thread...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Leorning Cniht: If describing someone as "attractive" has any meaning, it must mean "...according to generally prevailing standards of attractiveness." IOW, I think there's a semantic difference between "I find X attractive" and "X is attractive".

Exactly. I find all women I have been with attractive, and physical attraction was part of the reason why I wanted to be with them. But that's according to my own standards.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I've been puzzling over this one overnight, and maybe there's a point to go back to the beginning on. In the OP, twilight wrote:

quote:
Men who themselves have been taught to value unnatural secondary sexual characteristics to a damaging degree?

This in the context of various examples of body modification, of which breast-ironing is a catastrophic example.

The underpinning here is presumably secondary sexual characteristics, those physical features that are differentiated by sex, but not themselves primarily sexual. The things we find ourselves noticing in other people, even across a room. Biologically, that's fairly easy to explain. I don't think there is anything taught or to learn there.

But over and above that, the ideals of beauty (not the same thing, but bear with me) do change through the ages. So there is definitely something there which is being overlaid on top of the biological groundwork, and presumably that's what we are talking about.

At this point, it may be worth looking at the related issue of fashion. Why do people wear what they do? There's a whole raft of stuff to look at - the sociology of fashion, the psychology of fashion, the semiotics of fashion... And that's just about everyday choice of apparel, not specifically the fashion industry, a subject surely worthy of an extended rant on its own.

The thing is, there's quite a lot of ideas in there that may be relevant to the questions asked in the OP. We (both men and women) choose our clothing on numerous criteria. Sure, a lot of it is unconscious. The interesting thing is that gender signalling is in there, but usually comes way down the list of criteria. (Though I'm sure if you are dressing up to go clubbing, say, those criteria will get radically revised). There's a saying I've come across in several places which says that women do not dress primarily to attract men - they dress more to compete with other women. No doubt it's a crass simplification, and I'm sure the same can be said for men. But there are important points in there, I think, for understanding some of the dynamics involved. Especially why things occur in waves, which defines fashion.

On the issue of breast ironing, it would seem to be a phenomenon centred on Cameroon, though not confined to that country. Cameroon is one of the most corrupt places on earth. It has also been voted top of the list of countries not to be female in - it has one of the highest levels of rape and sexual violence of any country (higher than S. Africa I think). It has not really gelled as a single society as yet (its population mostly derives from surrounding countries and peoples), and it receives loads of refugees from the conflicts in central Africa. It's not hard to see what the drivers of this sad business are, misguided though it is.

Cameroon also suffers from FGM. I'm hesitant to raise the subject, as there are some major differences in the drivers of the two things. But FGM has been and is being tackled successfully, and one of the things to learn from it is that it has to be dealt with as a community phenomenon, by that community. Groups of well-intentioned western women descending to empower young women locally doesn't work except in the very short term. I'm pretty sure the same thing would apply to breast-ironing. I can't pretend I know where you might start, but then I'm not a Cameroonian, and they would know better than I can. But it is a form of derelict behaviour embedded within multiple layers of deprivation and exploitation.

But if anyone has any ideas or reports of what works, it would be ineteresting to hear.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't know what works. But I do know one thing that does not work, and that is refusing to try to help (no, I know you weren't saying that! I'm just getting ranty on something that's bugged me a long time) until the community itself magically comes up with its own solution.

That's such a trendy idea now. But really, if the community were going to come up with their own self-empowered idea on how to fix things without any outside help, they probably would have done so already. It's damn hard to think outside the only box you've ever lived in, particularly when others in your box (e.g. the male authorities in your life) are set on keeping you in that box.

And it's even worse when you lack pretty much all the material supports you need to institute a better choice. (Query: under what circumstances do most rapes take place in Cameroon? If (as in some places) this happens when women go out to use the non-existent facilities, building basic toilets/outhouses is a rape preventive. And so forth. But you'll probably need at least some outside help with the cost and possibly design.

Western women (or whoever) trying to help will in fact most likely not produce lasting results. But they may succeed in cracking the box open just enough that those inside can take it from there.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't know what works. But I do know one thing that does not work, and that is refusing to try to help (no, I know you weren't saying that! I'm just getting ranty on something that's bugged me a long time) until the community itself magically comes up with its own solution.

That's such a trendy idea now. But really, if the community were going to come up with their own self-empowered idea on how to fix things without any outside help, they probably would have done so already. It's damn hard to think outside the only box you've ever lived in, particularly when others in your box (e.g. the male authorities in your life) are set on keeping you in that box.

And it's even worse when you lack pretty much all the material supports you need to institute a better choice. (Query: under what circumstances do most rapes take place in Cameroon? If (as in some places) this happens when women go out to use the non-existent facilities, building basic toilets/outhouses is a rape preventive. And so forth. But you'll probably need at least some outside help with the cost and possibly design.

Western women (or whoever) trying to help will in fact most likely not produce lasting results. But they may succeed in cracking the box open just enough that those inside can take it from there.

Nothing at all to add, but simply to say yes yes yes. [Overused]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

So your loud and obnoxious dudebros are establishing what their community attractiveness standard is. It's especially unpleasant because it's about other people,

OK, no. Foremost, harassment is the goal for many of them.
And these comments do not happen in a discussion form, they are attempting to force their supposed standards onto others, not establish among themselves.

quote:
There's a saying I've come across in several places which says that women do not dress primarily to attract men - they dress more to compete with other women. No doubt it's a crass simplification, and I'm sure the same can be said for men. But there are important points in there, I think, for understanding some of the dynamics involved. Especially why things occur in waves, which defines fashion.

Women do dress in competition to other women, this is true. But what are they competing for? Men. Men dress to compete with men, women dress to compete for men. Trends and commercial interests do add some variability, but this is the underlying motive because it is the underlying social dynamic.
"women dress for other women" is a facile distraction.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Goodness - I certainly don't want to be interpreted as encouraging that, so I'm happy to confirm it's not what I meant. But it's also the case that effort has been wasted on the FGM front, and it would be foolish not to learn from why that was. Maybe not wasted exactly, but seriously rendered sub-optimal.

Breast-ironing is a largely urban phenomenon, not a rural one. And there already exist movements to fight against it. Those are potential opportunities I would have thought. No doubt there must be others to build on. The thing is that you also have to understand where the impetus to go on doing it comes from, which is where one needs to understand local conditions better.

There is certainly a fashion component to it - not fashion in the sense of "I'm doing this to make myself/her look better", but fashion in the sense of doing it because that's what we do. Maybe "groupthink" would capture the idea better. However you wish to describe it, the phenomenon continues when Cameroonian families move to different countries where the risks of sexual violence are very different.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

lilBuddha wrote:

quote:
Women do dress in competition to other women, this is true. But what are they competing for? Men. Men dress to compete with men, women dress to compete for men. Trends and commercial interests do add some variability, but this is the underlying motive because it is the underlying social dynamic.

I did point out that the saying is a simplification. And of course some of that competition may be at one remove, as you say.

But you have yourself introduced a new over-simplification. The point of the references to other areas to look at was to draw attention to the fact that multiple considerations go into making these decisions. Under some circumstances it is entirely possible that women dressing to compete with other women for men is the dominant factor. That was the point of my "dressing up to go clubbing" comment. Other criteria come into play in other circumstances. To reduce it to a single factor sounds like a studied avoidance of the entire corpus of work done in different academic disciplines, which broadly agree. That's more simplistic even than my throwaway comment! You are, of course, at liberty to disagree with it, but let it be on the basis of discussion and not assertion. Anyway, the point of raising how we dress (in my earlier post) is to highlight the existence of factors beyond the inherent ones of sexual attraction.

quote:
"women dress for other women" is a facile distraction.

It certainly would be if anyone had made it.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
I've been puzzling over this one overnight, and maybe there's a point to go back to the beginning on. In the OP, twilight wrote:
quote:
Men who themselves have been taught to value unnatural secondary sexual characteristics to a damaging degree?
This in the context of various examples of body modification, of which breast-ironing is a catastrophic example.

The underpinning here is presumably secondary sexual characteristics, those physical features that are differentiated by sex, but not themselves primarily sexual. The things we find ourselves noticing in other people, even across a room. Biologically, that's fairly easy to explain. I don't think there is anything taught or to learn there.

But over and above that, the ideals of beauty (not the same thing, but bear with me) do change through the ages. So there is definitely something there which is being overlaid on top of the biological groundwork, and presumably that's what we are talking about.

At this point, it may be worth looking at the related issue of fashion. Why do people wear what they do? There's a whole raft of stuff to look at - the sociology of fashion, the psychology of fashion, the semiotics of fashion... And that's just about everyday choice of apparel, not specifically the fashion industry, a subject surely worthy of an extended rant on its own.

The thing is, there's quite a lot of ideas in there that may be relevant to the questions asked in the OP. We (both men and women) choose our clothing on numerous criteria. Sure, a lot of it is unconscious. The interesting thing is that gender signalling is in there, but usually comes way down the list of criteria. (Though I'm sure if you are dressing up to go clubbing, say, those criteria will get radically revised). There's a saying I've come across in several places which says that women do not dress primarily to attract men - they dress more to compete with other women. No doubt it's a crass simplification, and I'm sure the same can be said for men. But there are important points in there, I think, for understanding some of the dynamics involved. Especially why things occur in waves, which defines fashion.

Yes, to all of this. Bingo.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

So your loud and obnoxious dudebros are establishing what their community attractiveness standard is. It's especially unpleasant because it's about other people,
OK, no. Foremost, harassment is the goal for many of them.
And these comments do not happen in a discussion form, they are attempting to force their supposed standards onto others, not establish among themselves.

Here we have the problem of most Shipdudes being far too intelligent and mature to bother with the kind of venues in which they would witness what I am talking about. But yes, there is a viciousness about it that suggests it is not about conforming to a community but controlling it. Although the stakes are obviously much higher, it is the kind of hatred and rage that goes along with a Sharia cop knocking a woman over in the street because her veil slipped and revealed too much hairline.

The internet is a boon to women in that it gives them a way to make their voices heard on an unprecedented level. I think the rise in attacks on women-- both in physical attacks and social attacks-- is related to this. As with all of the social changes in the internet age, people who have that coveted " control" of the narrative " either struggle to let it go or actively war over keeping it.
So I'm going to repeat, there is a politcal function to focusing conversation about women on their looks. Political in the socialogical sense, and I think this is part of what Ron -- may I call you Ron?--is saying when he says it's not just about competing for men. Women are not just competing for a mate, they are competing for societal recognition, status, even safety. Women certainly participate in creating a pecking order, because conforming to the rules might better place them to be heard, to be valued, to not be invisible. ( I have a story about that one-- later.)

But the function of focusing on looks and holding up a standard that is impossible to meet unless you surgically Photoshop yourself is to increase the demographic of who the community gets to discount. And that's not about conformity, it's about control. And that's what leads to a woman having to literally change residences because she dared say there should be more female player characters in video games.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
To reduce it to a single factor sounds like a studied avoidance of the entire corpus of work done in different academic disciplines, which broadly agree. That's more simplistic even than my throwaway comment!

I was not reducing anything to a single point, but emphasising its root cause. Especially as related to the OP. Yes, there are varying dynamics to the whys and wherefores, but the basics of the debate are about power. And men are the primary holders of this.

quote:

quote:
by lilbuddha: "women dress for other women" is a facile distraction.
It certainly would be if anyone had made it.

You mention it with the qualifier of

quote:
No doubt it's a crass simplification,

Absolutely no doubt it is.
But as it is driven primarily by the power imbalance between men and women, the secondary causes are out of place in this discussion without better reference.

But this

quote:
and I'm sure the same can be said for men.

is what drove my reaction. It appears to draw an equivalence between men and women that simply isn't there.
Now, I'm not accusing you of this belief, but I felt the need to clarify the concepts.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

So I'm going to repeat, there is a politcal function to focusing conversation about women on their looks. Political in the socialogical sense, and I think this is part of what Ron -- may I call you Ron?--is saying when he says it's not just about competing for men. Women are not just competing for a mate, they are competing for societal recognition, status, even safety. Women certainly participate in creating a pecking order, because conforming to the rules might better place them to be heard, to be valued, to not be invisible. ( I have a story about that one-- later.)

Competing for men was not meant strictly in the mating sense. but that men set the rules for completion. Female power struggles are subordinate to those of men. And fashion, which HRB brought up, is driven by basic male specification.

quote:

But the function of focusing on looks and holding up a standard that is impossible to meet unless you surgically Photoshop yourself is to increase the demographic of who the community gets to discount. And that's not about conformity, it's about control. And that's what leads to a woman having to literally change residences because she dared say there should be more female player characters in video games.

I think this emphasises by basic point.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

There was an interesting essay in a college text I had which talked about the unique American issue of male status markers projected on women(or at least it was unique-- Hollywood passed it around like herpes.)

Basically the author said Revolutionists identifying with the proletarian base of the French revolution made plain dress for men trendy-- nobody wanted to dress like a toff or a dandy. Up to that point, men and women of the same social class had differnt styles of clothing, but similar levels of adornment-- so, country men and women dressed in homespun, rich men and women wore satin and lace in equal measure, etc. In solidarity with the French, American men wore the uniform of the working man -- unadorned twill or wool jackets and breeches, simple cloth hats, unpowdered hair queues.

