US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Gender
Then The Problem Isn’t Your Girlfriend, Dude
06 Jul 2013
The current trend to view sick looking women as the ideal is something that was not created by men that like women, that’s obvious. Actually it’s a fact, as it was dreamed up by male fashion designers and the diet industry in the 1970’s and since, following the social revolutions of the 1960’s. Before that time most women were essentially forced, through society to stay at home and just do whatever men wanted, essentially. Working was frowned upon, god forbid they actually had a career, and higher education was also discouraged and even viewed as a waste of time in society, as women were expected to get married, have kids and stay at home raising them and tending to their husbands. The industries that catered to women essentially tried to get women to buy their version of what they felt the person fitting the role of a woman at that time should be like. They each tried to sell their version of a ‘lifestyle’ to an audience that unfortunately forced to accept their prescribed role in life. That was the fashion and diet industry’s sole concern.
Click on image for a larger version

THENTHEPROBLEMISNTYOURGIRLFRIENDDUDE.jpg
Women’s natural biological shape was never questioned, a shape dictated scientifically by things that physically distinguished them from men. It might actually come as a shock to certain folks, but women are actually biologically supposed to be curvier than men. That shaped was forged when humans were living in caves and roaming the plains. Meals were not always guaranteed. Women stored more fat in certain areas of their body, namely their hips and breasts, in case there was a shortage in food when they were pregnant or nursing. It was to aid in their survival, and of course that of their offspring. It’s why women gain weight when they are pregnant. Wider hips are also meant to accommodate their child while there are pregnant and to aid in childbirth. Simple science, easy math.

Men, were thus genetically hardwired to be more attracted to this shape, for purposes of propagation. Only roughly 10% of all men are not genetically hardwired to be attracted to that shape, and that is because that 10% are gay. In terms of shape, that 10% is attracted to an absence of hips broad shoulders, taller height and an overall more rectangular shape. Why? That’s what men look like. Again, it’s very simple science and very basic math. Not a drop of rocket science to it.

After the civil rights movements of the 1960’s & 1970’s, specifically the gender revolution, women eschewed ‘prescribed roles’, as they should have. The fashion and diet industries began seeing substantial shrinkage in their profit margins, as many women had stopped focusing on their appearance as much, at least in terms of how best to look like a woman. The idea had become preposterous, as how can you tell someone that already is a woman how to look like a woman? They’re a woman, dummy! It’s like trying to tell a person with blonde hair how to look like they have blonde hair. They already have it idiot!

They had lost the minds of a large percentage of women, and they were losing more all the time. So they came up with a marketing strategy to stop the shrinkage of their profit margins and to try and see it grow again, instead of accepting that women were moving on, and praising it. They decided, through marketing to tell women there was essentially something wrong with the way they were biologically shaped. One half of the diet and fashion industry was already there in a way, as the men that designed women’s fashions and like designing women’s shoes, etc, tend not to be heterosexual, to put it bluntly [just look at Abercrombie & Fitch and the way that guy lives(good lord!)]. As such, they never really could see what men liked in all those hips and curves. They never really could see what all the fuss was about. How could they? They are not genetically hardwired to understand.

Now, they started selling to women what they had always seen as needing to change in women in order to make them more sexually appealing. The diet industry and fashion industries together sought to convince women there was something wrong with the natural curves, hips, etc that biologically come along with being a woman.

Prior to the 1970’s the majority of women that were lauded as sex symbols, etc, were women that looked like women. For example, the woman most American men, and most men the world over, viewed as the sexiest woman alive during much of the 50’s & 60’s was not even close to a size zero. She wasn’t even close. That woman serenaded the president on his birthday and was the envy of women the world over. What dress size was she? She was a size 16. (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/04/marilyn-monroe-was-not-e/) And this was average and normal. (http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Average-American-woman-wears-Size)

Men looked at her, and something primal inside them went off like fireworks on the fourth of July, well 90% of all men of course. Look at depictions of beautiful women throughout history, they are curvy and naturally biologically shaped like women, not like today’s ideal body shape for women as espoused by the fashion industry, a body shape like that of say, Andrew Cunanan.

That has not changed, in fact, the average size of an American woman has increased. People contribute this to obesity, but that is not the whole picture, really. Sure, their average weight has gone up by roughly 20 lbs since the 1960’s, and true we don’t always eat healthily in our fast paced world. But what is never mentioned is that the average height of of women has also increased. (http://www.livestrong.com/article/357769-weight-height-for-the-average-a/) Talking about the weight fact helps sell diet products and convince women there’s something wrong with them, while the second fact takes away from that. See, you can’t effectively sell the insecurity via guilt aimed at women when television stations play a commercial for Coolatas telling us how great they are, then run a diet commercial telling women they’re fat because they have hips, when you add in the fact women’s average height has also increased. Again, simple science, basic math; Twinkies and sugary drinks don’t cause people to grow taller. They aren’t telling you the whole story.

And who else but the fashion industry would feel they understand best how to tell the world women are ugly as they believe they are? We went from the ideal shape of women being the way women are shaped by nature, to trying to morph them to all into developing the bodies of 14 year old South East Asian trannies. I mean, you have all these Hollywood actresses trying to look like men (young boys actually), and then turning around and saying they are for women’s rights while standing there like a sack, completely shapeless. They are helping to sell you on the idea that a mechanism for oppressing and controlling women developed in the 1970’s is a positive thing for women, and good for little girls. How genuine and sincere.

It’s like trying to convince your average northern European what’s wrong with them is that is that they don’t have the same natural melanin content as your average Nigerian, or vice versa. To tell your average white person they have a condition because they don’t look black is as stupid as trying to tell your average black person they have one because they don’t look white. It’s dumb. Telling a woman she has issues because she looks too much like a woman, makes sense only if you are genetically hardwired to desire an absence of hips, broader looking shoulders, no butt and a more rectangular physical shape. It makes sense if you are gay and male, which is what the vast majority of superstar fashion designers are, and boy, they must really hate women.

They have an idea of what looks nice pretty on mannequins and dolls, I’m sure, but they can never truly understand what is sexually appealing about a woman. How could they possibly? They can guess, they can make good guesses, but that’s all. That doesn’t make being a gay man a bad thing to be for a gay man, of course not, but neither is being a biologically natural woman for a biologically natural women. And newsflash, despite the best efforts of the fashion industry, when polled and studied heterosexual men prefer biologically natural women to the body type of a 14 year old South East Asian tranny, every day. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/160310/Why-a-glimpse-of-curvy-women-is-) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6449941/Men-prefer-curvy) (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/men-prefer-normal-sized-woman)

Only women that are not confident in themselves would say I need to look more like a man to be more attractive, and set that as a goal for themselves. To make them desire to look more like men, even if they don’t see it, to make them insecure and to attempt to control that message, for the diet and fashion industries, is to be able to dictate to be able to corral women into consuming their products. Women in the entertainment industry that espouse that are not confident, and have been made to be insecure no matter what they say or do. They are able to make folk believe otherwise, because they are trained actresses that make a living being good at convincing you of things that are not true. They have been sucker punched and fell victim to the insecurity that is desired from a marketing standpoint of the diet and fashion industries. They are aiding in the attempt to sell the public on the idea that women can never be enough, just as they are. They are telling them in yet one more way, be like male human beings, as there is something inherently wrong with women making them never good enough.

But, aside from the soapbox, let’s be plain, men, have you ever had thoughts along the lines of say a conversation that might go like this? “Dude you know that picture of you in your swimsuit when you were like eight years old in your mother’s house bro?”

“Uh, yeah dude I know that one.”

“I saw it when I came to pick your sister up the other day. Dude, if my girlfriend, your sister, had a butt like yours in the picture, I’d be so much more attracted to her.”

“Dude, so you’re saying that if my sister had a butt like mine, you’d like her more?”

“Like totally dude, yeah.”

“I don’t think it’s my sister that’s tha issue, brohammer.”

If you’ve ever had thoughts along those lines the issue definitely is not the woman. The issue definitely is you. Yes, you’re gay. It’s fine, it’s cool. You can get married now and join the army, whatever, dude go for broke, but stop telling women they need to look like pre-pubescent males, it’s gross dude, demeaning plus not to mention furthering the oppression of women. Enough’s enough. I mean the math of letting go, being fair, and leaving women alone ain’t that hard, correct?

Come on, be a man, whatever your sexual orientation. Stand up for women and help em, don’t oppress em, as you do not want anybody oppressing you, whatever your sexual orientation happens to be. :)

To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.
See also:
http://www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.