Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the article is pretty bad. A central premise is unproven, and (to me) flat-out wrong. The author wrote: "The reality is that expectations for female appearances have never been higher."

What is the foundation for that opinion? That view diametrically opposes my understanding of contemporary standards, which celebrate an increasingly wide variety of looks.

When I was growing up in the '80s, all the models looked like white and brown Barbie dolls. But today there are heavier women, women of various races, transgender women, older women, etc., walking on runways.

Athletes now has fat women in the ads. It makes some of the swimsuits look bad. It doesn’t make me want to buy the clothes if they are going to make me look like that. It also makes me wonder if they are slowly turning into a Lane Bryant.

As a small, petite woman I agree. I can't even really look at the pictures because I look nothing like these women. They're all 5'8+. A normal V neck on them will go way below my bra line. A midi dress is floor length for me. I obviously buy petites, but the pictures are never petite. The larger boned women make it harder to figure out what the petite version of the dress even looks like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the article is pretty bad. A central premise is unproven, and (to me) flat-out wrong. The author wrote: "The reality is that expectations for female appearances have never been higher."

What is the foundation for that opinion? That view diametrically opposes my understanding of contemporary standards, which celebrate an increasingly wide variety of looks.

When I was growing up in the '80s, all the models looked like white and brown Barbie dolls. But today there are heavier women, women of various races, transgender women, older women, etc., walking on runways.

One place, mild size inclusivity. But women are no longer "allowed" to have pores, lines, expressions to harsh or bitchy, no peach fuzz, skin must be perfectly even without appearing made up, one isn’t just supposed to be thin but also taut and string but not bulky, thigh gap is still an aspiration for some, as is that lower pelvic depression in a bikini, your hair needs to be perfect.... yes, women used to be overall skinnier (for which you can largely thank dietary changes, epigentics and nicotine), but the standards are definitely more rigorous otherwise.

No one is forcing women not to have pores, lines, whatever.

Any woman who feels compelled to follow someone else's beauty standards needs to find a backbone and sense of self-worth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the article is pretty bad. A central premise is unproven, and (to me) flat-out wrong. The author wrote: "The reality is that expectations for female appearances have never been higher."

What is the foundation for that opinion? That view diametrically opposes my understanding of contemporary standards, which celebrate an increasingly wide variety of looks.

When I was growing up in the '80s, all the models looked like white and brown Barbie dolls. But today there are heavier women, women of various races, transgender women, older women, etc., walking on runways.

One place, mild size inclusivity. But women are no longer "allowed" to have pores, lines, expressions to harsh or bitchy, no peach fuzz, skin must be perfectly even without appearing made up, one isn’t just supposed to be thin but also taut and string but not bulky, thigh gap is still an aspiration for some, as is that lower pelvic depression in a bikini, your hair needs to be perfect.... yes, women used to be overall skinnier (for which you can largely thank dietary changes, epigentics and nicotine), but the standards are definitely more rigorous otherwise.

Now it is considered standard in upper middle class circles to get eyebrows waxes and pedicures (even in the winter!) not to mention Barre/solidcore/yoga etc. When I was a kid my mom was friends with a bunch of doctors wives in a fancy suburb but pedicures were still considered an indulgence and only people with super thick eyebrows regularly got their brows done. And they just played tennis a few times a week to stay in shape. Now the women I know in my hometown all double at soulcycle and do solidcore-type classes plus go through various primping -- standards are much higher now I think!!!

Manicures and pedicures are so cheap now. Plus gel polish lasts a long time. Also you can just turn up and get them done. In the 90s you had to book, pay a lot and then risk chipping your nails as soon as you walked out.

It has definitely changed from a generation ago though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the article is pretty bad. A central premise is unproven, and (to me) flat-out wrong. The author wrote: "The reality is that expectations for female appearances have never been higher."

What is the foundation for that opinion? That view diametrically opposes my understanding of contemporary standards, which celebrate an increasingly wide variety of looks.

When I was growing up in the '80s, all the models looked like white and brown Barbie dolls. But today there are heavier women, women of various races, transgender women, older women, etc., walking on runways.

One place, mild size inclusivity. But women are no longer "allowed" to have pores, lines, expressions to harsh or bitchy, no peach fuzz, skin must be perfectly even without appearing made up, one isn’t just supposed to be thin but also taut and string but not bulky, thigh gap is still an aspiration for some, as is that lower pelvic depression in a bikini, your hair needs to be perfect.... yes, women used to be overall skinnier (for which you can largely thank dietary changes, epigentics and nicotine), but the standards are definitely more rigorous otherwise.

Now it is considered standard in upper middle class circles to get eyebrows waxes and pedicures (even in the winter!) not to mention Barre/solidcore/yoga etc. When I was a kid my mom was friends with a bunch of doctors wives in a fancy suburb but pedicures were still considered an indulgence and only people with super thick eyebrows regularly got their brows done. And they just played tennis a few times a week to stay in shape. Now the women I know in my hometown all double at soulcycle and do solidcore-type classes plus go through various primping -- standards are much higher now I think!!!

"But part of the conditioning of the “patriarchal ideal” is to make women feel empowered by it on their “own terms.” That way, every time you critique an unspoken requirement of women, you’re also forced to frown upon something women have chosen for themselves. And who wants to criticize a woman’s choice?"

Ehhhhh....yeah, I'm not sure that all of this obsession over which brand of concealer is the best or whether cold shoulders is in or out is a product of "patriarchal" conditioning. I really don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the article is pretty bad. A central premise is unproven, and (to me) flat-out wrong. The author wrote: "The reality is that expectations for female appearances have never been higher."

What is the foundation for that opinion? That view diametrically opposes my understanding of contemporary standards, which celebrate an increasingly wide variety of looks.

When I was growing up in the '80s, all the models looked like white and brown Barbie dolls. But today there are heavier women, women of various races, transgender women, older women, etc., walking on runways.

Athletes now has fat women in the ads. It makes some of the swimsuits look bad. It doesn’t make me want to buy the clothes if they are going to make me look like that. It also makes me wonder if they are slowly turning into a Lane Bryant.

*not want to buy

Anonymous wrote:I think the article is pretty bad. A central premise is unproven, and (to me) flat-out wrong. The author wrote: "The reality is that expectations for female appearances have never been higher."

What is the foundation for that opinion? That view diametrically opposes my understanding of contemporary standards, which celebrate an increasingly wide variety of looks.

When I was growing up in the '80s, all the models looked like white and brown Barbie dolls. But today there are heavier women, women of various races, transgender women, older women, etc., walking on runways.

Athletes now has fat women in the ads. It makes some of the swimsuits look bad. It doesn’t make me want to buy the clothes if they are going to make me look like that. It also makes me wonder if they are slowly turning into a Lane Bryant.

Yikes that article missed the mark.

Loved the movie and the message behind it. It was not saying looks don’t matter. It was saying we let out insecurities hold us back.

This isn't a new thing. The problem isn't necessarily our standards but that whatever the standard of beauty, beauty=moral goodness. So if we have slightly heavier drop-dead gorgeous models so that more people fit into that slightly less impossible standard, people who are not "beautiful" will still be stuck. Corporations that sell makeup, body wash, diet plans, etc. are perfectly happy to encourage this line of thinking.

See the "why are fat people always eating salad" thread for proof of this. According to that thread, "fat" women are too stupid to know that over-eating is what made them fat, too lazy to get the exercise they so desperately need, etc.

*too

Anonymous wrote:I think the article is pretty bad. A central premise is unproven, and (to me) flat-out wrong. The author wrote: "The reality is that expectations for female appearances have never been higher."

What is the foundation for that opinion? That view diametrically opposes my understanding of contemporary standards, which celebrate an increasingly wide variety of looks.

When I was growing up in the '80s, all the models looked like white and brown Barbie dolls. But today there are heavier women, women of various races, transgender women, older women, etc., walking on runways.

One place, mild size inclusivity. But women are no longer "allowed" to have pores, lines, expressions to harsh or bitchy, no peach fuzz, skin must be perfectly even without appearing made up, one isn’t just supposed to be thin but also taut and string but not bulky, thigh gap is still an aspiration for some, as is that lower pelvic depression in a bikini, your hair needs to be perfect.... yes, women used to be overall skinnier (for which you can largely thank dietary changes, epigentics and nicotine), but the standards are definitely more rigorous otherwise.

I think the article is pretty bad. A central premise is unproven, and (to me) flat-out wrong. The author wrote: "The reality is that expectations for female appearances have never been higher."

What is the foundation for that opinion? That view diametrically opposes my understanding of contemporary standards, which celebrate an increasingly wide variety of looks.

When I was growing up in the '80s, all the models looked like white and brown Barbie dolls. But today there are heavier women, women of various races, transgender women, older women, etc., walking on runways.

Amanda Hess wrote that piece - she got her start at the City Paper.

Eh. Is it funny? That's all I care about. I'm not looking to go deep with her movies so I don't really care about this debate as it relates to the film. Even at a glance the film is about self image/confidence more than appearance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/movies/i-feel-pretty-amy-schumer-beauty.html

So now corporate entities are cynically encouraging women to engage in beauty and fitness routines to become better people, not more attractive ones. “I Feel Pretty” is practically a feature-length version of that Dove ad in which a forensic sketch artist illustrates women’s distorted ideas of their own looks. (Tagline: “You’re more beautiful than you think.” Celebrate by buying our stuff!)


Really good article.