The political trend of relatively plain clothes for men stuck, but everyone wanted the women to stay pretty, so things began to shift in such a way that men kept the unadorned look and the way a man's wife dressed became the measure of his status. I'm sure this always happened in some mesure, but the author contended that this sartorial event shifted the responsibility for attention to fashion on women in a much more unbalanced way. And after that, it just stuck-- men who focus too much on fashion were suspected to be "queer", women who didn't focus enough were dowdy slobs.

Of course this would evolve into women engaging in sartorial competition, and unfortunately, this easily accomodates women who can afford surgically Photoshopping themselves. At least in California, women who don't take surgical cosmetic steps in certain circles can be shamed for " letting themselves go."

And I don't claim I'm immune-- I made about $18, 000 last year, and yet I have contemplated saving up for lazer resurfacing.

[ 30. March 2016, 18:39: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

( forgot to add) This dynamic might help explain why physical attractiveness became such an effective cudgel for control, particularly after cameras were invented and women were subjected to more public scrutiny ove their appearence.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It is a damn political thing IMHO partly because the more time a person (woman) spends worrying about their appearance, the less time they have to actually DO anything. Like run for president.

The same holds true for money. Charge women more for everything and they have less financial power available to change the world with.

Must go dye my hair now in order to keep my job among the twenty-somethings. [Disappointed]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

So your loud and obnoxious dudebros are establishing what their community attractiveness standard is. It's especially unpleasant because it's about other people,
OK, no. Foremost, harassment is the goal for many of them.
And these comments do not happen in a discussion form, they are attempting to force their supposed standards onto others, not establish among themselves.

So when I've encountered these "discussions" in live humans (as opposed on online comments) they have been identical in content and tone whether they were discussing women that they knew or celebrity women. If you deleted the names, you wouldn't be able to tell from content whether they were discussing actresses or members of their English class.

Obviously the actresses weren't present, and weren't being subjected to direct harassment by this behaviour, but neither were their female classmates.

And the conversations were all the same - someone would advance the opinion that a particular classmate was attractive, and would either have his opinion supported (in the crudest possible terms) by a higher-status friend, or would have it rejected with disparaging comments on a particular body part or other attribute of the young lady in question.

The way these discussions seem to work is that high-status individuals force their opinions on the lower-ranking. You agree, or you are evicted from the social group.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

In keeping with what LilBuddha and Kelly are saying about women competing with other women for men is this article about NFL cheerleaders having a pecking order with the breast implant women being at the top. All so they can jump up and down and cheer for men. Cheerleaders.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Cheerleaders.

The irony of the Daily Mail, an organ that seems to spend every moment it can spare from pillorying immigrants and benefit claimants on printing pictures of allegedly famous women in low-cut tops, complaining about the objectification of women's breasts is quite special.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Well it was in four other papers right off the top of Google's list but this one had the pertinent part at the top of the article and made for quicker reading -- so I chose it -- in spite of a little voice in the back of my head saying they'll go off on a Daily Mail tangent and wont talk about the story. I should have listened to it.

[ 31. March 2016, 01:46: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Cheerleaders.
The irony of the Daily Mail, an organ that seems to spend every moment it can spare from pillorying immigrants and benefit claimants on printing pictures of allegedly famous women in low-cut tops, complaining about the objectification of women's breasts is quite special.

But it's not about objectification of women's breasts, it's about how women buy into the objectification and subjugate each other.

[ 31. March 2016, 03:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
a little voice in the back of my head ... I should have listened to it.

It's when we let ourselves listen to others that we get into trouble. When we listen to what others think is beautiful, when we listen to others tell us what clothes to wear, what it is that we need to do to be successful.

You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I can see Mail readers getting off on that, actually. Catfights are sssooo sssexyyy.

ETA ( sigh) I'm not, Alan.

[ 31. March 2016, 03:20: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
But it's not about objectification of women's breasts, it's about how women buy into the objectification and subjugate each other.

If the existence of cheerleaders isn't objectification, what is it? Sure - they're talented dancers and work hard and all that: I'm not trying to minimize the work that goes in to producing a successful, accurate routine; but their function is basically to be sexy - rather like the attractive ladies in sparkly gowns that used to show off the prizes on TV game shows.

[ 31. March 2016, 03:43: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Actually they are struggilng to qualify it as a collegiate sport, and if you see some of the stuff these girls do, they deserve it. They use T&A to justify their existance, but cheer is actually a pretty rigorous sport.

TPTB consign this gymnastic activity as entertainment, because if they recognize it as the sport it is, they'll also have to recognize that not only supermodels can excel at it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Actually they are struggilng to qualify it as a collegiate sport, and if you see some of the stuff these girls do, they deserve it. They use T&A to justify their existance, but cheer is actually a pretty rigorous sport.

Cheer-as-sport is a rigorous sport: it's something like high-impact team rhythmic gymnastics.

The performances at NFL football games aren't that - they're far more like dancing with T&A-wiggling, and aren't much different from what you'd expect backing dancers to do for some singer.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

But that's because they don't take it seriously. They meaning the people who ask for cheer to be provided in the first place.

This ties into what we are saying because, down to people deciding it is about T&A, it is hard for schools at the high school and collegiate level to get funding for cheer as a sport, and therefore they don't get the kind of equipment needed for high impacts sports-- no special padding for the floor, no body guards, no head gear.

[ 31. March 2016, 05:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Cheer-as-sport is a rigorous sport: it's something like high-impact team rhythmic gymnastics.

The performances at NFL football games aren't that - they're far more like dancing with T&A-wiggling, and aren't much different from what you'd expect backing dancers to do for some singer.

I suppose one difference is that as a gymnastics type sport the cheer-team would be expected to put in a short-ish routine (similar in length to the floor exercises of gymanstics). Whereas, cheer leading at an NFL game would, I assume never having witnessed such things, be expected to be maintained throughout the duration of the game (and probably before and after as well). No one is going to be able to high impact gymnastics for an hour or more, so what you're going to get is going to be more like backing dancers. It's like the difference between sprinting and long distance running - no one is able to maintain the pace of a 100m sprint, or even a 1500m race, for a marathon.

There are several problems with cheer leading at NFL. One is that if NFL is anything like football in the UK then the crowds are mainly men, although women attending football is becoming much more common. That means that the cheer-leaders are expected to perform for a largely male audience in a manner that their coaches expect to appeal to men (or, the men at the game anyway). Of course you're immediately back into the mob mentality of jocks together deciding what constitutes "attractive", not to mention that there is the added component of the men expected to want to see something "sexy" (with more mob mentality in play as to what that is). Another issue is, why do they need cheer leaders to provide entertainment during the game in the first place? Surely the game itself should be entertaining enough with an hour and a half of non-stop action except for a half time break? But, no NFL drags on for hours with less time spent playing than not, and I suppose that can get tedious. But, cricket fans don't need cheer leaders to entertain them during a game ...

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Yes, Alan, join me in disdain for American football. It bores me to death and I think the young women who cheer for it are more concerned with the beauty pageant style "honor," of being chosen and the possibility of marrying a football player than they are with being considered a sport.

I think it's high-school cheerleading that Kelly is talking about when she mentions the push to make it a sport. At the high school level the pyramids and stunts can be very rigorous and very dangerous. Too dangerous, just like high-school football with it's high chance of concussion. I would love to see both things eliminated.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
But, cricket fans don't need cheer leaders to entertain them during a game ...

Indeed. As boredom is an essential aspect of the sport...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!

Coach says that autocogitation is overrated.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
But that's because they don't take it seriously. They meaning the people who ask for cheer to be provided in the first place.

Or is it because cheer-sport doesn't actually involve leading a cheer in any sense? A football game could include a pole-vault competition to keep the spectators entertained in the interminable downtimes, but it would be a fairly random conjunction of two separate sports.

Surely the reason to have "cheer leaders" at a football game is to get the crowd excited about supporting their team, and to rev up the atmosphere. Cheer-sport is impressive, but does it provoke crowd engagement? Consider the difference between singing in a concert and leading the congregation in song.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

I think it's high-school cheerleading that Kelly is talking about when she mentions the push to make it a sport. At the high school level the pyramids and stunts can be very rigorous and very dangerous. Too dangerous, just like high-school football with it's high chance of concussion. I would love to see both things eliminated.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was talking about -- and college football at schools that don't necessarily play in the college bowl. (The part Cnight cropped out in other words.) And I don't know about eliminating football, but it sure would be nice to see the industry that makes such ample use of professional cheerleading to support protecting young women (and men) who cheer at that level.

And the purpose of cheer? Basic crowd control. Give the people something to do while waiting for action, rather than get into tribal wars. Same reason I have the kids sing a little song at the snack table if someone forgot the milk and we have to wait five minutes.

[ 31. March 2016, 16:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!

I'm not!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0