On the subject of apperance/being good-looking

[SolidGoldBrass]

Some people are basically better to look at than others. This is kind of a genetic accident just the same as being very clever, or very athletic.
I'm not suggesting BTW that there is any kind of absolute standard of good looks, what is regarded as a really good-looking appearance is culturally influenced, but whether what is preferred is height, thinness, fatness, light skin, dark skin, big earlobes or a sticky-out navel, these are things that some people are just born with, the same as a really powerful ability to calculate numbers, run fast or sing with perfect pitch. We can all improve to an extent on what we are born with by exercising, studying - or by the use of cosmetics, clothing etc - so what I'm wondering is whether it's maybe misguided to consider it 'unfeminist' to either pay attention to one's looks beyond the basics of being clean and tidy, or to condemn people who are 'good looking' for regarding their good looks as a workable asset in the same way that a person who is clever or musically talented or good at sports would do?

Dittany: but don't you agree that human beings have different ablities inherently? Most of us, with lots of study and practice, could manage to play a musical instrument with a degree of competence but some people can play a musical instrument with far more than just competence, and can compose music which moves and stirs and inspires others. There's not an immediately obvious evolutinary reason for having musical ability except that it makes a person more appealing to others and human beings are social animals so being appealing is a good thing...

Dittany they are the images.They are not necessarily what women aspire to. As for evolution - we are taller than we were 100 or so years ago. Go to Wordsworth's house in the Lake District - the doors are tiny. My point was that in caveman times the most attractive, healthiest women would have bred with the alpha males. Education and wit etc wouldn't have come into it. We know that we still have instincts fron cavemen - flight or fight for instance - cavemen were able to recognise whether a group of invaders were small enough to fight or so large they should run away even though they couldn't count. We are born with that instinct today.

But if that was true we wouldn't surely have such strong cultural variation would we? Being fat is considered the most attractive in some cultures, being thin in others - if it was instinctual surely that wouldn't be the case.

Also there is a wide variation in what we as individuals find attractive - for example what I find physically attractive is height, strong colouring and beards, but I suspect that is entirely my personal preference, plus the cultural/familial preference.

Finally I really have to agree with Dittany on the advertising/fashion/everything else world. Yes there is an increased presence of the "good looking and fit man" and pressure on boys to look good is increasing, but it's a mile away from the pressure on women. Just look at pretty much any magazine, film or TV show and spot the numbers of ordinary looking man compared to the ordinary looking woman. Or the size of the male cosmetic industry compared to the female, or the volume of surgery on women as opposed to men. Sure the male side is growing, and I'm sure the marketeers would love to have men as paranoid as women if it made them money, but we are a long way off yet.

I'd not condemn a good looking person purely for looking good looking though. I might feel that someone who spent hours on their appearance was vain and could spend their time more productively, or that someone who got their achievements purely through exploiting their looks as shallow.

I agree that in the culture we live in some people are born better looking than others. Obviously this is highly subjective. What I do object to is the fact that being born "ugly" for women is a huge disadvantage.

Men who are not conventionaly good looking may still go on to be successful and be judged on opinions/intelligence/performance. Women who are considered "ugly" will find it much harder to succeed, even if they do manage to gain positions of power, they will still attract lots of remarks about physical appearance (much more so than men).

It's all very depressing really. I have managed to attract a mate, but being an "ugly bird" still somehow feel like a second class member of society, also the random insults in the street don't help.

I've read that most things that our culture sees as beautiful are things which make one appear youthful and able to bear children. So there might be a biological element, yes.

Coinoperated, I'm sure that you're lovely! It makes me to hear that you feel that way about yourself.

There are lots of men in the media who are held up as sex symbols (sometimes "unlikely sex symbols", but sex symbols all the same) because of features other than their appearance: Andre Marr, Jeremy Paxman, Jarvis Cocker, Boris Johnson, Robbie Coltrane, Seth Rogan etc. Women are required to meet beauty conventions to be considered attractive.

As Coinoperated says, being born "ugly" is a huge disadvantage for women. Look at all the negativity Susan Boyle got, compared to numerous "homely" men in music. There might be the odd comment about male musicians' appearances, but exceptions like Susan Boyle who break through never esacpe scrutiny.

I do fit this society's beauty template, but have found this isn't a winning situation. There are certainly advantages, but there are downsides too. I have had numerous male colleagues say to me comments like "why are you bothering with this, you could be a model instead" or "A woman with a body like yours should be wearing skirts and heels, why are you always in trousers?". Which is essentially saying "I can't take your intellect and authority seriously, you are just.." well I'm trying to think of words other than "an object". I work in a highly male dominant environment now (surprise!), but when I worked in female dominated environments there wasn't this issue for men or women.

The indoctrination starts early: pre-teen "girl's" magazines have lipgloss giveaways, boys get toys. I used to buy lots of magazines, but I have really gone off them. They seem largely about appearance and diets. I realyy hate the idea of a "beach ready body", as if a woman who has a bit of fat, hair or pale skin shouldn't dare to enjoy the sun or sea, for fear she will be shamed by showing her imperfections. You don't see fat men covering up with sarongs, because they aren't getting a constant message that they are unworthy of being in public.

"or to condemn people who are 'good looking' for regarding their good looks as a workable asset in the same way that a person who is clever or musically talented or good at sports would do?"

The problem for me with using your good looks as a workable asset,is that for women it seems that the good looks are being used as an asset in areas where they are not relevant (ie in areas where the relevant thing is being clever,or musical,or whatever)
and that this isn't true for men.
This then leads on to the situation where it is not enough for a women to be good at what she does - she also has to look good.The flip side of this is what antionettechigur describes,women being treated as if appearance is the most important factor.These standards are not applied to men to anything like the same extent.
I don't think there are feminist implications in using ability in any area as an asset,but there are feminist implications in the whole appearance thing.

CoinOperatedGirl: no matter what you think of yourself, someone thinks you are beautiful and the person for them. And that is all that matters at the end of the day. No matter what halfwits say to you in the streets (shallow twats)

My (American) mom was visiting and thought a lot of the women journalists on British TV looked, well, normal and representative of women in the rest of the population and their attention was clearly on reporting. I honestly cannot think of any female reporters who appear to have been hired solely for their looks as they need to be competent.

what i find weird is how different people treat you acco9rding to looks

when i've got nice clothes on, and have done my hair and maybe wearing a little make up[nude lipgloss mascara]
i get treated really nicely, people hold doors open for me smile at me and are genally nice to me.

if i was being a bit trampy,hair scraped back, glasses on instead of my usual contacts, scruffy clothes.
i get ignored, people let doors slam on me etc

the difference in the way i'm treated is amazing.

yet i'm still the same person

so what does that tell you?

Very true CarrieDaBabi. I have a wanker neighbour who tries to come on to me on the rare occasions when I conform to the patriarchy put on a skirt and some make up. He can't understand why I don't try to look fuckable make an effort all the time.

He looks put out when I tell him that the answer is because I couldn't give a shit and doesn't understand why I am not flattered by his attentions.

oh no, you have to live next door to this arsehole.

its really pisses me off actually

Mind you, sometimes it's worth ignoring what is said in the media and just observing the people you pass in the street, the majority of who (unless I live in complete Uglytown) are fairly ordinary looking and yet seem to be content enough and going about their business, often obviously with a partner.

Dittany you said:

"In fact what the beauty standard actually asks for is a plasticised doll - you only have to look at what they do with airbrushing now to see that. A lot of these images of women now don't actually resemble any human woman any more, including the original woman in the image herself."

Which reminds me of this video which shows exactly what you are talking about.

For those of you who think that there isn't a disproportionate pressure on women to look/dress a certain way then I challenge you to read The Beauty Myth and Living Dolls - and then come back and let us know if you have changed your mind.

Reading the above books and starting to research Feminism is rapidly opening my eyes.

I am trying to look at what I am doing because society expects it v what I am doing because I have decided to do it.

I recently attended a social function and a wedding and wore the same dress to both which was the same dress I had worn to the same social function last year (annual dinner) and to a wedding with the same friends group as last year.

The dress is fab, I changed the accessories - I don't want to spend out extra £ at the moment. Guess what my DH wore the same suit - and a different shirt and tie. Society expects women to buy new outfits all the time.

Interesting what the poster said about being treated differently depending on dress/makeup - this happens for me - but I think it is due to other vibes I give off when ungroomed - these are vibes that say - "don't talk to me/I know I look shit/I feel shit/I can't be bothered myself" I reckon my eyecontact and body posture changes etc.

tabouleh Yes! The pressure to have more/new clothes for each occasion is so weird, isn't it? And entirely gendered. Men basically have a 'uniform' (suit, black tie, whatever) which they can re-use. Women are expected to pay some attention to fashion or whatever.

Interesting what you say about the vibes you give off when you're groomed vs not - I think that the sheer fact of dressing up vs dressing normally is supposed to give off the vibe. I'm not sure people are reacting to how I'm feeling as much has how they think they want me to react, if that makes sense?

For example, I've noticed that, despite perhaps wanting to dress fancy 'for me' - if I'm dressed up some people perceive that I've done it to get attention, specifically male attention, and therefore they think it's open season to make comments, call out at me, etc. My default outfit (jeans, shirt) isn't one that says 'don't pay me attention' so much as 'I'm not a nudist and these clothes are practical' - but for some reason a dress or skirt, or even some makeup, is interpreted as 'I do this to please others, specifically men, so please do tell me you're pleased.'

I don't understand the question what has apperance to do with being feminist or not.

I know there is a preconception that feminists don't wear make up and stuff but I've never considered it to be a move of defiance against the view of how a women should look but more a show of confidence the women is confident she don't need make up to get somewhere in this life or don't care what others think of her.

I wear big baggy mens tee (I like Manga and Anime and they only do those Tee's for men) and jeans most of the time and go out with minimal make up most of the time sometimes no make up or cake myself in it if I want to feel special, I've never really cared what other people think of me, I have my own style and like to look good within that style because it makes me feel good about myself.

Plenty of men are the same and it wasn't that long ago that men where the ones caked in make up, some still are today and I have no problem with them, if I see a Emo with his nails painted and some lip gloss on I just think he's a guy who cares about his apperence and whats to show it.

Body shape is different it's all in the eyes of the beholder the fashion industry use twigs because the dresses hang off em like coat hangers show casing the dress and they can put them on any model that walks in the door because they are all the same shape, celebrity has made a body shape that is practical for an industry into a thing of desire and envy of some women but 9 out of 10 guys still prefer the Rubenesque figure they always have.

This was the question
"so what I'm wondering is whether it's maybe misguided to consider it 'unfeminist' to either pay attention to one's looks beyond the basics of being clean and tidy, or to condemn people who are 'good looking' for regarding their good looks as a workable asset in the same way that a person who is clever or musically talented or good at sports would do?"

I don't think it's unfair to use how you look to your advantage - your erotic capital as they call it. Some men and women are better at that than others and some have none anyway.

If you've nothing to prove which I haven't really as I'm successful etc then how I dress is up to me and I certainly don't waste too much time on it - I'm English not American but I think I look quite good or good enough for me. I could do what I do in flat shoes and dungarees if I chose to but I like to play the game I suppose. It's fun.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNmBauXYzgc&feature=related

i can honestly say i do not give off different types when dressed scruffy.

i make eye contact and smile etc, but those smiles are not returned, unless i look nice.....

Smallwhitecat, that's not entirely true, there have been lots of cultures where men are expected to undergo scarification/tattooing/piercing etc, all of which are painful and can carry health risks. And I'm sure I read somewhere about at least one culture where men are supposed to have small pebbles sewn into their cocks to improve sexual sensation.

"I don't understand the question what has apperance to do with being feminist or not"

I think it's a feminist issue that women have to be attractive to succeed in almost any business! Men don't have to be (though of course it helps, it doesn't arrest their career development).

It is a feminist issue that the media targets women far more than men telling them they have to live up to unattainable beauty standards or go through painful procedures (from heels to surgery) to achieve this 'normal' standard. Tabouleh's link was amazing.