Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: the Mail onlineWhen they see an overweight woman, the female brain reacts negatively, increasing feelings of unhappiness and even self loathing, said the study.
But while this is a common trait in anorexics and others with body issues, it also happens in healthy and fit women with no obvious worries about their weight or shape, it added.
Yet it does not happen at all with men,
He said: 'These women have no history of eating disorders and project an attitude that they don't care about body image.
'Yet under the surface is an anxiety about getting fat.' Allen and his team are conducting a long term psychological study to improve the treatment of eating disorders.
When women with such disorders, including anorexia and bulimia, see an overweight stranger their own brain sets off feelings of self-loathing and extreme unhappiness.
This increases the pressure to stay thin.
But the tests suggest a similar reaction exhibiting what the researchers call 'sub-clinical issues with body image.'
Allen added: 'Although these women's brain activity doesn't look like full-blown eating disorders, they are much closer to it than men are.'
Human males are basically genetically wired to react to appearance—typically youth, hips, breasts: the ability to birth and rear children successfully. This differs by culture as to what the ideal is. Thus, it makes sense that women would react negatively to poor body image—in this case a visual reminder in others of what is imperfect about themselves.
Conversely, women are not genetically wired to react to appearance (or at least not as strongly as men). Women look more for a provider: wealth, power, ability, strength, etc. Thus men wouldn't react as strongly to appearance-based differentiators. I'd be interested to see the male reaction to someone more (or less) successful then them.
[Typical disclaimer about this being merely illustratory and not an attempt to be sexist in any way, either way. Gah, I'm so PC.]
Yeah, sure...if you believe studies that are meant to reflect the patriarchal POV.
There are cultures where women are the primary supporters. Do you think that their "research" would reflect the same ideas? I don't.
When research is done, the very proposal the creates the study is riddled with cultural assumptions. It isn't much of a surprise then that the "results" just happen to support the cultural assumptions.
One area where this has been proven is in the study of ancient graves with weapons. The cultural assumption was that these were always men buried with their weapons, but this changed after women came on the scene and actually looked at the skeletons to determine sex (which had not been done before because of cultural assumptions). Some of them turned out to be female.
There are many other areas of research that are producing different results because the research is now being conducted with women's actual roles in mind rather than just going on cultural assumptions.
Culture helps determine the "what," but there's a basic truth involved in procreation that each sex looks for attributes in the other to maximize the utility of their offspring. There's no need to get into a patriarchal or matriarchal argument because that's not the point. It's not an attack on anyone's femininity or masculinity.
Discussing the culture that forms expectations is not about anyone's femininity or masculinity. It's about what researchers are conditioned to think about the subject they are approaching. We are all conditioned by our cultures to think this or that about men and women. There is no getting around it. These stereotypes are reinforced daily in our family, friends, churches, colleges, media and every other source of information.
Researchers are people just like you and I -- and they will see and interpret things according to what they've been taught throughout their entire lives. As is proven by the warrior graves where the stereotype of a warrior was so decidedly masculine that no one even thought about examining the sex via the skeleton until women looked at them and said, this skeleton is female.
Those ingrained stereotypes are going to be found in all research. I could cite other instances if you still don't understand what I am saying.
Historically there were definite reasons why cultures had clearly
defined roles for the genders . Keeping women out of occupations
where they could suffer fatalities had a positive effect on birthrates .
Oh for love of god, I pray that you are both retards. How about if boys and girls find other boys and girls that they think are hot, and we all have enough brain-power to overcome the stupidity of "evolution made us this way." Because evolution didn't make a nice sweater from FCUK, and mofugs look hot in it.
All the theories are crap. Lookin' good shouldn't be this complicated.
@!$%# gender roles. Let's you do what you like, me do the same, and us both wear the best shoes that we can find, and we'll tell each other apart that way. And, yeah, if you're a boy pretending you don't care about shoes? Lies.
1.5: Historically there were definite reasons why cultures had clearly defined roles for the genders .
Prior to patriarchy, women did everything men did and more (because men can't give birth or breastfeed). When clans began, they were formed around the maternal grandmother. Women grew food and hunted for food too. They built structures and every other task that needed doing.
If you read the parable about the "Ideal Woman" in Proverbs, he isn't doing a single thing. She's running the household, the vineyards, the family businesses and everything else, including making the wine that he drank while he sat in the gates of the city bragging about his wife.
When the RCC priests enslaved Indians to build their chain of missions, they were bothered by the Indian women laughing at them in what later became New Mexico. Why were the women laughing? Because everyone knew that men couldn't build anything.
So the whole rigid roles thing is not shared across cultures. It is custom only that defines who does what.
Keeping women out of occupations where they could suffer fatalities had a positive effect on birthrates .
Gosh, rape had a positive effect on birthrates too, so I guess the fact they slaughtered entire villages so they could kidnap and rape the virgins to force them into pregnancies made it all worthwhile. Of course, they called it "marriage," but hey, what's in a word?
I pray that you are both retards
Sometimes I pray for that too. :)
Lookin' good shouldn't be this complicated.
Did you ever wonder why some men are attracted to boobs? I think it's goes way back to the instinct to procreate. Women with ample breasts should be able to have well fed babies, right?
How about butt men? Women with wider hips have an easier time during childbirth.
Men don't care about what women drive..they care about how she looks.
Now for women. Most women are attracted to men in nice cars. Men in nice cars, will be able to take care of said children.
****************************
Hahaha! Now, not everyone fits my theory, but most do to some degree...
Actually, breast size does not indicate ability to produce milk. Some small breasted women produce far more milk than large breasted women. The process of producing milk is complicated. No matter how big a woman's breasts, if the right hormones don't kick in at the right time, she won't be producing a lot of milk.
As to wide hips, yes, a woman with wide hips usually has an easier time with pregnancy and childbirth, which makes the current fad of thinking women with boyish bodies are sexier a definitely abnormality if one wants to attribute evolution with why we are attracted to certain people.
Did you ever wonder why some men are attracted to boobs?
I wonder about it all the time. I like thin people, and thin women tend not to have very large breasts. Maybe I'm broken, but boobs have never been something I've found particularly attractive.
How about butt men? Women with wider hips have an easier time during childbirth.
Oh please. Boy, girl, gay, straight--everyone likes a nice looking ass.
That's very true! My sister-in-law had the same problem.
But, boy I could choke a horse! LOL! J/k~ Oh what a riot.
I don't get it about these anorexic models. Most men like some curves though!
Oh please. Boy, girl, gay, straight--everyone likes a nice looking ass.
ROFLMAO! Oh my good grief, Zom, you kill me! Um, yeah well..It fit the theory...Roflmao!
Hey, I wrote you back..but its on my real email. So watch for it. My name is Terrie, btw..
Oh Zommie, *roflmao* When you do come up - I bet you'll laugh when you see my husband! I described him perfectly below~
You'll be able to pick him right out! LOL! Say, "Hi Mike!" and he'll sit and talk to you like he's known you for years! LOL! I bet he'll even give you free drinks or something! BWAAAHAAAA
Loretta ,
Women grew food and hunted for food too. They built structures and every other task that needed doing.
I doubt the wisdom of the hunting part . Tribes/clans that had their women
out hunting were likely to have lower birthrates and that could lead to
the extinction of that group .
Why lower birthrates ? Because hunting often required long distance running .
This has been demonstrated to bring about the loss of women's menstration
[ when the % body fat gets too low ] .
There are other factors too .
Gosh, rape had a positive effect on birthrates too
Apparently you've missed the point I was making .
A group that wants to survive and maintain its identity requires
a certain minimum level of birthrate . I am not lauding high birthrates as
a universally positive good ; only making a statement about the past .
You may doubt that women were out hunting (mostly because that's what you've been taught) but research shows that they did.
You are making the mistakes of thinking that a woman's only purpose of existing it to have babies, that ancient people planned their activities around the birth rate and that ancient people knew what caused pregnancy or restricted it. They didn't have studies about long distance running, so why would that modern knowledge figure into their decisions?
BTW, running doesn't affect their menstrual cycle. It is a malnourished level of fat in the body that does. Women need at least 18% of fat in order to be healthy. 12% is malnourished. The closer they get to 12%, the less likely they are to have healthy menstrual cycles.
Zom Zom ,
Oh please. Boy, girl, gay, straight--everyone likes a nice looking ass.
Maybe so , but the structure of the female pelvis is radically different
from the male pelvis . It is , after all designed for procreation .
Women who have less of that type of structure are less appealing
to men and that is an instinct put in us by evolution IMO .
Yes , that means there are feminine asses and non-feminine asses .
Boy, girl, gay, straight--everyone likes a nice looking ass.
