From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Summary: Nellan Is Thirsty 
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:48:44 GMT

In article <Bzq3H1.5Dn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>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:
	[age determination deleted]

>>	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?


	Yes, that is precisely what it does.  Every person has 
	these fears -- people who feel them are not freaks.


>>	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. 

	Men too, but I think the incidence of both is pretty low.


>And many women nowadays are still in situations
>where their economic options are extremely limited.


	Want to back this one up?  None of that $.69/$1, please,
	as we all know the validity of *that* statistic.


>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.


	Agreed, although I think we're seeing the twilight of the
	homemaker.  We might see a shift to temporary homemakers
	(stay out of work or work at home for 5 to 10 years to
	raise the children) in both sexes, but it's become increasingly
	necessary (almost a necessity--even for the upper middle class)
	to have two income families.


>>	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 it a bit more disturbing that certain kinds of
	romanticism are still held on to, even if no man can live 
	up to them.

>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 the usage I intended, "scraping the bottom of the
	bucket" refers to picking someone for utilitarian purposes
	because they're easy to get, manipulate and dispose of.  This
	may seem tied to physical appearance because "unattractive"
	people value themselves poorly and thus make themselves into
	this kind of target, but I assure you that there are plenty 
	of studs and nymphettes who fit into the lowly category as well
	for personality reasons.


>In other words, Golda Meir
>is the bottom of the bucket; Vanna White is not. 

	Sure she is.  Men may flock after the beautiful, but they'll
	make jokes to their friends about "How does she count to twelve?"
	and "How do you give my girlfriend a brain tranplant".. 


>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. 


	I was using it to reflect how these people are viewed.  
	X girl can't get a date, so she gives in to going out with
	geek who's been pestering her for two years--the person she
	wouldn't consider otherwise.  


>>	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.


	Everyone has their own little fetishes.  Some of mine
	are ghastly thinness, long hair and self-centeredness.
	What is important is, outside of these, what I find attractive
	is what is generally considered attractive--health, beauty,
	etc. etc.  


>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. 

	If you believe in that sort of thing.  Right now,
	the unconcious, subconcious, shadow, recessed memory,
	whatever are all, as we say in computerdom, vapor.


>They are partly
>determined by what the culture values, and partly determined by
>our individual experiences. 

	Agreed.  


>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!). 


	A number of stuies have shown that men marry women who look
	like their mothers.   



>I suspect Peter III was
>particularly attracted to Elizabeth Vorontsova because she *was* 
>a hunchback. 

	Fetishism was extremely common in the elites of many countries.
	In fuedal Japan, it was considered attractive for women to
	black out their teeth (if you have ever seen this, it looks
	to western eyes to be almost revolting).  You can't judge 
	mainstream sexuality by using examples from people who were
	notably non-mainstream.


>She was uneducated and coarse, and certainly not as good
>a conversationalist as his wife, who eventually became Catherine II. 


	There's conversation and there's conversation.  Frankly,
	I can't stand having regular old discussions with people in
	my classes because we've all been indoctrinated and there's 
	not much to discuss.


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


	Read it.  It strikes me that a lot of what you read on a.sex.*
	is either pure fiction or adulterated in some way.  It certainly
	isn't real life.

	(that "Read it" is "red it"--not "(you) reed it"... I hate 
	English orthography..)


>>	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.) 


	I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, it was merely
	an observation (people pick the lowly for utilitarian purposes).

	If you're interested, I *do* object to this, butmostly because 
	I think it lacks dignity.


>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.


	Ah now, these people are actively dating?  The sphere
	I was referring to is the <30 casual dating circuit.


>>	*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. 

	Not the type of boycott I'm referring to.  The type of boycott
	I'm referring to (feminists marching outsode the building spreading
	subversive "evidence" of sexism) is sad and immoral--it's right
	up there with Operation Rescue and Lambs of Christ in terms
	of sleaze.

	Using force and manipulation to push the views of an otherwise
	uninvolved minority onto the people involved.


>(Do you find the Montgomery bus boycott
>unacceptable?)


	Assuredly not.


>>	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.


	Then, like I said.  See the first half of my paragraph.

-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"
			Equality is a delusion.
	     Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
	  	  Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism