i disagree with anyone who says that this girl is boyish or unattractive. I think she is stunning and beautiful. I could see her walking on the runway in a Chanel show one day. Abbie keep it up. In my opinion you are beyond gorgeous, don't listen to the negativity people give you because they're wrong. You are beautiful.
What criterion do you use to decide if a woman's ribcage is "small"? Are you looking at it left-to-right, dorsal-to-ventral, or both? Are you comparing it to her waist, shoulders, or what?
PS: the only attractive person in your attractive women file- that playboy girl from a few decades ago, has facial proportions which match the frontal mask for marquadt.
Dianne, I think we actually agree of some points. I agree that the system that feminists call "hetero-patriarchy" can be blamed for the "objectification in these images." As for "brutalization," I don't see any in these particular images. I also agree with you that the preferences of gay fashion designers in men might not be the same as the preferences of gay men in general.
You say "Whether these women are “masculine” or not is a non-issue. The gay designers didn’t invent these misogynistic ideas on their own."
The high level of masculine features in fashion models is not a "non-issue." It shows that gay fashion designers are oppressing women in a way that is unsanctioned by the heterosexual men who supposedly support "hetero-patriarchy." It also shows that it's possible for gay people to oppress straight people.
I don’t think that tokenism should be represented as white men not acting in the interests of their class. It is in their interests to not appear to be racist, sexist or classist.
I have two problems with your explanation here. First, if rich, straight white men are really so powerful as you say, powerful enough that they don't need the men's rights movement, they why do they even have to care about being racist, sexist, or classist? Why can't they just continue in their evil, oppressive ways?
The second problem is that you are assuming that all actions by rich straight white men in the favor of minorities must be putting on an act. You have supplied no evidence for this explanation, and you can use it to dismiss any positive rich straight white male behavior as self-serving.
The idea that men must protect and provide for women is just as sexist as the idea that they should brutalize them.
Let me get this straight: when men work, and sacrifice their time with their children, their health, and sometimes even their lives, for women... it is not only sexist, but just as sexist as brutalizing them? In your wacky worldview, it is "just as sexist" for the men about the HMS Birkenhead to stay on a sinking ship while loading the women and children onto the lifeboats, as it would be for a group of men to gang-rape women. It's sexist to someone, certainly, but that someone is not women.
Many feminists argue that seeing women as helpless fawns that should be provided for is as problematic as the idea that they are evil and need to controlled and dominated.
That's because feminists can't comprehend any situation in which men are disadvantaged to women's benefit. Do you really think that it's just as bad for women to be seen as helpless as it is for them to be seen as evil? Come on.
Yes, it is misogynistic to view women as helpless and perpetually in need of protection. But let's not pretend that in many circumstances, this view doesn't benefit women at the cost of men. (Which would mean that it's possible to be sexist to both men and women at the same time, another notion that feminists have a lot of trouble comprehending.)
Another example is that in the context of genocide, women (though sometimes brutalized and raped) are often spared, while the men are simply murdered in large numbers. In the Srebrenica massacre in Kosovo where 7-8 thousand were killed, the U.N. peacekeepers had evacuated as many women as possible, while leaving the men behind to die at the hands of the Serbs. Were the U.N. peacekeepers being sexist to the women of Srebrenica, or to the men?
Affirmative action and sexual harassment laws discriminate against white men? I thought sexual harassment laws discriminate people who make repeated unwanted sexual advances toward others.
Sexual harassment is a real phenomenon, and it is a problem. However, laws and education on the subject are too broad and vague.
The goal of affirmative action is to give historically oppressed or underprivileged people more access to employment and education opportunities. If you have a problem with affirmative action then take it to the white men who enforce and create these policies.
The point is that the existence of affirmative action is counter-evidence to the claim that white men are "the money and the law." If Joe White Guy gets denied a job in favor of a less qualified minority, how is he "the money and the law?" I think what you mean to argue is that the people who are "the money and the law" are disproportionately white and male, which is true (though that law isn't always used to the advantage of their class, such as with sexual harassment law). It is not rich white men who have to pay the price of affirmative action: poor and middle-class whites pay it for them.
Why do you two keep harping on aesthetics? Try focusing on something other than the looks of the models for a second. Hetero-patriarchy CAN be blamed for the brutalization and objectification in these images. Of course, hetero-patriarchy does not favor the aesthetics of gay men. They are men who sleep with and are attracted to other men for pete’s sake but they are still affected by the hetero-patriarchy views of women. Whether these women are "masculine" or not is a non-issue. The gay designers didn’t invent these misogynistic ideas on their own. I hope you are not using the very small minority that gay designers represent as an indicator of what all gay men find attractive in women.
I don't think that tokenism should be represented as white men not acting in the interests of their class. It is in their interests to not appear to be racist, sexist or classist. They may bankroll some women's studies programs but that does not mean that they don't enact racist, sexist or classist policies. The idea that men must protect and provide for women is just as sexist as the idea that they should brutalize them. Many feminists argue that seeing women as helpless fawns that should be provided for is as problematic as the idea that they are evil and need to controlled and dominated.
