Women & Beauty

[Michael Hardner]

Some points I caught:

Figleaf:

Most every society formulates standards of 'beauty'.

Black Dog:

Here's a hint, guys, it's not the "campaign against physical beauty." It's the "campaign for real beuty." IOW its an attempt to broaden beauty standards from the current, narrow definition promoted by society and the media and reclaim the term beauty.

Um...if these ideals are prompting 8 yearl old girls to starve themselves or vomit after every meal in a futile attempt to conform, I'd say there's something wrong with that.

But you're essentially arguing the contrary: that media depictions of beauty have no bearing on social perceptions of beauty. You're saying, basically, is that it's a one way street, with consumers and their pre-ordained beauty ideals driving what the media shows. Whereas I'm saying the relationship is a more complex one akin to a feedback loop.

I don't think that societal standards of beauty and personal standards of beauty are the same thing at all. I wonder why people even accept societal standards of beauty, and I personally doubt whether such ideas will last much longer.

For me, strong societally sanctioned beauty is a mark of the more segmented and regimented society we've had in the past. It seems to me that, at one time, people had more to say about the type of person you were 'with' - their social status, their looks, their race.

We've seen, over the last fifty years, that personal individuality and self-expression has blossomed and there have been more avenues for presenting yourself. (See: the 1960s, punk rock, to name a few things. ) Even parents would be hesitant today to say something about the race of their child's boyfriend or girlfriend, I think.

The idea that society should lay its blessing on certain types of looks seems to me to be tied to the era of ties in the office, the water cooler and the cute stenographer that the VP of sales has his eye on. I think about the excellent Billy Wilder film 'The Apartment' with Jack Lemmon.

But, yet, there is still an effect there. What other people say is 'beautiful' may not affect my *feelings* about what is beautiful, but I think it could affect my *actions* about what is beautiful.

Let me explain: I have seen situations where a man is obviously attracted to a woman who doesn't meet societal standards of beauty, so he has not acted on his attraction - ie. negated his biological attraction in order to get approval of the group and retain status.

Specifically, I am attracted to bigger gals myself and I find it strange that many men seem to agree with my perceptions of beauty, yet don't act on them publicly. Why is that, I wonder ? My only guess is that men succumb to social ideas of status when it comes to their mates.

I think that this situation happens often, in both sexes, and it is more related to social conformity than it is to media studies.

[Figleaf]

Actually, I would say that the consumer only has an appetite for that message. The media just delivers.

And I would respons by saying your understanding of the media is pretty shallow and naive.

Okay, an ad hominem.

Just because it is an Ad H. doesn't mean it isn't true. If anything, you done nothing to show you know what you'ree talking about.

Ad hominem in tandem.

That could be the motto of your club.

[JerrySeinfeld]

IOW, they're like JerrySeinfeld who comes on this forum pretending to be a rich, jet-setting Hugh Hefner ver 2.3 when in fact he's just a guy in his pyjamas in his Mom's basement.

Hey August that's uncalled for (and simply untrue). But why oh why do people get all hot and bothered about what other guys have or don't have?

If someone be an idiot and blow is dollars on a Hummer or a pair of shoes he can't afford, that's his problem, not yours.

You shouldn't criticize other people for their possessions - it's uncool and reeks of envy.

And simmer down on the BS about my mom's basement - i have a fridge and a VHS and that's all I need

[Michael Hardner]

You shouldn't criticize other people for their possessions - it's uncool and reeks of envy.

See my post about accepting societal values of beauty - same thing.

If I think that gal is pretty, why should I care what Calvin Klein or Cosmo or Dove think ?

[JerrySeinfeld]

You shouldn't criticize other people for their possessions - it's uncool and reeks of envy.

See my post about accepting societal values of beauty - same thing.

If I think that gal is pretty, why should I care what Calvin Klein or Cosmo or Dove think ?

Agreed. But my point was this:

August was ranting about guys and their hummers and bloated credit cards and how it's an act.

