Female beauty only in the media

[PocketRocket]

The whole "image" issue works both ways.

When you look at magazine ads targetted at men, most have those underwear-model type guys. Trim, fit, handsome, etc. All with a set of six-pack abs. Hardly the typical Canadian/American male.

The same goes for ads targetted at women. Trim, fit, beautiful.

Interestingly enough, not long ago, while sitting in a doctor's waiting room, I was passing the time reading magazines. The only mags available were women's mags.

One of these had an editorial about this very topic, how women were being brainwashed by the media into thinking they must aspire to a certain aesthetic look.

The article harshly criticized both advertisers and the media for doing this. It went on and on about how this is irresponsible, and how it fosters insecurity in women and drives them to measures that are sometimes dangerous to their health. It even hinted that women should boycott some of the companies that produce such ads, and even the media that carries the ads.

And yet, on the very next page, and several pages following, were ads filled with, you guessed it, young, sweet, beautiful skinny models.

And, to top it all off, at the top of the editorial page was an obviously airbrush-retouched photo of the editor, looking wonderfully radiant, thin and gorgeous, with a flawless hairdo, and perfect makeup.

It kind of destroyed the credibility of the editorial.

[RB]

airbrush-retouched photo of the editor, looking wonderfully radiant, thin and gorgeous, with a flawless hairdo, and perfect makeup.

It kind of destroyed the credibility of the editorial.

Thats so ironic and ludicrous

Ok after all this discussion I wanted to ask besides following the media which plays on the women's sensibilities - are women really thinking they are doing all of this to become more appealing to the male eye

I mean, am I the only one thinking, gone are the days where women needed to get a wealthy husband. And that women do not need to increase their "market value" by being preoccupied with their self-image, their appearance, and surgery.

I mean where is the moral divide in all of these “doll-up” scenarios that leads to obsession, unhappiness, broken relationships etc. Perhaps we did not pre-warn the audience of Janet Jackson exposure, no air-brush but it is cosmetic but still the outcry

[Michael Hardner]

RB:

I think you make an error when you attribute any agenda to commercial television other than making money. No one is in the business of making propaganda for free, nor is anyone in the business of setting good examples.

So the shallowness that you see in a 30 second commercial is there because it sells. Any collateral effect on society is a byproduct.

If you want to do something about it, all you have to do is change people's values. This is about as easy as moving a glacier, or diverting a river but it does happen. Do you think an Aunt Jemima commercial, even from the 1970s, would be tolerated today ?

I don't think so.

[RB]

I resent that the media is putting up a show of importance, like here is what perfect women look like whilst in fact the importance is the economic value that is gain.

Why don't they just announce the truth like:

Hello Everyone,

Following are some sexist advertising, women are used as commodities, there are high percentages of failure rate trying to make the glamour lifestyle, and therefore only exist in fantasy. Choose wisely.

I would like to see censorship on exploitative advertising

[Michael Hardner]

I resent that the media is putting up a show of importance, like here is what perfect women look like whilst in fact the importance is the economic value that is gain.

Why don't they just announce the truth like:

Hello Everyone,

Following are some sexist advertising, women are used as commodities, there are high percentages of failure rate trying to make the glamour lifestyle, and therefore only exist in fantasy. Choose wisely.

I would like to see censorship on exploitative advertising

RB:

Your intentions are good, but unfortunately trying to quash small mindedness in that way will only sensationalize it.

There are other more positive ways to change minds. Who would think of seriously showing a 70s Aunt Jemima figure today ? No censorship is required, because the idea is just ridiculous.

Changing minds takes time if you want to do it permanently and do it right.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Is it too much to ask that women be spared the daily struggle for superhuman beauty in order to offer it to the caresses of a subhumanly ugly mate? The Female Eunuch, “Loathing and Disgust”

Someday perhaps women will stop infantilizing themselves (or worse) with this kind of nonsense. Consider the hypothetical woman represented in your comment here:

You posit that her central preoccupation is to struggle for superhuman beauty. Stop there for a second ... that's not a reasonably attainable objective i.e. it's futile, e.g. either it is irrational behavior OR some reward is obtained for the behavior short of attaining the stated objective of superhuman beauty. In either case, the answer to your social question changes substantially.

Then you say that the product of this impossible quest is then offered to a subhumanly ugly mate. Now there's a gobsmacking logical challenge if ever there was! Why on Earth does she do that? one might ask. But first notice that since she does not ever attain the objective of superhuman beauty, it must be something less she offers in trade -- you have a contradiction in your position.

But back to 'Why?' Could you explain more clearly what the motivation/incentive elements are in this inexplicable behaviour, as you see it? So far I understand that you say there are certain identified social 'pressures', but I don't understand how you mean that they take effect on the behaviour of an individual woman making individual choices.