Why would rich, white men be in need of a movement that protects them? Their wealth, whiteness and maleness already gives them all the protection they need.
Affirmative action and sexual harassment laws discriminate against white men? I thought sexual harassment laws discriminate people who make repeated unwanted sexual advances toward others. If white men are disproportionately convicted under these laws then that may be a result of their disproportionate power in this society. The men who have enough power in the workforce to pressure others into sexual activity tend to white men. The goal of affirmative action is to give historically oppressed or underprivileged people more access to employment and education opportunities. If you have a problem with affirmative action then take it to the white men who enforce and create these policies.
Danielle said: Why is it hard to believe that some gay men might present images of women being brutalized or sexually objectified? They grow up in a society that supports misogynistic attitudes and behaviors.
Yes, gay men are influenced by the larger culture, and create sexualized images of women in some cases. However, the common images of women that gay fashion designers create are not images that are most attractive to typical straight men, which appears to be gay fashion designers acting against the goals of "hetero-patriarchy." For example, the skinniness of fashion models is NOT an example of gay men catering to the preferences of straight men, but rather a function of their own aesthetics. Neither straight men nor hetero-patriarchy can be blamed for those aesthetics.
Even if these lawyers find all the minorities who might have viable claims against the company they are going to have to convince the WHITE, MALE judge that they have a case and then they go to trial with a WHITE, MALE judge presiding. White men are on top in this society. The richest and most powerful people in the western world are white men. They are in the position to oppress everyone else.
Yes, the people who are on top are disproportionately straight white men. However, it is a mistake to assume that powerful white men always act in their "class interests;" that's merely a feminist article of faith. Consequently, it cannot be assumed that white male judges are going to rule in the interests of their class.
Above, I gave another example of rich white men acting against their "class interests:" the Ford Foundation and other male philanthropists bankrolling Women's Studies programs. The gender system that feminists call "patriarchy" never has been just about oppressing women and privileging men; some masculinities mandate that men provide for and protect women at a cost to themselves.
If rich, white men were so self-serving, then the movement that serves their interests, the Men's Rights Movement, would be a lot more powerful. Instead, it is relatively obscure.
White men "are the money and the law?" Well, except for the laws that discriminate against them, such as affirmative action and sexual harassment law.
Hetero-patriarchy does not favor sodomy or "effeminate" behavior in men but it DOES affect the way that gay men view gender. It is preposterous to believe that gay men are unaffected by the social beliefs of the society that they live, work and grow up in. Why don't you tell the gay men who have been bashed because of their "effeminate" mannerisms that hetero-patriarchy does not affect them? Why do you think that so many men fear coming out of the closet? Hetero-patriarchy does not favor homosexuality but it definitely influences the feelings and behavior of many homosexuals. Why is it hard to believe that some gay men might present images of women being brutalized or sexually objectified? They grow up in a society that supports misogynistic attitudes and behaviors. Some feminists even argue that these gay designers are agents of the patriarchy because they aggressively market ridiculously expensive beauty and clothing items to women, which reinforces the patriarchal idea that a woman's looks are incredibly important. Some gay men can and do support the hetero-patriarchy.
I get more convinced that you live in a world of fantasy when I read the stupid bullshit you write. These rich white men aren't getting their arms twisted by TEH EVIL MINORITIES Eric. The reason that these rich, white men may, in rare instances, hire under qualified minorities is because they don't want to appear racist. The reason they hire under qualified minorities is the same reason that some clothing brands affirm that they don't use child labor or canned tuna companies say that dolphins don't get caught in their fishing nets or makeup and shampoo companies say that they don't test their products on animals. No company wants accusations of labor violations, racism or animal cruelty to tarnish their company image and negatively affect profit.
It would more economical to use child labor and regular tuna nets but these companies obviously weighed the pros and cons of adopting these measures and decided that it is better to spend more money on the product than to loose consumers. It is purely business driven but people like you like to think that TEH EVIL MINORITIES are the ones who are being unfair. You want to believe that some greedy lawyer is going to corral all TEH EVIL MIONRITIES together to sue these companies. Even if these lawyers find all the minorities who might have viable claims against the company they are going to have to convince the WHITE, MALE judge that they have a case and then they go to trial with a WHITE, MALE judge presiding. White men are on top in this society. The richest and most powerful people in the western world are white men. They are in the position to oppress everyone else. They are the money and the law. Nice try Eric but no dice.
The pictures of Karolina's breasts appear to be pretty recent. My source posted them on April 13, 2007. I got them from a gossip site: http://www.egotastic.com/entertainment/celebrities/karolina-kurkova/karolina-kurkova-topless-pictures-002369. Please take note that she is wearing "chicken cutlets" which are silicone inserts that are added to bras and outfits in order to make breasts look bigger. Models and actresses use them all the time.
What I want to know is how recently your pics of her backside were taken. She has gained a good deal of weight since her high fashion days so it would be unfair of you to use pics taken of her in her high fashion days.
I don't even like VS models but a lot of straight men do. I have heard many times that some of these girls are even prettier in person. They get noticed everywhere they go even though most people dont know who they are. They are not unattractive to most of the public. If most people thought they were fugly then why is the VS runway show a huge promotional event that is featured on national tv? Why do you need to "educate" people about supposedly "intrinsic beauty ideals". Why would you need to tell people how unattractive these models are when most people have two eyes and if they were unattractive then it would very apparant to the public? Ask yourself these questions. The answer is pretty obvious to me.
She has cellulite. If gay men only want adolescant boy look alikes then why does Karolia get to work for VS. The Vast majority of teen boys do not have cellulite. A link to canid pics of karolina's butt: http://www.hollywoodtuna.com/?p=3021
Sarah: I have requested attractive women to submit their non-nude pictures. If you are feminine and attractive, then you can help me promote feminine beauty by sending me clear pictures in a bikini.
Facts cannot be bigoted and I have been documenting facts. So don't accuse me of racism and homophobia.
Speaking of rich, white, men, wasn't it them who were influential in bankrolling Women's Studies in the first place? How come feminists never mention this?
Sionnach: In the Udry study, the pregnant mothers were assessed between 1960-1963 and their adult daughters, ages 27-30, were assessed between 1990-1991.
Feminists generally do not lean toward socialization as an explanation of gender though they invoke socialization to some extent. The problem with the notion of social conditioning is that it is unable to explain agency. This problem was solved within sociological circles by the concept of social construction, whereby powerful individuals create a societal structure that forces people to conform in order to fit into society. The social construction approach allows people the freedom to desire certain behaviors and have their own preferences, i.e., people’s preferences are not entirely socially conditioned, but in order to fit within social structures, people are faced with limited choices that may be against their preferences/inclination. Thus, you will observe feminists talk about gender being a social construction, not something that is entirely socially conditioned.
My anecdotal experience has been that women who take up engineering or mechanical work are less attractive than others, on average, because of above average masculinization, and I think this belief has been documented among college students in a study. I also know of a bunch of studies that have documented above average masculinization among lesbians and also that lesbians tend to prefer jobs that are disproportionately favored by men. Therefore, apart from the Udry study, there are additional lines of evidence suggesting that there is some correlation between physically masculinization in women and the likelihood of seeking jobs that attract an excess of men.
Udry assessed whether the daughters had a preference for a career or homemaking, which pertains to masculinity-femininity, and which in turn is not assessed by whether one has a job or is a homemaker because this variable is affected of a number of factors apart from masculinity-femininity, such as the one you have mentioned.
Emperorjvl: Karolina does have a manly face -- for a woman. A woman does not have to look like a man in order to be described as masculinized. The Olsen twins are not feminine, and even aside from masculinity-femininity, I don’t think that most people will find them attractive.
Danielle: I posted two pictures of Karolina modeling lingerie, seen from behind. Two of her pictures, shown in the article, reveal wide hips like your picture does and I selected them to show that even if you substantially add to her breasts, the manly look remains. In you pictures, the shoulder width cannot be seen and the face is either too small or shown from an odd angle. You are the one who selected Karolina’s backside view to make it look better than it is, but in reality her buttocks are flattened. I posted a video clip of her modeling lingerie in the 2006 VS show and you can observe her flatter-than-feminine-norm buttocks yourself. How recent is her topless picture?
Danielle: You have asked me what feminist theories am I referring to. What is the point of answering this question for a person who tells me that I didn’t imply anywhere that I was talking about what notions of oppression are acceptable when I first mentioned examples of oppression that are consistent with a feminist outlook and those that are not? Discussions presuppose some background knowledge, and those lacking it shouldn’t bother discussing the issue. Just consider Hugh Ristik, who is a blogger that focuses on feminism. He had no problems understanding what I was conveying. I wasn’t talking about specific feminist theories, but of a basic premise underlying diverse feminist theories.
Quote:
“My point was that oppressed people (straight men of color) still have power over others and still have the ability to oppress others (women of color, gay people of color).”
I have gotten your point; no need to repeat it. You, on the other hand, have ignored my point, namely that you have yet to acknowledge one example of oppression that goes against feminist premises. I made a clear point that a non-white male victim of white oppression who oppresses a non-white woman of his ethnic background is engaging in male-on-female oppression, the possibility of which feminists acknowledge, but this isn’t an example of the oppressed becoming an oppressor by oppressing in a manner that he suffered under, i.e., ethnicity-based oppression, especially against whites.
So many feminists argue that “images like this could not EXIST or be CONCIEVED of it they weren’t planted in our heads by the sexist patriarchy”? Of course! But the question is why has "sexist heteropatriarchy" completely failed to plant heteropatriarchy’s preference for feminine women into the minds of male homosexuals? Your answer is that you don’t agree with “my definition of feminine” and that homosexual designers use feminine women. If this is the kind of response you are going to come up with, then you need to stop commenting here. If citing anthropological literature and displaying numerous side by side comparisons is not going to convince you that high-fashion models typically have above average masculinization compared to women in general and, on average, to an extent beyond what heterosexual men prefer, then no meaningful discussion is possible between you and me. You need to leave.
You tell me that even gays are affected by the gender and sexual roles created by patriarchy. Do you believe heteropatriarchy favors the sexual role comprising of men accommodating other men’s members in their rectum? Do you believe that heteropatriarchy has a favorable view of effeminate mannerisms, which are much more prevalent among homosexual men than in heterosexual men?
If, according to you, “patriarchy approves of objectifying and degrading women no matter how they look,” then one should observe a wide variety of female looks in the sexist ads, but the variation among the models is narrow and on the masculine side of average, often leaning toward the looks of adolescent boys. Why is this so? Why does the heteropatriarchal influence behind the output of the fashion industry focus on degrading and objectifying primarily masculinized women?
You say that minorities/women wouldn’t be unfairly taking up the jobs of some white men if powerful white men weren’t appointing them. Think about what you are saying. On the one hand, you have powerful white men oppressing others, but on the other hand, they are taking jobs away from white men and giving them to people belonging to the groups that they are oppressing. Makes great sense! Worse, as the adversity.net link shows, hiring less qualified workers results in reduced productivity and sometimes disaster. Are these powerful white men insane? The fact is that employers, rich white men if you prefer, wish to avoid a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit brought up by minorities (anyone who isn’t an able-bodied white heterosexual male) for systematic discrimination against minorities as inferred from their underrepresentation in the workforce, and the employers couldn’t use test scores as a defense since any test that shows minorities to have lesser aptitude will automatically be inferred to be biased against minorities. So it is minority pressure, aided by corrupt lawyers looking to make a killing from class action lawsuits, that sometimes forces a number of powerful white men to hire less qualified minorities over white men. Similarly, minority pressure forced people to fine John Rocker. Powerful white men who are supposedly involved in oppressing minorities are not expected to go after white men who have offended minorities.
Danielle: Your paragraph beginning, “I thought you didn’t...” makes little sense. Like I said, I try to use pictures that reveal body proportions pertaining to masculinity-femininity well, and both your pictures are not helpful in this regard. If push-up bras, clothing, hip swinging and pictures taken at opportune moments during the VS show make these masculinized models look better, then you can bet that using feminine and attractive models in a similar manner would make them look better, too, such that VS models still wouldn’t be a match.
Quote:
“I don’t know why you put up pictures of unattractive women and try to use them to convince people. People will laugh at your ideal...”
I have already explained why I used Grace, and haven’t portrayed her or Veronika as ideal. This site doesn’t exist to convince you, and it won’t because you have a “different definition of femininity” by your own admission. However, people who "share the same concept of femininity" as most others can look at the pictures and figure out how feminine VS models are. I suggest that you stop coming back to this site. Why bother with a site that is not able to convince you?
Both Grace and Veronika are nude models, not porn models.
I have already acknowledged that that not all whites are naturally ghostly pale, but the exceptions are naturally pink. White women are more likely to be naturally ghostly pale than naturally pink compared to white men. There are plenty of pale-skinned high-fashion models, in sharp contrast to almost no white fitness model being pale. Therefore, whereas you may dislike pale skin, the homosexual designers do not necessarily share your dislike.
Thanks joe, that's what I was hoping he would answer.
I wanted to know Erik's opinion on their "bodies" (JLO and Eva Mendes) not their faces,because from what I see I would classify them as having feminine figures.
i disagree with anyone who says that this girl is boyish or unattractive. I think she is stunning and beautiful. I could see her walking on the runway in a Chanel show one day. Abbie keep it up. In my opinion you are beyond gorgeous, don't listen to the negativity people give you because they're wrong. You are beautiful.
What criterion do you use to decide if a woman's ribcage is "small"? Are you looking at it left-to-right, dorsal-to-ventral, or both? Are you comparing it to her waist, shoulders, or what?
fem?
http://e.photos.cx/13684_van_h_nud_123_1168lo-620.jpg
hotter than j00 'n' those ugly models you've got.
PS: the only attractive person in your attractive women file- that playboy girl from a few decades ago, has facial proportions which match the frontal mask for marquadt.
http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/817/missoni1ux1rw8.jpg
http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/4859/missoni4rm2xz9.jpg
Pps: being hot =/= you wanting coitus with them. :( 2 bad bbs.
That's one hot man-model in make-up though!
5'10 and 13, WOW, she'll be a giant when she's done with puberty!
Dianne, I think we actually agree of some points. I agree that the system that feminists call "hetero-patriarchy" can be blamed for the "objectification in these images." As for "brutalization," I don't see any in these particular images. I also agree with you that the preferences of gay fashion designers in men might not be the same as the preferences of gay men in general.
You say "Whether these women are “masculine” or not is a non-issue. The gay designers didn’t invent these misogynistic ideas on their own."
The high level of masculine features in fashion models is not a "non-issue." It shows that gay fashion designers are oppressing women in a way that is unsanctioned by the heterosexual men who supposedly support "hetero-patriarchy." It also shows that it's possible for gay people to oppress straight people.
I don’t think that tokenism should be represented as white men not acting in the interests of their class. It is in their interests to not appear to be racist, sexist or classist.
I have two problems with your explanation here. First, if rich, straight white men are really so powerful as you say, powerful enough that they don't need the men's rights movement, they why do they even have to care about being racist, sexist, or classist? Why can't they just continue in their evil, oppressive ways?
The second problem is that you are assuming that all actions by rich straight white men in the favor of minorities must be putting on an act. You have supplied no evidence for this explanation, and you can use it to dismiss any positive rich straight white male behavior as self-serving.
The idea that men must protect and provide for women is just as sexist as the idea that they should brutalize them.
Let me get this straight: when men work, and sacrifice their time with their children, their health, and sometimes even their lives, for women... it is not only sexist, but just as sexist as brutalizing them? In your wacky worldview, it is "just as sexist" for the men about the HMS Birkenhead to stay on a sinking ship while loading the women and children onto the lifeboats, as it would be for a group of men to gang-rape women. It's sexist to someone, certainly, but that someone is not women.
Many feminists argue that seeing women as helpless fawns that should be provided for is as problematic as the idea that they are evil and need to controlled and dominated.
That's because feminists can't comprehend any situation in which men are disadvantaged to women's benefit. Do you really think that it's just as bad for women to be seen as helpless as it is for them to be seen as evil? Come on.
Yes, it is misogynistic to view women as helpless and perpetually in need of protection. But let's not pretend that in many circumstances, this view doesn't benefit women at the cost of men. (Which would mean that it's possible to be sexist to both men and women at the same time, another notion that feminists have a lot of trouble comprehending.)
Another example is that in the context of genocide, women (though sometimes brutalized and raped) are often spared, while the men are simply murdered in large numbers. In the Srebrenica massacre in Kosovo where 7-8 thousand were killed, the U.N. peacekeepers had evacuated as many women as possible, while leaving the men behind to die at the hands of the Serbs. Were the U.N. peacekeepers being sexist to the women of Srebrenica, or to the men?
Affirmative action and sexual harassment laws discriminate against white men? I thought sexual harassment laws discriminate people who make repeated unwanted sexual advances toward others.
Sexual harassment is a real phenomenon, and it is a problem. However, laws and education on the subject are too broad and vague.
The goal of affirmative action is to give historically oppressed or underprivileged people more access to employment and education opportunities. If you have a problem with affirmative action then take it to the white men who enforce and create these policies.
The point is that the existence of affirmative action is counter-evidence to the claim that white men are "the money and the law." If Joe White Guy gets denied a job in favor of a less qualified minority, how is he "the money and the law?" I think what you mean to argue is that the people who are "the money and the law" are disproportionately white and male, which is true (though that law isn't always used to the advantage of their class, such as with sexual harassment law). It is not rich white men who have to pay the price of affirmative action: poor and middle-class whites pay it for them.
Why do you two keep harping on aesthetics? Try focusing on something other than the looks of the models for a second. Hetero-patriarchy CAN be blamed for the brutalization and objectification in these images. Of course, hetero-patriarchy does not favor the aesthetics of gay men. They are men who sleep with and are attracted to other men for pete’s sake but they are still affected by the hetero-patriarchy views of women. Whether these women are "masculine" or not is a non-issue. The gay designers didn’t invent these misogynistic ideas on their own. I hope you are not using the very small minority that gay designers represent as an indicator of what all gay men find attractive in women.
I don't think that tokenism should be represented as white men not acting in the interests of their class. It is in their interests to not appear to be racist, sexist or classist. They may bankroll some women's studies programs but that does not mean that they don't enact racist, sexist or classist policies. The idea that men must protect and provide for women is just as sexist as the idea that they should brutalize them. Many feminists argue that seeing women as helpless fawns that should be provided for is as problematic as the idea that they are evil and need to controlled and dominated.
Why would rich, white men be in need of a movement that protects them? Their wealth, whiteness and maleness already gives them all the protection they need.
Affirmative action and sexual harassment laws discriminate against white men? I thought sexual harassment laws discriminate people who make repeated unwanted sexual advances toward others. If white men are disproportionately convicted under these laws then that may be a result of their disproportionate power in this society. The men who have enough power in the workforce to pressure others into sexual activity tend to white men. The goal of affirmative action is to give historically oppressed or underprivileged people more access to employment and education opportunities. If you have a problem with affirmative action then take it to the white men who enforce and create these policies.
Danielle said:
Why is it hard to believe that some gay men might present images of women being brutalized or sexually objectified? They grow up in a society that supports misogynistic attitudes and behaviors.
Yes, gay men are influenced by the larger culture, and create sexualized images of women in some cases. However, the common images of women that gay fashion designers create are not images that are most attractive to typical straight men, which appears to be gay fashion designers acting against the goals of "hetero-patriarchy." For example, the skinniness of fashion models is NOT an example of gay men catering to the preferences of straight men, but rather a function of their own aesthetics. Neither straight men nor hetero-patriarchy can be blamed for those aesthetics.
Even if these lawyers find all the minorities who might have viable claims against the company they are going to have to convince the WHITE, MALE judge that they have a case and then they go to trial with a WHITE, MALE judge presiding. White men are on top in this society. The richest and most powerful people in the western world are white men. They are in the position to oppress everyone else.
Yes, the people who are on top are disproportionately straight white men. However, it is a mistake to assume that powerful white men always act in their "class interests;" that's merely a feminist article of faith. Consequently, it cannot be assumed that white male judges are going to rule in the interests of their class.
Above, I gave another example of rich white men acting against their "class interests:" the Ford Foundation and other male philanthropists bankrolling Women's Studies programs. The gender system that feminists call "patriarchy" never has been just about oppressing women and privileging men; some masculinities mandate that men provide for and protect women at a cost to themselves.
If rich, white men were so self-serving, then the movement that serves their interests, the Men's Rights Movement, would be a lot more powerful. Instead, it is relatively obscure.
White men "are the money and the law?" Well, except for the laws that discriminate against them, such as affirmative action and sexual harassment law.
Hetero-patriarchy does not favor sodomy or "effeminate" behavior in men but it DOES affect the way that gay men view gender. It is preposterous to believe that gay men are unaffected by the social beliefs of the society that they live, work and grow up in. Why don't you tell the gay men who have been bashed because of their "effeminate" mannerisms that hetero-patriarchy does not affect them? Why do you think that so many men fear coming out of the closet? Hetero-patriarchy does not favor homosexuality but it definitely influences the feelings and behavior of many homosexuals. Why is it hard to believe that some gay men might present images of women being brutalized or sexually objectified? They grow up in a society that supports misogynistic attitudes and behaviors. Some feminists even argue that these gay designers are agents of the patriarchy because they aggressively market ridiculously expensive beauty and clothing items to women, which reinforces the patriarchal idea that a woman's looks are incredibly important. Some gay men can and do support the hetero-patriarchy.
I get more convinced that you live in a world of fantasy when I read the stupid bullshit you write. These rich white men aren't getting their arms twisted by TEH EVIL MINORITIES Eric. The reason that these rich, white men may, in rare instances, hire under qualified minorities is because they don't want to appear racist. The reason they hire under qualified minorities is the same reason that some clothing brands affirm that they don't use child labor or canned tuna companies say that dolphins don't get caught in their fishing nets or makeup and shampoo companies say that they don't test their products on animals. No company wants accusations of labor violations, racism or animal cruelty to tarnish their company image and negatively affect profit.
It would more economical to use child labor and regular tuna nets but these companies obviously weighed the pros and cons of adopting these measures and decided that it is better to spend more money on the product than to loose consumers. It is purely business driven but people like you like to think that TEH EVIL MINORITIES are the ones who are being unfair. You want to believe that some greedy lawyer is going to corral all TEH EVIL MIONRITIES together to sue these companies. Even if these lawyers find all the minorities who might have viable claims against the company they are going to have to convince the WHITE, MALE judge that they have a case and then they go to trial with a WHITE, MALE judge presiding. White men are on top in this society. The richest and most powerful people in the western world are white men. They are in the position to oppress everyone else. They are the money and the law. Nice try Eric but no dice.
How is slight masculinization a correlate of sexiness?
Also I don't think that Miss Colombia is that masculine, her eyes are spaced wide apart.
i dont know how any of these people think that she isnt pretty...this girl is absolutly gorgeous!
I intended to post links not pics I dont know why they cam out like that.
[LINK]http://img274.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kkiuiubf0.jpg[/LINK]
[LINK]http://img34.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc352&image=23284_celebrity_city_Victoria_Secret_Fashion_Show_34_123_352lo.jpg[/LINK]
[LINK]http://img25.imagevenue.com/view.php?loc=loc325&image=65444_celebrity_city_Victoria_Secrets_Models_Show_229_123_325lo.jpg[/LINK]
The pictures of Karolina's breasts appear to be pretty recent. My source posted them on April 13, 2007. I got them from a gossip site: http://www.egotastic.com/entertainment/celebrities/karolina-kurkova/karolina-kurkova-topless-pictures-002369. Please take note that she is wearing "chicken cutlets" which are silicone inserts that are added to bras and outfits in order to make breasts look bigger. Models and actresses use them all the time.
What I want to know is how recently your pics of her backside were taken. She has gained a good deal of weight since her high fashion days so it would be unfair of you to use pics taken of her in her high fashion days.
I don't even like VS models but a lot of straight men do. I have heard many times that some of these girls are even prettier in person. They get noticed everywhere they go even though most people dont know who they are. They are not unattractive to most of the public. If most people thought they were fugly then why is the VS runway show a huge promotional event that is featured on national tv? Why do you need to "educate" people about supposedly "intrinsic beauty ideals". Why would you need to tell people how unattractive these models are when most people have two eyes and if they were unattractive then it would very apparant to the public? Ask yourself these questions. The answer is pretty obvious to me.
She has cellulite. If gay men only want adolescant boy look alikes then why does Karolia get to work for VS. The Vast majority of teen boys do not have cellulite. A link to canid pics of karolina's butt: http://www.hollywoodtuna.com/?p=3021
More HQ butt links: http://img34.imagevenue.com/view.php?loc=loc352&image=23284_celebrity_city_Victoria_Secret_Fashion_Show_34_123_352lo.jpg
http://img274.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kkiuiubf0.jpg
http://img25.imagevenue.com/view.php?loc=loc325&image=65444_celebrity_city_Victoria_Secrets_Models_Show_229_123_325lo.jpg
Her ass is small not "sunken". She looks good at the VS show so you have no reason to bitch.
Sarah: I have requested attractive women to submit their non-nude pictures. If you are feminine and attractive, then you can help me promote feminine beauty by sending me clear pictures in a bikini.
Facts cannot be bigoted and I have been documenting facts. So don't accuse me of racism and homophobia.
Like I said, Ale isn't my type, but she isn't ugly either.
Everyone also takes bad photos now and then. She's also not wearing any makeup in the second set of pictures, and she's scowling half the time.
I agree she's not feminine, and she's not pretty without make up on, but I still won't say she's ugly.
I also never said I wish I looked like Ale; I just would rather look like her than that Dasha hag.
I would send you photos of me in a bikini but you're joking if you think I would send you nudes.
And I already went over with you a million times why I have a problem with your site, Erik: you're a racist homophobe.
Speaking of rich, white, men, wasn't it them who were influential in bankrolling Women's Studies in the first place? How come feminists never mention this?
Erik:
I was being rather facetious... don't you think there is a resemblancebetween Karolina and Luis Miguel in those pictures?
Agreed on the twins... ugh. But $ seems to do wonders for supposed beauty...
Sionnach: In the Udry study, the pregnant mothers were assessed between 1960-1963 and their adult daughters, ages 27-30, were assessed between 1990-1991.
Feminists generally do not lean toward socialization as an explanation of gender though they invoke socialization to some extent. The problem with the notion of social conditioning is that it is unable to explain agency. This problem was solved within sociological circles by the concept of social construction, whereby powerful individuals create a societal structure that forces people to conform in order to fit into society. The social construction approach allows people the freedom to desire certain behaviors and have their own preferences, i.e., people’s preferences are not entirely socially conditioned, but in order to fit within social structures, people are faced with limited choices that may be against their preferences/inclination. Thus, you will observe feminists talk about gender being a social construction, not something that is entirely socially conditioned.
My anecdotal experience has been that women who take up engineering or mechanical work are less attractive than others, on average, because of above average masculinization, and I think this belief has been documented among college students in a study. I also know of a bunch of studies that have documented above average masculinization among lesbians and also that lesbians tend to prefer jobs that are disproportionately favored by men. Therefore, apart from the Udry study, there are additional lines of evidence suggesting that there is some correlation between physically masculinization in women and the likelihood of seeking jobs that attract an excess of men.
Udry assessed whether the daughters had a preference for a career or homemaking, which pertains to masculinity-femininity, and which in turn is not assessed by whether one has a job or is a homemaker because this variable is affected of a number of factors apart from masculinity-femininity, such as the one you have mentioned.
Emperorjvl: Karolina does have a manly face -- for a woman. A woman does not have to look like a man in order to be described as masculinized. The Olsen twins are not feminine, and even aside from masculinity-femininity, I don’t think that most people will find them attractive.
Danielle: I posted two pictures of Karolina modeling lingerie, seen from behind. Two of her pictures, shown in the article, reveal wide hips like your picture does and I selected them to show that even if you substantially add to her breasts, the manly look remains. In you pictures, the shoulder width cannot be seen and the face is either too small or shown from an odd angle. You are the one who selected Karolina’s backside view to make it look better than it is, but in reality her buttocks are flattened. I posted a video clip of her modeling lingerie in the 2006 VS show and you can observe her flatter-than-feminine-norm buttocks yourself. How recent is her topless picture?