Agreed. A nice ass is a must, for me. Plus, for me, skinny, smoker, drinker, smart, funny, nice smile, clean shaven, likes to party and throw parties. Those are the musts.
These are the things he must tolerate, participate in, and pretend he likes it, if he wants to be with me. Hanging Christmas lights, painting, Christmas carolling, painting beer, building things like a chicken coop, moving furniture at least every couple of months, and drunk shopping (actually I think most would like that one).
Hey, what can I say? I know what I like.
Loretta ,
You may doubt that women were out hunting
I did not say that . I said I doubt the wisdom of such practices .
The likelihood of a group going extinct was greater because its
women were out hunting .
You are making the mistakes of thinking that a woman's only purpose of existing it to have babies, that ancient people planned their activities around the birth rate and that ancient people knew what caused pregnancy or restricted it. They didn't have studies about long distance running, so why would that modern knowledge figure into their decisions?
Again , I am only saying that such groups were more likely to extinguish
themselves and that is why we are influenced by this behavior today .
The groups that did survive are the ones who influenced our thinking .
It is a kind of evolution for culture , if you will .
Maybe so , but the structure of the female pelvis is radically different
from the male pelvis . It is , after all designed for procreation .
Women who have less of that type of structure are less appealing
to men and that is an instinct put in us by evolution IMO .
Yes , that means there are feminine asses and non-feminine asses .
Zealot! Yep! See there! That works for me.
Loretta ,
BTW, running doesn't affect their menstrual cycle. It is a malnourished level of fat in the body that does. Women need at least 18% of fat in order to be healthy. 12% is malnourished. The closer they get to 12%, the less likely they are to have healthy menstrual cycles.
In societies that had to earn their living by hunting , people were , generally speaking , not overfed and tended to be lean . When you add long distance running to that mix , it would tend to bring about amenorrhea .
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/761673
http://www.chacha.com/question/do-running-mess-up-your-menstrual-cycle
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/women/reproductive/menstrual/885.html
It is , after all designed for procreation .
"Evolution" isn't the name of some cranky old man who lives in the woods deciding what people should look like. It's just what happened. The female pelvis wasn't designed at all, and it's not "for" anything. It's just a bunch of organic material composing a body. It has no intentions or purpose except those its owner bestows upon it.
Women who have less of that type of structure are less appealing
to men and that is an instinct put in us by evolution IMO .
I think that whatever was put in you isn't the same things that got put in me.
Yes , that means there are feminine asses and non-feminine asses .
I know men that have feminine looking asses and they weren't designed to have babies. Our purpose is whatever we want our purpose to be. Purpose does not have to be hinged to the archaic notion that we are simply here to procreate.
I am also here to look good, flirt and torture men that can't have me. Oh and drink.
1.22: When you add long distance running to that mix , it would tend to bring about amenorrhea .
That's true -- but you are assuming they would have known that. They didn't. They also didn't forbid women to hunt because they would have to run and then might go below a certain fat level and have menstrual problems. How could they set that as the role she had to avoid if they did not know the results of that role?
Besides, long distance running would not have played a significant role in hunting. Not sure why you think it would. For the most part, a hunter on foot sneaks up on the prey, just like lions do, but human hunters used weapons like spears and bows and arrows. They did not try to out run their prey. That would simply have produced starvation.
Hunters on horseback would not have run long distances either nor would they have asked their horses to run long distances. They too would have used stealth to approach their prey and then used the horse's speed for a short distance, like lions do.
Not that I'm trying to validate his argument, but current anthropology has demonstrated that early humans really did rely heavily on their ability to run long distances. It appears to have been a driving force in our being bipedal and not having hair (which allows us to cool off more easily). It's the only advantage that we had over pretty much any of early human's prey animals. They could all sprint, but early humans could outrun them over a distance. As far as I know, every current model is in favor of long distance running being one of the biggest factors in our evolving into our current bodies, and probably being our primary method of hunting. Early weapons might wound, but then you'd run the prey down until it got exhausted.
#1.22 :
The female pelvis wasn't designed at all,
Fine , it evolved that way . Happy ?
you are assuming they would have known that. They didn't. They also didn't forbid women to hunt because they would have to run and then might go below a certain fat level and have menstrual problems. How could they set that as the role she had to avoid if they did not know the results of that role?
I did not say they knew . Reread #1.19 .
They did not try to out run their prey.
They did if the animal was wounded and ran away .
Looks like Zom Zom agrees with me on this .
Hunters on horseback
I'm speaking of earlier times than that , before horse domestication .
At the same time, the fact that we show so little sexual dimorphism is a good reason to believe that whatever tasks early humans had were shared more or less equally, aside from the actual act of reproducing.
Fine , it evolved that way . Happy ?
Much happier, thanks :) Sorry--personal hang up. Talking about bodies as having inborn purposes makes me crazy. It too easily leads to fallacious conclusions of "this is how men and women are supposed to be," as if "purpose" wasn't something that we all get to make up for ourselves.
Looks like Zom Zom agrees with me on this .
Don't let that go to your head. I'm generally full of @!$%# :)
I must say, Zom, you're an intelligent young man! You've also put a lot more thought into this than I have. Who knows, maybe you're right...
1.25: current anthropology has demonstrated that early humans really did rely heavily on their ability to run long distances...It's the only advantage that we had over pretty much any of early human's prey animals. They could all sprint, but early humans could outrun them over a distance
No human can outsprint a hunter animal. Long distance running would have been useless when under attack.
If long distance running was essential to survival in any other context, then women had to run long distances too, which invalidates the argument.
Here's one article about graves showing that women did participate in dangerous tasks and were not just limited to broodmare occupations. Note that they did not rely upon long distance running or hunting.
http://www.amazonation.com/Archaeology.html
The excavations were conducted at an area that can be called the Gate of Peoples. Here, between the Caspian Sea and the Stone Belt mountains, many ancient tribes moved from the east to the west, driven by an unknown force. In the 6th-4th centuries BC an area of the Tobol River in Western Siberia and the entire range of northern Kazakhstan was inhabited by Salmats, a warlike nomadic tribe. In the 3rd century BC they ousted the Scythians from the area around the Black Sea and the Caucasus. Here they found a common language with the Amazons and married them.
The expedition found 40 women's graves, seven of which contained items not typical of the gentler sex - armors, weapons, and horse harness. All these things - bronze arrowheads, daggers, and swords - were of normal size and showed signs that they had been used frequently for military purposes. This rules out the suggestion that all these articles were just symbolic and used for only ritual purposes.
The only difference was that the handles of the swords and daggers found in the women's graves were shorter than those found in the men's graves. Probably these weapons were made especially for women, with their comparatively small hands. One can also suggest that these were hunting weapons. However, the Amazons' graves contained many sheep, horse, and camel skins and bones but no bones of wild animals. This proves that these tribes were not hunters but nomadic cattle-breeders.
Another fact, proving the Amazon theory is that military tattoos on the
remnants of the skin of both the men and women.
Here's another:
http://www.warandgender.com/wgamazon.htm
In Davis–Kimball’s sites, seven graves of females were found with “iron swords or daggers, bronze arrowheads, and whetstones to sharpen the weapons, suggesting that these seven females were warriors.” One young girl’s bowed legs “attest to a life on horseback” and “she wore a bronze arrowhead in a leather pouch around her neck.” Another woman’s body contained a bent arrowhead, “suggesting that she had been killed in battle.” (I would note that women killed in war might not be combatants.) Since females generally “were buried with a wider variety and larger quantity of artifacts than males,” Davis–Kimball concludes that “females…seem to have controlled much of the wealth.”
Here's one that with studies of ape that show the female ape hunts more often than the male, which is causing them to rethink old positions on human hunting:
And what’s particularly intriguing in the report is the fact that of the 22 observed cases of spear-fashioning, only one involved an adult male. Thirteen were carried out by females. (The other cases involved young males.) The scientists suggest that female apes played an important role not only in the development of tools for crushing nuts and catching insects and other kinds of foraging, but also for hunting. Among our earliest ancestors, females might have spent some of their time spearing prey....Some anthropologists have argued that this division of labor and broader sharing means that humans can have a more reliable supply of food over their lifetime. However, this is not a hard and fast rule. As Harvard anthropologist Frank Marlowe observes, Austrlain females hunt lots of small animals, while men in many cultures are full-time foragers for honey and fruit. There are even cultures in which the men and women hunt together.(pdf) Man, Woman, Hunter, Hunted, Root-Digger, Fruit-Picker–harder to fit on a book cover, but perhaps closer to our complicated reality.