[PocketRocket]

Why don't they just announce the truth like:

Hello Everyone, 

Following are some sexist advertising, women are used as commodities, there are high percentages of failure rate trying to make the glamour lifestyle, and therefore only exist in fantasy.  Choose wisely.

I would like to see censorship on exploitative advertising

This already exists to a degree, although it is largely self-imposed and self-regulated. I recall a few years back where a (feminist???) group launched some complaints against women being used as "sex objects" in commercials.

Please don't ask for exact details as in all honesty I don't really recall either who the group was, nor the specific ads they were targetting.

But, if memory serves, it was started, or at least stoked, by a commercial wherein a bunch of workmen on the street would drop what they were doing and stare gape-jawed at this great-looking young woman who was walking by. She acknowledged their stares as though she approved of them. Even tossed a grin and gave an extra little wiggle as she walked by.

This, and other commecials of a similar nature, caused a hue and cry about sexism in advertising.

Most advertisers started self-editing as there was some product-boycotting going on as a result of the "scandal".

But, a short time later, we started seeing similar commercials, only with a reverse spin.

Now it was women (on a Coke commercial, I believe) who were staring open-mouthed at a guy working in the street who had taken his shirt off.

Of course he was displaying the perfect abdominal six-pack, and perfect hair, along with sweaty pects and bulging bicepts. This was perfectly acceptable, and caused no reaction whatsoever. Why is that?? Is it only "sexist" when women are the target???

There are plenty of "image" commercials targetted at guys, too. "Grecian Formula" (Can't have any gray hair now, can we?) Various razors/shavers (Can't let anyone know we grow facial hair) "Hair Club for Men" (After all, if you're bald, you can't be much of a man) Not to mention "Axe" and other scents (Gotta smell like a man)

In short, the "perfect image" thing works both ways.

But women are targetted more, and seem to be more susceptible to this sort of "self image" advertising.

Marketers will do whatever they can, within the bounds of the law, to sell their product, no matter whether it is a computer, or a cosmetic product. And as long as there is a willing market out there, it will continue.

The only way to stop it is for the vast majority of women to simply stop buying these products. When that happens, we'll see an end to these ads.

But it won't happen. Women are vain. So are men.

Both aspire to be something better than they are, even if only in appearance and/or smell.

It's called being human.

[RB]

either it is irrational behavior OR some reward is obtained for the behavior short of attaining the stated objective of superhuman beauty.

Then you say that the product of this impossible quest is then offered to a subhumanly ugly mate. ..... Why on Earth does she do that?

It is Ironic to see the disappointingly "contradictory expectations" I mean when a women succeeds they usually end up with Hillary or Thatcher type bodies.

Do you see these folks as attractive, sexy, hot women, seductive and pleasing to the eye? Speak your truth guys.

Such gross injustice to promote and embitter women lives. Women are harnessed by man to accept that body and love jive together, an agenda and purpose in life for all men, (well, the gays I am glad they exist, because at least some women are free, less men to gaze upon women). What is missing and we seemingly forget that the mind= power=control=happiness can also be attached.

It is not just about beauty

Men are the reason for women being peceived as senseless.

Look now, if women’s order was to please men. Understand this, men, that this insidious encroachment of the female stereotype, lipstick, high heel, boobs job, blow job, are all, well .. eagerness to please only you.

I wanted to reposition beauty, and that is not the only ingredient to be a pleasing female. Posing and modelling trying to reconfigure and remodel us as perfect women to the males does not guarantee to bring sexual liberation to the females either. Those fools we deal with everyday.

Reality check, look it, women know men are more likely to submit at anytime to their testicles. So they might as well sure to use some of their intelligence for this once.

I’ll tell you what though, men are unreasonable in anything they cannot afford themselves. So they perpetuate and revolve around beauty, the .3 ideal women in all their heads is order of the day and a benchmark for all women.

Beauty measures of high standards are imposed upon all women and men define their women by their acceptance or lack of acceptance. Men tell us 95% of the time to try and look better, you are never normal, based on the ads and also through those private moments and your divorce rates.

Now, women are expected to operate within those constrains – no wonder they are a bit devious, and what I can say is I am never apologetic for the tramps, puritan or silliness you wind up with and deservingly so.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear RB,

end up with Hillary or Thatcher type bodies.

Do you see these folks as attractive, sexy, hot women, seductive and pleasing to the eye? Speak your truth guys

I must admit, I have never heard the words "Ooh la laaah, Margaret Thatcher" from any guy. Not all are drawn to the Pamela Anderson bimbo types, either. However, out of personal choice, I find Sandra Bullock very attractive, because of plain and simple beauty, 'honest good looks', as opposed to Julia Roberts and her collagen lips or Uma Thurman, who to me is just plain homely.

