Body image

[Blossum123]

Iv read lots on how men sterio type woman and see them as objects -I'm a size 16 in proportion but still a bigger girl.im all boobs and bum basicaly ! I don't have problems with men learing particularly although friends say I often attract admiring glances .
What I find horrible is other woman's reactions .iv been asked by work collegues if I would want to loose weight why don't i ? One even commented I would look better with a few pound off!a family member frequently comments on my boobs and would I go for a reduction ?!
It seems woman are much more hostile and negative about other woman's body's than men are . Yes some men are perving but aren't been outwardly horrible .
It's other woman that have made me feel a bit rubbish about my body at times - iv actually found the majority of men to be more respectful - iv certainly never been told I'm fat by a male collegue !

It seems woman are much more hostile and negative about other woman's body's than men are.

Women network their insecurities with other women as a mechanism for socialisation but men do not, they bury their their insecurities, even from themselves. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Both men and women will try to 'lift themselves up' at the cost of others of their own gender. For men this is pretty clear and implicit, when it happens, with women it is not. A fat girlfriend many years ago said (roughly) 'A fat woman will always have plenty of women supporting her, as long as she wants to lose weight, but god help her if she makes a habit of laughing too much while fat.'

"One even commented I would look better with a few pound off"

Maybe they are concerned for your health?

Women's bodies are viewed as public property and are therefore public business.

This attitude can be found in media attitudes towards women's bodies, reproductive health rights, tolerance towards the sex industry and in many other areas.

Attractiveness for women isn't seen as a choice, but a duty, with those who don't perform it being castigated - insults such as "mumsy" are aimed at women deemed to be failing to uphold the beauty standard.

I don't believe it's internally created, the idea that women's bodies require so much upkeep, it comes from society, a society which believes it owns women's bodies.

Apologies if that's a bit rambling.

huh?

I do find it odd when people's view of society excludes the people that it contains, as if it is itself an autonomous and malign being. It's like blaming the egg and denying the chicken that laid it. There has to be a clear link between societal norms and values and individual responses. We are all complicit!

But that's more or less what people said and you disagreed with them, monty.

You do get that you're agreeing with what (for example) rosa says? You're just using different words to do it. When she says 'women are conditioned by society' and you say 'we are all complicit,' you're making the same point.

"It is sad how women are so conditioned by society to realize that they will only be valued for their appearance."

Also nonsense because of the only.

Because of the only.... I think that's pretty clear.

Clear about what?

Look, I don't know if I'm being very stupid here, but do you know what people are getting at and disagree? Or do you just feel there's something not quite right in how they express it?

I said "Men are judging more from a sexual pov."

Rosa took time out to pick up this point specifically and answer, "Men are judging from an entirely sexual point of view". Why the entirely? Why the contradiction of my statement? What do think she's saying that you agree with? Entirely rather than more from... What's the distinction as you see it?

Secondly, why do you think only is applicable?

The general gist of it I'm fine with until it's deliberately turned into absolutes and this is then legitimised by adding some fancy turn of phrase as if it makes it all ok.

I've lost track of some of this thread

But it suits the patriarchy to have women policing each other over body image as Rosabud said

I don't see that she is contradicting you there, monty - contradicting would be saying men don't judge at all from a sexual point of view, surely?

But in any case, the post of yours I was actually talking about was this one: 'I do find it odd when people's view of society excludes the people that it contains, as if it is itself an autonomous and malign being. It's like blaming the egg and denying the chicken that laid it. There has to be a clear link between societal norms and values and individual responses. We are all complicit!'

I'm trying to say that when you say we're all complicit, that's just a fancier way of saying what rosa is saying when she says women are conditioned by society. We're all talking about the same experience: being part of society, and operating within its rules, even if we don't terribly want to do so.

Semantics. Why change more from to entirely?

Well, presumably because she feels that way?

Why are you changing the subject?

I didn't change the subject; wrt Rosa, that was something I took issue with. Why take perfectly acceptable statements and specifically state that they are the only factors. You said you agreed with her, so I'm asking you too.

The general gist is that several posters now have stated things that I generally agree with as being part of a greater dynamic. They, however, and Rosa in a very specific and deliberate way, have made out that these are the only issues. That's nonsense. I'm not disagreeing that these things exist, I'm disagreeing that they exist in isolation.

Ok then.

I think we are talking cross-purposes, because what I agree with is her statement that we're socially conditioned, which seems to me to be a rather simpler way of saying what you said, too.

I'm really confused why you imagine you're the only person who is calling attention to the fact that social factors don't exist in isolation. That is what class analysis is for, after all: it's about explaining how social structures work and interact.

Well, iro Rosa feeling it necessary to specifically say more from needed to be replaced by entirely and that women were only judged on their appearance, I am the only person stating that this was incorrect. Aren't I?

GoshAnneG also denied that there was an internal aspect to this and stated it was exclusively external, again denying individual choice and implying that we're all slaves to the duty of convention. It also suggests that 'society' only wants glamour models, for that is the complete fulfillment of said duty, anything less than that is some sort of dereliction. I'm not saying that's 100% wrong, I'm saying it's over-simplistic and avoids certain realities.

Do you see that women being socially conditioned, is the same thing as women being complicit?

Saying something is external, ie., socially produced, is not at all the same thing as denying individual choice or implying we're all slaves - it's the opposite. If it were innate in us to believe these things about women, then we would really be in the shit. But it's not. It's social conditioning, so we can fight it.

I don't think you can accuse people of being over-simplistic here - you're over-simplifying their arguments then saying what they said in fancier terms and making out you've said something different. And I don't really see that you have?

Individual choice though...

I have a history of seriously disordered eating. It's not totally about body image, but inevitably it's intertwined. One of the things that HCPs talk about in relation to how EDs start, is that (simplified) for many people it's a way to control something when they feel so many other aspects of tier lives are out of their control.

I sort of view women policing other women in the same way. It's a way of exerting power in a world where most women have relatively little opportunity to gain it, and this is "power" that is validated by the patriarchy too.

Tbh though it is almost impossible to be any shape as a woman and not find someone who will criticise you. In the end personal choice will be influenced (though no necessarily governed, and your own privilege will make a difference in terms of how much you risk by deviating from the norm in your social group) by how much of that criticism you are prepared to stomach and from what quarters.

YY, I agree with that, petula.

It's 'choice,' but heavily circumscribed and often directed in ways that perpetuate harm towards ourselves.

It reminds me of what Caitlin Moran says about how carers often over-eat rather than going for booze or drugs or other things you could use to 'self-medicate,' because over-eating only harms you, and not people you have to look after.

It's cyclical in nature. The tone is important, however, in inserting change into that relationship because those changes require to be inside the system rather than seen as outside. The cause is not helped by seeing things in terms of rules that, when broken, place women outside when they are, fact, still on the inside.

Sorry to hear that Petula.

Yes exactly, I could blether on all day about feminism and food (I should probably start a blog or something, though I bet someone else has already!)

What's cyclical in nature? And what tone?

No one things that changes aren't seen as outside the system. You have misunderstood what we're talking about, I think.

petula - do it!

*thinks, even. Guessing it's obvious but I don't want to add to the confusion on this thread!

Changing tack - I hate the way salads are always marked up so much higher in restaurants because restaurants know that women will often feel pressure to have them anyway. How can pie and mash possibly cost less than a few lettuce leaves and feta?