And then there's this:
A study done on the Aeta people of the Philippines states: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."[8] It was also found among the Ju'/hoansi people of Namibia that women helped the men during hunting by helping them track down quarry.[11] Moreover, recent archaeological research done by the anthropologist and archaeologist Steven Kuhn from the University of Arizona suggests that the sexual division of labor did not exist prior to the Upper Paleolithic and developed relatively recently in human history. The sexual division of labor may have arisen to allow humans to acquire food and other resources more efficiently.[12] It would, therefore, be an over-generalization to say that men always hunt and women always gather.
BTW, other studies show that women invented agriculture, including both planting and herd maintenance, plus they domesticated animals.
So women played an integral role in providing food in all it's contexts and were not limited to being broodmares. That happened in patriarchy after men figured out two things: that men had something to do with creating pregnancy and that they needed a system for inheritance of assets. Since men only wanted their sons to inherit their property, they invented sexual slavery of women (calling it marriage). They kept women as prisoners to ensure that no other man could imprenate their property. That is why they gave women roles that kept them within a protected enclosure and did not allow them to be on hunts or in armies where it would be harder to keep them under their husband's sexual control.
but current anthropology has demonstrated that early humans really did rely heavily on their ability to run long distances.
True. Anthropologically speaking are bodies were equipped with survival in mind and procreation to be possible. Girl's have the ability to carry babies and boys can fertilize eggs, among other things like run fast. My problem is that is not the only purpose in our our lives, it's simply one the many possibilities in our lives. That, and it kinda makes me think that what they really mean to say, a lot of the time, is that was God's purpose for us.
Zom Zom ,
the fact that we show so little sexual dimorphism
I expect compared to other species that is accurate .
whatever tasks early humans had were shared more or less equally, aside from the actual act of reproducing.
And aside from hunting and also feeding of infants .
Don't let that go to your head. I'm generally full of @!$%#
It must be hard to run long distances like that . :-)
Loretta #1.30 ,
What ever happened to all those tribes ? Is it possible they went extinct ?
If so , it demonstrates what I have been saying .
women played an integral role in providing food in all it's contexts and were not limited to being broodmares.
OK , that is entirely possible . Although tribes where the women hunted
probably went extinct .
What ever happened to all those tribes ?
Probably the same place the tribes where you came from went. They assimilated into modern society over the period of thousands of years.
So you're now saying that tribes went extinct because women hunted? What about all the cultures that "went extinct" where women didn't hunt? Can you show me any culture that survived the Paleolithic era and is still going strong today?
Women didn't hunt in ancient Greece or Rome. They're not around any longer either. Did they disintegrate due to women not reproducing fast enough?
And aside from hunting and also feeding of infants .
Where is your basis for that claim? I don't know what the answer is, but are you basing the claim on anything, or simply assuming it?
Can you show me any culture that survived the Paleolithic era and is still going strong today?
I take it you've never been to a Nascar event?
Loretta ,
So you're now saying that tribes went extinct because women hunted? What about all the cultures that "went extinct" where women didn't hunt?
Surely you realize there is more than 1 cause for extinction .
Women didn't hunt in ancient Greece or Rome. They're not around any longer either.
No ; but their ancestors are . They left behind their genetics and even their cultural ideas .
ZZ ,
Where is your basis for that claim?
Which claim ?
I take it you've never been to a Nascar event?
It would surprise me if she has !
Which claim ?
That women weren't involved in hunting.
I mean, no offense, but you're not secretly a leader in the field of paleolithic anthropology, are you? Your entire argument appears to be based on your biological claims that "women's bodies evolved in this way that I don't think it's likely that they were participating in endurance running." However, the simple fact that they also evolved to be every bit as capable of endurance running as males makes your entire argument appear kinda flaky.
the simple fact that they also evolved to be every bit as capable of endurance running as males makes your entire argument appear kinda flaky.
I believe if you look at average times for track and field events
you will find that isn't suggested from the stats .
I believe if you look at average times for track and field events
you will find that isn't correct
Because one's ability to perform in endurance running can be measured based upon how quickly someone can sprint?
I think you might have misunderstood the concept.
The above analysis is most relevant to race distances of roughly 3 to 30 miles. When considering events toward the upper end of this range and beyond, however, some biological factors that favor women may also come into play. First, women should tolerate hot and humid racing conditions better than men due to their smaller body size ...... Because of the way in which various bodily dimensions scale relative to one other, it turns out that small people have higher surface-area-to-volume ratios than large people; therefore, women may be less susceptible than men to overheating during a long race in oppressive weather.
Another interesting male-female difference is the fact that women appear to burn more fat and less carbohydrate than men during endurance exercise. This offers women the possibility that, in events taking two hours or more to complete, their supply of liver and muscle glycogen (a storage form of carbohydrate) will outlast that of men. The reasons for this greater reliance on fat are not fully understood but may relate to estrogen's effects on metabolism, since male rats given estrogen burn less glycogen than male....
The information presented in the previous two paragraphs leads to the prediction that women might compete against men most successfully in events lasting several hours, where overheating and glycogen depletion are particularly common. The limited data we have so far provide preliminary support for this idea. It has been shown that women can sometimes finish ultramarathons in times similar to those of men who can beat them in "short" (26.2-mile) marathons . And when men and women with equivalent marathon times are pitted against each other in ultras, the women tend to win
http://faculty.washington.edu/crowther/Misc/RBC/gender.shtml
So what were you saying about how women can't effectively run long distances?
Can you show me any culture that survived the Paleolithic era and is still going strong today?
I take it you've never been to a Nascar event?
And the winning comment of the day goes to ZomZom. Thanks!
ZZ , #1.42
Because one's ability to perform in endurance running can be measured based upon how quickly someone can sprint?
No . Are you not capable of looking at just the distance events or
are you just enjoying the nit picking ?
Apple ,
Interesting but irrelevant . Hunting is not done for marathon distances .
No . Are you not capable of looking at just the distance events or
are you just enjoying the nit picking ?
Well, since all of your comments are blanket claims and you've yet to produce a single source, it makes it kinda hard to check your sources, don'tcha think?
Your statement was about times. The whole point of the value in endurance running is that how quickly you do it isn't as important as how long you can do it for.
Apples information was scientific evidence that your claims about women and endurance running are blatantly wrong. So, do you have any facts to actually back up any of your claims? Because it's starting to look like you're offering your own opinion when all the facts are against you. Which sorta makes your claims questionable, at very best.
The whole point of the value in endurance running is that how quickly you do it isn't as important as how long you can do it for.
Not if you're talking about hunting ; after all the object is to catch the prey .
Apples information was scientific evidence that your claims about women and endurance running are blatantly wrong.
No . As I said , that has nothing to do with hunting .
The fact that you used the word blatantly shows you are just picking nits .
Detracking now . Enjoy yourself talking among all the other true believers .
You began your claim with (paraphrased): Gender roles developed because women needed to have babies, so they wouldn't have done dangerous things.
When I differed, you claimed they couldn't have hunted because they couldn't have been long distance runners.
I've posted links that have proven that women did hunt and go to war; not all tribes hunted; that in tribes that do hunt, women were more successful at hunting than men; and that women didn't have to run to catch prey because they used dogs.
You then claimed that tribes where women hunted became extinct. When I challenged you to show me a Paleolithic era tribe that has survived, you ducked the question and returned to the "marathon runner" argument that had already been disproven. And then you contradicted yourself saying hunting is not done for marathon distances.
When I challenged you on why tribes where women didn't hunt also went extinct or to show me a single tribe that survived, you backed away from the "tribes went extinct because women didn't have enough babies" routine by changing your argument to hiding behind "there's more than one reason why tribes go extinct."
"No ; but their ancestors are . They left behind their genetics and even their cultural ideas ..
Oh, wait. Tribes that go extinct leave behind their genetics? How could that be if the reason they went extinct is because they didn't have enough babies?
You keep referencing "evolution" as if that is a real reason to believe as you do, but I even posted a link to a study that shows female apes hunt as much as or more than male apes -- and they didn't go extinct.
You haven't a clue what you are talking about. Your only point of reference is to argue that women should be denied certain tasks because women are needed as baby machines based on patriarchal culture -- which is what I said in the first place: patriarchy demands that women be denied freedom so men can be sure the women's babies are also the husband's babies. That is the entire reason why women are denied their freedom to live whatever life they want and do any job they wish to do.
It's fully documented in the OT where women were kept sexually enslaved under threat of death. That is the culture that was passed down to us. Continue reading it, and you will see how most tribes became extinct: their enemies slaughters them and kdinapped their women to make into sexual slaves.
Tribes didn't go extinct because women didn't have enough babies. Tribes went extinct because men went to war with each other and murdered the people the women bore and raised. Women created life. Men created violent death.
The tribes that were victorious also burned their enemies texts, so their culture couldn't be passed down (if texts existed), so we ended up with war cultures that kidnapped women and sold them in to sexual slavery. Slaves are always denied their freedom and forced to do as their owners demand. Note: if there weren't enough women to have babies, men kidnapped and enslaved women so they would have babies. That's still being done today. One example: China where "bride" kidnapping is a thriving underground activity. Another example: the multi-billion dollar human trafficking industry that is happening worldwide, including in the US.
If you want to continue your "women were denied roles so they could have more babies and the tribe wouldn't go extinct" argument, then produce a single tribe that went extinct for the sole reason that women didn't have enough babies.
Not if you're talking about hunting ; after all the object is to catch the prey .
Again... do you have any evidence? It kind of seems like you're making things up. Whether someone's time is twenty seconds better or worse isn't important compared to whether they can keep it up for 3 hours.
What I find interesting but not surprising is that studies of Miss America winners through the history of the pageant have shown a trend toward thinness across the decades. This means that our standards of beauty have changed through various influences. Women who would have been considered sexy in the 1920s when the pageant started would be considered fat by the standards of today's pageant. I believe it is conditioning, not nature, that has spurred this trend. We are bombarded with images of what the "ideal" woman should look like and we have absorbed those images and taken them to be the norm.
Good points. If you look at the actresses considered sexy in the 1950s, they are built far different than the actresses considered sexy today.
The clothing sizes have changed drastically also. In my young adult years I wore a size 6-8. I weigh the same then as now some 45 years later and wear XS or a 1-2 size in clothing. I find that very strange and believe we've jumped over to "Vanity sizes" in which we can brag, but who needs that as much as trying to find clothing that fits?
Good points too. Are we really that easy to manipulate? I used to work in the clothing industry. Every company has their own designers who use their preferences in measurements for any given size. So a size can vary from company to company as to the measurements. In addition, they differ from nation to nation.
So why should we be conned into being a slave to a number on a tag? It means nothing other than a rather inaccurate guide to what will fit you or not. That's why we have to keep trying on clothes in the store even though we've weighed the same for years.
I purchase most of my clothing on-line and only use a couple of stores, as I know what size to buy from them. I do use the size charts however and that helps a lot.
I think women have been manipulated with fashion magazines and hype. When young girls hit their teens they talk about being a model yet has no idea what that entails. My youngest had a friend that wanted to model so we went with her and her mother to all of these agencies to have a look. It was way too much for me as the pitch and the promises were off the charts. My daughter grew bored quickly as she thought most of the places seemed phony.
There were child models attending the school I worked at and they were groomed to the point of looking fake. I don't know how much childhood a kid can have if everyone is worried about a skinned knee or a chipped tooth. I would never have been able to cope with this as a child and I have plenty of scars to prove this.
As far as beauty standards, it doesn't necessarily seem like a bad thing. Granted--the extremes are bad. But the common sensibility isn't, necessarily. We still measure poverty on a calculation that relies heavily on the price of groceries. Up until the last hundred years, what you could put on the dinner table was a serious matter for every family, no matter what their income. So it makes sense that someone a little more plump would appear more attractive. They would appear to be part of the class that allows them to have less regard for what's brought home for dinner. But, in the modern age, when three dollars can buy you enough food to add four inches to your ass over night, the ability to remain thin in the face of our orgasmic abundance shows a quality of character that, every year, fewer and fewer Americans maintain. It shows integrity and self-awareness, in a way that previous generations might see a little flab and see opulence, satisfaction and worth.
Thin is good because no one has to be, and everyone that is, is someone who worked for it. Someone who accomplished something. And everyone who is heavy is someone that simply wasn't paying any attention. So it's a reversal of the values, because it's a reversal of the roles.
I don't view body weight as some kind of moral triumph, no matter which way the scales tip. Our concern should be aimed at maintaining our health. Some people are healthier being thin. Others are healthier carrying more weight. Neither should be judged negatively. We are born without a choice in body type, and no body type should be viewed as wrong, morally or otherwise.
We are born without a choice in body type, and no body type should be viewed as wrong, morally or otherwise.
I don't mean morally. I mean aesthetically. Pleasurably. Anyhow, my opinion on it probably isn't very scientific, but I just mean it as an idea on why people might have the feelings that they do. There's nothing wrong with liking some body types and not liking others. It's only wrong if we're compelled to choose a particular style.
Of course we view the way other people look as good or bad. Everyone does. We couldn't help it if we wanted to, and I doubt many of us want to. It's about finding someone attractive. To feel a strong attraction, you have to have a solid opinion. It's like taste in art. You can't just say "I like art" and expect to have the same enthusiasm for a Cezanne that someone who says "I love the impressionists" has. And you can't have a strong opinion without falling into the trap of rejecting that which doesn't conform to it.
Okay, you like thin hips. But many women are born with a pear body shape. Should they have to struggle to conform to your standard or hate their body type because they can't?
What if Bob loves fat women. Should women have to conform to his preferences or feel ashamed if they don't?
That's the essence of this article: that women are pressured to conform and feel bad about themselves when they don't.
As a society, we need to stop pretending that one shape or another is the most important or the most valued or the most moral. And yes, some people act as if weight on women is akin to immorality.
It is okay for you, Bob and whoever to have your preferences. It is not okay for those preferences to be imposed on women as part of our cultural identity.
Okay, you like thin hips. But many women are born with a pear body shape. Should they have to struggle to conform to your standard or hate their body type because they can't?
Of course not. They should meet someone who isn't like me. Not that it's actually relevant, but thin doesn't necessarily mean tiny bone structure. A woman with huge hips can still be thin. It turns out so hot, I swear!
But hell no. I'd never advocate someone should adhere to my sense of beauty. I'm really not a misogynist, I swear. There are plenty of people out there. I think I should find someone I like, they should find someone they like, and there's more than enough chances for all of us to be happy.
That's the essence of this article: that women are pressured to conform and feel bad about themselves when they don't.\
I know. Sorry--we'd gotten a bit off track of the article, I thought. Yes--it's a tragedy when someone chooses what they do because of a lack of self-respect, rather than because of a driving, personal desire.
That shouldn't happen, and we shouldn't make other people feel that way. But I don't think that, to accomplish that, we have to eschew all personal opinions.
Sometimes, I think that articles like these are attacking the very foundations of beauty. For whatever reasons, we've put all that value into women. We've abandoned it in so many places that it could be found, and chosen the female form to be our pariah.
I think that really @!$%#ing sucks. But all that we need to do, to fix it in our own lives, is open up our own damned eyes and notice that it comes from other places, too.
Beauty is about finding something that, when you look at it, makes you want to run your fingers across it. It's not about boys or girls, or marble and wood carving. It's not about oil paints or digital art on a screen. It's about seeing, hearing or feeling something that makes you want to connect to that thing. Maybe that thing is a person, or a painting, or a song.
It doesn't matter. What makes something beautiful is that desire to ask if you can be a part of it. That's why we collect paintings, and have favorite bands, and say "will you be my girlfriend?"
We are all a whole lot different in the things that we feel that towards. And everybody should get to be guilt free, in choosing what those things are. And I shouldn't have to feel any worse just because mine is "people with really low body fat ratios" than you should just because you like to read the Bloomsbury circle's poetry.
It should always be about joy. And it sucks really bad for those people that want to bring that, and have nothing to offer us. I truly am sorry for them. But I don't owe them my aesthetic sensibilities. And they don't owe me anything, either. I'm going to try to find what I think makes my life more beautiful. If I think about the people that aren't incorporated into that at all, it's just to hope that they find it, too.
And anyone telling me that makes me a bad person? They suck, so @!$%# them anyhow.
That was a great post. Perhaps the best I've ever seen from you. Applause. Standing ovation even. Wish I could vote it up several times.
Beauty is all around us. We can find it in a blade of grass if we're looking at that blade close enough. It is a true wonder -- and most of us never look.
Part of the need to force a cultural identity upon women (or men) based on their looks is the fact that we've limited our time to appreciate beauty in its many forms. Too often, what is beautiful is considered something to be destroyed because it is occupying something we want to profit from. Look at the push to destroy our national forests by the logging industry.
When we spend so much of our life ignoring, denying or destroying beauty, it should not surprise us when we (as a society) want to impose a false standard of beauty on someone else. Our sense of beauty is already so warped, how can we look at a non-conforming body as beautiful?
It wouldn't bother me if all of us had our individual preferences and there wasn't a societal pressure to conform -- but there is and it is making women (especially young women and teens) neurotic to the point they are developing severe diseases in the quest for "perfect" beauty that doesn't exist.