I think most guys think that they themselves are handsome, and so fantasize about these women as though they'd be an easy score, but don't think beyond the superficial, like what it would be like to be in a relationship with this superficial beauty. For me, some of the runway model 'stick women' makes me think that having sex with them would be like 'screwing a sack of antlers', while the high mileage Pam Anderson bimbo types would be like 'throwing a hot dog down a hallway'.

[RB]

theloniusfleabag

Least you acknowledge that men strive for superficial beauty which is mostly unattainable, but the media has much control over women's life, what they strive for and the sorrows that follows.

I mean look at this TV line up pairing, nothing, hey nothing wrong with these fellas

shows pair extremely attractive women, who are often clad in plunging tops and tight jeans suitable for a Maxim photo spread, with TV husbands who are not only not studly, but downright fat, and a couple who are not only not mensches, but are ugly on the inside, too.

On The King of Queens smoldering working-class babe Carrie (Leah Remini) is paired with beer-gutted Doug (Kevin James).

On Grounded for Life the lovely, voluptuous Claudia (Megyn Price), is paired with the dumpy and scraggly-bearded Sean (Donal Logue).

Perhaps the most jarringly incongruous couple appears on Still Standing in which Judy (legendary '80s hottie Jamie Gertz) is married to the surly Bill (rotund, high-voiced English actor Mark Addy, whose character sounds just a little too English to be from Chicago). Bill is a scurrilous (and not terribly funny) creation, unpleasant even to listen to.

Michael Hardner Posted on Jan 13 2005, 04:43 PM

There are other more positive ways to change minds.

QUOTE]

You think men are the ones whose mind we need to change permanently?

I mean the TV shows above plays right into the male subconscious, living the fantasy, and unconditional love of the "attractive" women.

[Tawasakm]

BD, there was nothing homophobic in my posts in the link you provided. In fact, my posts show a genuine desire to encourage tolerance. Young kids deserve the chance to find their own way

August I followed the link and you were banned for this post:

posted 13 December 2004 01:12 AM                   

You gays/lesbians are self-centred. It's me, me me. Not breeders, no offspring, obvious.

Around the world, about 400,000 kids had their 13th birthday today. These ordinary kids wonder. But you're selfish "sh**s".

Which struck me as lacking your normal style. I wondered at the time if someone had hacked into your account and made the post. I hope so.

As to the thread title... I think its very easy to react too strongly to the media portrayal of ideal beauty. Its too easy to become obsessed with it - both by pursuing it and rejecting it. I think the Female Eunuch, for example, may go a little too far the other way. Sure it would be great for women to accept themselves rather then chasing some ideal - but I think it goes a little too far to be calling men subhumanly ugly and to start blaming men for everything. I saw an interview with the author once and she said (something along the lines of), 'men are only briefly beautiful when they are boys'. She explained that adult men aren't and went on to list all of their shortcomings. No doubt some, or all of us men, have some of those shortcomings to some extent but not, I feel, to the extent that was being suggested. For anyone interested in chasing up transcripts the show was 'Enough Rope' hosted by Andrew Denton (its a great show). Look for an interesting interview with the American Ambassador too.

Personally I don't see any problems being solved by conflict between the genders. At the core I think men need women and women need men to be complete. Acceptance is the road that needs to be travelled and that is not achieved by such conflict. Besides change must always start with the self which necessitates that responsibility be taken by the self for the self.

Anyway it's my birthday today so I'm off to see how much this older body can still drink (not very intellectual but hopefully fun).

[RB]

Tawasakm

Happy birthday wishes to you don't worry about getting older the secret about staying young is simply to lie about your age.

You gays/lesbians are self-centred. It's me, me me. Not breeders, no offspring, obvious.

There are lots of women nowadays who are not gay but also choose not to have children are they also self-centered? I mean no one can or should enforce such a rule or burden upon a man or women to "breed".

About beauty, as far as I am concern this beauty notion has nothing to do women at all if you did not figure it. Look at the old movies prior to women attaining some freedoms beauty was not on the agenda.

It’s a conspiracy. And I attribute a greater burden of guilt to men.

The beauty ideal is to keep women in a depressed state and if the intention is to create public panic well men have succeed in having every woman a fanatic and blinded follower.

After all, the images you are bombarded with of women is a infectious cute culture created by men, and as we have observe it forces and drives women wild to act and look a certain way.

I wanted to question whether this beauty notion is women’s final hurdle to all freedoms? Maybe it will be the greatest of the last challenge.

I mean we have gone from being wives to spouses with careers, allowed to vote, occupy key position decision-making jobs, have some political freedoms, influenced and changed laws etc.

No doubt, women want to be equal with men, to indulge in some powers. But somehow men in their insidious ways still want to retain their control and power.

So of course men are still the controllers of the media and occupy other key areas and their objective is to keep women “cornered”. It is difficult to shake-up and destabilises the men’s world I say.

The beauty ideal is a round about way of having women strive for the unachievable and take away a concentration of “time” from challenging male domination. To put it another way these beauty images are used against the women themselves.

[August1991]

There are lots of women nowadays who are not gay but also choose not to have children are they also self-centered? I mean no one can or should enforce such a rule or burden upon a man or women to "breed".

I agree RB.

Which struck me as lacking your normal style. I wondered at the time if someone had hacked into your account and made the post. I hope so.

Since this has become a minor issue here, let me respond.

Around the world, young people must come to grips with their sexuality. This is usually an angst ridden time of private thoughts and questions. This is as old as Shakespeare and varies only in part across cultures. For those that realize they are gay, the confusion is even greater.

One reason to support gay marriage in Canada is so that such kids, in Canada or elsewhere, know that they are OK and "normal".

When I suggested this viewpoint, I was met with a series of arguments concerning gay rights. This led to my ill-placed rant about "me, me, me".

Perhaps I'll dig myself deeper (at least here on a forum that respects different viewpoints), but it seems to me that gays are more self-centred than straights. I ventured the argument that having children is the standard cure for self-centredness.

Before BD jumps on me, I know many self-centred straights with or without children. And no doubt there are loving, generous gay parents. But I 'll stay with my generalities above.

It is not the first time I have found little generosity of spirit among the Left. It's only an Internet forum, for God's sakes.

About beauty, as far as I am concern this beauty notion has nothing to do women at all if you did not figure it. Look at the old movies prior to women attaining some freedoms beauty was not on the agenda.

On the contrary RB, many artefacts found on archaeological sites concern combs, cosmetics and jewellry. Mirrors were very popular among North American Indians.

It’s a conspiracy. And I attribute a greater burden of guilt to men.

A conspiracy of the size you suggest is impossible. Cartels are prone to cheating and there are few human relations where cheating is so rampant or complex as between women and men.

The beauty ideal is to keep women in a depressed state and if the intention is to create public panic well men have succeed in having every woman a fanatic and blinded follower.

Let's be plain about what "beauty" is. People want to hook up with one another. They rely on a variety of ways to find out if a potential partner would be a good one. Some of these ways involve physical attributes such as hair colour, smell, way of eating, holding a fork, height, accent. It is said the eye is the window to the soul. I'd say everything is.

No doubt, women want to be equal with men, to indulge in some powers. But somehow men in their insidious ways still want to retain their control and power.

There you go again with the conspiracy/cartel theory. What men want to retain control? When I buy shares on the stock market, I'm looking for performance and I couldn't care less whether the CEO is a woman or a man.

The beauty ideal is a round about way of having women strive for the unachievable and take away a concentration of “time” from challenging male domination. To put it another way these beauty images are used against the women themselves.

To follow your stereotypical view of men, I'll take the stereotypical view of women. Women want to marry a rich guy with a good job who is not too fat, not too bald and not too weird. Any other guy is deemed a "loser". I think it is fair to say that any man worth several million dollars will not lack for female company.

The competition to make money and attract women at least generates benefits for us all. The competition to be beautiful and attract men generates nothing.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

The competition to make money and attract women at least generates benefits for us all. The competition to be beautiful and attract men generates nothing.

Nonsense. The competition to be 'beautiful' generates billions. Almost as much as what the competition 'to define beautiful' creates.

[RB]

Let's be plain about what "beauty" is. People want to hook up with one another.

Look at the differences of communication between the sexes on seeing the lovely lady image

Girls response:

- nice shoes

- cute outfit

Boys response:

- wow how hot

- damn she’s hot

- nice legs

- she is horny

I was at the stop light the other day and had enough time to observed a bus shelter poster, a very imaginable female naked obviously wearing only a pair of jeans occupying the entire bus shelter – don't want to butt in, but I guess a fellow could miss the bus several times staring at such an image.

73% of women are offended by the media fostering images of sexism, but only 8% write, 13% phone to say they object even when 3 of 4 women would discuss the offensive material at some point - so that's a shame

A man puts a value on every acquisition he makes and as he seizes beauty assignment of high value, so women backlash when?. I mean the media has not define for us yet what a "dyke" looks like aging, maybe then?

You couldn't choose by picking any women CEO, there are only a limited few - if you didn't know, we are fashion goddesses we know about performance, much more about how to work with fishnets rather than network into very senior positions, like we are hardly given the opportunity

[PocketRocket]

Tawasakm

Happy birthday wishes to you don't worry about getting older the secret about staying young is simply to lie about your age.     

Yeah, man, happy birthday.

  About beauty, as far as I am concern this beauty notion has nothing to do women at all if you did not figure it.  Look at the old movies prior to women attaining some freedoms beauty was not on the agenda. 

I have to disagree. I don't know what "Old Movies" you're talking about where beauty was not "on the agenda". But let's look back. Ever hear the Name Theda Bara??? The first movie sex goddess, from the silent film era. Fay Wray, first darling of King Kong.

Lauren Bacall. Lord, I don't even know where to begin carrying on with this, so I won't. There have been, since the very beginning of movies, sex symbols, each appropriate to her own era, each as risque as they could get away with at the time.

  It’s a conspiracy.  And I attribute a greater burden of guilt to men. 

Sex sells. To men. And to women. Men are simply less shy about admitting it. But have you ever been to a club where they have male strippers??? The women go insane. Go to a joint with female strippers, the men generally sit around watching, and are usually pretty quiet.

I don't think it's a matter of guilt or innocence, simply human nature.

And, as I pointed out in an earlier post, why are magazines which are owned and edited by women, perpetuating the whole thing by not only running ads featuring these "perfect figures", but even using these models in the articles in the magazines??? There's an inherent contradiction and/or hypocrisy in touting how a woman should concentrate on being healthy rather than glamorous, and then running articles and ads where the pictorials are all heavily made-up mannequin-perfect models.

The guilt, if there is any, is shared by both sexes.

The beauty ideal is to keep women in a depressed state and if the intention is to create public panic well men have succeed in having every woman a fanatic and blinded follower. 

I don't buy into this paranoia. Among advertisers, the so-called "beauty ideal" is to help sell product. Remember that. The reason for any image we see on tv or in a magazine is to sell product, whether the product is a cosmetic, a car, a tv show, whatever.

No one is out to tell you how you have to look. Although, they may try to influence you into believing what other people expect in a woman's appearance.

After all, the images you are bombarded with of women is a infectious cute culture created by men, and as we have observe it forces and drives women wild to act and look a certain way.

It doesn't force anyone to do anything. We live in a free society. What you are saying is tantamount to those idiots who claim that Ozzy Osbourne and Marilyn Manson, through their music, make kids commit suicide. If someone is so qweak-willed that they have no self-identity, and can only feel fulfilled by meeting the expectations of advertisers, then they need more help than mere makeup can provide. They should be seeking therapy.

I wanted to question whether this beauty notion is women’s final hurdle to all freedoms? Maybe it will be the greatest of the last challenge.

If this is a test, then the passing grade is easy to attain. All it takes is for an individual to say "I am me, I am how I am, I don't need to look or act like anyone other than myself".

Simple, don't you think???

I mean we have gone from being wives to spouses with careers, allowed to vote, occupy key position decision-making jobs, have some political freedoms, influenced and changed laws etc.

Like the cigarette package says "You've come a long way, Baby".

No doubt, women want to be equal with men, to indulge in some powers.  But somehow men in their insidious ways still want to retain their control and power.

Hmmm. As far as I'm concerned, women are superior to men. They have simply yet to realize it.

And no, I'm not a woman.

So of course men are still the controllers of the media and occupy other key areas and their objective is to keep women “cornered”.  It is difficult to shake-up and destabilises the men’s world I say.

I believe you're being a tad paranoid again. This post reminds me of the character "Hyde" from That 70's Show.

The beauty ideal is a round about way of having women strive for the unachievable and take away a concentration of “time” from challenging male domination.  To put it another way these beauty images are used against the women themselves.

See previous response.

[RB]

"Old Movies"

I am talking about comparison of women from the old movies to present day. At some point there was no pressure to be thin, even further back venus de milo was not thin.

I was suggesting that at the one point time where women were mothers, housewives, cooking for their husbands, awaiting their darlings coming home from a hard days work, forgetting about their person and making every effort to see the males are happy, that even when they are laying next to the husbands and fearful to voice “is that all” is what you called conditioning.

There was simply no anxiety for beauty.

Since the answers of equality and liberation came up for women, a new condition of beauty is requirement of the day. I think that men have parallel and replace beauty for women's freedom; so now women are still not free. Most of the media is owned by males and reflect the males’ opinions and agenda.

If this is a test, then the passing grade is easy to attain. All it takes is for an individual to say "I am me, I am how I am, I don't need to look or act like anyone other than myself". Simple, don't you think???

No I don't think, and yes its not as simple as that. Women are not going to bother because the entire socialization processes need to change or the media need to take a different approach which is highly unlikely as there is power capture here.

Look, women have real motives such as intellectual aims, real capabilities, ambition, and a quest for power but always achievement loses to measurements and is always incompatible with femininity. Women don't get to make rules, they are govern by them.

