The AC that complained about divorce, child support, etc, dropped it entirely at the feet of men. As if all women are infallible, never cheat, and/or never unfit to raise children.
All of which is just feminists propaganda.
I always liken the "always wrong" mantra to the rule of incompetence. We see it with feminists, we see it with hardcore right wingers - hows that for an unexpected twist!
But yes. Blame and castigate, all problems are the complete fault of our enemy, be the enemy the mythical liberals or the patriarchy. Women are finding it difficult to find "suitable" husbands. It's because men are immature, and refuse to grow up, or don't have enough education or other some such. We actually had a fellow in another thread blaming peanut allergies on liberals.
Great bolshy yarblockos! Liberals cause peanut allergies. There are more women than men. Crypto-conservatives are most of the nation's governors, hold a majority in most of the state Governments, the majority the US house and senate.
Biut those damn mythical liberals are still causing all of the problems, and men are still to blame for all the problems.
At least men and the mythical liberals are strong - too strong for those who are never ever wrong, and who know the answer to every problem, to defeat. And women and Crypto-conservatives must be incredibly weak when they are losing while in a position of power.
I blame the liberals. Seriously. They raised entire generations that overreact to everything.
Really? Peanut allergies are political now? I find it amazing that so many conservatives seem to find a way to blame liberalism for anything that annoys them.
Yes. By the way, they are crypto-conservatives. I don't want to venture into the No True Scotsman territory, but 1950's-1960's conservatives would not recognize these kooks.
Peanut allergies are a first world problem. They are rare in developing countries, where kids grow up around chickens, pigs, and goats, so they develop strong immune systems that don't overreact.
And peanuts too. In Israel, peanut butter and milk mixed is often the first solid food that babies get, and peanut allergies are almost unknown.
You are spot on regarding the folks who have adopted the avoid at all costs - neurotic- outlook. Those children have a messed up immune system because of it. Too much avoidance and you can end up being deathly allergic to almost anything with proteins.
Related story. When my son was young, we took him with us one day to visit out horse for the first time. He got a blotchy rash, and my wife called his pediatrician. Luckily for us, the doctor asked if he was wheezing, we told him no, and then he told us to keep taking the boy and see what happened. Within a week, no reaction at all. Doc also told us that dirt is good for kids. I totally believe him.
Fast forward to when my son was playing Ice Hockey. About half his team was on asthma inhalers. Whether it was a coincidence or not, there seemed to be a relationship between that and the neurotic parents.
You're just mad that its guys like YOU they don't HAVE to marry now. Because they can choose to own property instead of being property.
And that is wonderful. If a woman wants to have nothing to do with men, it is her right. This might tie into the side subject here regarding how men are not finding marriage and childrearing or relationships with women to be a smart endeavor.
As is their right. And yes, if you are right that the only men that feel this way are those who women don't want to marry or have children or relationships with, it is a good thing for women is it not?
In what way has North Korea backed down? They always threaten violence and then don't follow it up.
Don't you remember all of the Korean wars, nookyler and others under the failed presidency of O'Blama? It got really rough when they used their hypnosis bomb and turned everyone into liberals but God Mitch McConnell, and the Baptists managed to get us back into good conservative habits again.
Only under the ledership of Dear Leader Trump have the North Koreans stopped their nookyaler attacks on AMerican soil and our Trusy allies.
Now if only [Democrats] could learn to [save] other people's money.
Republicans have been the bigger spenders for the last several decades.
This is true. Some years ago I did some research form multiple sources, and despite what you hear regurgitated from Fox et al, The Republican party chants a mantra of fiscal responsibility while spending like drunken sailors. They have some favoritegroups to gift their personal largess upon, but they spend a boatload.
As well, they have a tendency to come to office while times are good, and leave after screwing things up. The cool part is they manage to blame it all on the Democrats or liberals, or some other outfit that they can point out to distract us.
Let's be real, Trump is not doing much of anything. The US deep state is doing everything, the people that wanted the Corporate Whore and part of their game is to make Trump look bad because of course the thing that would make Trump look great, seriously great, would be forcing the investigation, prosecution and imprisonment of as much of the corrupt deep state as possible.
I can't mod you because I'm replying to you instead.
Terrorists shot people in Paris.
They then shot people again in Paris.
They shot people in Holland when I was living in Germany
They shot people in Northern Ireland.
According to you, that makes anybody that shoots someone a terrorist.
Are you stupid? People shoot people all the time, and make no mistake, they aren't terrorists. Seriously guy, if this is what your intellect raises to, I am beginning to understand why you have a desire to allow terrorists to have free reign under teh aegis of "Free Speech".
Call it what it is: Suspected murder or manslaughter. Those are serious crimes and will be prosecuted using actual laws with very severe punishments. Why the fuck isn't that good enough for you?
The fuck it isn't good enough for me is that there is a difference between a murder of passion or criminal or pecuniary intent and a person who is a member of a terrorist group using a terrorist tactic and resulting in what is classic terrorist ways and means, two groups that have a history of exaclty that. Or are all of the klan lynchings and other killings fake news too?
Yes, but there's an upper limit to flexibility. Life with afterburners on all the time is unhealthy, cuts into productivity, and increases conflicts with others.
The part that is interesting is that she chose the job, but then chose to live in an area where life is cheaper. This entails things like getting up really early to take a long ride into the city where she makes that wage.
The irony is that if this situation was somehow "fixed" where people could live 80 miles away from work, and have a more normal life that isn't spent traveling, the cost of living in these less expensive places will zoom upwards.
If you want birth control, all you need to do is go to the doctor and get a prescription. The pill is ancient and generic now. It costs less than your latte habit.
If you can't manage that, go to Walmart and buy some condoms.
No, they lay their eggs in other birds's nests and get those birds to raise their chicks.
Where do you think "cuck" comes from? This insult is all the rage now.
It's used to describe someone (usually a man but not always) whose partner fucks other people (or other things), typically while denying the cuck sex, making them watch, or making them participate in an ungratifying manner. There's a whole fetish category for it. In the fetish realm, cucks often enjoy their pathetic role, which is likely why the word is now being used so frequently to target liberals and SJWs who are now falling victim to their own policies and becoming the targets of their own campaigns.
Oh hell, the term is used by alot of people who seem to think its like saying cock or something.
But yes, there is a pretty well known phenomenon of women who want a dual man. A bad boy who get's her juices going, and that boring simp who makes enough money to support her and the bad boy's children. It's also related to the friend zone, where a guy is in love with a girl, but she only wants him as a friend, not a lover. She then goes through a string of bad boys she is sexually attracted to, but might not treat her well. Then she commiserates with the friend zoned guy. Many a man has heard from a woman "I wish I could find a man just like you!"
Someone will have to clean up after you when you become unable to care for yourself.
I'm just about certain that self-removing yourself from the planet will become a new normal for older people. In my great grandparent's generation, a person once the bell tolled would last a few weeks at most. My grandparents took a month or so. My Parents - born in the 1920's, took a long time to die once they got to that point. To the point that the final pecuniary extraction of your wealth can take years. 10 years in my Mother in law's case. A shell who spent those years racking up an amazing amount of bills for a person who didn't even know who she was any more.
The only exception was my mother, who suffered a massive heart attack while reading on the couch, and was gone in a minute.
Given the choice, I wonder how many people would decide which death was worse, and which was better. I've made mine.
That's basically our problem: We're aging, we're not repopulating at a sustainable rate and our economy does its best to make having kids as impossible as it can be.
Society also makes having children a more and more expensive proposition.
As well, men especially are deciding that having children, then the ensuing divorce and child support isn't all that great. Hardly suprising that the birth rate is dropping like our testosterone level.
Sounds like a demand for support of any group that feels marginalized. Sometimes groups are marginalized for a reason. Both of these groups have committed some serious crimes,
While a smaller percentage of the population minorities commit the majority of crime in the USA, esp. murder, which is arguably one of the most serious of crimes. Minorities should be marginalized for a reason -- They're the minority, but perhaps, per your comment, they should also be suppressed as a group given that the identity blanketing them is so damn violent and criminal.
Of course, Liberals have an almost infinite capacity for cognitive dissonance so it won't even creep into your awareness.
Well, to be exact, I am a Goldwater conservative. As the Republican party, aided by it's leader, the honorable Donald Trump creep towards an ethnocracy, Some of us who believe that people are equal (this is not diversity) who believe that you are careful about how you spend money, but once you decide, you pay the bills, and an understanding that fellow Americans are not teh enemy, and that Government is performed by negotiation and compromise, your "won't even creep into my awareness" statement is much more likely to be a bit of projection on your part.