I don't know if I agree with this. Women's body images have changed over millennia and I doubt they were all feeling bad about themselves. Cleopatra is believed to have been heavy, I doubt she had a lot of self-esteem issues.
I think this study reflects that women are bombarded with body image advertising even at a young age and it sticks in their psyche.
#2 - Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:10 PM EDTApples, I came from a time where women could not leave their homes unless they were in full make-up and dresses with heels. Magazines were just as strange and warped as they are today. All I see and hear when I look at the style and beauty magazines I call "smut" is propaganda designed to make the reader want, want, want. The magic cure for wrinkles the magic cure for fat are the biggest winning articles. Then comes the violin playing sob stories with an occasional "happy" story. However, comments and some of the material makes me cringe. The magazines focus upon image not the whole person. If these young women have "skinny envy" it is only because they've been taught. Their appearance is far more important than intelligence and an ability to be a critical thinker. For me it is the same old same old.
Great comment by the way as you can see by my ramble.
Don't forget the "you aren't socially acceptable unless you buy our advertisers products" articles that are directly related to getting money out of the advertisers, thereby making both the publication and the advertisers rich while leaving the women very much poorer.
Who says you need to be socially acceptable? Is the biggest problem that women have is acting like sheep?
I'll tell you what, when I gain 10 lbs, I say I'm getting fat! My husband, however, swears he's the same size he was in college. He looks like freaking Santa Clause! I swear! Same as he was in college, again, my little pink caboose! I was there, he sure as hell didn't look like an out of work Santa Clause in a Hawaiian shirt when he was in COLLEGE!
My daughter finally said to him after watching a show, "Look! He's FAT, like YOU!" My husband was shocked! He said,"I am NOT fat!" She said, "Yes, ya are".
#3 - Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:11 PM EDTGrammar-phobe, You've made my day! I'm so with you on the "freaking Santa Claus"...in a Hawaiian shirt. So, I guess men don't feel the same way when they see another fat guy. Instead they say, "Jeez look at the gut on that guy" all the while trying to find his foot as he can't see past his belly.
Thanks for the good time!
LOL! You poor thing, does your husband wear Hawaiian shirts everyday too? Sheesh, I know that if I wore a Muumuu everyday, he'd say something to me about it! LOL! Oh well..I love the big oaf!
But, I really should have said my husband looks like Santa Clause on vacation...
That's only in this culture in the West. That's not true everywhere.
What I have found is that a woman;s body get associated with prosperity and that type is what becomes desirable. Here, a thin toned woman is associated with being well-off and that's what's desired. Elsewhere, a more voluptuous woman means prosperity and that's what's desired.
Either way, if a woman falls short of her culture's standards, they do feel anxiety or at least many of them do.
#4 - Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:20 PM EDTThat's only in this culture in the West.
That's not entirely accurate. In the far East woman are expected to be waif thin and not muscular. I'm Korean so while I understood this growing up, there was just recently a whole article on the craze in the Far East (Korea, China, Japan, especially) for woman to be skinny. Even being moderately overweight in those countries can affect your career, as employers think heavy women are lazy. I'm talking about size 8 woman here...
Good point Apples, but in the West being thin is relatively new. It was maybe a century ago that being voluptuous in the West was considered ideal because it signified prosperity. Skinny women worked to hard and didn't have enough money for the fine rich foods that wealthy women could eat.
Now, the Far East puts more of a premium on whiteness of skin than weight. Only the farm workers get brown because they spend hours working, but the rich wives are porcelain white ( they are inside and not field working etc) and that ideal is true today in China, Japan, Korea, etc.
Agreed. It wasn't all that long ago in Western society that a skinny woman was considered unhealthy. Skinny women were likely poor women or diseased women. Healthy women were plump. Now because being skinny is a sign of having the leisure time that comes with prosperity, the "ideal" is the skinny woman. Women do not have an inbuilt fear of getting fat. Women are conditioned to feel inferior for being fat, but only in certain cultures.
Good posts everyone! Women in the 50's and 60's were just beginning to want to be like the magazine models. Women were still "arm candy" to their men and got married at a very early age, some not out of high school. We were expected to be a bit like "Stepford Wives" if we were married to a "Professional". The stigma was difficult to endure. One time in my early 20's I say the Governor and his wife and she was wearing flat shoes. I was astounded and absolutely confused as this was a big fashion no-no. We were certainly trained to have certain attitudes about image. Of course, many of these women were under the thumb of their husbands and would be thrashed if they weren't looking great all of the time. My husband told me that if I got fat or didn't dye my hair he'd divorce me. Whoa I was really worth something to him.
Anyone seen Mona Lisa Smile? It is a great movie about the Stepford wife requirements of those days.
I never wanted to marry because of that. I did get conned into marrying -- and it was a huge mistake. Even if he'd been the perfect husband, it would have been a huge mistake because I hated playing housewife as expected by everyone in those days.
I remember my mother being furious because I wouldn't go to "charm school" with my sister. I was about fourteen, so that would have been about 1959. A decade or more later, she gave me a necklace for xmas. My daughter said, "Mom doesn't wear jewelry, Grandma." She snapped, "She does now."
Awful to remember the pressure to conform.
Men are suffering similar for different reasons.
Pressure on men to have the perfect body has increased...I see it big time in high school/college sports. My neighbor suffers from a bad body image due to coaches. Football wants weight on and wrestling wants weight off. It has really stressed this kid out and he has paid the price physically. Not ok for men or women.
#5 - Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:23 PM EDTHigh school and college sports have always been an out-of-proportion focal point. Considering the percentages of people who actually get involved with sports, balanced against the amount of media coverage sports get, even at the high-school level, there's not much realistic idealism involved.
Pressure on men may be increasing a little, but it's still far from the norm, I think.
If you have ever met an ex-professional athlete that has given it up you probably don't want to want that as an image. I felt so sorry for a young man I met in the late 60's. He was all flabby and unformed it amazed me. His wife took me into her sewing room one day and there was a photo of a guy in a Speedo all rocked out. I did a double take, as I couldn't imagine anyone having that photo anywhere someone could see. She told me that the photo was of her husband when he competed in weight lifting. I was speechless.
I think I could ruin their hypothesis about the fear not existing in men.
#6 - Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:33 PM EDTMen are coming under a lot more pressure these days than they ever did before. More and more are turning to plastic surgery, etc.
It's a shame that it's spreading to the opposite sex rather than dying out as it should.
As one of those men who has had a little work done, I have to say that I think the shame is that it's taken so long. We make ourselves look good, too.
Yet it does not happen at all with men
Really now? I went thorugh such a phase in my early twenties, engaging in distance running and limiting my food intake, dropping my weight below 170 pounds. I even became bulemic for few months.
Buzz kill.
#7 - Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:53 PM EDTHow old is Barbie? I'd say the real craze for the perfect figure started about the time SHE became the epitomy of the "can do" woman! Of course we have all heard that if she were real, she'd have back problems at the least and at worst need a cane to even walk upright....nonetheless she became what all little girls desired to be.
The media then certainly did not help ....and models? Wow...again we all know that models were thin back in the day for a reason, they were showing of the clothing and not themselves..
somehow society has projected onto every little girl in america that being thin is IN...poor Twiggy! Was she really allowed to eat? Now she brought competition from England, and we set off yet again on the search for the perfect female body!
Then AIDS came about and the media started saying/pushing that heavier was going to be IN because it would be the only way to prove that someone was not HIV positive! Puh-leeze!
Oh yes, back in the day a layer of fat was a good thing, after all winters were hard and long and food was scarce...so women were proud of that layer of fat, it helped them make it through hard times...and men, well, lets face it, they have never had the body image problem that women have had....until, as mentioned recently! I know that a friend of mine in high school and his friends on the wrestling team were so anxious to fit into their weight categories that water became a meal and even head shaving...believe it or not, hair has weight...and guys figured this out quickly!
Oh yes, the media..and society....thanks for all the positive messages to our youth!
~Sara
#8 - Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:40 PM EDTI'd say the real craze for the perfect figure started about the time [Barvie] became the epitomy of the "can do" woman!
Really now? Barbie was a doll for girls to play with, period. A plastic Raggey Ann that girls could tog out to emulate their mothers, enact childroom dreams and fashion their paths to their own adult lives as parents. Mothers of my day were "can do" but none boasted about it.
Barbie's figure was a play upon the imagery of girls painted on the sides of US aircraft in WWII. She was a 3-d incarnation of the women George Petty's "Petty Girls".
Buzz kill.
To be honest, I have no idea what you mean.
Since you are a man, you really would have no idea what the mindset is, or what is being projected to our young women, or what HAS been presented over the last 50+ years.
"Buzzill" means nothing to me, so unless you can explain, then I have to guess that you are just trolling?
also...-rta...???
~Sara
Sara G., Sometimes rickace isn't all that clear in posts and comments. Buzzkill means you have spoiled the image of Barbie with your opinion of her influencing young girls.
Perhaps rickace has not seen Heidi Montag and her new 10 proceedure Barbie body. Or, there is another woman, a twin I believe, that has done the same. Looking like a human Barbie is not all that attractive I think Barbie should have stayed on the plane (rickace's reference).
js, I agree with you. Barbie was originally a take off on a German, fashion doll...of course "WE" took the reigns and turned her into the "american dream"...
"I" spoiled Barbies image?? *Laughs* well, if he believes that she belonged on the airplanes of american fighter jets as the "american dream"...perhaps he is correct, she SHOULD have stayed there! In full agreement with you.
Unfortunately, rickace is a man and as such will never know, or perhaps understand what the media and society has done to help further the image of BARBIE as the american dream woman.....pity, and hopefully he does not have daughters that he can tell are "buzzkilling" the image....
JS you are right, seems rickace should take a look around before making judgements, even unclear ones.
~Sara
Sara, Some people simply do not see the hype and the expectation others have as the ideal "image" of women. I don't see it as any different from the 50's and 60's when I was a young woman. It is very unfortunate that our society thinks it does no harm to fill fashion magazines with overly photoshopped images as the model for life. I get very frustrated when a see a photo of a woman and she is absolutely flawless when I've seen the same woman without the entire computer enhancement. Sure the magazines sell but what do they sell other than an artificial view of reality? Even magazines like "shape" are guilty of using women that do not fit the norm and tout how anyone can look 100% better with a few exercises. Real women have to deal with what they have and if it isn't up where they believe it should be it is very stressful and disappointing.
My motto is, "Love the skin you are in!"
Yes, Buzzkill my you-know-what!
Wait, did this study look at all these things?
Women reacting to women?
Women reacting to men?
Men reacting to women?
Men reacting to men?
I ask this because last weekend I was out shopping with my kids (13yo boy, 8yo girl) and as we were driving home, we saw two people (I can't honestly say whether they were either/both male/female but at least one of them looked arguably male to me) coming out of an apartment complex on those runaround scooters. Either one of them could have easily weighed 500lbs (seriously, they were dwarfing the scooters) and my son said "Holy sh*t!" whereas my daughter didn't say a word.
#9 - Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:06 PM EDTShannoscubie:
"Either one of them could have easily weighed 500lbs (seriously, they were dwarfing the scooters) and my son said "Holy sh*t!"
This is what my son daughter and I would have said so you are absolutely right we all react the way react. There is no set way. I love your son's reaction. lol
We are not usually the type of family to make fun of anyone but there are times humanity catches us off guard and sometimes we say what may not be as respectful as should have been.
When I graduated from high school I weighed 110 lbs. When I graduated from college I weighed 114 lbs. I don't weight that now that I am 55. I have gained weight and frankly, it does not bug me. I know I need to lose weight and I am sure that it would make it easier to fit into a better style of clothing. But I am at a point in my life where I am comfortable with myself and I am not out to impress anyone. Like it or not, I am what I am. Take it or leave it.
#10 - Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:21 AM EDTUm...not really.
Maybe self-conscious people feel this way, but I'm happy with the way I am. Fat, skinny, who cares? Someone should love you for who you are, not for what you look like.
My mom told me once that I was getting "fat" because I had gone from 100 to 115- still underweight for my age. (Though I just have a high metabolism, I don't starve myself)
I just laughed at her.
#11 - Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:54 AM EDTThe bottom line is, "Love the skin you are in!"
I live on Hawaii and see every size and shape in people on the beach. Everyone is pretty darn beautiful to me and it is the person not the body style that makes one attractive.
#12 - Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:44 PM EDTMen do think about their weight. Every man looks in the mirror and wants to be in shape. Some men just are to lazy to do anything about it. Unfortunately men who are overweight produce less male hormone and suffer from a multitude of health problems. Our personal goal should be to be thin. I consider someone who is overweight to have the same problem a heroin addict or alcoholic have. Its both damaging mentally and physically.
Not my man. He sees the boy he was in high school and college!
But then, he sees me as the girl I was in high school and college, too! But then, I don't live in a muumuu either, and am honest to G-d always on a diet. His idea of dieting is eating only 1/2 the bag of potato chips...
HA! After 29 years together...I think I'll keep him! ;-D
By the way, I agree with the overweight thing. My mother in law is like that. Sweet, wonderful woman has tried everything and it just doesn't work for her. That's ok...just gives the rest of us more to love.
There's a difference between thin and healthy. Not everyone who is thin is healthy and not everyone who doesn't meet society's benchmark of thin is unhealthy. People in this society need to learn to separate the two, since they are totally separate concepts in reality.
Apples is right. Plenty of people that look great are not so healthy on the inside. I had a firefighter pal that was buff, but when we did the centrifuge tests on our blood in Physio lab back in 1990, he had very high cholesterol and his diet was not fatty.
His idea of dieting is eating only 1/2 the bag of potato chips...
I love this! hehehe.
Honestly though, while I'm not overweight, I definitely don't eat the best of things. The way I look at is I'd rather live 50 years of eating crap that I like, then 70 years of eating health @!$%# that I hate. :). Life's about quality not quantity- and finding someone who loves your love handles :).
grammar-phobe
But then, he sees me as the girl I was in high school and college, too! But then, I don't live in a muumuu either, and am honest to G-d always on a diet. His idea of dieting is eating only 1/2 the bag of potato chips...
Of course he still sees you as the girl you were in HS and college...didn't you know that's why our eyesight gets worse as we age???
And as for the 1/2 bag of potato chips...isn't that how we ALL diet? I know it's my favorite diet!
*Grins*
~Sara
who is kidding...(so far as you know ;) )
Of course he still sees you as the girl you were in HS and college...didn't you know that's why our eyesight gets worse as we age???
ROFLMAO! Yeah, that was true until he got lasiks! I was worried there - but he's still blind!
believer:
Can I have the other half?
*Looks at her half empty bag of potato chips...then over at believer....then at the bag...then...* well you get the drift!
*sighs deeply and hands him the bag*
You know dieting is just NOT easy!!!!!!
~Sara
Grammar-phobe:
ROFLMAO! Yeah, that was true until he got lasiks! I was worried there - but he's still blind!
LOL! See? God does work in mysterious ways!!!!
*grins*
~Sara
Watch out Believer, asking for the other half of a bag of potato chips in a room full of dieting women, is like rubbing yourself in chum and swimming in the midst of a shark feeding frenzy!
You do so at your own risk! ;0)
There's a difference between thin and healthy.
Ick. I hear that crap so much. Can thin people be unhealthy? Of course. But fat people can't be healthy, and they're icky looking. Thin and unhealthy but good looking, or fat and unhealthy and bad looking, is the fair comparison. There is no comparison between thin, healthy people and any kind of fat person, at all.
Thin and unhealthy is preferable to any other state (except thin and healthy). There is no fat and healthy, and "average" and healthy still doesn't look as good. Whethr you're a boy or girl, put down the sandwich, pick up the coffee, and stop eating. And, if that's not enough, visit the doctor and have a bit of that yellow crap inside your skin sucked away. It's icky-icky ugly goo.
It's icky-icky ugly goo.
Well, um, yeah...If you want to get technical ;-D
Hey, I take this stuff serious. I want to be nice and scientific about it, to make sure that my point gets across :)
I actually just ate a little bag of salt and vinegar potato chips (270 calories). Today, I've had that and a sandwich that had bread, a slice of cheese and an egg. When I get home, I'll probably have a couple glasses of orange juice. Voila--daily intake of whatever the hell I want, still under 1,000 calories.
Vinegar and salt chips are about the only chips I cannot turn away from and I'm happy about this...so happy I'm digging mine out of the cupboard...Thanks, Zom Zom!
Yep, you sound kind of like me. I had yogurt for breakfast, a slice of turkey on 1 piece of multi grain bread (no mayo or cheese; just plain) and a banana. For dinner I'm making roasted chicken, rice and veggies.
My little kids eat more than I do. Once I hit 40, my metabolism stopped. I can't even remember the last time I put a potato chip in my mouth ~
Well, I'm only 28, so I'm not quite at stopped yet, but it definitely slowed way down over the last two years. I still don't pay any attention to what I eat, just how much I eat. It makes staying skinny pretty easy.
I still don't pay any attention to what I eat, just how much I eat.
Bingo. Who was it that said "There is such a thing as diet pizza....it's called 'one slice'?
28? Zomie, come 'ere honey so I can slap you...
In the future, I promise to be older.
I'm not quite at stopped yet, but it definitely slowed way down over the last two years.
I am not quite at stopped yet but it's getting closer so I have to exercise some.
I still don't pay any attention to what I eat, just how much I eat. It makes staying skinny pretty easy.
I don't eat much so I refuse to eat stuff that tastes like, um, lettuce. I'll eat whatever, just not a lot, and only once a day. The rest of the time it's coffee, Diet Pepsi, and smoking.
Do you know that we own a restaurant? I can have all the pasta and pizza I want...
Not to mention tiramisu, lemoncello tiramisu, regular cheesecake, and riccotta cheesecake?
I hate my life...
:-(
Hey, Zom, my oldest son just turned 27! He sure doesn't have a problem with slowed metabolism. That kid can eat anything! Easter we had eggs benedict. I had half of mine and my son ate all of his, the other half of mine, and some seafood crepes...
Sheeesh!
Do you know that we own a restaurant? I can have all the pasta and pizza I want...
Not to mention tiramisu, lemoncello tiramisu, regular cheesecake, and riccotta cheesecake?
Will you adopt me?
The rest of the time it's coffee, Diet Pepsi, and smoking.
Don't forget booze! You don't want to load up on all those empty sugar calories in fruits--gotta save that for the booze.
I don't eat much so I refuse to eat stuff that tastes like, um, lettuce.
ROFLMAO! I HATE you guys!
I don't eat a lot but am a pretty fierce food snob. If it isn't on my list of really "yummies" I snub it and would rather not eat. When I go out to eat I share a meal, as I can never get through a whole one on my own. I'm active and hyper for my 66 years and don't worry about my weight unless it starts dropping from snubbing foods I didn't feel like eating. I keep yogurt, whole grain granola, fruits and vegetables close by in case I'm on a pip. I keep small meals in the freezer and usually make all the main courses in larger quantities so there are some in reserve. I am a pretty good cook as I began cooking meals for the family at age 11 so I've had a lot of practice. I usually make meals by the seat of my pants a.k.a. no recipe and if I need measurements for baking I reference but usually have this stored in my head also. When the children call for recipes it is often difficult to tell they how to put something together Mommy style.
Hey, Zom, my oldest son just turned 27! He sure doesn't have a problem with slowed metabolism. That kid can eat anything! Easter we had eggs benedict. I had half of mine and my son ate all of his, the other half of mine, and some seafood crepes...
By the way, I'm guessing your son maintains a healthy weight? I try to stay 20 to 30 pounds under what's supposed to be "healthy," so it's a little harder.
But eggs benedict is so f-ing yum.
Don't forget booze!
How could I forget the booze?
I forgot to mention, I only eat once a day so I have left over calories for beers and lots of them.
I really really need one right now actually. Thanks Zom Zom. :)
Will you adopt me?
That depends, how old are you Believer? And only if you share a room with my two little ones. Maybe you can get them to hush up at bedtime.
By the way, I'm guessing your son maintains a healthy weight? I try to stay 20 to 30 pounds under what's supposed to be "healthy," so it's a little harder.
My son lifts weights. He's huge. He has a lot of muscle and muscle weighs more than fat. He probably weighs around 180. He manages the restaurant and bar. People don't screw with Ryan, when he tells them they've had enough to drink, or that it's time to go...They don't argue.
Will you adopt me?
That depends, how old are you Believer?
Um there's no law against adopting cranky middle-aged farts, is there?
And only if you share a room with my two little ones. Maybe you can get them to hush up at bedtime.
No one talks much when you've got pasta, pizza and tiramisu to keep you occupied......but I can tell them bed-time stories in mangled Italian.
Never forget the booze...I have to get my drink on every night because I heard that wine is good for me and I'm buying into it!
Believer, Okay, I'll adopt you! We don't let the kids eat the deserts very often. It makes them nuts. But I guess we could make an exception with you! ;-D
Hey, Zom...My husband says Ryan weighs closer to 195. I was wrong.
That's my husband, too, JS! He's a regular Wino! ;-D I don't like to drink. I like to eat, and can't.
And he's what, 6'2" (guess)? Yeah, I'm 6'3," and try to stay under 160. It's gotten harder, past two years.
My son is 14, 5' 11' and 125lbs. Skinny little brat.
He eats me out of house and home. After school he eats about 2 or 3 bowls of Capn' Crunch and a PB&J and then still eats whatever I throw together for dinner.
He's a cheater. Make him eat vegetables as punishment for having a good metabolism :)
Zom, I don't know how tall Ry is. He's taller than my husband, and my husband is 6'. So yeah, probably around there.
Not over it Your boy is going to be huge, too! I don't think Ryan was that tall at 14. He cleaned us out of house and home though! LOL! I remember I used to be amazed at the pure quantity of food Ry could put away! Nothing is more amazing than seeing a growing boy EAT!
Um there's no law against adopting cranky middle-aged farts, is there?
and since he has MY half bag of potato chips, he'll keep 'em happy!
Why I oughta.....
since he has MY half bag of potato chips
Did you want it back? I think there might be a few crumbs in the bottom....
"No you may not have three hamburgers, two fish sandwiches, biggy fries and a milkshake with a sundae" a quote from my daughter taking her brother through the fast food drive-through.
He's a cheater. Make him eat vegetables as punishment for having a good metabolism :)
Haha, I don't make him eat anything. When he's eating, I just get out of the way. He can eat a Big Mac in three bites, which isn't an example of how much he can eat as much as it is how big of a pig he is, till he eats 2 or 3 of them, then it's both.
Your boy is going to be huge, too! I don't think Ryan was that tall at 14.
Ya, they have him estimated at 6'4 - 6'6. Which really sucks, I already can't find him jeans to wear.
"No you may not have three hamburgers, two fish sandwiches, biggy fries and a milkshake with a sundae" a quote from my daughter taking her brother through the fast food drive-through.
ROFLMAO!! Too funny! Well, it's time to start my dinner. Hugs all around, see you all tomorrow!
Did you want it back? I think there might be a few crumbs in the bottom....
Nah....I got another bag!
*rattles the bag as she opens it*
*smiles*
~Sara
YOu are so evil to open that bag before I've had breakfast. Now how do you expect me to make a healthy choice when I finally go to the kitchen?
YOu are so evil to open that bag before I've had breakfast. Now how do you expect me to make a healthy choice when I finally go to the kitchen?
*shifty eyes*
Ooops...uhh...*closes bag with as little rattling as possible, hands it over to Loretta...*
Here ..you can have the rest....
How can it be unhealthy, it's just potatoes! ....(deliberately leaves out the FRIED IN FATTY OIL AND DOUSED IN SALT parts....heh)
*smiles*
LOL Oh, sure, give it to me now that you've got your cooties all over the chips.
"Mom, she got her cooties all over the chips. Make her stop!!!!!"
Don't poke me either.
"Mom, she's touching me now. Make her stop!!!!!"
Okay, fine, how do you like it? Touch, touch, touch. There, I got cooties on you now.
"Mom, make her leave me alone!!!!"
I just hate having a bratty sister.
LOL.
Good morning, Sara. Did your mom ever tell you about the Mother's Curse, where all the things you did as a child will be revisited onto you when you have kids? Mine did. She didn't mention grandchildren though. She shoulda told me. Would have been better threats than all the others she used about why I shouldn't have sex.
*Shoves the bags of chips back to her*
I don't want them NOW that you touched them!!!
MOM ! She's touching my chips!!
Loretta....you forgot the absolute BEST one ever!!
You circle your index finger right in front of their nose while sing-songing...
I'm not touching youuuuuu!
Which is inevitably followed by :
I'M TELLING!!
and oh yes, mother wished me that curse from the time I was old enough to understand that it was a curse! LOL!
Oh lets not start the "IF YOU LET A BOY......"
*sighs and rolls her eyes*
Good morning Loretta....Enjoy your coffee sans chips!
~Sara
ROTFLOL.
Loretta....you forgot the absolute BEST one ever!!
Oh, I did forget that one. How could I?
My youngest sister used to stuff peas up her nose and blow them across the table. Of course, no other kid sitting at the table would touch a pea after that performance. My mother had a rule that you sat there until you ate everything on your plate (which she piled high with veggies). Lots of kids spent the whole night at the table after little sis did her act.
My youngest bro would not eat anything on his plate if anyone else touched his plate (not the food, just the plate, even the rim or under the rim). Of course, that meant everyone else had to touch his plate while he watched in horror.
No wonder I eat out of potato chip bags.
LOL! Loretta! Your childhood dinner table sounds like a riot! I bet your mother could have ripped her poor hair out!
My sister used to gross me out so bad I'd cry, but my brother was very dignified and just ignored us both.