I mean the high expectations of women are contrary to the ideal of the entire planet. Look take some male characteristics and interchange them randomly with the female characteristics

Male traits

-silent

-strong

-powerful

-smart/intelligent

-dependable

-hero

-manly

-discipline

-strength

-breadwinner

-high status

-high ideals

Female traits

- gentle

- trickery

- docile

- caring

- naïve

- romantic

Huston what do you have here? “freaks”.

There is social cost that is intensified for non-conformity. So you are a woman here are the measurements currently - beauty is order of the day.

[Slavik44]

How about the discrimination against short people RB? Isn't it outrages? what do you think should be done?

And it’s not all in our heads. As reported in their book, Stature and Stigma (Lexington Books, 1987), psychologists Leslie Martel and Henry Biller asked several hundred university students to rate men of varying heights on many different criteria. Both men and women respondents (short and tall) rated the short men (between five-foot-two and five-foot-five) less mature, less positive, less secure, less masculine, less successful, and less capable. Furthermore, according to a 1999 British study, men under five-foot-six have incomes about 10 percent below those earned by men about six feet tall, while the shorter men were also seven percent less likely to be married. These and other statistics reflect what short people, short men in particular, call “heightism,” the prejudice that nobody takes seriously

Politics. In all but three American presidential elections this century, the taller man has won. By itself this might be a coincidence. And of course some short politicians thrive (examples include France's Francois Mitterrand and Britain's Harold Wilson). But the pattern is still clear, and is also found in:

Business. A survey in 1980 found that more than half the chief executives of America's Fortune 500 companies stood six feet tall or more. As a class, these wekepei were a good 2 inches taller than average; only 3% were peritsi, 57' or less. Other surveys suggest that about 90% of chief executives are of above-average height. Similarly for:

Professional status. Looking at several professions, one study found that people in high-ranking jobs 'were about two inches taller than those down below, a pattern that held even when comparing men of like educational and socioeconomic status. Senior civil servants in Britain, for instance, tend to be taller than junior ones. Shorter people also have worse:

Jobs. Give job recruiters two invented resumes that have been carefully matched except for the candidates' height, as one study did in 1969. Fully 72% of the time, the taller man is 'hired'. And when they are hired, they tend also to earn rather more:

Money. In 1994 James Sargent and David Blanchflower, of America's Dartmouth College, analyzed a sample of about 6,000 male Britons whose progress was monitored from birth to early adulthood. Short teenaged boys made less money when they became young adults (aged 23) than their taller peers - even after other attributes, such as scores on ability tests or parents' social status, were factored out. For every four inches of height in adolescence, earnings went up more than 2% in early adulthood. Another survey, of graduates of the University of Pittsburgh, found that those who were 62' or taller received starting salaries 12% higher than those under six feet.

Ninety two short normal adolescents who had been below the third centile for height at school entry[4] and 117 controls matched for age and sex completed a bullying questionnaire, derived from work by Whitney and Smith.[5] There were no refusals or any significant differences in sex or social class between the groups. Mean age (range) was 14.7 (13.4-15.7) years. Mean height SD scores were: short pupils -1.90 (-3.53 to -0.01), controls 0.31 (-1.41 to 2.15). Additional data on bullying, collected the previous year, were available from teachers' written reports and parental interviews.

The table summarises the data. More short pupils than controls claimed to have been bullied at some time in secondary school. This difference remained significant after logistic regression controlled for social class. Short boys were more than twice as likely as control boys to be victims and much more likely than control boys to say that bullying upset them. Significantly more short pupils than controls said that bullying had started in junior school. Short pupils had as many good friends as did controls (72/92 (78%) [Nu] 95/117 (81%)), but significantly more spent break time alone at least once a week (9/92 (10%) [Nu] 2/117 (2%), P=0.032). In many cases bullying had stopped, but significantly more short pupils than controls, regardless of sex, reported current bullying.

[August1991]

Along the same lines, see this:

Being beautiful pays off. Economists have found that men with above-average looks are paid about 5 percent more than those with average appearance, while those who are below average in looks have wages 9 percent below the mean.

On closer investigation the economists found that good looks were significantly more important for men than women in producing high teaching evaluations. The same effect was found in earlier research relating wages to beauty: being good-looking, or at least not being bad-looking, is significantly more important for men than for women.

NYT Hunk Differential

Note that this applies to men.

[PocketRocket]

 

"Old Movies"

I am talking about comparison of women from the old movies to present day. At some point there was no pressure to be thin, even further back venus de milo was not thin.

I agree that the popular image has changed. Models seem to be skinnier than in times past, with a few exceptions, Anna Nicole Smith comes to mind. But thinness (not skinniness) has been in vogue for quite a while. Look back to Anne Miller, Mary Tyler Moore, Racquel Welsh, Lucille Ball etc etc....even the aforementioned Theda Bara was pretty thin. The flappers from the Roaring Twenties, none of them plump. Venus De Milo, on the other hand, comes from an era when plumpness was in vogue. The "Rubenesque" body-type was all the rage for decades, if not centuries. How do you think that made skinny women feel at the time??? Did they gorge trying to gain weight??? How did that affect their health??? Can you say cardiac arrest???

I was suggesting that at the one point time where women were mothers, housewives, cooking for their husbands, awaiting their darlings coming home from a hard days work, forgetting about their person and making every effort to see the males are happy, that even when they are laying next to the husbands and fearful to voice “is that all” is what you called conditioning. 

As it should be. Kidding, of course.

There was simply no anxiety for beauty. 

Then why have cosmetics been in use since before Christ walked the Earth??? Why were people making rudimentary combs from animal bones??? Why did oriental women bind their feet??? Why did some African tribal women put those rings around their necks tto make their neck longer??? Why the hockey-puck stuck in the lower lip??? How about earrings??? Beauty has been a concern since people climbed down from the trees. Possibly earlier.

Since the answers of equality and liberation came up for women, a new condition of beauty is requirement of the day.  I think that men have parallel and replace beauty for women's freedom; so now women are still not free.  Most of the media is owned by males and reflect the males’ opinions and agenda.

This is hold-over. Keep in mind where we are. There has been a quantum shift in power vis-a-vis the sexes, but this has only been going on for less than a century. In just the past twenty years University attendance has shifted from primarily men, to majority women. This trend will likely continue. We now have major corporations owned by women. Yes, more are still owned by men, but the gap is narrowing. Likewise government. How many women held positions of power 50 years ago??? None??? Now we have quite a few women in government, both here in Canada, and in many other countries. The times they are a'changin'.

If this is a test, then the passing grade is easy to attain. All it takes is for an individual to say "I am me, I am how I am, I don't need to look or act like anyone other than myself". Simple, don't you think???

No I don't think....

You don't say. (I'm sorry about that, but it was too easy....I couldn't resist)

....and yes its not as simple as that.  Women are not going to bother because the entire socialization processes need to change or the media need to take a different approach which is highly unlikely as there is power capture here. 

You know, where I work, the vast majority (80-85%) of the supervisory and management staff are women, whereas the workplace population is about 50-50 men/women. Of these women who hold the reins of power in a workplace that employs about 800 people, less than 10% are women who I would describe as attractive, let alone beautiful. None are skinny. Some are downright fat. But all are intelligent and hard working.

As for women in politics, have you ever taken a good look at Shiela Copps??? I can't think of any female MP's who would make the cover of Playboy, or even Health And Fitness.

Look, women have real motives such as intellectual aims, real capabilities, ambition, and a quest for power but always achievement loses to measurements and is always incompatible with femininity. Women don't get to make rules, they are govern by them.

See my previous comment.

I mean the high expectations of women are contrary to the ideal of the entire planet.  Look take some male characteristics and interchange them randomly with the female characteristics 

Okay.

Male traits

-silent

-strong

-powerful

-smart/intelligent

-dependable

-hero

-manly

-discipline

-strength

-breadwinner

-high status

-high ideals

Don't forget "Tall, dark and handsome", or "Hung like a horse", or "Built like Adonis" How many truly ugly Presidents or Prime Ministers can you recall offhand???

Female traits

- gentle

- trickery

- docile

- caring

- naïve

- romantic 

Now you missed a few here as well. A great rack is a benefit, as is a fine butt. (Yes I am a man. Yes, all men are pigs. But some are more honest about admitting it)

Huston what do you have here?  “freaks”. 

Yup. And BTW, is that a pun??? Did you mean to write "Houston" or is this a pun on Angelica Huston???

There is social cost that is intensified for non-conformity.  So you are a woman here are the measurements currently - beauty is order of the day. 

Again, see my reply regarding my workplace, and female politicians. There are other examples that belie your statement. In my area, the top-selling real-estate agent is an incredibly ugly woman. I must admit that she piles on the makeup and hairspray, and will sit in her car preening for sometimes a half-hour before going in to see a client. But the more she preens, the uglier she gets.

It doesn't seem to get in the way of her sales.

There is also the image of the "bimbo". The gorgeous babe who is all beauty and no brains. This, I would think, would actually work AGAINST a beautiful woman who is attempting to further her business/political position.

So, to summarize, sorry, but I can't buy it. Yes, there is a beauty industry. Yes, there are more pretty women portrayed to us in the media than ugly women. But the same can be said of men. Find me a single male news anchor who is ugly, or has a disfiguring scar or any major blemishes. Packaging sells. If it looks good, people will buy it, from cars to stereos to tv's to tv personalities, male or female. No one is forcing women to look like anything. Women are taking that burden upon themselves, by their own choice. If an individual woman is so easily influenced by the media, then it proves nothing except the weakness of will of that individual.

[RB]

How about the discrimination against short people RB? Isn't it outrages? what do you think should be done?

I mean who is going to change heredity, so I can’t be apologetic for the short cut facing short people.

But in short what your information is saying is that the short ones are short change, in the long and short run.

On pondering this on short notice, well all I can say is try to stay positive. For challenge people with height, there are lots of success stories around and the echoes remain with us for those small victories even when short-lived.

Look, just try not implicate yourself as short, otherwise you will short change, and sell yourself short.

To bring it up short, the long and short of it is, if you are short list for jobs, be encouraged not to be short with yourselves, or short change yourselves by selling yourselves short, otherwise you will have a short fall as you fall short. Then likely, you'd be encouraged with short tempers which leads to being short with others, and then it will be down to the short strokes where you will be had by the short hairs, in very short notice.

But don’t be dismay folks, be humble and be yourselves. Look at it this way, you are short blanket, and when tug on it your toes become a demanding radical, you yank it down and you start the paroxysm about the shoulders. Smart folks manage to draw their knees up and experience a most comfortable life.

To cut it short if you run short, others definitely stereotype the word “short” as well, short, in short they just want to try to cut you short and that is why you always fall short.

To PocketRocket - sorry, si senor it is

"Houston we have a problem"

Its just that I am short lived here for now but will reply

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear RB,

Your reply reminds me of the song, "Short People" by Randy Newman. 'Short people got no reason to live....' It was a song scoffing at discrimination, and I listen to it ocasionally when I throw some 45s on the old record player. He also has a great song called 'Political Science' which I recommend all to listen to.

[RB]

top-selling real-estate agent is an incredibly ugly woman. I must admit that she piles on the makeup and hairspray, and will sit in her car preening for sometimes a half-hour before going in to see a client. But the more she preens, the uglier she gets.

Please! Please!

Learn to flatter the beauty of a woman in some state of mediocrity. Know that she thinks she is absolutely not ugly but indeed thinks she is handsome

No I don't think....

You don't say. (I'm sorry about that, but it was too easy....I couldn't resist)

yes, be careful of crafted words

If an individual woman is so easily influenced by the media, then it proves nothing except the weakness of will of that individual.

You err if you think there is a will in weakness. I mean even the weak would score over you if you think that the weak is strong. I like the usage of “weakness” because it shows by virtue of weakness women can railed in their inadequacy and destroy themselves.

Realise that women are pressured to look a certain way, it is some mark assault on women that preys like vultures and gets eaten daily.

I mean look at it this way we women name our orgasm as the epistemological mark of liberation, so why do we need to criticize it to suffer more, like why tint it with exceptions, putting markers of standards to defeat ourselves

Here is what I mean, give power to the women they destroy their weakness when they see it: as in aging lines, cosmetics, dyes, slim shakes and I didn't think it was to please themselves mostly.

I am fearful women are caught up in “catch” words such as love, beauty, honor, work, worth, cherish, obey, sickness, health = happiness

For now, I would like to reject this “beauty” ideal and redefine beauty to mean “appearance”.

“Appearance” means size, shapes, height, ugly, pretty, good looking, bimbos etc. Here is more, it would be great to have appearance listed as one of our prohibited grounds, so that we are aware of errors in judging people.

Well, I must say I find it insulting that woman are seen as sex objects, manikins, staving themselves to death, to defy nature and try to please some man etc. We know in absolute term women will never conquer beauty.

Women should be recognise for their true worth, and must seek to retain the dignity of themselves.

And we have some duty to respect this...without impositions

[RB]

Your reply reminds me of the song, "Short People".... scoffing at discrimination

Yep, it was meant to scoff.

I mean if it helps there are cultures such as chinese, asians where the men are short, this western culture seem to impose this height ideal, and begs that short men especially become suddenly exposed.

[August1991]

you are short blanket, and when tug on it your toes become a demanding radical, you yank it down and you start the paroxysm about the shoulders. Smart folks manage to draw their knees up and experience a most comfortable life.

???

I mean if it helps there are cultures such as chinese, asians where the men are short, this western culture seem to impose this height ideal, and begs that short men especially become suddenly exposed.

???

RB, what's your point?

Can you make the effort to render your ideas comprehensible for the rest of us? (This would include proper spelling, grammar and a coherent, consistent idea.)

So RB, what do you mean to say exactly?