From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:34:11 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <BzoFx7.1zs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>
>>>In article <Bzo75G.LBB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>>I note that my mother appears younger than she is; and she once
>>>>got in trouble, on a bus, when an angry driver refused to believe that
>>>>she was over 65. I do think the driver's reaction was sincere, even
>>>>though he was a man.
>>
>>>	It happens, especially in interactions that last a 
>>>	short time.  However, it doesn't last more than about
>>>	5 or 6 minutes.  
>>
>>I know I was mistaken about my friend, Eugenia's, age for a long time --
>>until she told me. We are about the same age, but we each thought the
>>other was considerably younger.
>>
>>I note that neither one of us uses alcohol or tobacco, or wears makeup;
>>and we are both of Eastern, not Western, European ancestry. I suspect
>>some of these factors may be relevant. 


>	I, myself, cannot adequately judge the age of most asians
>	(that is, east-asians but also SE asians).  This is due, primarily,
>	at lack of exposure.  I can easily judge the age of most caucasians
>	and blacks, thanks to exposure.  I have asian friends who can't
>	judge any better than me because they grew up in predominantly
>	white suburbs (w/o asian grandparents, etc..).  OTOH, I know asians
>	who can peg asians without any difficulty whatsoever.

>	So if you think ethnicity has something to do with it, you may
>	have something, but I think it's also a matter of learning
>	what the signs are.

I think I would know the signs for people of my own ethnicity, as
well as for Anglo-Saxons. 

>>>	Sure it was.  If they valued other things more, well, that
>>>	was then this is now and whatever.  Appearance is not 
>>>	"overvalued" it is simply valued higher than other things
>>>	(like "cooking skill" and "child rearing skill").  Would
>>>	you prefer one of these others valued highest?
>>
>>I would prefer that human attributes be valued in the contexts in which
>>they are relevant. I think nowadays there are a great many women living
>>in fear that their appearance doesn't measure up to some unrealistic
>>standard; and living in this fear to the point where they can no longer
>>take any sincere delight in their bodies. Yes, I would say that this
>>is overvaluing appearance. (And if you have any doubt women live like
>>this, or, at least, are encouraged to live like this, read Redbook...)

>	Blha blah blah.  Men have *exactly* the same fear.  "Are my
>	breasts too small?" "Is my penis too small?" "Am I too fat?"
>	"Am I too fat?" (harder for men, BTW, since women canbe fleshy--
>	men are supposed to be *hard* which cannot be accomplished
>	just by dieting) "Is my nose too big?" (both) blah blah..

Of course men have the same fears. Does this make such fears OK?

By the way, my father's untimely death was in part caused by attempts
to achieve a standard weight...
 
>>If thirty years ago, women had less fear that their appearance wasn't
>>perfect, and more fear that their *homes* weren't perfect, this was
>>not an *improvement*. But it was an example of how things can change. 

>	I think it was.  A woman does not *have* to submit to judgement
>	by appearance, while if she could not keep an adequate home,
>	she was liable to be divorced (with no alternate means of 
>	support, other than leeching). 

A woman might be divorced (then or now) if she does not keep an adequate
standard of appearance. And many women nowadays are still in situations
where their economic options are extremely limited.

Of course much of this, then or now, is the fault of the individual 
woman. But part of feminism *is* educating women to take advantage of
options the society does offer them. In particular, I think that even
women who plan on being homemakers should have other job skills, so
they are not too economically dependent.

>>And by the way, I think child rearing skill is always important,
>>and should always be valued, in both men and women. If our society 
>>regards this skill as unimportant, it does not say much for our society...

>	So do I, which is why it saddens me that so many people are having
>	children for the novelty or it, or because of ignorance, and then
>	raising children who are not civilized (no manners, no self
>	control, rude, illiterate).  Childen are a *privelage* IMHO
>	and not a "right".

We are certainly in agreement on this. (I recently posted on this
subject on soc.feminism.)

>me>	What is most valued in a man?  Looks, probably.  After
>me>	that, probably money-making ability.  Yeah, this makes me
>me>	feel all warm and happy inside.
>me>	Tough.

>	Failed to contrast this with the above, huh.  Well, I'm,
>	no Rutger Hauer, so I sometimes feel inadequate.  But you
>	don't see me blaming this on the media or on some evil
>	conspiracy of women.  I do not think physical appearance is
>	"over valued"it is simply valued higher than some of my 
>	stronger qualities.

>	A long time ago a man who was a romantic was highly valued,
>	and now--for most real encounters--a man who is a romantc
>	==wimp, loser, dateless wonder (unless he scrapes the bottom
>	of the bucket).

I also think it unfortunate that romanticism is not highly valued.

I find your language "scraping the bottom of the bucket" -- to be a
very disturbing way to refer to other humans. Particularly, there
are men who will use "the bottom of the bucket" to refer to women,
mostly on the basis of their appearance. In other words, Golda Meir
is the bottom of the bucket; Vanna White is not. I will do you the
credit of not assuming you are using the expression in this manner.
But I do wish you would make yourself more clear. 

