Women & Beauty

[Black Dog]

It seems to me he's suggesting that you politically correct types have been missing the point.

And what, pray tell, is the point that we're missing?

What is really wrong with physical beauty anyway?

We need more of it.

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. And sell cleanser.

[Figleaf]

It seems to me he's suggesting that you politically correct types have been missing the point.

And what, pray tell, is the point that we're missing?

The point that it's all good and well to say that the 'beauty' industry is effective at profiteering from people's emphasis on superficial characteristics, but that doesn't make that emphasis less a fact and no amount of tut-tutting will ever succeed in making those interested in the superficial accept 'real' beauty as a substitute.

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. And sell cleanser.

"Real" beauty by whose definition? So DOVE proclaims itself the arbiter of beauty (sorry, "real" beauty) and because they chose to define 'real' (i.e. less attractive) looks as better or just as good as what the mainstream considers attractive we should suddenly amend our attitudes. Bugger that.

[Black Dog]

The point that it's all good and well to say that the 'beauty' industry is effective at profiteering from people's emphasis on superficial characteristics, but that doesn't make that emphasis less a fact and no amount of tut-tutting will ever succeed in making those interested in the superficial accept 'real' beauty as a substitute.

So, basically, you're saying the beauty industries promotion of a narrow definition of physical beauty is fine becuase that definition is true? Congratulations: you missed the point too.

"Real" beauty by whose definition? So DOVE proclaims itself the arbiter of beauty (sorry, "real" beauty) and because they chose to define 'real' (i.e. less attractive) looks as better or just as good as what the mainstream considers attractive we should suddenly amend our attitudes. Bugger that.

IOW: "I resent Dove's attempts to broaden teh definition of of beauty beyond the current narrow standards prescribed by society and the media because I have internalized the narrow definition and don't like to see it messed with for some reason."

[JerrySeinfeld]

The point that it's all good and well to say that the 'beauty' industry is effective at profiteering from people's emphasis on superficial characteristics, but that doesn't make that emphasis less a fact and no amount of tut-tutting will ever succeed in making those interested in the superficial accept 'real' beauty as a substitute.

So, basically, you're saying the beauty industries promotion of a narrow definition of physical beauty is fine becuase that definition is true? Congratulations: you missed the point too.

"Real" beauty by whose definition? So DOVE proclaims itself the arbiter of beauty (sorry, "real" beauty) and because they chose to define 'real' (i.e. less attractive) looks as better or just as good as what the mainstream considers attractive we should suddenly amend our attitudes. Bugger that.

IOW: "I resent Dove's attempts to broaden teh definition of of beauty beyond the current narrow standards prescribed by society and the media because I have internalized the narrow definition and don't like to see it messed with for some reason."

What narrow definition?

[Black Dog]

What narrow definition?

You've got to be kidding.

[JerrySeinfeld]

What narrow definition?

You've got to be kidding.

Attraction is not learned. Although part of it might actually come from outward appearance, it's certainly not even close to being exclusive to that.

[Figleaf]

The point that it's all good and well to say that the 'beauty' industry is effective at profiteering from people's emphasis on superficial characteristics, but that doesn't make that emphasis less a fact and no amount of tut-tutting will ever succeed in making those interested in the superficial accept 'real' beauty as a substitute.

So, basically, you're saying the beauty industries promotion of a narrow definition of physical beauty is fine becuase that definition is true? Congratulations: you missed the point too.

Anyone with a different view is 'missing the point' are we? Brilliant rebuttal.

I'm saying that just because some people don't like how the beauty industry profiteers, is insufficient reason or basis to hope that they can redefine the 'reality' of what that profiteering is based on. The Dove campaign and its fellow-travellers are indulging in a hybrid of self-righteousness and fantasy.

[Black Dog]

Attraction is not learned. Although part of it might actually come from outward appearance, it's certainly not even close to being exclusive to that.

Non sequiter. We're not talking about what attracts, we're talking about beauty standards as portrayed by the media which are two different things.