My point is: maybe for some of 'em it is. But get used to it: some guys are more successful than you and have more money for toys. Big Frickin' deal. Get over it. WHining aboubt it reeks of envy. And that's not cool - you will get no women as long as your preoccpied with some other dude's life.

Get some self confidence and forget about Enzo's new porcshe.

[Figleaf]

Okay, an ad hominem.

Hang on: there's another one coming:

That's a theory. But it lacks tangible verifiability. And it's not inherently plausible.

Hey, you found a thesaurus! Zing!

You sure get fractious when your arguments break down, don't you?

But to the point: why is it "not inherently plausible?"

Because it puts the cart before the horse. Your theory presumes the reverse of logical causation based on the known motivations of the agents. To whit, the 'media' wants to get your attention, or sell you something. Neither of those motivations is served by attempting a massive social engineering project of mutating the natural tastes of mankind. It is simply much cheaper, less risky, and more effective just to reflect the culture rather than change it.

And speaking of, I'd like to understand what mechanism you think is actually doing this alleged change. I.e. demonstrate that media imagery actually affects what the bulk of people consider attractive.

Really? How so?

Well for one thing, as I've made clear before, the "standard" portrayed by the media represents 0.01 per cent of the population,

You may have said that, but you haven't made it clear. I see beautiful young women all over, all the time. They're wonderful, but they are not as rare as hen's teeth.

which raises the question of how a particular look can become "standard" in a population where no actually conforms to it.

It's a standard, not an average.

to be fair, you are saying that standards haven't changed all that much. But I think that's bullshit too.

Recalling your earlier post, it seems to me that the only standard that you're really suggesting has changed is the idealized BMI. (At least that's what your images suggested to me.) I don't know of anyone alleging that healthy hair, teeth and skin are new standards, or that a preference for clear features or soft features is a firm or persistent standard.

So, regarding BMI, your Manet image tells us nothing, because we cannot presume Manet's motive was to capture/create and promulgate any particular standard of beauty. Maybe he was striving to capture the woman he actually saw.

As between Munroe and Moss, it gets pretty anecdotal, don't you think? I mean Moss is certainly not the big star Munroe was, so the comparison is not very compelling.

How would these "ingrained" standards change?

I'm saying they don't.

No, I'm saying they are the very same thing.

Let me rephrase, then: you're saying media depictions of beauty have no effect on social perceptions of beauty. IOW, the media does not influence us: the process only works the other way, with the media acting as a mirror.

Correct?

Close, but not exactly. The media does indeed indoctrinate, but it indoctrinates with whatever content the culture supplies.

And I'm saying it's up to people whether they want to choose to believe the media about that or not.

Ah yes: the old "rational actors" myth.

Again, not exactly. Rational or not, it's up to people's choices.

Of course -- obesity is at an all time high, models haven't changed. The number of fat women competing in the flesh markets has changed.

And not the concept of what constitutes "fat"?

As I understand it there is a range of BMI on which there is broad scientific agreement as the best for general health. I will bet you 10 to 1 that the average weight of 80% of successful strippers/burlesque performers falls within that range, and has for generations.

[Black Dog]

You sure get fractious when your arguments break down, don't you?

Pot, kettle, etc.

Because it puts the cart before the horse. Your theory presumes the reverse of logical causation based on the known motivations of the agents. To whit, the 'media' wants to get your attention, or sell you something. Neither of those motivations is served by attempting a massive social engineering project of mutating the natural tastes of mankind. It is simply much cheaper, less risky, and more effective just to reflect the culture rather than change it.

Who said anything about it being deliberate?

Anyway, upon further reflection, human society has always aspired to unattainable standards. I'm saying, though, that the media, through the ubquity of its depictions of said standard, plays a part in setting the standards. Again, it's not a one way street (indeed, I never said it was). The media reflects the culture, but also distorts the view and reflects it back at the culture. The culture internalizes the new, altered depiction, and reflects it back to the media. And so it goes.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Let's sum it up here:

Doggy is mad (again) because he wants to change the standards of beauty to suit his needs (whatever they may be) and piss - again - into the strong wind of reality.

Meantime the rest of us realize that hot chicks will never be replaced by ugly fatties on magazine covers, because nobody wants to buy soap or lipstick from an ugly fatty.

Pretty basic stuff.

[Melanie_]

Let's sum it up here:

Doggy is mad (again) because he wants to change the standards of beauty to suit his needs (whatever they may be) and piss - again - into the strong wind of reality.

Meantime the rest of us realize that hot chicks will never be replaced by ugly fatties on magazine covers, because nobody wants to buy soap or lipstick from an ugly fatty.

Pretty basic stuff.

What exactly is an "ugly fatty"? Pretty subjective, but obviously you are making a value judgment on the worth of an individual based on their outward appearance. I think we all can hear your knuckles dragging behind you.

Jerry

Perhaps recognition that women don't have to fit a certain mold to be considered beautiful is too challenging for those who see the world in such simplistic terms. Try this movie, if you can handle it.Calendar Girls

[Figleaf]

Let's sum it up here:

Doggy is mad (again) because he wants to change the standards of beauty to suit his needs (whatever they may be) and piss - again - into the strong wind of reality.

Meantime the rest of us realize that hot chicks will never be replaced by ugly fatties on magazine covers, because nobody wants to buy soap or lipstick from an ugly fatty.

Pretty basic stuff.

What exactly is an "ugly fatty"? Pretty subjective, but obviously you are making a value judgment on the worth of an individual based on their outward appearance.

Actually, to be accurate, he was making a judgement about the worth of an individual as a magazine model based on their outward appearance.

Perhaps recognition that women don't have to fit a certain mold to be considered beautiful is too challenging ...

It's not 'challenging', its absurd. Beauty, whether the normal outward appearance type, or the 'internal' beauty notion, is all about fitting desired molds. You don't say vindictive, self-centred, dark-hearted bullies are beautiful inside, and you don't say a foul-smelling, toothless, shamling wreck with hair falling out is outwardly beautiful.

[Melanie_]

Actually, to be accurate, he was making a judgement about the worth of an individual as a magazine model based on their outward appearance.

Right... that's what he meant.... "Ugly fatty" and "hot chick" are not value judgements in his mind at all....

But if you watch the Dove video, the photoshopping and digital enhancements show us that there is no one who meets this criteria on thier own. Yet this is the ideal that women are supposed to aspire to.

It's not 'challenging', its absurd. Beauty, whether the normal outward appearance type, or the 'internal' beauty notion, is all about fitting desired molds. You don't say vindictive, self-centred, dark-hearted bullies are beautiful inside, and you don't say a foul-smelling, toothless, shamling wreck with hair falling out is outwardly beautiful.

But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about "ugly fatties" and "hot chicks," and the pressure women face to conform to unrealistic and unattainable standards.

[August1991]

IOW, they're like JerrySeinfeld who comes on this forum pretending to be a rich, jet-setting Hugh Hefner ver 2.3 when in fact he's just a guy in his pyjamas in his Mom's basement.

Hey August that's uncalled for (and simply untrue). But why oh why do people get all hot and bothered about what other guys have or don't have?

If someone be an idiot and blow is dollars on a Hummer or a pair of shoes he can't afford, that's his problem, not yours.

You shouldn't criticize other people for their possessions - it's uncool and reeks of envy.

And simmer down on the BS about my mom's basement - i have a fridge and a VHS and that's all I need

I'm sure you can take my bad joke at your expense, Jerry. And it is easy to claim to be anything you want on an Internet forum - all we've got for judging is a writing style. Yours is not bad if a trifle self-confident at times.

But I think you missed entirely my point. I don't care whether you drive a Hummer or you walk.

My point was that the Dove ad, directed at women, shows that women portrayed in fashion advertising are complete frauds. They don't exist in real life.

To translate the sense of this to the male mind, I gave the example of learning that all the "male winners" were frauds too. Instead of getting my point, you embarked on a rant about envy and winners.