As well, I am loathe of violence to a marked degree, but understand fully that there are some who only understand violence. So sometimes, very reluctantly, you have to do a little stomping of those who have intentions of stomping you. This is not unlike when I found out that administering some well deserved pain to high school bullies stopped the bullying in it's tracks.
As for minorities, there is an old rule that they must be heard. But they must also play by the rules. If your group performs a terrorist act, you will be treated as terrorists.
If you stand up for terrorist acts and groups, you are my enemy.
That's rather missing the point about the body positive movement. Yes, health is an issue, but not the only one. You also have to ask if Hollywood really gives a shit about presenting thin people as a way to "encourage" a healthy lifestyle.
Of course they don't. But what they do is produce movies designed to appeal to people. And men have some evolutionary preferences that they find attractive. And it isn't all towards the skinny end. Many clothing models are not attractive because they are so slender that they look ill. But on the same issue, a morbidly obese woman is also unhealthy looking to most males. And given that there are plenty of actresses who are not "skinny" I have to wonder about the motives of the people complaining about this deficit of the obese.
Not everyone can be their ideal weight and go to the gym three times a week. Personally I don't think shaming them for that is likely to motivate them to do something about it.
Hey, my wife put up with skinny shaming her entire life. As she says, it takes at least two to shame - one to do it, and the other to accept it. And all of that shaming was from women. And at root, this whole business is skinny shaming.
it's based in biological systems developed to maximize species survival.
Okay, but why judge random people on what maximizes the survival of the species?
Because that's what we do. Me judging a woman as attractive or not is based upon my own particular reaction to her.
I asked my wife about this over lunch. Who does she want to see in a movie as a leading man. She said well built men who are muscled well, but not body builder types. Also "ruggedly" handsome, and not pretty boy. That's a judgement. That's what she likes.
Coupled with who we each decided to marry - i isn't much of a surprise.
The more important question in my mind is should men not be allowed to have leading ladies in movies that they find attractive? I have no intention of having Roseanne Barr or some other unattractive woman as a romantic lead. I think that Queen Latifa, who is gorgeous, would make a really bad "Wonder Woman" Side note, Third wave feminists were upset that Gal Gadot didn't have hair on her armpits, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2... SRSLY?
So we are moving to a brave new world, where women have to be morbidly obese, unshaven, and probably ugly in order to be acceptable. https://www.buzzfeed.com/erika...
Instead of respecting the deformed while being curious
Not sure putting them on display for shock value felt like "respect" or "curiosity" to them.
It put a lot of people out of work. Anyone who is sensitive to obese women not getting enough leading woman roles in movies should be sensitive to a little person who loses a good paying job.
Is midget wrestling a verboten career for little people who are athletic, and have an interest in wrestling? Yes, people will be interested in seeing them.
And a morbidly obese woman is veering dangerously close to that very thing when some people demand that she be the leading lady in a movie. As for the so called BBW, there are many examples already. I don't see anyone calling Angelina Jolie anorexic, Kirstie Allie swings between BBW and obese, Queen Latifa, Adele, Mo’Nique, America Ferrarra, and others. Perhaps we should in the manner of eliminating the other freak's careers, cast slender women out of movies. Because at base, that is what this is. Skinny shaming.
The body positive movement is saying that people are not ugly, they are just people. Human beings come in all shapes and sizes, and we shouldn't hold people to arbitrary and artificial standards of beauty or health.
There are standards of beauty, many of which are based upon non-arbitrary human sensing of health and reproductive fitness.
Morbid obesity is a severe risk factor in many health problems. Stroke, heart attack, gall bladder problems (there is a medical saying of 40 fat, and fertile as the standard for gall bladder issues in females.
So yes, men will tend to find symmetrical faces, clear skin and non obese women attractive.
Then we come to personal preferences. I like tall, slender women with long legs, long hair, and yes, I do like a face that is traditionally "pretty" I know this because of certain visceral reactions. I did not wake up one day and say "I have made a decision that this is what I find erotically stimulating. This is why I am 100 percent certain that homosexuality is an inborn trait, not any conscious choice. But I digress.
There are men who like different shapes and sizes of women. Some men like slender, some like chubby, and some like obese. Tall, short, ectomorph, mesomorph, and endomorph, there is usually someone for everyone.
Where this becomes weird is where who is trying to appeal to who? If males like a certain body type, is it somehow incumbent to stop using that body type? Or is this a demand for women in movies not to appeal to men, but to appeal to women who are sexually interested in women?
There actually are a number of women in films who qualify as non-slender, but this seems like a different agenda, one that looks more like obesity promotion, and "skinny shaming."
Which my wife can attest to, is real, it's happening, and it is vicious. And it is performed by women, not men.
Why Does Hollywood Remain Out of Step With the Body-Positive Movement?
Post Load All Comments
24 Full76 Abbreviated0 Hidden/Sea
Search 340 CommentsLog In/Create an AccountComments Filter: All Insightful Informative Interesting Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Mo... (Score:3, Insightful)
by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @09:27PM (#55031061)... ney.
Next question, please.
Reply to This Share Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Mo... (Score:5, Insightful)
by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @09:41PM (#55031133)
Next question, please.
Okay, here is the next question: Why is it always about women? Why does Hollywood only use buff guys in leading roles? Why are the male sex symbols never short near-sighted bald guys with beer bellies?
Reply to This Parent Share Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Mo... (Score:?)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17, 2017 @09:30AM
Next question, please.
Okay, here is the next question: Why is it always about women? Why does Hollywood only use buff guys in leading roles? Why are the male sex symbols never short near-sighted bald guys with beer bellies?
Because women tend to like buff guys in leading roles, and are jealous of beautiful and fit women in leading roles.
And men don't complain as much.
After they have success in getting overweight women cast in leading roles, the next move will be to protest that there are not enough morbidly obese, ugly women cast as the leading ladies. Wait for it.
Slashdot Mirror
The AC that complained about divorce, child support, etc, dropped it entirely at the feet of men. As if all women are infallible, never cheat, and/or never unfit to raise children.
All of which is just feminists propaganda.
I always liken the "always wrong" mantra to the rule of incompetence. We see it with feminists, we see it with hardcore right wingers - hows that for an unexpected twist!
But yes. Blame and castigate, all problems are the complete fault of our enemy, be the enemy the mythical liberals or the patriarchy. Women are finding it difficult to find "suitable" husbands. It's because men are immature, and refuse to grow up, or don't have enough education or other some such. We actually had a fellow in another thread blaming peanut allergies on liberals.
Great bolshy yarblockos! Liberals cause peanut allergies. There are more women than men. Crypto-conservatives are most of the nation's governors, hold a majority in most of the state Governments, the majority the US house and senate.
Biut those damn mythical liberals are still causing all of the problems, and men are still to blame for all the problems.
At least men and the mythical liberals are strong - too strong for those who are never ever wrong, and who know the answer to every problem, to defeat. And women and Crypto-conservatives must be incredibly weak when they are losing while in a position of power.
Somehow a study that checked back on people 4 years after treatment get's converted to "works up to four years".
Do these people even english?
Unpossible!
I blame the liberals. Seriously. They raised entire generations that overreact to everything.
Really? Peanut allergies are political now? I find it amazing that so many conservatives seem to find a way to blame liberalism for anything that annoys them.
Yes. By the way, they are crypto-conservatives. I don't want to venture into the No True Scotsman territory, but 1950's-1960's conservatives would not recognize these kooks.
My country is more liberal than yours. I see nothing like that here. I blame your flag. Just as well-founded.
Aren't crypto-conservatives a blast? I got stuck in a traffic jam with one, and he kept blaming it on former President O'Blama.
So yeah, if a traffic accident is the fault of liberals, peanut allergies logically follows.
Frankly half the time the people who really need to be subscribed with a cup of cement aren't the people suffering from a disease.
Wait...what? I think that might be a good saying, but can't parse it.
nobody had a peanut allergy.
Peanut allergies are a first world problem. They are rare in developing countries, where kids grow up around chickens, pigs, and goats, so they develop strong immune systems that don't overreact.
And peanuts too. In Israel, peanut butter and milk mixed is often the first solid food that babies get, and peanut allergies are almost unknown.
You are spot on regarding the folks who have adopted the avoid at all costs - neurotic- outlook. Those children have a messed up immune system because of it. Too much avoidance and you can end up being deathly allergic to almost anything with proteins.
Related story. When my son was young, we took him with us one day to visit out horse for the first time. He got a blotchy rash, and my wife called his pediatrician. Luckily for us, the doctor asked if he was wheezing, we told him no, and then he told us to keep taking the boy and see what happened. Within a week, no reaction at all. Doc also told us that dirt is good for kids. I totally believe him.
Fast forward to when my son was playing Ice Hockey. About half his team was on asthma inhalers. Whether it was a coincidence or not, there seemed to be a relationship between that and the neurotic parents.
You're just mad that its guys like YOU they don't HAVE to marry now. Because they can choose to own property instead of being property.
And that is wonderful. If a woman wants to have nothing to do with men, it is her right. This might tie into the side subject here regarding how men are not finding marriage and childrearing or relationships with women to be a smart endeavor.
As is their right. And yes, if you are right that the only men that feel this way are those who women don't want to marry or have children or relationships with, it is a good thing for women is it not?
In what way has North Korea backed down? They always threaten violence and then don't follow it up.
Don't you remember all of the Korean wars, nookyler and others under the failed presidency of O'Blama? It got really rough when they used their hypnosis bomb and turned everyone into liberals but God Mitch McConnell, and the Baptists managed to get us back into good conservative habits again.
Only under the ledership of Dear Leader Trump have the North Koreans stopped their nookyaler attacks on AMerican soil and our Trusy allies.
Republicans have been the bigger spenders for the last several decades.
This is true. Some years ago I did some research form multiple sources, and despite what you hear regurgitated from Fox et al, The Republican party chants a mantra of fiscal responsibility while spending like drunken sailors. They have some favoritegroups to gift their personal largess upon, but they spend a boatload.
As well, they have a tendency to come to office while times are good, and leave after screwing things up. The cool part is they manage to blame it all on the Democrats or liberals, or some other outfit that they can point out to distract us.
Let's be real, Trump is not doing much of anything. The US deep state is doing everything, the people that wanted the Corporate Whore and part of their game is to make Trump look bad because of course the thing that would make Trump look great, seriously great, would be forcing the investigation, prosecution and imprisonment of as much of the corrupt deep state as possible.
That new weed these days is so damn powerful!
I can't mod you because I'm replying to you instead.
Terrorists shot people in Paris. They then shot people again in Paris. They shot people in Holland when I was living in Germany They shot people in Northern Ireland.
According to you, that makes anybody that shoots someone a terrorist.
Are you stupid? People shoot people all the time, and make no mistake, they aren't terrorists. Seriously guy, if this is what your intellect raises to, I am beginning to understand why you have a desire to allow terrorists to have free reign under teh aegis of "Free Speech".
Call it what it is: Suspected murder or manslaughter. Those are serious crimes and will be prosecuted using actual laws with very severe punishments. Why the fuck isn't that good enough for you?
The fuck it isn't good enough for me is that there is a difference between a murder of passion or criminal or pecuniary intent and a person who is a member of a terrorist group using a terrorist tactic and resulting in what is classic terrorist ways and means, two groups that have a history of exaclty that. Or are all of the klan lynchings and other killings fake news too?
=
Yes, but there's an upper limit to flexibility. Life with afterburners on all the time is unhealthy, cuts into productivity, and increases conflicts with others.
The part that is interesting is that she chose the job, but then chose to live in an area where life is cheaper. This entails things like getting up really early to take a long ride into the city where she makes that wage.
The irony is that if this situation was somehow "fixed" where people could live 80 miles away from work, and have a more normal life that isn't spent traveling, the cost of living in these less expensive places will zoom upwards.
Lay off the media narrative.
If you want birth control, all you need to do is go to the doctor and get a prescription. The pill is ancient and generic now. It costs less than your latte habit.
If you can't manage that, go to Walmart and buy some condoms.
Or just go celibate.
Being an inconsiderate jerk is a choice, in most circumstances too.
People have kids and that's a good thing. Refusing to acknowledge that reality is just you being a selfish inconsiderate jerk.
Between the divorce rate, the present day courts and child support, it is a reasoned decision, not being a jerk.
Besides, who are you to tell men what they do with their bodies?
Sit in a clock and make hourly appearances?
No, they lay their eggs in other birds's nests and get those birds to raise their chicks. Where do you think "cuck" comes from? This insult is all the rage now.
It's used to describe someone (usually a man but not always) whose partner fucks other people (or other things), typically while denying the cuck sex, making them watch, or making them participate in an ungratifying manner. There's a whole fetish category for it. In the fetish realm, cucks often enjoy their pathetic role, which is likely why the word is now being used so frequently to target liberals and SJWs who are now falling victim to their own policies and becoming the targets of their own campaigns.
Oh hell, the term is used by alot of people who seem to think its like saying cock or something.
But yes, there is a pretty well known phenomenon of women who want a dual man. A bad boy who get's her juices going, and that boring simp who makes enough money to support her and the bad boy's children. It's also related to the friend zone, where a guy is in love with a girl, but she only wants him as a friend, not a lover. She then goes through a string of bad boys she is sexually attracted to, but might not treat her well. Then she commiserates with the friend zoned guy. Many a man has heard from a woman "I wish I could find a man just like you!"
Someone will have to clean up after you when you become unable to care for yourself.
I'm just about certain that self-removing yourself from the planet will become a new normal for older people. In my great grandparent's generation, a person once the bell tolled would last a few weeks at most. My grandparents took a month or so. My Parents - born in the 1920's, took a long time to die once they got to that point. To the point that the final pecuniary extraction of your wealth can take years. 10 years in my Mother in law's case. A shell who spent those years racking up an amazing amount of bills for a person who didn't even know who she was any more.
The only exception was my mother, who suffered a massive heart attack while reading on the couch, and was gone in a minute.
Given the choice, I wonder how many people would decide which death was worse, and which was better. I've made mine.
Nature takes care of it? Why do so many people anthropomorphize "nature" ... as if they think "nature" is somehow intelligent.
Well, compared to us anyhow.
That's basically our problem: We're aging, we're not repopulating at a sustainable rate and our economy does its best to make having kids as impossible as it can be.
Society also makes having children a more and more expensive proposition.
As well, men especially are deciding that having children, then the ensuing divorce and child support isn't all that great. Hardly suprising that the birth rate is dropping like our testosterone level.
Sounds like a demand for support of any group that feels marginalized. Sometimes groups are marginalized for a reason. Both of these groups have committed some serious crimes,
While a smaller percentage of the population minorities commit the majority of crime in the USA, esp. murder, which is arguably one of the most serious of crimes. Minorities should be marginalized for a reason -- They're the minority, but perhaps, per your comment, they should also be suppressed as a group given that the identity blanketing them is so damn violent and criminal.
Of course, Liberals have an almost infinite capacity for cognitive dissonance so it won't even creep into your awareness.
Well, to be exact, I am a Goldwater conservative. As the Republican party, aided by it's leader, the honorable Donald Trump creep towards an ethnocracy, Some of us who believe that people are equal (this is not diversity) who believe that you are careful about how you spend money, but once you decide, you pay the bills, and an understanding that fellow Americans are not teh enemy, and that Government is performed by negotiation and compromise, your "won't even creep into my awareness" statement is much more likely to be a bit of projection on your part.
As well, I am loathe of violence to a marked degree, but understand fully that there are some who only understand violence. So sometimes, very reluctantly, you have to do a little stomping of those who have intentions of stomping you. This is not unlike when I found out that administering some well deserved pain to high school bullies stopped the bullying in it's tracks.
As for minorities, there is an old rule that they must be heard. But they must also play by the rules. If your group performs a terrorist act, you will be treated as terrorists.
If you stand up for terrorist acts and groups, you are my enemy.
That's rather missing the point about the body positive movement. Yes, health is an issue, but not the only one. You also have to ask if Hollywood really gives a shit about presenting thin people as a way to "encourage" a healthy lifestyle.
Of course they don't. But what they do is produce movies designed to appeal to people. And men have some evolutionary preferences that they find attractive. And it isn't all towards the skinny end. Many clothing models are not attractive because they are so slender that they look ill. But on the same issue, a morbidly obese woman is also unhealthy looking to most males. And given that there are plenty of actresses who are not "skinny" I have to wonder about the motives of the people complaining about this deficit of the obese.
Not everyone can be their ideal weight and go to the gym three times a week. Personally I don't think shaming them for that is likely to motivate them to do something about it.
Hey, my wife put up with skinny shaming her entire life. As she says, it takes at least two to shame - one to do it, and the other to accept it. And all of that shaming was from women. And at root, this whole business is skinny shaming.
it's based in biological systems developed to maximize species survival.
Okay, but why judge random people on what maximizes the survival of the species?
Because that's what we do. Me judging a woman as attractive or not is based upon my own particular reaction to her.
I asked my wife about this over lunch. Who does she want to see in a movie as a leading man. She said well built men who are muscled well, but not body builder types. Also "ruggedly" handsome, and not pretty boy. That's a judgement. That's what she likes.
Coupled with who we each decided to marry - i isn't much of a surprise.
The more important question in my mind is should men not be allowed to have leading ladies in movies that they find attractive? I have no intention of having Roseanne Barr or some other unattractive woman as a romantic lead. I think that Queen Latifa, who is gorgeous, would make a really bad "Wonder Woman" Side note, Third wave feminists were upset that Gal Gadot didn't have hair on her armpits, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2... SRSLY?
So we are moving to a brave new world, where women have to be morbidly obese, unshaven, and probably ugly in order to be acceptable. https://www.buzzfeed.com/erika...
Instead of respecting the deformed while being curious
Not sure putting them on display for shock value felt like "respect" or "curiosity" to them.
It put a lot of people out of work. Anyone who is sensitive to obese women not getting enough leading woman roles in movies should be sensitive to a little person who loses a good paying job.
Is midget wrestling a verboten career for little people who are athletic, and have an interest in wrestling? Yes, people will be interested in seeing them.
And a morbidly obese woman is veering dangerously close to that very thing when some people demand that she be the leading lady in a movie. As for the so called BBW, there are many examples already. I don't see anyone calling Angelina Jolie anorexic, Kirstie Allie swings between BBW and obese, Queen Latifa, Adele, Mo’Nique, America Ferrarra, and others. Perhaps we should in the manner of eliminating the other freak's careers, cast slender women out of movies. Because at base, that is what this is. Skinny shaming.
The body positive movement is saying that people are not ugly, they are just people. Human beings come in all shapes and sizes, and we shouldn't hold people to arbitrary and artificial standards of beauty or health.
There are standards of beauty, many of which are based upon non-arbitrary human sensing of health and reproductive fitness.
Morbid obesity is a severe risk factor in many health problems. Stroke, heart attack, gall bladder problems (there is a medical saying of 40 fat, and fertile as the standard for gall bladder issues in females.
So yes, men will tend to find symmetrical faces, clear skin and non obese women attractive.
Then we come to personal preferences. I like tall, slender women with long legs, long hair, and yes, I do like a face that is traditionally "pretty" I know this because of certain visceral reactions. I did not wake up one day and say "I have made a decision that this is what I find erotically stimulating. This is why I am 100 percent certain that homosexuality is an inborn trait, not any conscious choice. But I digress.
There are men who like different shapes and sizes of women. Some men like slender, some like chubby, and some like obese. Tall, short, ectomorph, mesomorph, and endomorph, there is usually someone for everyone.
Where this becomes weird is where who is trying to appeal to who? If males like a certain body type, is it somehow incumbent to stop using that body type? Or is this a demand for women in movies not to appeal to men, but to appeal to women who are sexually interested in women?
There actually are a number of women in films who qualify as non-slender, but this seems like a different agenda, one that looks more like obesity promotion, and "skinny shaming."
Which my wife can attest to, is real, it's happening, and it is vicious. And it is performed by women, not men.
Sorry folks, I have no idea how that just happened!
Why Does Hollywood Remain Out of Step With the Body-Positive Movement? Post Load All Comments 24 Full76 Abbreviated0 Hidden /Sea
Search 340 CommentsLog In/Create an AccountComments Filter: All Insightful Informative Interesting Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Mo ... (Score:3, Insightful)
by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @09:27PM (#55031061) ... ney.
Next question, please.
Reply to This Share Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Mo ... (Score:5, Insightful)
by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @09:41PM (#55031133)
Next question, please.
Okay, here is the next question: Why is it always about women? Why does Hollywood only use buff guys in leading roles? Why are the male sex symbols never short near-sighted bald guys with beer bellies?
Reply to This Parent Share Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Mo ... (Score:?)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17, 2017 @09:30AM
Next question, please.
Okay, here is the next question: Why is it always about women? Why does Hollywood only use buff guys in leading roles? Why are the male sex symbols never short near-sighted bald guys with beer bellies?
Because women tend to like buff guys in leading roles, and are jealous of beautiful and fit women in leading roles.
And men don't complain as much.
After they have success in getting overweight women cast in leading roles, the next move will be to protest that there are not enough morbidly obese, ugly women cast as the leading ladies. Wait for it.