Anyone with a different view is 'missing the point' are we? Brilliant rebuttal.

No: those who miss the point are missing the point.

I'm saying that just because some people don't like how the beauty industry profiteers, is insufficient reason or basis to hope that they can redefine the 'reality' of what that profiteering is based on. The Dove campaign and its fellow-travellers are indulging in a hybrid of self-righteousness and fantasy.

Getting closer. But you seem to be labouring under the same delusion as Jerry, which is the belief that media standards of beautry are actually representative. Since only a tiny percentage of people actually conform to the idealized (and oppressive) media beauty standards, they can't be said to be reflecte dby reality. What's more is that research has consistently shown a disconnect between what we'r etold is beautiful and what we find attractive in practice.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Attraction is not learned. Although part of it might actually come from outward appearance, it's certainly not even close to being exclusive to that.

Non sequiter. We're not talking about what attracts, we're talking about beauty standards as portrayed by the media which are two different things.

So what is the media's narrow definition?

Blonde hair or Brunette?

Light skin or dark? Or Tanned? Or Fair?

Big breasts or small?

Big hips or narrow ones? Big butts or flat ones?

I can't wait to hear all about it....

[Black Dog]

So what is the media's narrow definition?

Tall. Thin. White. Light hair/tanned skin. Walked by a magazine rack lately?

[Figleaf]

Attraction is not learned. Although part of it might actually come from outward appearance, it's certainly not even close to being exclusive to that.

Non sequiter. We're not talking about what attracts, we're talking about beauty standards as portrayed by the media which are two different things.

That's your assertion. Beauty standards portrayed in the media include shiny hair (a sign of health), not being overweight (a sign of health), clear skin (a sign of health), and a winning smile (a mark of friendliness). Calling these things artificial can only be done out of an ideology that hopes to deny the truth to spare someone's feelings.

[Black Dog]

That's your assertion. Beauty standards portrayed in the media include shiny hair (a sign of health), not being overweight (a sign of health), clear skin (a sign of health), and a winning smile (a mark of friendliness). Calling these things artificial can only be done out of an ideology that hopes to deny the truth to spare someone's feelings.

And of course, you convieniently ignore all the other things (such as the obession with thinness, which can hardly be argued to have much evolutionary appeal) that are far more prevelant and damaging.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone say: "Gosh, her hair is so shiny, I wish I looked that healthy."

[JerrySeinfeld]

So what is the media's narrow definition?

Tall. Thin. White. Light hair/tanned skin. Walked by a magazine rack lately?

White?

Tall? White? Light Hair? Tanned Skin?

Just a couple of examples.

The media often portrays ideals. In all facets of life. What's wrong with that?

[JerrySeinfeld]

That's your assertion. Beauty standards portrayed in the media include shiny hair (a sign of health), not being overweight (a sign of health), clear skin (a sign of health), and a winning smile (a mark of friendliness). Calling these things artificial can only be done out of an ideology that hopes to deny the truth to spare someone's feelings.

And of course, you convieniently ignore all the other things (such as the obession with thinness, which can hardly be argued to have much evolutionary appeal) that are far more prevelant and damaging.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone say: "Gosh, her hair is so shiny, I wish I looked that healthy."

You're losing this one badly, dog.

healthy is beautiful. guys don't look at women and say "gosh I love that blush on her face" they just naturally attract to girls with a "glow". The natural healthy glow is much more beautiful than the phony one.

[Black Dog]

White?

Tall? White? Light Hair? Tanned Skin?

Just a couple of examples.

Two token examples that still conform to highly idealized beauty standards does not change the reality that media depictions of beauty are overwhelmingly what I stated they are earlier.

The media often portrays ideals. In all facets of life. What's wrong with that?

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.

healthy is beautiful. guys don't look at women and say "gosh I love that blush on her face" they just naturally attract to girls with a "glow". The natural healthy glow is much more beautiful than the phony one

Uh huh. Which why you see people go to the tanning booth to make themselves the colour of OompaLoompas and why magazine covers use Photoshop to give models a "natural healthy glow". Plus, you know when the guys are out at the bar, you always hear things like "Dude, check out the healthy glow on that chick!"

You're losing this one badly, dog.

In your dreams.

[Figleaf]

That's your assertion. Beauty standards portrayed in the media include shiny hair (a sign of health), not being overweight (a sign of health), clear skin (a sign of health), and a winning smile (a mark of friendliness). Calling these things artificial can only be done out of an ideology that hopes to deny the truth to spare someone's feelings.

And of course, you convieniently ignore all the other things (such as the obession with thinness, which can hardly be argued to have much evolutionary appeal) that are far more prevelant and damaging.

Some obsessions are not healthy of course, but the Dove campaign and its adherents aren't making these distinctions... the video doesn't show a girl dieting, it shows a girl getting a makeover, as if it is shocking or offensive that someone might improve her appearance through better grooming. A haircut and facial! Oh god! How cruel!

Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone say: "Gosh, her hair is so shiny, I wish I looked that healthy."

I don't think linquistic idiom is of any relevance to the point.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Two token examples that still conform to highly idealized beauty standards does not change the reality that media depictions of beauty are overwhelmingly what I stated they are earlier.

Not even close. The only one that might stick is THIN.

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.

Ya - we should glorify fat people instead - because heart disease isn't the #1 KILLER IN NORTH AMERICA.

[Black Dog]

Some obsessions are not healthy of course, but the Dove campaign and its adherents aren't making these distinctions... the video doesn't show a girl dieting, it shows a girl getting a makeover, as if it is shocking or offensive that someone might improve her appearance through better grooming. A haircut and facial! Oh god! How cruel!

Some of the things women (in particular) do to attempt to conform to unrealistic beauty standards may bnot be unhealthy per se, but they are nonetheless opppressive. How much more time and money to women spend on hair, clothes, makeup etc. than men? And why? What about dieting, calorie-counting and generally obsessing over weight and apperance? These are not neccesarily unhealthy behaviours, but I'd say the motivations and psychological side effects often are.

I don't think linquistic idiom is of any relevance to the point.

I disagree. It shows that ideas of "natural beauty" (as in, what we are hard-wired to find attractive) are quite different from those pushed by the media.

Not even close. The only one that might stick is THIN.

Beyonce and Lucy Liu are no more representative of what black or Asian women look like than Heidi Klum is representative of white women.

Ya - we should glorify fat people instead - because heart disease isn't the #1 KILLER IN NORTH AMERICA.

[Figleaf]

Some of the things women (in particular) do to attempt to conform to unrealistic beauty standards may bnot be unhealthy per se, but they are nonetheless opppressive.

Nonsense -- In two respects:

(1) the standards are only 'unrealistic' for those who can't match them. Are the standards to play in the NFL "unrealistic"? Well, not for those who get there, obviously. But they are unrealistic for people without that level of athletic ability. Does that imply a problem with the standard? I don't think so.

(2) there are no laws specifying what beauty measures women must take. The claim of 'oppression' is hyperbolic bullpucky.

[Black Dog]

(1) the standards are only 'unrealistic' for those who can't match them.

Which just happens to be 99.9% of the population.

Are the standards to play in the NFL "unrealistic"? Well, not for those who get there, obviously. But they are unrealistic for people without that level of athletic ability. Does that imply a problem with the standard? I don't think so

And is the media telling people that their value as an individual is determined by their ability to make it in the NFL, that they should aspire to make it to the NFL and that if they purchase the right products and engage in the right behaviours, they too can make it to the NFL? No? Your comaprison is ridiculous.

(2) there are no laws specifying what beauty measures women must take. The claim of 'oppression' is hyperbolic bullpucky.

You're right: the billions of dollars advertisiers spend each year to promote "health and beauty" products, the constant media depiction of narrow beauty standards, the endless stream of articles on weight loss and make up tips have no effect whatsoever. They are all just throwing their money away in a futile attempt to get people to buy stuff that they aren't buying now.

Oh and oppression is only defined as state coercion. Which is why black people no longer face any problems of racism or discrimination because there's no longer any segregation laws.

[Figleaf]

...is the media telling people that their value as an individual is determined by their ability to make it in the NFL, ...

Come off it. Give me even one citation in the media that says anyone's value as a person is determined solely by their beauty.

(2) there are no laws specifying what beauty measures women must take. The claim of 'oppression' is hyperbolic bullpucky.

You're right: the billions of dollars advertisiers spend each year to promote "health and beauty" products,

Suggests that advertising is persuasive. If there were an oppressive standard that all were conforming to, advertising would be irrelevant.

... the constant media depiction of narrow beauty standards, ...

Depicting the standard is not the same a setting one.

the endless stream of articles on weight loss and make up tips have no effect whatsoever.

You're sliding your argument around. "Effect"? Sure. Oppression? No. Such a use of the term 'oppression' is an insult to the billions of people around the world who experience it for real every day.

[Black Dog]

Come off it. Give me even one citation in the media that says anyone's value as a person is determined solely by their beauty.

We're not talking about overt statements, but a clear and consistent message. Pick up your average Cosmo-esque magazine and you see that the vast majority of articles are on how to change one's physical apperance. Turn on the TV and you see nothing but skinny, young people advertising every product and starring in every program. Can you honestly say that the media doesn't send a message through what it chooses to depict and what it chooses not to?

Suggests that advertising is persuasive. If there were an oppressive standard that all were conforming to, advertising would be irrelevant.

Huh? How do you figure that?

Oh and if you're going to argue, try to stick to arguing he points that I made. i said nothing about an "oppressive standard that all were conforming to."

Depicting the standard is not the same a setting one.

Tell me this: if the media depicts the standard and plays no role in setting it, why is it that the media depiction of beauty standards can and often does contradict what people actually find attractive? Why does the media depiction of the standard change? After all, if there are universal standards, what's considered attractive now should be no different than what was considered attractive 50, 100, 200 years ago and that should be reflected in the media.

You're sliding your argument around. "Effect"? Sure. Oppression? No. Such a use of the term 'oppression' is an insult to the billions of people around the world who experience it for real every day.

Tell you what: look up "oppression" in the dictionary, then get back to me.

[Charles Anthony]

Pick up your average Cosmo-esque magazine and

You have any lying around?

Can you honestly say that the media doesn't send a message through what it chooses to depict and what it chooses not to?

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

Do you see people buying a Cosmo-esque magazine that had an ugly (by whichever standard you want to define) person on the cover?

Tell me this: if the media depicts the standard and plays no role in setting it, why is it that the media depiction of beauty standards can and often does contradict what people actually find attractive?

Easy: not every person is a worthwhile target audience.

Would you sell make-up kits to men? (I know, I know, I know, some people would.)

Would you sell anti-aging wrinkle cream to teenagers?

Would you sell anti-acne cream to old folks?

Why does the media depiction of the standard change?

People (i.e., consumers) change.

[Figleaf]

Come off it. Give me even one citation in the media that says anyone's value as a person is determined solely by their beauty.

We're not talking about overt statements, but a clear and consistent message. Pick up your average Cosmo-esque magazine and you see that the vast majority of articles are on how to change one's physical apperance.

Yes, it appears to be a topic of great interest to many consumers. So is NASCAR. What about it?

Turn on the TV and you see nothing but skinny, young people advertising every product and starring in every program.

Of course. Advertisers want our attention. And golly gee look! Darned if homosapien's attention isn't engaged by the sight of attractive homosapiens. So?

Can you honestly say that the media doesn't send a message through what it chooses to depict and what it chooses not to?

I can concede that without it affecting my position.

Suggests that advertising is persuasive. If there were an oppressive standard that all were conforming to, advertising would be irrelevant.

Huh? How do you figure that?

Why would advertisers spend millions to convince people to buy products if they were already forced through some oppressive system to buy those products?

Depicting the standard is not the same a setting one.