Danielle: You have asked me what feminist theories am I referring to. What is the point of answering this question for a person who tells me that I didn’t imply anywhere that I was talking about what notions of oppression are acceptable when I first mentioned examples of oppression that are consistent with a feminist outlook and those that are not? Discussions presuppose some background knowledge, and those lacking it shouldn’t bother discussing the issue. Just consider Hugh Ristik, who is a blogger that focuses on feminism. He had no problems understanding what I was conveying. I wasn’t talking about specific feminist theories, but of a basic premise underlying diverse feminist theories.
Quote:
I have gotten your point; no need to repeat it. You, on the other hand, have ignored my point, namely that you have yet to acknowledge one example of oppression that goes against feminist premises. I made a clear point that a non-white male victim of white oppression who oppresses a non-white woman of his ethnic background is engaging in male-on-female oppression, the possibility of which feminists acknowledge, but this isn’t an example of the oppressed becoming an oppressor by oppressing in a manner that he suffered under, i.e., ethnicity-based oppression, especially against whites.
So many feminists argue that “images like this could not EXIST or be CONCIEVED of it they weren’t planted in our heads by the sexist patriarchy”? Of course! But the question is why has "sexist heteropatriarchy" completely failed to plant heteropatriarchy’s preference for feminine women into the minds of male homosexuals? Your answer is that you don’t agree with “my definition of feminine” and that homosexual designers use feminine women. If this is the kind of response you are going to come up with, then you need to stop commenting here. If citing anthropological literature and displaying numerous side by side comparisons is not going to convince you that high-fashion models typically have above average masculinization compared to women in general and, on average, to an extent beyond what heterosexual men prefer, then no meaningful discussion is possible between you and me. You need to leave.
You tell me that even gays are affected by the gender and sexual roles created by patriarchy. Do you believe heteropatriarchy favors the sexual role comprising of men accommodating other men’s members in their rectum? Do you believe that heteropatriarchy has a favorable view of effeminate mannerisms, which are much more prevalent among homosexual men than in heterosexual men?
If, according to you, “patriarchy approves of objectifying and degrading women no matter how they look,” then one should observe a wide variety of female looks in the sexist ads, but the variation among the models is narrow and on the masculine side of average, often leaning toward the looks of adolescent boys. Why is this so? Why does the heteropatriarchal influence behind the output of the fashion industry focus on degrading and objectifying primarily masculinized women?
You say that minorities/women wouldn’t be unfairly taking up the jobs of some white men if powerful white men weren’t appointing them. Think about what you are saying. On the one hand, you have powerful white men oppressing others, but on the other hand, they are taking jobs away from white men and giving them to people belonging to the groups that they are oppressing. Makes great sense! Worse, as the adversity.net link shows, hiring less qualified workers results in reduced productivity and sometimes disaster. Are these powerful white men insane? The fact is that employers, rich white men if you prefer, wish to avoid a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit brought up by minorities (anyone who isn’t an able-bodied white heterosexual male) for systematic discrimination against minorities as inferred from their underrepresentation in the workforce, and the employers couldn’t use test scores as a defense since any test that shows minorities to have lesser aptitude will automatically be inferred to be biased against minorities. So it is minority pressure, aided by corrupt lawyers looking to make a killing from class action lawsuits, that sometimes forces a number of powerful white men to hire less qualified minorities over white men. Similarly, minority pressure forced people to fine John Rocker. Powerful white men who are supposedly involved in oppressing minorities are not expected to go after white men who have offended minorities.
Danielle: Your paragraph beginning, “I thought you didn’t...” makes little sense. Like I said, I try to use pictures that reveal body proportions pertaining to masculinity-femininity well, and both your pictures are not helpful in this regard. If push-up bras, clothing, hip swinging and pictures taken at opportune moments during the VS show make these masculinized models look better, then you can bet that using feminine and attractive models in a similar manner would make them look better, too, such that VS models still wouldn’t be a match.
Quote:
I have already explained why I used Grace, and haven’t portrayed her or Veronika as ideal. This site doesn’t exist to convince you, and it won’t because you have a “different definition of femininity” by your own admission. However, people who "share the same concept of femininity" as most others can look at the pictures and figure out how feminine VS models are. I suggest that you stop coming back to this site. Why bother with a site that is not able to convince you?
Both Grace and Veronika are nude models, not porn models.
I have already acknowledged that that not all whites are naturally ghostly pale, but the exceptions are naturally pink. White women are more likely to be naturally ghostly pale than naturally pink compared to white men. There are plenty of pale-skinned high-fashion models, in sharp contrast to almost no white fitness model being pale. Therefore, whereas you may dislike pale skin, the homosexual designers do not necessarily share your dislike.
Thanks joe, that's what I was hoping he would answer.
I wanted to know Erik's opinion on their "bodies" (JLO and Eva Mendes) not their faces,because from what I see I would classify them as having feminine figures.
erik in the above comment im reffering to jennifer lopez and eva mendes
erik do you not find there faces appaealing or there bodies too i.e the overall figure
Pages