The fuel of a million rationalization hamsters
From Feministing:
I understand that Western society needs to understand that the average woman is a size 16, not between a size 4 and 12, and it is absolutely absurd that the fashion industry continues to dismiss the majority of women by employing “plus-size” models that are, in actuality, smaller than the average woman, and relegating women’s clothing over a size 12 to specialty “plus-size” stores, meaning that most women cannot shop in “regular” stores. And that is absolute bullshit.
Here’s where the problem in the argument starts: using clothing sizes instead of BMI. While the BMI calculations are far from perfect, they are a better proxy than clothing size to describe a woman’s general fitness. BMI is absolute and objectively defined (though it is itself a subjective metric). Clothing size, however, is variable, subjectively defined, and is also a subjective metric. The actual fit of, say, a size 14 pair of jeans will vary from brand to brand. As such, trying to make a comparative argument based on an inherently shifty definition is either stupid, ignorant, or dishonest.
However, other parts of the message promoted by this image are EXTREMELY problematic. First of all, it kind of seems to be promoting the idea to women that it’s okay to be a little bit bigger than your “ideal” size because men are okay with it. I’m sorry, did I miss the meeting where we decided that men get a say in how women feel about their bodies? ‘Cause I’m not on board. My confidence in my body will NOT depend on whether on [sic] not the majority of dudes think I’m fuckable. [Ed.—Because she’s a lesbian.]
If women want to allow third parties (men or women) to determine their attractiveness, what is that to anyone else? One can allow my as much of one’s happiness and self-image to be externally derived as one so desire. Since there is some variance in the definition of attraction, this chart is actually providing a good service by providing examples of what various parties find attractive. Thus, depending on who women want to impress, they can easily select an appropriate model. Anyhow, it matters not that the author of this putrid fat-shaming shaming does not share in other women’s desire to allow other men to decide their attractiveness, because once you decide to attract someone you will by definition attempt to conform to their standards of attractiveness.
Second, putting aside the dress sizes of these women for a moment, all three of these women fit conventional Western beauty norms. Long hair (windblown, too!), clear skin, no body hair, no cellulite, no wrinkles…and it appears as if all of their breast-waist-hip ratios fit the so-called ideal. Note that on the size 16 model, her waist is noticeably narrower than her hips, and her breasts stick out much more than her stomach. As one Facebook commenter astutely pointed out: “I actually think they’re all beautiful – and I don’t think that EVERYONE’s beautiful.” My point exactly.
I’m don’t know enough about larger women’s sizes, so I’m not actually sure that the rightmost model is actually a size 16. She does appear to be pushing the edge of a healthy BMI (for women, the healthy range is basically 19-26). I would guess that her BMI is between 26 and 28, which is the beginning of unhealthy territory.
Anyhow, one can still be on the heavier side and still have an ideal hips-to-waist ration, clear skin, long hair, etc. and still be relatively beautiful. But if one is heavy but has all the other general marks of beauty, her sex rank would improve if she lost weight.
But yes, the more general point that even the models are too beautiful to be average is correct. And it also indicates the logical conclusion of feminism’s attempt at fat norming: ugliness norming. If you want to say that it’s acceptable to be overweight and that everyone should love you and your triple chin, then you have to take that argument to its logical conclusion and say that everyone should love you and your buckteeth, hairy warts, small asymmetric breasts, etc. Really then, society’s buttress against fat-norming is crucial because it is the first line of defense against the normalization of ugliness.
This leads me to my third point: the largest woman in this picture is only the (American, I’m assuming) NATIONAL AVERAGE. Which means that a large percentage of the population is bigger than the woman on the right. What about those women? They’re not “ideal” nor “average” and therefore they are left out of the conversation? There are beautiful size 18, size 20, size 24 and beyond women. But we cannot talk about that because then we’d be forced to admit that women CAN be beautiful AND fat. Because, guess what–some women ARE fat. And that’s fine. And that’s beautiful. But this photo, like most of our conversations about body image and body acceptance, refuses to go there. And that’s a problem.
What’s overlooked in this debate is the social benefits of fat-shaming. Now that the US has universal health care, and given that fatties tend to have more health problems and higher health costs, it behooves society as a whole to shame the fatties for being overweight because if society fails to do this, healthcare will eat more and more of the federal budget and impose increasing costs on the taxpayers. Given that health care is now a national issue, and given that a sizeable portion of aggregate health costs come from the overweight, fat shaming is no longer the patriarchy’s way of keeping women down; it’s now every American’s patriotic duty. And if fat shaming happens to increase aggregate beauty, then that’s just a bonus.
My fourth and final point is that while this photo does open up the discussion around “average”/”plus-size” women’s beauty, it also opens up a space to critique the bodies of women who fall into the size-8-and-below category. One commenter explicitly said, “I would NOT want to look like the chick on the left.” That’s totally fine–I don’t want to look like someone that’s not me either–but the implication is that she looks sickly, she’s unattractive, she’s anorexic, she’s not a “real” woman because “real women have curves” or whatever. I am not trying to suggest here that the positive body image movement (or whatever you want to call it) is like “reverse fat shaming” or anything ridiculous like that.
With a few minor exceptions, the only people who shame skinny women are (wait for it…) women who do not happen to be skinny. While anorexic women do not tend to be absolutely attractive,* they are certainly preferable to land whales. Also, note that skinny-shaming is something generally undertaken by the matriarchy.
Anyway, this photo should NOT be used as an excuse to tell any woman that she is not real or that her body is somehow offending those attempting to cultivate positive body image. A woman’s confidence in her own body should not come about comparatively–whether it’s comparing her body to the national average, to what men deem fuckable, or to what other women’s bodies look like. And keep in mind what I said earlier–all of the women in this photo fit OTHER standards of beauty. The woman on the left is conventionally attractive in ways that other skinny/thin women are not. Also, she is quite tall, so she is much thinner than most women who fit into the size 4 to 8 category (I doubt this was an accident–the taller she is, the skinnier and more “sickly” a size 4 to 8 looks). Not that I am suggesting that this is a problem–she is beautiful. The message is not.
And here’s how you can tell that this attempt at fat- and ugly-norming is nothing more than an exercise session for an underworked rationalization hamster: the concluding paragraph concludes by contradicting the entire post.
First note, however that some standard of beauty has to be met. The standard can be set by men, by other women, or by oneself. The standard can be comprised of weight, hair length, hair color, eye color, skin color, hip-to-waist ratio, and so on, or the standard can be that beauty doesn’t matter. No matter what the decision is, no matter who the judge is, there will be some form of judgment about one’s beauty. The only question is: who will be the judge and what is the standard? There will be some answer, even if the answer is “me and none.”
Getting back to the assertion that the writer of the quoted article contradicts herself, note the penultimate sentence: “Not that I am suggesting that this is a problem–she is beautiful” (emphasis added). To paraphrase an expert on the subject, I’m sorry, did I miss the meeting where we decided that a lesbian feminist gets a say in how women feel about their bodies? ‘Cause I’m not on board. Women’s confidence in their bodies will NOT depend on whether or not some feminist lesbian thinks they’re beautiful.
Ultimately, the lesson to be taken from this feminist lesbian is that even the most hardcore feminists judge women’s looks and beauty. Sometimes even when condemning others for doing that very thing.
* Note: for this article, it is assumed that a) beauty is subjective, b) relative, and c) correlates with markers of health and fitness.
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
The woman on the left a.) is probably a size 0- 2 and b.) much more prototypical of her size in terms of overall beauty than is the supposed size 16 on the far right. IOW, the chick on the left isn’t as far from the average hotness for her size as is the 16 who is way better looking than most 16′s. They threw up a ringer there on the right and thought we wouldn’t notice. If that woman is a size 16, she was born to be a 16. Problem is, most women who are currently 16′s aren’t meant to be 16′s. It’s like throwing a set of 20s on a Honda Civic.
The positive thing is that a feminist lesbian can’t propagate her genes!
“I understand that Western society needs to understand that the average woman is a size 16, not between a size 4 and 12, and it is absolutely absurd that the fashion industry continues to dismiss the majority of women by employing “plus-size” models that are, in actuality, smaller than the average woman, and relegating women’s clothing over a size 12 to specialty “plus-size” stores, meaning that most women cannot shop in “regular” stores. And that is absolute bullshit.”
lol @ too long sentence
lol if most women had to shop in ‘plus-size’ stores then ‘plus-size’ stores would BECOME regular stores due to their meeting the much greater demand
lol fatass feminist logic fail
“I’m sorry, did I miss the meeting where we decided that men get a say in how women feel about their bodies?”
lol no men have a say in how THEY feel about women’s bodies, not in how women feel about their own bodies
lol stupid feminists.
If that woman is a size 16, she was born to be a 16. Problem is, most women who are currently 16′s aren’t meant to be 16′s. It’s like throwing a set of 20s on a Honda Civic.
I agree 100%.
“There are beautiful size 18, size 20, size 24 and beyond women. But we cannot talk about that because then we’d be forced to admit that women CAN be beautiful AND fat.”
lol no we CHOOSE not to talk about and look at women that fat because of the truth that women CANNOT be beautiful and fat
lololololol @ fat feminists thinking they are ‘beautiful’
lol the comments on the piece, like on every feminist piece, are hilarious
“Coming from a woman being made invisible by this “real woman” BS”
lol i don’t think fat women have to worry about becoming ‘invisible’
“believing that men holding an ideal of what is beautiful means they ascribe it to ‘fuckability’ is very dismissive, by the same token a man can’t admire the beauty of the subject of a painting without wanting to stick their penis in the canvas.”
hahaha women = paintings
“The middle one is NOT a size 12. She looks more like a 4, and the one on the left is a 0 or 2.The middle one is NOT a size 12. She looks more like a 4, and the one on the left is a 0 or 2.”
hahha
feministing isn’t always that bad, they’re pretty stupid but there are worse places.
“Ultimately, the lesson to be taken from this feminist lesbian is that even the most hardcore feminists judge women’s looks and beauty. Sometimes even when condemning others for doing that very thing.”
Feminist don’t understand that even when judging something positively, it’s still being judged which in their own words is wrong.
Silly fat chicks.
BMI 18-22, H:W .66, symmetry, long hair, age 17-24. Open a Playboy or a Penthouse and it’s right there.
Period. Full stop.
Dress size means nada, fuckall. Fashionista/gay men’s image of female beauty as scrawny pre-teen boy heroin addict means nothing. Lesbofeminist or hipster/malefeminist/bootlicker/fat fetishist image as short-haired pimply landwhale ain’t it either.
When short, chubby, balding nerds become attractive to average women, pigs will fly.
It’s interesting how concerned these women seem to be about my opinion on their fatasses, or the opinions of others like me, while also declaring that “ONLY THEY should have a say in how beautiful they are.”
If I think you’re a fugly fatass then I think you’re a fugly fatass. If you think I’m a scrawny douche then you think I’m a scrawny douche. Oh well. Life moves on.
“You can’t tell me what to do!” When a woman says that, it means ‘you have not succeeded in telling me what to do.’ It’s a value judgement against men who don’t impress (their needs on) women. Women want to be told what to do by the right man and scold when that doesn’t happen.
Run, hamster, run!!
Honestly I don’t know why you guys bother with these ridiculous women.
Maybe it’s simply to provide some entertainment for us, in which case I thank you.
hahaha,
let’ throw their crap back at ‘em…
the average man-makes less than 100k per year….
the average man is less than 6 ft tall…
the average man….
oh, wait feminism doesn’t care-don’chya know the only value of a man is his utility to women, men, his country…..
The girl on the left looks unhealthy and unattractive. The whole anorexic thing is driven by females who focus on “fatness” rather than “fitness” as the primary goal. It’s driven by the prevalence of homosexuals in the fashion industry who prefer women who look like young boys. It’s driven by peer pressure from other women.
It’s driven by everything but heterosexual males in the real world.
The girl on the right is such a misnomer. How many “big” girls in America are actually what this woman is? She’s sort of big-framed but evidently fit and sporty. If you were to subtract the muscle from that girl, she would probably look like the girl on the left. It’s not like foreigners mock American girls for being hearty ass-kicking Amazons. They’re mocking them for being fat, as in out-of-shape, as in slovenly.
I’m totally on board with shaming the fatties, but they do have a point.
When your entire fashion industry is run by gay men, it’s no wonder that their exemplars of female beauty all look like twinks.
The woman on the right is not really fat- no double chin, no “mushroom top” or overhanging fat anywhere on her body. One dead giveaway is the arms, and even this girl has relatively toned arms. But women point to someone like her and use it as a justification to put on an extra 30-50 lbs of sloppy fat and think we should just be OK with it because “not all women were meant to be thin…see, she looks good and she’s not skinny!” The difference is she’s also not carrying an extra 50lbs of jiggly fat rolls on her- she is thick but proportional for her frame. No one wants to see an overhanging gut on their woman unless they are a fat fetishist.
That feminist writer is just angry that the men’s ideal is so much closer to reality than the women’s ideal. Yet another way men are more realistic than feminists.
“When short, chubby, balding nerds become attractive to average women, pigs will fly.”
Exactamundo. I’d bet that this same feminist would fly into an absolute rage if you suggested to her that she should find all kinds of men attractive.
“feministing isn’t always that bad, they’re pretty stupid but there are worse places.”
One can only shudder to think….
I think I’d rather have the one on the right than the one on the left. But were left girl to put on some muscle…
It’s amusing because I cannot imagine any of the Feministing posters look in the mirror and are truly pleased by what they see. I’d bet money that hooked up to lie detector, they’re only propogating BS on that site.
If a woman doesn’t mind an “extra” 20lbs, cool. At least that’s not likely to give her diabetes or inflame her joints. But you add 60+… that’s not just repulsive, it’s putting them in an early grave.
“One can only shudder to think….”
jezebel, radfem hub, etc.
“But you add 60+… that’s not just repulsive, it’s putting them in an early grave.”
THEN WE SHOULD BE THIN-SHAMING FEMINISTS WHO AREN’T ALREADY FAT
Hey you know what-
They are free to feel as beautiful as they want while being as fat as they want
It aint gonna make men want to bone them.
Feminist mental masturbation
That far right one IS NO WAY average, well not without a ton of photoshop, there would be a lot more loose looking skin.
And you’re right, the middle is pretty damn ideal for me.
“Exactamundo. I’d bet that this same feminist would fly into an absolute rage if you suggested to her that she should find all kinds of men attractive.”
Funny that you say that–just google Nice Guys (TM) and see how Amandagon xXxpress and the Tiger (Woods) Beatdown hatecrew love to make fun of guys with poor social skills. Couldn’t get laid in high school, get nervous asking women out? It’s cause your a misogynist dirtbag with patriarchical privileges don’chya know….
Then look at how all the male feminists like Fatrelle and Yugo Schwanz-Hertz-Her jump onto the bandwagon. Our crazy “friend” Advocatus Diablo might be able to explain the psychology behind that one. Probably similar to the White Nationalists and tough guy manosphere rightwingers who vote republican thinking the wealthy will throw them some bones if they “play by their rules.”
I really couldn’t care less what is “average” or what others think. If I’m the one choosing – and I am – I will select the woman I find attractive. It is as simple as that. And I do not find the “hungry hippos” attractive – case closed… End of discussion.
Heh.
I just got banned over at No Seriously What about Teh Menz for comments I made in the comments section (which I did not link directly to NOR reference) of another blog entirely whereby I compared in ONE comment Roseanne Barr to a whale, whilst otherwise defending a feminist from charges she was downright ugly ( I basically said that the feminist looked alright sexually to me).
This thread would cause their heads to explode.
I don’t even agree with fat shaming, but you know what? It’s the right of every man to have his own standards and comment on said standards amongst himself and his friends and that means that things (such as extreme weight) that the majority of men don’t find attractive will continue to be talked about in not so nice ways no matter how kind we may be to any fat women friends whom we have no interest in banging.
Clarence,
anyone who gets called a “creep” by Amanhater Marcotte is alright by me….
Congrats at being banned….
y’know what they say “Well behaved men rarely make history.”
“No, it’s time for other people to be so concerned about my fat ass – oops, I mean, “my health”.