...why is it that the media depiction of beauty standards can and often does contradict what people actually find attractive?

I'm sorry but that question is nonsense. Which media? What standards? How can they depict a standard if its not the standard?

Why does the media depiction of the standard change?

Maybe because the standard changes? Face facts though, the standards don't change very much. Healthy, fit, and within a certain range of proportions have been overarching standards for a long time.

After all, if there are universal standards, what's considered attractive now should be no different than what was considered attractive 50, 100, 200 years ago and that should be reflected in the media.

I don't think we should expect the media to have remained the same over 50-200 years, but I'd certainly say our standards of beauty have changed little.

You're sliding your argument around. "Effect"? Sure. Oppression? No. Such a use of the term 'oppression' is an insult to the billions of people around the world who experience it for real every day.

Tell you what: look up "oppression" in the dictionary, then get back to me.

Tell you what, look up "prat" and DON'T get back to me.

[Black Dog]

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.

Do you see people buying a Cosmo-esque magazine that had an ugly (by whichever standard you want to define) person on the cover?

But that actually helps my point. By putting people of a certain type on their covers, Cosmo et al help to establish the ideas of what constitutes ugly and beautiful. Again: the media beauty standard differs greatly from what people actually find attractive (from an evolutionary standpoint), which gives lie to the idea that they merely refelct the reality of what people like.

Easy: not every person is a worthwhile target audience.

Would you sell make-up kits to men? (I know, I know, I know, some people would.)

Would you sell anti-aging wrinkle cream to teenagers?

Would you sell anti-acne cream to old folks?

Sorry, I don't know what you're getting at here. can you elaborate?

People (i.e., consumers) change.

But the argument is that beauty standards constitute an objective "truth", which makes efforts like the Dove campaign futile. If you're saying "beauty standards change and the media simply reflects that" fine (though I'd have to point out that research consistently shows that the media's representation of what constitutes beautiful, in addition to not representing realities of the population, is also at odds with people's instincts.) But that's not IMV, what some are saying.

Yes, it appears to be a topic of great interest to many consumers. So is NASCAR. What about it?

I can turn on the TV, read a magazine or newspaper and not see NASCAR. I canot do any of those things without being confronted by an unrealistic, unrepresentative and unattainable ideal of physical beauty.

Of course. Advertisers want our attention. And golly gee look! Darned if homosapien's attention isn't engaged by the sight of attractive homosapiens. So?

Circular logic. You haven't addressed how what constitutes an "attractive homosapiens" is deterimed and by what.

I can concede that without it affecting my position.

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.

Why would advertisers spend millions to convince people to buy products if they were already forced through some oppressive system to buy those products?

You're arbitrarily seperating the media images (ads) from the system. I'm saying the advertising is part of the oppressive system. It determines the standards and reinforces tham. IOW people wouldn't buy the products if the media didn't first tell them there was something wrong with them that thier product could fix.

I'm sorry but that question is nonsense. Which media? What standards? How can they depict a standard if its not the standard?

Because, again, there's two standards at work. That which we are conditioned to accept as attractive (and which is constantly reinforced by all media) and that which we instinctively find attractive. One does not preclude the other.

Maybe because the standard changes? Face facts though, the standards don't change very much. Healthy, fit, and within a certain range of proportions have been overarching standards for a long time.

Twenty years ago, the average model weighed 8 per cent less than the average woman. Today, they weigh 23 per cent less. By your logic, then, the standards of what we find attractive must have shifted considerably in that time. My questions are: why and how? If, as you claim, the media plays no part in setting beauty standards, what does? And why would a multi-billion dollar corporation like Dove spend millions on an ad campaign that is, again by your logic, destined to fail miserably due to its flouting of the rigid beauty standards of its audience?

I don't think we should expect the media to have remained the same over 50-200 years, but I'd certainly say our standards of beauty have changed little.

So there's no difference between this, this, and this?

Tell you what, look up "prat" and DON'T get back to me.

A comeback like that deserves an in-kind response.

Thanks, Kimmy.