Mom was a great cook and she loved to do it (most times. Sometimes not so much). She grew veggies and fruits -- and canned them. We also raised our own meat. (all us kids helped out with all of it) So she had a freezer full of food. She'd bake dozens of cookies and try to hide them in the freezer. Never worked for long.
At least once a week, she'd cook a huge meal and everyone came, no invitation needed. On those nights, she didn't have time to worry about what we were doing. In fact, she mostly wanted us to help her with the food.
We lived near a railroad tracks. The hobos would come early and offer to work for a meal. They were never turned away.
Most every night, we'd have a couple of guests, usually our friends who hung around long enough to get invited. Then we'd hurry though dinner so we could go outside and play until bedtime. Of course, in those days, the kids we hung around with were expected to help with chores while they were there -- and we did the same at their house.
Having a large family can be chaotic. It can also take the pressure off the individual kid. I only had two, and they got away with far less than my sibs and I.
I began cooking meals for the family at age 11 so I've had a lot of practice. I usually make meals by the seat of my pants a.k.a. no recipe and if I need measurements for baking I reference but usually have this stored in my head also. When the children call for recipes it is often difficult to tell they how to put something together Mommy style.
Oh my gosh, I cook like that too. Click my name and you'll see some of my recipes. It's hard to give a recipe when you do everything by feel and taste. Holy moly, you had 11 kids? I had one at 19 and then waited till I was 39 to start again. It's hard sometimes having little kids at 46. My boy is named Chase...which seems appropriate since I'm always chasing that boy around... My girl is four. She's my one and only girl.
Wow, I sure wish I had your experience.
No, no, my mom was very depressed and unmotivated so by age 11 I pretty much had to do all of the cooking and cleaning. I would have liked having 11 kids but only managed to have 3 of my own and 2 darling stepdaughters. We do have similar birthing records however. My first was born when I was 23 (an old woman, in those times) my second at 34 and my last at 39. My oldest has three ages 19,16 and 7. We didn't want to run out of babies I guess.
Feel smell and taste are hard recipes to give others. I'll look at your site.
Ha, ha I should have my boy Chase. I swear the moment he became mobile I didn't sit down until he left high school. This is most likely how I stayed slim.
Very cool! I thought I was crazy to do it again. My husband is six years older than I am, so he's 52. That's old to have little tiny kids. I am so glad I did. They are my everything.
Your boy sounds just like my Chase. He's such a good boy, but always seems to be moving. I wish I had 1/2 that energy. My girl is named Bella. We have an Italian restaurant, so I had to! She's not nearly as rambunctious as Chase, but she sure can scream loud enough to shatter windows! HA..
Big hugs to you my friend!
We have an Italian restaurant,
Um, after you adopt me, can I be in your will? Don't need the whole restaurant, just the fully stocked kitchen.......
You don't like Italian food, Dead? I'll cook.
You know I like Italian food...you were adopted out remember?...LOL...I thought me and the cats were fending for ourselves...LOL.
You know better than that...you and the cats are part of the package. Tink likes Italian, I hope?
Grammar, you have an Italian restaurant? I never knew! Can I go? Take out, Please! I'm very hungry!
We'll find out, hey? He likes Bailey's. Tiramisu has rum in it....
Tiramisu has expresso in it. The Lemoncello tiramisu has Lemoncello. We make our own Lemoncello! That is one liquer that I really love! I'll go in and ask for a shot of ice cold Lemoncello! That is tasty. We've heard of Tiramisu being made with Kahlua, but we don't.
Lillith! Absolutely! Come on up, you're welcome anytime!
Hi Walking Dead, nice to meet you! Very smart of you to bring your own Doritos. We almost came to blow earlier over a bag of chips!
You've never made it with rum?
The lemoncello sounds awesome......
Never! Sounds good though!
The Lemoncello is my favorite. I like them both, but that Lemoncello Tiramisu is amazing!
That's the way I learned it. It might be a regional thing...or a family thing....
I've had it with rum...but Lemoncello sounds better.
Hi Grammar phobe...I heard about the chips...I always bring my own...LOL.
Grammar, where you at? I love the Tiramisu and all that food! It's fine eating! =)
We are in Angeles National Forest, in Saugus, CA. Come on down!
Right out in Santa Clarita? It's almost boat season. Too bad I'm in Canada for work. We usually go up to Castaic to go boating and drinking, and stop through Santa Clarita for dinner on the way home. Maybe I'll send the gang your way any how, even if I can't join :)
Zom Zom! Yep! That's where we are! Go North on Bouquet into the Angeles National Forest, you can't miss us! We'd love to have you!
Whooo Hooo! How cool is that! Very neat!
You'd have to call me though and let me know you were going up so I could meet you! Email me and I'll give you my number.
Your place is only about an hour from my house....We'll have to come up and check out your tiramisu........now I'm hungry :-)
I just don't buy this premise. I don't believe that all women have this hereditary built-in fear that they will get fat that does not exist in men.
Allen added: 'Although these women's brain activity doesn't look like full-blown eating disorders, they are much closer to it than men are.'
She said: 'Many women learn that bodily appearance and thinness constitute what is important about them, and their brain responding reflects that.
'I think it is an unfortunate and false idea and does put one at greater risk for eating and mood disorders.'
I'm not my body, and I'm not my weight, that's just a number.
Borderline truth here, all I could find:
Fellow researcher, psychologist Diane Spangler, said a constant bombardment of images of stick thin models and actresses make women think than thin is the ideal shape.
I certainly think that a young person might get that mistaken impression.
Please, if this trait is heredity, why don't we find some historical evidence of it, rather than accept a sweeping premise.
And a lot of guys watch their weight. As far as that eating disorder premise, men can get anorexia too. I've winessed it in the clinical setting myself. I guess Oprah hasn't done a show on that yet.
#16 - Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:38 PM EDTI agree. If women suffer from this, it isn't in our genes. It is totally cultural, which means we need to change our culture.
When I see a fat woman, I think "girl--you need to get that off".....but I don't feel self loathing of any kind. I am good on watching my weight and exercising.
There will always be someone skinnier or prettier than us---and we will always be skinnier or prettier than others----sometimes you're the window sometimes you're the bug!
Our poor girl-childs are up against an onslaught of air-brushed and naturally beautiful women. I think we should break out charm schools again. Charm is in short supply, and it is a woman's stealth weapon!
Oh-and more important that being chubby is learn to cook---men love that!
:o)
#17 - Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:53 PM EDTCharm schools? Ugh. I remember them. Wouldn't wish them on my worst enemy. There is a difference between being civil and being charming. People who use charmas a strategy are trying to manipulate others.In fact, one of the warning signs to look for when it comes to spotting an abuser in the first date is someone who works too hard to charm their intended victim.
As to cooking, learning to cook healthy is a good way to ensure a healthy weight for everyone. Not sure why you aimed the suggestion only at women. Men should learn to cook too -- and women love men who cook, so it works both ways.
I agree with your other points. The whole anorexic look is inspired by false media images.
I have noticed this about men and women. However it might not be such an issue if males weren't expected (allowed??) to get the best looking female they can get, while females are expected (allowed?? or forced??) to take what they can get. :)
#18 - Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:22 PM EDTYou crack me up, Fed up in Missouri! Lots of men want arm candy yet what the find may be "wow" on the outside and "OMG" on the inside. Women love handsome men yet sometimes find he is "wow" on the outside and "OMG" on the inside.
There is nothing worse than falling in love with someone so vain they cannot get outside of themselves and believe counting on their good looks is all that is needed for the golden ticket through life...and then their birthday suit starts bagging.
Js oh how true your comments are. lol That's what some shallow people tend to forget. Outer beauty only lasts so long. :)
Sorry to play havoc with your presumptions...BUT, when I take a job, the quality of my work has little to with my boss, but what I expect of MYself...when I take off weight...it has more to do with being able to get into that cute pair of pants I bought...than any guy. I have never lost weight or dressed for men or even other women...I dress for myself and things are done for my comfort level. But nice try!
#19 - Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:05 PM EDTI have never dressed for another person unless you count the sailor suit, jumper and grass skirt I wore for my tap dancing recital at age 6 or the band uniform I had to wear in high school. Then again if it were one of my kids looking at me and saying, "You aren't wearing that are you, Mom?' If I put something on and it doesn't feel like me at that moment I change my clothes. I am not a frilly, ruffle type and tend to wear plain colors. I am hyper active so prints and plaids tend to make me crazy when I wear them...too distracting. I do wear a lot of bright colors here on the island but when I lived in Portland I was more black, white and gray in my choices. I think it is amazing how people dress themselves. I have flamboyant and reserved friends and always love they way they dress and I think it makes a statement about themselves.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