Jerry, you remind me of the advertiser who answered a query about why beer commercials always have young women in bikinis: "Because that's what teenage boys want to see."

[Charles Anthony]

Creating brand awareness is extremely hard. Creating demand is impossible.

Hah WRONG!!! I only need to point out the diamond industry. De Beers started mining in South Africa 100 plus years ago, diamonds as you know are hard and good for cutting, plus they disperse/refract light very well. Anyhoo with the large surplus of diamonds in South Africa there was a need to market them, and some genius at De Beers said why not make diamonds the symbol of love, of course women as they are caught onto this like wild fire and the rest they say is history. This is straight out of a university course to boot.

Whoever taught that university course should be given the boot.

Take a look at your diamond example and ask yourself: "If demand can be created, diamonds could also be marketed as the symbol of HATE too!" and try that out. How much money do you think DeBeers would spend on that genius advertizing campaign???

But, wait a minute.... diamonds the symbol of love??? THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A SYMBOL OF LOVE!!! DeBeers never created anything new at all. The demand for diamonds has not been changed by DeBeers one bit either.

In a modern competitive and open economy, the best you can get with advertizing is product recognition. You want the consumer to pick YOUR product off the shelf and skip your competitor.

[geoffrey]

In a modern competitive and open economy, the best you can get with advertizing is product recognition. You want the consumer to pick YOUR product off the shelf and skip your competitor.

I think De Beers produces much of the worlds diamonds, it's a near monopoly for practical purposes. Marketing a diamond as something particular in fact boosts their numbers, even if the slim few percent go to other companies.

[blueblood]

In a modern competitive and open economy, the best you can get with advertizing is product recognition. You want the consumer to pick YOUR product off the shelf and skip your competitor.

I think De Beers produces much of the worlds diamonds, it's a near monopoly for practical purposes. Marketing a diamond as something particular in fact boosts their numbers, even if the slim few percent go to other companies.

Hey that's what the course said, something like that sticks in the memory, I think it's marketing genius. How many other gems are out there? A ruby could have been the symbol of love for pete sake, no De Beers got their shit together and look at what we got now.

[Charles Anthony]

Hey that's what the course said, something like that sticks in the memory, I think it's marketing genius.

It is the "DeBeers" name that sticks in your memory. That is the only thing that has changed -- not the demand for diamonds.

I think De Beers produces much of the worlds diamonds, it's a near monopoly for practical purposes. Marketing a diamond as something particular in fact boosts their numbers, even if the slim few percent go to other companies.

1) being a near-monopoly means nothing

Furthermore, a near-monopoly can still have its profits cut be a small competitor. DeBeers will always strive for you to select a DeBeers diamond over any other.

2) if "marketing a diamond as something particular in fact boosts their numbers" as you say, why not market pebbles instead??

Why not market pebbles as the symbol of love?? The demand for pebbles will rise. Everybody will want a DeBeers pebble!

[Slavik44]

I think De Beers produces much of the worlds diamonds, it's a near monopoly for practical purposes. Marketing a diamond as something particular in fact boosts their numbers, even if the slim few percent go to other companies.

1) being a near-monopoly means nothing

Furthermore, a near-monopoly can still have its profits cut be a small competitor. DeBeers will always strive for you to select a DeBeers diamond over any other.

2) if "marketing a diamond as something particular in fact boosts their numbers" as you say, why not market pebbles instead??

Why not market pebbles as the symbol of love?? The demand for pebbles will rise. Everybody will want a DeBeers pebble!

I thought they marketed pebbles as pet rocks?

[Charles Anthony]

I thought they marketed pebbles as pet rocks?

Good example. That proves my point: you can not create demand.

[Figleaf]

But if you watch the Dove video, the photoshopping and digital enhancements show us that there is no one who meets this criteria on thier own.

It doesn't show that. It shows how much improvement is possible using all the various techniques.

Yet this is the ideal that women are supposed to aspire to.

Are we not all supposed to aspire to the 'ideal'? I don't see what the problem is.

[blueblood]

Hey that's what the course said, something like that sticks in the memory, I think it's marketing genius.

It is the "DeBeers" name that sticks in your memory. That is the only thing that has changed -- not the demand for diamonds.

I think De Beers produces much of the worlds diamonds, it's a near monopoly for practical purposes. Marketing a diamond as something particular in fact boosts their numbers, even if the slim few percent go to other companies.

1) being a near-monopoly means nothing

Furthermore, a near-monopoly can still have its profits cut be a small competitor. DeBeers will always strive for you to select a DeBeers diamond over any other.

2) if "marketing a diamond as something particular in fact boosts their numbers" as you say, why not market pebbles instead??

Why not market pebbles as the symbol of love?? The demand for pebbles will rise. Everybody will want a DeBeers pebble!

Well basically a diamond is a pebble (it's only practical use is in cutting and grinding due to its hardness) The only reason why they are worth a stupendous amount is due to the high demand which results in it being made the symbol of love. De Beers said Diamonds (pebble) are the symbol of love, and people went nuts over it -> demand created. If Spinel was marketed like Diamonds back in the day, i can assure you that they would be worth a fortune and diamonds only used in industrial applications.

[DarkAngel_]

i know guys who like girls: fat, slutty, curvy. odd, slimmer, rib-sticking, nicely melt, short, too tall, migetty, lesbian, dike, tuff, cruel, loving, stupid, genus, crazy, buff, a guy, criminal, innocent, fluffy, and chubby.

point: as a male, i observe around me and define beauty in MY standards, that they are similar to others is just a coincidence.

most men have a definitive line, that a women must meet to be attractive, you cannot change that, it has not been defined by TV, i see very beautiful girls, that don't even wear make-up! and that are curvy and evenly molded as to not be too skinny or fat, but us guys like to be taller, and capable of putting our arms around their waist, it is primarily an instinctual "i'm the man" feeling that i might add; i prefer.

but the different likes and dislikes of women from men, is primarily based on perception of image, instinct, and personality, if a girl others find ugly fits my line, that’s a good thing cause no one else is after her...

[Michael Hardner]

Another entry...

Skinnyvideo

[DarkAngel_]

point: as a male, i observe around me and define beauty in MY standards, that they are similar to others is just a coincidence.

oh! also women are the same... did that sound sexest?

[Figleaf]

i know guys who like girls: fat, slutty, curvy. odd, slimmer, rib-sticking, nicely melt, short, too tall, migetty, lesbian, dike, tuff, cruel, loving, stupid, genus, crazy, buff, a guy, criminal, innocent, fluffy, and chubby.

point: as a male, i observe around me and define beauty in MY standards, that they are similar to others is just a coincidence.

I agree completely. Are models hot? Most of them, but not all of them. Are lots of other women I see every day hot too? Yes, but not all of them.

The 'media' can't change my opinions in one way, any more than political correctness or the Dove campaign can change my opinions in another way.

[M.Dancer]

O&M Canada took their part "Evolution", of the world wide Dove campaign to the prestigioius Cannes Lions Ad Festival and won two top prizes.

This is a major laurel for the Canadian shop and an indicator of just how resonating the "Campaign for Real Beauty" is internationaly.

Ad agency Ogilvy & Mather Canada has been awarded the industry's highest prize for a commercial that questions the perception of beauty and became an Internet sensation on YouTube.

The Toronto-based agency scored two Grand Prix awards, including the coveted Film honour, for its Dove Self Esteem Fund “Evolution” ad at the prestigious Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival, which ended on the weekend.

“I was stunned and felt sick to my stomach when I found out we won,” said Ogilvy & Mather chief creative officer Janet Kestin. “I didn't expect it even though anyone you talked to would say that it was the odds-on favourite to win.”

“We had 12 excellent candidates to choose from. The one that resonated the most, that we thought had the most power, was Dove ‘Evolution.' So we decided to reward the biggest idea we saw,” said Cannes jury president Bob Scarpelli

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/st...y/Business/home

Winning submission

Dove Spoof

Another take, From the Star