I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about feminism. I'm not Joss Whedon, I didn't major in Women's Studies. My general-- and probably incorrect-- view of feminism is that its goal is for an equality between men and women, from how much they're paid, to how they're treated in day-to-day life. I've got no problems with this. I'd say I agree with it. Like many dudes, though, there are feminist voices that I just plain don't understand. Like I said, I'm not a feminist.
What I am is a thinker.
If there's one thing I can say that this blog proves definitively it's that I think about a lot of shit. It's gone from music to politics to movies to art to existence to religion to pretty ladies. That's not to say this is special. I mean, a lot of people are thinkers. One thing, though, that I like to delude myself into thinking is special, is what type of thinker I am.
Most people are linear thinkers. Their thought process follows a logical, linear pattern. In other words, one thought leads directly and logically into the next thought: I like cheese. Cheese is made from milk. Milk comes from cows. Cows are kept on farms. Farms are run by farmers. Etcetera and so forth.
I'm a parallel thinker. While linear thinking is inevitable, my thought processes don't necessarily run downhill, they tend to jump in parallels. The way that this most typically manifests itself in day-to-day life is through similes and metaphors. So parallel thinking is also an inevitability; everyone makes similes and metaphors. I'm not special. But what is different is that my default notion is to thinking parallels, searching for different situations that have similar circumstances.
Since I always understand a concept better with a concrete example, here's a good one, and it ties in with the idea of how I just don't get feminism.
Unlike most mornings, this morning I was watching The Today Show.
The section they were doing was talking about how "real" women are "in" this year. They had some "plus" size models on the program, and were talking with someone who was presumably a Hollywood insider. She was speaking to the fact that many show producers are now intentionally avoiding women who have had plastic surgery, because they look too "fake" and looking more for "real" women.
It echoes a lot of what Dove soap was doing a few years back, when they initiated their Real Beauty campaign, which had billboards and commercials featuring women of more typical proportions, proportions more in keeping with the American average.
During the segment, the Hollywood Insider asserted that it wasn't about promoting or romanticizing obesity; that despite their proportions these women were absolutely healthy. I agree with that assessment, too. Most "plus" size models are definitely healthy and calling them "plus" sized is kind of insulting to women who basically just have hips.
At the same time, I believe that the Real Beauty campaign, and this idea of "real" women being a new Hollywood fashion to be kind of, well, sexist.
That may seem like an outlandish statement, but I came to that conclusion based on a bout of parallel thinking. If putting real women on billboards and in magazine ads casting them as models is a necessary move, a move that assures the women of the world that it's okay to be your size as long as you're healthy, then isn't the lack of "real" men in the modeling world kind of saying that, for guys, it's kind of...not?
The argument is, of course, that there are plenty of famous unattractive men, that it's easier for unattractive and bigger man to gain notoriety and fame. This is probably true and it's definitely sexist, but all of those men exist in the world of movies and television and they make no bones about being unattractive. None of these men are being brought to our attention as standards for physical comparison. Yes, I am probably a better looking dude than Jack Nicholson, but then Jack Nicholson was never presented to me as a lens for male beauty.
Look at the male world of modeling, and you see no "real" men. You see guys with chiseled jaws, chiseled abs, high cheekbones, broad chests, and a hundred other descriptors that basically mean "tall, dark, and handsome."
An aside: Why do we have these very typical beatific standards? The answer most people like to give is the media; movies and television and entertainment in general has pushed a view of beautiful down our throats. But it's not really true. It's a contributing factor, but the fact is that we have much of this standard ingrained into us. In the wild, healthy and well is the standard for "beauty" among animals, they determine mates by looking at who is the strongest because it's an indication of health among these animals. Similarly, this ideal for people who look "healthy" carries over into people.
One statement regarding obesity or being "plus" sized that I've always struggled with is that kind of classic response about women in Renaissance art. "Well, they were all bigger women; bigger was considered more beautiful in that era."
Well, yes, that's correct, but the reason people found that beautiful and not skinniness is that being skinny was both a mark of being low class (you couldn't afford food) or a mark of illness (you may have been eating, but the fuckin' plague had got you). It was found attractive to be bigger because it meant you were healthier.
Today, though, we know better about health. And it's why men and women do find these standards of beauty more attractive. While heroin chic was in fashion during the Kate Moss and Twiggy eras, the fact is now that we understand body fat percentages and health in general better, we've realized that there is such a thing as being too skinny and, for both men and women, it is typically found unattractive. We don't value skinniness, we value health. Media images play a part, but the fact is that we have a natural, animal preference for healthy looking people.
That being said, and to get back on the topic of how this "real" campaign is kind of sexist, the paragons of male beauty being perpetuated by the media are healthy, yes, but they are also not "real." Some of the women in those Dove ads were not as healthy as they could have been. That's not to say they weren't attractive women, and they didn't have their own type of beauty, they did on both accounts, but to promote that as beauty, without making the distinction that male beauty can also transcend absolute health, is what I understand sexism to be: Viewing one gender inherently differently than another gender.
I don't really get feminism, because while it presents itself as position that strives for equality, to an outside observer, it seems as though many of the voices only look at that equality within the confines of that gender. In other words, all women should be viewed equally to all other women, and should get the same benefits as a man. However, it seems that they often ignore the male psyche in regards to these positions. How does saying that "real" women can be beautiful without acknowledging the same for "real" mean make men feel? It wasn't touched upon on The Today Show and it hasn't been in any of these campaigns for "real" beauty.
Not many view it as an issue, but it is. Male esteem issues related to physical appearance are marginalized in comparison with the same issues for females. Some of this is for good reason, as female responses to those issues are generally stronger than the male responses, but to push the male responses aside is something that I think should be considered sexism.
It's a parallel thinker's interpretation of sexism.
Or maybe I'm just whining that I look like this:
Instead of this:
Well, as far as male responses to issues concerning physique, I haven't heard any, not counting this post. But then again, men often don't like displaying any sign of being vulnerable in public.
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, do you happen to like skinny girls like these models? For the life of me, I can't believe it's the kind of beauty men generally prefer just because the media portrays them more often. I mean, guys have different tastes to, like women?
On a side note, you don't look bad, but this is comes from a girl who likes nerds with big glasses so I might be biased.
Hey, thanks for the reply.
ReplyDeleteI agree that men don't talk about their physical attributes in the same way as women do, and that the issue is generally more passionate and vocal in women, but that's a kind of marginalization that's distressing. Just because it's not talked about as much, doesn't mean it's not an issue.
Also, I don't think that most men like model women, if the model women you're talking about are runway models whose collarbones jut out as far as their chin (ew). But a magazine like Maxim certainly shows how men view women accurately, both in terms of latent objectification and in taste. Now, sometimes that's thin girls (Hi, Olivia Wilde) and sometimes it's more full figured women (Christina Hendricks). But I wouldn't say men's tastes are cookie-cutter, just easier to find in the media because men are visually stimulated creatures.
And on your side note: Thanks!