Every. Single. Time. There is something positive said about fat – or even slightly “overweight” – women, the Concern Trolls come in with “She can’t possibly be healthy.” First of all, the concept of health is relative. It is ableist to impose *your* concept of health onto someone else, let alone a perfect stranger from whom you are not getting paid to do so. Secondly, if that person is unhealthy, what business is it of anyone else? Then Concern Troll says, “But healthcare costs! But higher food prices!” Why is more “feminist” to be up in arms about politicians debating healthcare costs for contraception and abortion, but not about people debating healthcare costs for fat people? Why is not okay to say, “I don’t want to pay higher insurance costs for someone else’s birth control” but it’s okay to say “I don’t want to pay higher insurance costs for someone else’s fat”?”
From the comments at Feminasty… I can’t believe that they’re actually this stupid. Health is a relative, socially constructed concept? Check. Our society should fund people’s choices, no matter how destructive they are to society as a whole? Check. Da fuq is wrong mit diese Bitches?
Attractiveness of women is heavily depending on their feminine gender specifications and female sexual characteristics. However as you mentioned feminists are generalizing ugliness and fat.
http://spiritofnature99.blogspot.com/
The one on the right may have the national average fatness – but the average woman has it on her stomach and thighs, while the one on the right has it on her breasts and buttocks. They are all three fine women, while the national average is not fine.
Once upon a time fashion show organizers got rid of the size zero models to lessen pressure on women to be thin and they applauded themselves for being wonderful and empowering. Then the next show the size zero models were back because that is what the audience wanted.
“Wahh! The clothing stores perpetuate self-esteem destroying steriotypes!”
Talk about first-world problems. Don’t these people have any concerns at all beyond shopping and eating?
«The one on the right may have the national average fatness»
This whole article is based on a clever and disingenuous confusions between average BMI/size and the BMI/size of the average woman.
Because it can well happen that the BMI/size of the average woman is above or below average BMI/size.
Because first is an arithmetic property: if the say that the range of non-outlier BMIs/sizes is between size 6 and size 20, then the average BMI/size is that of size 13 (assuming a linear scale).
It is a bit like grades: if the range is A, B and C, the average grade is B, arithmetically, but the average grade of a class can, statistically, well be A or C.
It is like beauty: humans seem to have an absolute standard of beauty, and it can well happen that the average man in a group have below average looks.
Some properties can be only defined statistically, but some others are set over a given range, and BMI/size is one of the latter. Height and weight can only be defined purely statistically, but BMI is a combination, and it essentially defines a body shape, and to a human eye body shapes have a definite absolute range.
As long as the woman in question is athletic and isn’t round, I have no problem with her being bigger. In fact, the best sex I’ve ever had was with an amazonian 6’1″, 200 lb former volleyball player. Skin like Sheamus, arms and legs like Artemis, breasts and hips like Serena, libido like a porn star and culinary skills like Julia Child. If she had continued working out at levels to match her appetite, she would have been a keeper. Instead, she “told” me that I had to buy her a new wardrobe because her old clothes didn’t fit anymore. Of course, that was my cue to split.
Anyway, as said repeatedly in this thread, the people (women) who complain the most about fat shaming are the women with the worst eating/exercise habits imaginable. That, all by itself, is enough to make their assertions irrelevant. Shaming an aerobics enthusiast who can’t get rid of her “pooch” is obnoxious, but I’m not going to be the idiot to tell a woman who hasn’t seen her feet since she started having periods that she’s “beautiful” or “just right as you are”. She’s a lazy, stinking mooching fatty fat fat fat and she deserves to hear it every day.
Like I tell people who come at me with that bullshit: if being fat is so “natural”, where are all of the obese Ethiopians? When Europeans arrived in the New World, why didn’t they tell tales of the “gluttonous” inhabitants (the natives were farmers, you’d think that at least 10% of them would have broken the 100Kg mark?) Even the sub-Saharan bride fatteners detailed their means to make the women “marriage-worthy”(namely, restricting their movement and feeding them 5+ meals a day of starches and milk products, and even post-fattening those women would shed weight post-birth.) GTFOOH with that “I can’t help it, I have a naturally low metabolism”, tripe.
Looking at those pictures the sizes weren’t adding up. She said that she was guessing the “national average” must mean USA, but I googled a conversion chart and my guess is that those girls’ sizes are British, maybe that’s just my inner-nerd coming out. An American size 2 is a British size 6, so the 4-8 would be 0-4 (a girl’s ideal), British size 12 is American 8, and a 16 is a 12.
{ 2 trackbacks }