>	In other words, I don't much care if women think there's
>	too much pressure to be attractive.  Men get the same thing--
>	or worse (we get it from other men morethan women get it from
>	other women) and I don't see women doing anything about it or
>	even putting forth suggestions that might change the reality
>	for either side.  (Not that I think it's possible)

A valid suggestion; and it certainly *is* possible.

>>>	Shifting priorities.  You'll find, however--all through
>>>	time that physical appearance has always been valued extremely
>>>	highly.  Sure, it would do no good to marry a lowly peasant, but
>>>	s/he'll make a great bedwarmer.  How many bastards did these
>>>	noblemen father?  How many illegitimate children did these
>>>	noblewomen bear?  Quite a few.
>>
>>I did not say that physical apparance was ever *not* valued; I did
>>say that there have been societies in which it was valued less than
>>it is in ours. In many of these societies, noblemen had many lowly-born
>>mistresses, but they didn't feel any social pressure to choose mistresses
>>who met a particular standard of beauty (as opposed to women they
>>personally wanted to go to bed with). For example, Czar Peter III's
>>publicly acknowledged mistress was a hunchback.

>	Come on, why would you choose a _mistress_ for anything other
>	than beauty?  Get real.  These noblemen (with few exceptions) 
>	chose the good looking bed-tiger, and the noblewomen (when they
>	could, which was often) chose the muscle-studs.  The fact
>	that you can point out a famous exception is irrelavent--
>	let's stick to reality.  If they wanted conversation, they
>	could talk to anyone.

>>By the way, do you realize how many men there are in this culture, who
>>have the attitude, "Sure, it would do no good to marry a lowly fat girl,
>>but she'll make a great bedwarmer!" 

>	I sure do.  But I would point out that the reason they choose 
>	that way is because the "lowly fat girl" is what men generally call
>	an easy fuck or a "low maintainance girlfriend"--say a few nice things
>	and act like you care for easy sex.  Hell, I know more women who
>	do that than men, as a matter of fact.  

You seem to be saying, that sexual attraction is only in proportion to
beauty. I don't think so; if this were true, we would all be sleeping
with 15-year-old Mexican schoolgirls, or snow leopards.

Your argument does not apply to my own sexual fantasies, the ones
I know most well. But I may be more perceptive about the character,
and sensuality, of individuals I come in contact with than many people.
I could not imagine being perceptive about these things, and having
much else determine your fantasies.

But beyond the obvious reasons why what you say is not the case, there are
more subtle reasons. That is, that the trivial things that
determine sexual attraction -- not the important things about their
character, but the details -- come from our unconscious. They are partly
determined by what the culture values, and partly determined by
our individual experiences. For example, a man may be more attracted to
a woman who reminds him of his female relatives (in one case I know,
who reminded him of his grandmother!). I suspect Peter III was
particularly attracted to Elizabeth Vorontsova because she *was* 
a hunchback. She was uneducated and coarse, and certainly not as good
a conversationalist as his wife, who eventually became Catherine II. 

For more expert information on human sexual fantasies, I suggest
you post to alt.sex for individual accounts, and written references.

>	My sister used to date this guy for a year and a half because
>	he was easy sex. Whenever he would start talking she would just
>	tell him to shut up.  "He'll do for now"

I am sorry those you love have such values. (I have a sister whose
values I am uncomfortable with too.) 

>	None of this dispells the "sex appeal value" argument--
>	ask these people if they would dump their current BF/GF 
>	for supermodel/movie star X and they'll mostly say, "in
>	a second."

I don't think this comment would apply to *any* of my friends. Of course
I'm 43; I'm sure when I was 23 I had less mature friends.

>>P.S. Do you think it is acceptable to choose a candidate for a 
>>technical position, based on physical appearance? If you were

>	*I* do not think it is acceptable.  OTOH, I think it's
>	even less acceptable to try and dictate--through law or
>	subversion (boycotts, protests)--who a private employer
>	should choose for *any* position.

Why are boycotts unacceptable? They are just another exercise of the
free marketplace. (Do you find the Montgomery bus boycott
unacceptable?)

>>on a committee to evaluate job candidates, and one of the other
>>members of the committee said, "Don't hire that woman, she's
>>a dog!" what would you do?

>	I would probably start wondering about my own job safety.
>	Other than that, unless I had a personal interest in 
>	this woman getting the job, I would probably ignore it 
>	and cast my vote how I felt about her competence.  To *me*
>	ability is all that counts, but I am not about to suggest
>	that my criteria is relavent to the example.  Is this woman
>	supposed to take clients out to dinner, make presentations, 
>	whatever?  Then I *would* consider looks, because they *matter*
>	in those circumstances.

I was not talking about such an example. I was talking about highly
technical positions.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism