Amanda wrote a post about this article in Details magazine. I wanted to respond to both.
I was supposed to have this up days and days and days ago, but I’ve been busy. And lazy. It’s difficult to know what to write when you’e so late to the party, but I’ve been thinking a lot about bodies and the double bind and the way that implants are coded.
Women under patriarchy aren’t supposed to feel good about themselves. That goes for all women. This is probably one reason why women are taught to reduce themselves to their bodies: few things are harder to control, particularly when the standards are so exacting and so alien to so many bodies.
The thing is, there can’t be any escape. Women can’t reach a point of approval. It’s perfectly fine for her to devote herself to striving, mind. It’s not a problem for a woman to spend a great deal of money on a good body, unless she has a lot of money to throw around. It’s not a problem for a woman to spend a lot of time on a good body, unless she has a lot of time on her hands. It’s not a problem for a woman to become obsessed, unless she takes up anyone else’s attention or threatens to make the rest of us ashamed of ourselves. It’s only a problem for a woman to succeed at the game.
Under the existing standards, plastic surgery falls well within the bounds of an easy fix. It only costs several thousand dollars. It only hurts for a little while. It’s usually safe. It’s pretty lasting. Anyone can do it! This isn’t just industry spiel. This is the popular attitude towards plastic surgery. It’s like magic. But it’s like magic in the old religious sense: cheating. This is why there are all these articles in the mainstream press about the dangers of plastic surgery. They aren’t written out of a deep societal concern over women getting hurt or killed. They send a message to women that they can’t expect to get away with anything that easily. The danger is the price you pay for cheating. They aren’t mourned as victims of malpractice or industry malfeasance or–come on–sexism. They’re held up as victims of their own hubris when they suffer, and ridiculed for their “plastic” bodies when they don’t.
The Details article was more of the same. The whole subtext of the article was, What were you thinking, you stupid bitch? Did you think you’d get away with it? It wasn’t better or different from an article about how men won’t date you if you don’t get implants, you stupid bitch. Those cute little one-liners about how disgusting implants are? Straight off of awfulplasticsurgery.com.
Here’s the Details article:
Or take Posh Beckham, whose über-boobs, in shape and consistency, closely resemble two halves of a fully inflated soccer ball. Obviously those babies are for Becks, who must like the familiar feel.
Aaaaaaand here’s awfulplasticsurgery.com:
Victoria Beckham, best known as Poshspice, has one of the worst looking breast implant jobs in the celebrity world. They look like the halves of a cantaloupe stuffed into her chest. Victoria, you are not fooling anyone! She should have gone with a small size.
It’s also clear that this attitude is no surprise to women who get implants or women who have naturally large breasts. They made that point many times in comments. Anyone’s who’s been paying attention knows that there’s are all kinds of hateful ideas about women with large breasts and women with fake breasts, just as vicious and just as amenable to traditional sexism as any of the nastiness dished out to small-breasted women or women who don’t have surgery. Slutty. Ditzy. Stupid. Whorish. (Or, hell, straight-up Whore.) There are even whole subcategories of insulting judgments about size and shape and age and expense. All of this was on display in the Details article, too, and Amanda’s post didn’t take too critical a look at it. It was no accident that the author brought up Vicks, nee Posh Spice, instead of, say, Cristina Aguilera. Or Cher. I mean, talk about a no-talent flash in the pan who fucked her way back into the limelight for a few short years, right? Amanda swallowed that little gambit whole. I suspect, too, that A-list celebrity women aren’t exempt from the tabloid dirtypillows pillories because an Oscar nomination gives you magical breasts.
This is why the idea that it’s less sexist or more laudable or even rational to reject a woman because she’s gotten implants is ridiculous. Men like that shouldn’t be quoted approvingly. They’re jerks. They’re stupid misogynist jerks.
Feminist analysis of misogynist metonymy shouldn’t stop at thin or stacked or whathaveyou privilege precisely because it turns this kind of reactionary bullshit into something insightful or useful. The problem isn’t so much–or isn’t only–that some women are taught to hate their bodies and fixate on official bodily imperfection. That situation can’t exist until all women are taught to think of their bodies as the most important thing about them. That’s why it isn’t exactly a privilege to have big tits or to get fake tits. A buxom girl isn’t only subjected to all sorts of virgin/whore conflicts because of her chest size. She’s also receiving the message that she is her big breasts, that her y’know actual personality is negligible, that she can’t escape those judgments because they aren’t only pervasive but paramount. Any reaction, adoration or disgust, will be toxic so long as that belief underlies it.
So Amanda–flat girl in a flat-positive subculture, if we assume for the sake of argument that it actually had a non-mainstream beauty standard–can say that she was offered conditional approval, and can certainly argue that this is a more pleasant option than getting groped all through middle school. But someone in that situation cannot say that she was exempt from that underlying message of devaluation. It’d be like me saying that I wasn’t receiving pressure about my weight when I was skinny. This post and the follow-up comments seem to accept the idea that flat chests and surgically unaltered chests really are a badge of pride, that a woman who hasn’t gotten implants has made some conscious decision to turn away from self-hatred and embrace her body. “Universally recognized symbols of desperation?” Perhaps you’re right! Maybe she didn’t want to be treated like a woman with large breasts. Maybe she didn’t want to be treated like a woman with fake breasts. Maybe she didn’t want to seem like a ditz, or a slut, or a whore. It’s at least as likely as simple self-acceptance. It isn’t as though women with flat chests are never on the covers of magazines. They’re just…slightly different magazines.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 71 comments }
*sigh* Trying to have a little self-deprecating humor is bound to backfire. I wanted to own the fact that I benefit unfairly from certain standards other women don’t get to have. All that people saw was, “I have something some women don’t!” without the part where I pointed out that’s unfair.
Aw, feeling beleaguered, are we?
Yes, well, like I said in the post, that’s not quite right.
(And I’m not entirely sure that this flat-positive subculture was all that divorced from the typical stuff, but it was your life, so anyway:)
I don’t think you did benefit all that much, any more than an eleven-year-old with DDs benefits. I don’t think approval for your flat chest is any less toxic than approval for big tits. And I don’t know why you think it amounted to privilege. It was not the same as being exempt. You just got saddled with a different set of expectations.
WOW
Well having read both pieces, I think Piny is the more correct: it was ANOTHER misogynistic Piece of SHit from Details.
But no need to be hatin on Amanda! I think AManda was just writing about her initial reaction to the DETAILS article, and upon further reflexion will no doubt hand YOU the laurels, Piny!
Thank you Jil. Excellent post. I think you got to much of the meat of the matter.
Er, Thank you Piny, not Jill. Sorry.
Missed you, piny.
Having read the Pandagon piece, I think you’ve misunderstood it. I agree with your point about the constant keeping women off-balance about their bodies and the terrible double-standards that make it impossible for us to ever truly feel comfortable with ourselves, but I think your vicious commentary on Amanda was misplaced.
“Vicious”? Really?
I also think Amanda really missed the mark on this. If it was self-deprecation, it didn’t come across that way (indeed, it came across as smug, what with the “badge of pride” thing and her failure to look critically at what the Details writer was actually saying beyond “implants are gross”), and when she was called on it in comments, she blamed the commenters for wilfully misunderstanding her.
Well, I was attempting to examine my own privilege. My thought process (and if you actually read the post, you’ll see this) was:
1) I’ve never felt the pressure to get breast implants, so they bewilder me.
2) But I don’t want to be unfair to women who’ve got them so,
3) Perhaps I have a privilege that bears examining
4) Ah yes, I do! I have benefited from living in a subculture where the pressure to alter my breasts has been absent
5) Therefore women who get breast implants are not morons, they are just women who haven’t had that privilege. I can understand that.
But a lot of people heard, “I have a privilege!” and left it at that. Which is actually kind of incoherent. What am I supposed to do? Not have it? Pretend that I didn’t have this benefit and get breast implants? Fake like I envy big breasts? I sympathize with women who have felt the pressure not to have big breasts, but there’s not much I can besides sympathize.
If you read the post and read, “Having big breasts is bad,” there’s two main possibilities:
1) You sincerely misread it.
2) You were deliberately misreading it because you were looking for something to get mad at me about.
If the former, then a clarification should satisfy. If the latter, then a clarification will only make you madder, because I’m trying to take away your cause to start shit.
To the people of good will who sincerely misread it, I apologize for my lack of clarity.
Also, for people of good will: I meant breast implants specifically, not large breasts. It makes no sense to think natural large breasts are a sign of desperation. My point was that breast implants are contextualized as a pretty huge sacrifice for patriarchal approval. If people contextualize breasts you grew yourself that way, I haven’t noticed it, but hell maybe they do. I don’t know.
So, any approval isn’t actually approval but devaluation, and thus no matter what, it can’t lead to self-esteem and self-acceptance?
Amanda, your condescension about people not getting your process because they must not have read the post notwithstanding, you missed several opportunities to fisk that article and point out that the author, for all his professions of feminism, is simply playing the same old tune: women’s bodies are never good enough. Never. Whether they’re flat-chested, have big tits or get implants, they’re always up for scrutiny and criticism.
You seemed to be agreeing with at least some of his premises, since you pointed out with apparent glee that men don’t actually like implants — without acknowledging that this was one guy, not all men, or that thinking about our bodies in terms of male tastes is kind of at the root of things and it’s a good idea to examine why that is.
Which is why your “universal symbols of desperation” and “badge of pride” comments really, really bugged. Especially when you didn’t stop to consider that while you might be in a flat-positive subculture, those standards are hardly any better than those of the mainstream since they’re still standards about what women’s bodies should be (standards only some women will fit naturally, and others will have to torture themselves to fit). I mean, why would it be a “badge of pride” to have a flat chest? Whose standards are those? What happens to women in your subculture who *don’t* fit those standards? I’m sure they feel some kind of pressure you don’t acknowledge (beyond not being able to buy cute lingerie, that is).
I mean, do you see where you dropped the ball here?
I just don’t see how the Details article could be interpreted as anything but misogynist.
I didn’t think Amanda’s post was her clearest piece of writing, but it seemed clear to me that she was arguing what she says she was arguing. The flat chest line bugged me, too, vaguely, but the lack of context that would have made it okay seemed to me like it was an artifact of writing quickly rather than problematic intent.
Either way, I suspect most of us are on a similar page.
On re-reading, I can buy that you had that thought process, Amanda. But I’m definitely among those who didn’t read it that way initially (and thank you for the apology). I initially read it as, wow women who get breast implants have low self-esteem and depend on the ga-ga looks of men! Of course sometimes they’re calculated benefits. Phew, I’m glad that I come from an indie-rock subculture where it’s cool to be flat-chested!
I think this is probably due to a “internet can’t convey sarcasm or lack thereof” problem. I mean, I pride myself on usually being able to guess the tone of a piece of writing from context, but I read your second paragraph as being mildly sarcastic (“But what do I know?” is so often used that way) as opposed to sincerely examining privilege.
I do think that:
a) You let Details off pretty light given that their anti-breast-implant line is not really motivated by anything positive;
b) Piny’s post explores in detail why that is, that’s the bulk of her more nuanced analysis. In fact I don’t really see any attacks on Amanda, especially not vicious ones? Am I missing something here? I guess I’m more inclined to read posts on multiple feminist blogs as “yes, but also…” as opposed to “you’re wrong, no!”
I don’t think it was vicious, but I suspect the commenter was referring to:
which seems to imply that Amanda agrees with the characterization of these celebrities, which I don’t think is the case.
Piny’s writing tends to be a little sharper, in a poetic way, than “transparent” prose… personally, I thought this was more emphatic and artistically hyperbolic than vicious.
It seems to me that you’re expecting Amanda to always write perfectly clearly 100% of the time, and if she doesn’t, somehow this is dropping the ball and counts as some sort of mammoth fuck up. You’ve been reading Amanda for a long time, and I’d think that by now you’d be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt when she appears to be saying something that she clearly has always stood against. Her explanation makes perfect sense. I agree that it wasn’t the most well written. But what’s with the posturing and raking her over the coals without considering her large body of work advocating for feminist positions almost exactly like the ones Piny wrote about?
Charlie, Amanda’s not immune from criticism just because she usually does a very good job of writing clearly and analyzing bullshit. In fact, I’m saying in that paragraph that she *does* usually write clearly and analyze bullshit well, so this post is a disappointment when considered in context.
I fail to see how calling her out on that (and on her defensive/dismissive reaction on being called out) constitutes “posturing and raking her over the coals.”
Well, Amanda, what bugged me about your post wasn’t the “badge of pride” thing, it was the fact that you said the article made you smile, and even implied it was pro-woman. I don’t understand how a man mocking women for succumbing to the enormous societal pressure to meet the societal beauty standard can be interpreted as anything but anti-woman. Just another way of reminding women they’re not good enough and there is no way they can be.
It’s intriguing to me that those of us who were naturally “gifted” with larger boobs were the ones to call Amanda out over this, and no one else seems to have a clue why we were angry, including Amanda (though I think the angry responses have helped a bit there).
Piny, this was a great piece and eloquently said everything I was too angry to say at Pandagon. It’s bad enough to be treated by non-feminists as though your body is a visible sign that you are the property of the patriarchy — it’s even worse when one’s fellow feminists seem to be arguing the same thing.
Well, I guess it comes from the tone of the piece, and of your comments. Given that I knew what she’d written in the past, I personally would’ve chosen to ask for clarification a little more politely. Something along the lines of “Hey, it sounds like you’re saying xyz, which is something I would think you’d usually never say. Can we get some clarification on that point?” Instead of the whole “this post is such a disappointment and she really screwed up” angle.
It really only makes sense to call it a disappointment if you expect her to be 100% on the ball 100% of the time. I think was and is entirely possible to criticize her post without acting like this is some sort of personal failing that makes her less of a feminist.
Gah. That should’ve read “I think it was and is entirely possible to criticize her post without acting like this is some sort of personal failing that makes her less of a feminist.”
Sorry for the typo.
Oh, please, Charlie. You’re accusing me of trying to pull her feminist card?
Look, she pissed a lot of people off over there and (probably due to illness) never responded to a lot of the criticisms (or responded dismissively/defensively) before the thread devolved into a pissing match between the usual suspects.
I don’t think Amanda needs you playing white knight, anyway. She’s capable of responding to her critics herself.
Right. Because calling it like I see it is me playing the white knight. That’s a nifty rhetorical device you’ve got there.
Amanda,
You’re often on target, but sometimes you’re off. This is one time when you’re off. You recommended an article that was flat-out anti-women. I and others were offended by the Details article and by your recommendation of it.
I understand your perspective, but I still don’t think you’ve really tried to understand ours. I think you’re still in a defensive mode of thinking right now and I don’t expect you to respond positively to our criticisms, but maybe later you can look back and think about it from a different place. (I could be wrong; that’s just my interpretation of events).
As someone who has large breasts I find any suggestion that my breasts are related to my intelligence or my independence completely offensive. I found Amanda’s omission of the underlying misogyny in the Details article offensive as well. I don’t mean to beat anyone over the head about it, but I’m happy to see piny’s acknowledgment and this discussion here.
After a little more thought, here’s what bugs me with the bashing on women with implants:
There’s a whole undertone that women who get implants are pretending to be something that they aren’t. So what does that imply about us who do have large breasts? We “are” what women with implants are only pretending to be, but no one who rails against implants seems to wonder what that is.
Kinda like this?
Well, I did get that impression. And this is what I’m referring to:
And later:
Your own words are saying that if even one of Amanda’s posts misses opportunities to call someone’s sexism to account, then that post is “a disappointment.” That strikes me as saying that she has failed to live up to your standards as what she should be as a feminist. How else should I interpret it? You don’t think that saying she dropped the ball implies a personal failing?
I mean, hey, if you want to attack the ideas in her post, go for it. But there isn’t any need to make it into a personal attack.
Charlie, let me say this s-l-o-w-l-y: saying that Amanda’s post is not up to the usual standards of her other posts is not saying that Amanda herself is not a good-enough feminist. But you seem determined to make this out to be some kind of personal attack on Amanda rather than a criticism of her ideas and a disappointment that she missed a lot of things that she normally picks right up on.
I’m glad to see this discussion happening. The post and ensuing conversation angered me as well. I wanted to hear more about how those women who opt for reconstructive surgery after cancer fit into the scheme of the article and discussion. Some women were trying to address this, survivors of cancer and others, but it got lost in the discussion.
Or to put it another way, Hakumi Murakami is one of my favorite authors. I look forward to reading all of his books, with a kind of irrepressible glee. However, I didn’t think “Sputnik Sweetheart” was as good as his other work. The novel was a disappointment, and didn’t live up to the high standards and expectations set by his other novels. That doesn’t mean he’s not still my favorite author, or that I think he’s failed as a writer somehow. It also doesn’t mean that if I discussed the pros and cons of his work in person, or wrote reviews of his books online, I’d avoid honest discussion of which of his works I thought were good and which not so good. In fact, I’m pretty sure Murakami (and Marcotte) both welcome criticism.
Hrm. Well, I still think the criticism came off as rather personalized. But there is certainly room for reasonable people to disagree.
“Aw, feeling beleaguered, are we?”
How is this a criticism of her post and not an attack on her?
Piny, I don’t know what bee is up your butt, but this could have been done without the nastiness.
Other than it being a response to Amanda’s comment to piny’s post and not in piny’s actual post?
I understand the need to avoid the circular firing squad, but are we really supposed to just let things slide when we’re offended?
In general Piny’s post is well-stated, and was, in my opinion, needed. I agree with all of it, actually. But the post, as well as that comment, come across as a bit nasty toward Amanda. And for reasons already stated that can be problematic as far as “you’re not a good enough feminist” arguments are too common in the feminist blogosphere. No we are not supposed to let things slide when we are offended, but we should be adult enough to do things without being personal. But enough of this discussion about tone, and back to the subject at hand.
Thanks for the response, Jill. I was pretty annoyed by the Details piece myself. DUDE: “Hey, I am not attracted to the shape of your breasts!” WOMEN: “Um… what makes you think they’re for you?”
I am a woman who is in the process of planning to get breast implants. I’m not doing it for men (I prefer women), or to appeal to mainstream culture — without getting into “my measurements, let me tell you them!”, the proportions I have now are much closer to the men’s-magazine ideal than my post-surgical proportions will be. I just like the look of very large breasts, and I want my body to more closely match my big, somewhat outrageous personality.
Obviously I don’t really care if other people want to make judgments about my decision, but I vastly prefer informed feminist discussion of implants and their popularity to pop-cultural sour grapes on the part of guys who are probably not exactly David Beckham themselves. Although if we’re going to assume that the personal decisions people make with regard to their bodies are always dictated by the whims of the opposite sex, how many of us do you think it will take to get men to go easy on the hair gel? ;)
jj, just a reminder: piny and I are not the same person. Charlie was asking me about my own comments, not piny’s.
Oh, you shoulda seen the original comments thread at Pandagon. Piny is quite mild and restrained compared to what a lot of us were saying. Because, again, when you feel like you’re being attacked by your own side, it’s hard to sit back and say, “Well, I’m sure she didn’t really mean it. What’s on TV?”
Hmm, I tend to agree with Piny. I got what Amanda was saying, but I was ‘the eleven year old with DDs,’ and I grew up in the subculture Amanda was talking about in her article. Therefore, I wanted the breast reduction for a LONG TIME because I felt that I could NEVER be taken seriously as a girl with big breasts. Bottom line: It’s *your* body. Be happy with it.
Just an idle thought, but I wonder when women will realize that other women are entitled to make their own choices about their own bodies. Irregardless of whether or not you personally understand that choice.
To say otherwise is just to follow along the lines of patriarchy. Tell the women what they are supposed to do, how they are supposed to be.
That’s just my thought. And honestly, I never cared about the size of a woman’s breasts. Either my own or another’s. Nor do I really care if it’s natural or not.
And I agree with Heather. That’s the bottom line.
This is also what bothers me about the Hollywood hype speculation. Are they real or not?
It’s none of your damn business. Presumably the only one who should care about that are the woman involved.
hear hear shayne!
For most of my adult life most of my friends have been highly educated and worked in traditionally male fields: academia, science, medicine, law. In those circles I felt like my own big breasts were a bit of a detriment – a distraction from the fact that I had brains – and I thought that breast implants were the refuge of women whose incomes depended on their bodies rather than their minds. I couldn’t imagine anyone wanting bigger breasts for any other reason. It took getting to know a wider range of women, some of whom have implants, to get me down off my high horse and realize that judging women who want D cups (like mine) is as wrong as judging women who want A cups (like I’ve wished on occasion). It would be fantastic if we all loved our bodies as they are, but that is hard to do when we are constantly being judged by our appearance.
My impression of Amanda’s take on the article was that it was stupid misogynist crap based on the axiom that women’s breasts exist for the purpose of pleasing men.
Thank you Piny for writing about this! I was pissed when I read the original post over at Pandagon. As a woman with implants, I felt it was insulting and ignorant. My initial thoughts were, What about lesbians with implants? What about the women who’ve had masectomies and gotten implants? What is the difference between a woman with little to no breast tissue getting implants and a transgendered person getting implants? You see a woman with implants (or think she has them) and you assume that you know her motivation? Think again.
what twerks me, as one who came up in a alterna-subculture with big breasts and a big belly and love handles to match, is i remember the flat-chest “badge of pride” and it just seemed to be fat-hating. mainstream culture fetishizes women with huge breasts and small waists. indie culture often favors the straight-up-and-down willowy type. both suck.
if other people had the same experience i’d be interested to hear it.
i have to be honest, i don’t really care what amanda thinks about breast implants, or breast implants in general. i like amanda a lot. i just hate small-parts smug.
point of clarification, i don’t mean those body-types suck, i mean the fetishizing and fat-shaming sucks.
PhysioProf @ #48, Amanda wrote in her post that she liked the article:
That doesn’t seem like a description of “stupid misogynist crap based on the axiom that women’s breasts exist for the purpose of pleasing men.” (Although I’d agree that that is a good description of the Details piece).
Wow, I just finished reading through the comments. I saw quite a few measuring women just by their breasts. And it wasn’t from the male patriarchy. Is this normal or what?
Not sure if this will help anybody, but at my age, the breasts only serve to tell the general populace I’m female since there are some who when only seeing my back assume I’m male from the haircut I sport, and my general body size. I don’t really care for that purpose much, but there it is. The breasts I’m wearing long outlived their usefulness to me once my kids stopped breastfeeding. I’m not one of those who particularly enjoys them being played with.
I don’t know if it’s my age or what that has made me decide I have no interest in anybody’s breasts, including my own. Thus I’m not really interested in what other women do with theirs. But that’s my breast opinion in a hand basket. Mileage may vary, and this viewpoint does not necessarily reflect that all of women living today or those who read/comment on this blog.
And yes, some of those attitudes on Pendragon ticked me off as well. Are breasts that fricking important that everybody seems to want to define women by what they do with them?
Opps, Pandagon. Sorry.
So this, right there, is where the anger from big-breasted women comes from.
Listen. I have very large breasts. The kind you are going to have, and believe me, I do not begrudge you the ‘privilege’. I have a quiet, retiring personality. Do you see where you implied that my breasts do not match my personality? Do you see how that is unbelievably offensive and misogynist?
You want big breasts because you like big breasts, the way they look and the way they feel, that’s fine. That’s great. You will get no criticism from me. But when you say you want big ones because they match your loud and outragous personality, really, what the hell are you talking about?
Piny – Thanks for writing this. I stayed out of the Pandagon thread because it was obvious that the (many) women who were trying to point out why the whole framework being used was so offensive weren’t being listened to. The entire tone of the Pandagon piece was “isn’t it cool that men think women like me are smarter!”. It was snide. And the original Details article…how could any feminist possibly read that and think it was in any way woman-friendly?
Posted my own riposte too.
Great piece, Piny.
Morgan:
Amen, and that is what annoyed me, too.
@Peggy
You are right. I guess I was projecting my own reaction onto Amanda’s commentary.
Right on, Sophonisba. I totally agree that statements like that one are the ones that help create controversy. It really makes it less simple than “I want them” when there’s some stereotypical rationale behind it.
I’m not that interested in any random woman’s motivations for getting them or not, they’re her own business. What bugs me is the idea that my body’s appearance is supposed to be some kind of statement to the world (and that I have to ANSWER to the world for it!), instead of my body simply being what I haul my brains around in.
The whole “woman as public property” thing just GALLS, daily and constantly. I’d like to smack the guy who wrote the article just on general principle.
(Also, I personally didn’t read Amanda’s original post as condescending or smug, but that’s neither here nor there).
Yep. You can’t “pretend to be” something (which is what women with implants are accused of) unless that “something” exists. And it’s very weird for me to realize that for some people, I am a thing because of what my genetic code sprouted on my chest wall.
Piny, great work as usual.
Re “You want big breasts because you like big breasts, the way they look and the way they feel, that’s fine. That’s great. You will get no criticism from me. But when you say you want big ones because they match your loud and outragous personality, really, what the hell are you talking about?”
It seems nitpicky to me to read what Sarah is saying as some kind of stereotype. It’s clear, to me, she saying she thinks a larger size, on her body, will fit her better. Not that this size signals the same thing for everyone, necessarily. If I said I’d like to be 6″ taller so that, at 5′11″, I could have have an entrance-making height, I wouldn’t be saying that every woman who is 5′11″ is or should be a diva. Just that if I had the 5′11″ thing, I’d want to work that a certain way. That’s just me, and her thing is just her. Why make it about you?
Nuh-uh. Back up a minute. To use your height example, you would be acknowledging a correlation between, or an existing stereotype about, height and “diva-ness.” Would you really expect a woman who shot up to 6′ or taller in junior high, suffering giraffe and “how’s the weather up there?” taunts as a result, someone who probably feels like anything BUT a diva, to cheer you on? You’d really then whip around and tell her to quit making it all about her, even though she’s the one with actual lived experience being a tall woman in our society and you’re the idiot with only the most superficial, stereotypical understanding of what being tall entails? That’s some nerve you’ve got.
I read that comment the same way sophonisba did, like saying big boobs turning one into Dolly Parton, and it pissed me off the same way it pissed off sophonisba, ’cause I’m also a buxom introvert, a buxom introvert who’s had to deal with those same idiotic stereotypes about big boobs signaling a big, bouncy personality. We’re not oversensitives and we’re not making it all about us, anymore than a blonde woman who objects to dumb blonde jokes is making it all about her. It’s offensive, period.
Which is kind of the point I was making–the article by that idiot and the remark the poster made are both implying that one’s body sends a “message”. For one thing this is false, because for all the conversation happening the “message” can’t be agreed upon totally. There are general nuances and vague references to big-titted girls looking “dumb”, ha ha, but that’s creating a discourse around the effect of the “messaging” instead of the cause. Secondly, the implication is that if we could all just agree on the message we’d understand what the boob jobs “mean”.
The cause is accepting the idea that one’s body is public property and a non-verbal “messenger”, and one has the right to mold it to send the right “message”. That’s true enough, but the bigger question for me is “Why send a message if you can talk?”
I think that’s the thing that bothers feminists in general, not necessarily what big boobs or implants or flat chests “say”, but the fact that women have to succumb to the pressure to let their bodies speak for them, or mold them to “say” who they are instead of just being who they are and letting that speak for them. Men can do that; women can’t, or if they do, the “message” is that they’re subversives who don’t want to play the game.
That’s what was bothering me about the poster’s remark, not that her choices make it “about” anyone else. Saying “I like them on me” is different from saying “this is what I want to project to others about myself”, if that makes sense. The world’s not going to agree on the message, so why put it in those terms? It’s like those tests in the “women’s magazines” that tell you about your mate’s personality based on what they wear to bed.
If it becomes a general consensus as stated in the article, that men don’t like boob jobs, what does it become if women still continue to do it?
I’m just curious. Expecially knowing how important tits seem to be in this and the Pandagon thread.
Shayne, despite what the article says, I don’t think there is a consensus that men don’t like boob jobs. Yes, women who get implants are mocked as being artificial and dumb and desperate for attention. However, a good boob job isn’t easily distinguishable from the real thing, particularly when covered by clothes – and many women who get implants don’t actually go for the ultra top-heavy look. I’d say as long as people find breasts sexually attractive, women will have surgery to change their size and shape.
My problem is that people who scorn breast implants often lump together all women with big breasts in the “dumb and looking for sexual attention” category. As another buxom introvert, I was also bothered by the big bust = big personality comment because it plays to the same kind of stereotype. My shape says nothing about who I am, and equating bustiness with gregariousness or any other trait is as silly as assuming all fat people are jolly.
“You’d really then whip around and tell her to quit making it all about her, even though she’s the one with actual lived experience being a tall woman in our society and you’re the idiot with only the most superficial, stereotypical understanding of what being tall entails? That’s some nerve you’ve got.”
Of course I would not tell someone she had no right to feel triggered based on her personal experience. I’d also tell her that my choice is not an approbation of her personal experience, but my own choice, something that felt right for me.
And I’d appreciate your not calling me an idiot.
I can have sympathy for her lived experience while also attempting to capture something for myself that makes me feel good. Because I might wish to be tall or Sarah to be bigger-chested, that doesn’t necessitate a “superficial, stereotypical understanding” of the hypothetical friend’s plight. It’s two separate issues. We can understand and by sympathetic to someone’s issues about X while still seeing X in relation to ourselves in a different way.
I used that expression in response to sophonisba because she jumped all over Sarah for something that was not about how X has affected sophonisba, but about how Sarah wishes X to affect her. The two are actually distinct, and a creative thinker can sympathize with one both parties simultaneously.
If that becomes a general consensus (and like Peggy says I don’t think it is) then there will be even stronger incentive for some company to make even more realistic breast implants that are even harder to distinguish from breasts without implants. And I mean, that incentive already exists. It’s going to happen, just a matter of time. Then Details will publish an article about “whoa, have you felt those new better-looking more lifelike breast implants! You won’t be able to tell the difference, it’s awesome!”
p.s. Triggers are a reason to try and phrase things in a sensitive way — not a reason to avoid saying them at all. In other words, I think octo is right about this one, even though it’s understandable to read generalizations into comments about breast size or height, and probably a good idea to be specific. Generalizations like that? Generally not something you want people to read into your language.
If body mods are neutral, then why object to dark-skinned people using lightening creams to make themselves paler? After all, they’re just trying to capture something for themselves that makes them feel good.
I reacted about the same. It is a stereotype. One of many we could do without. One of the things I like about the intert00bz is that we get caught out on that sort of thing more often because we cannot see who we are talking to. It makes the words more important, and I like that. Although it is embarassing to get caught out for thinking things you would never have thought you thought.
Speaking as someone who grew up with one foot in a culture where skin-lightening creams are promoted as ways to make yourself more beautiful… I actually don’t think there’s an inherent problem in people making their skin lighter if they want to, anymore than there’s some inherent problem in people tanning themselves to be darker.
The problems are that
a) some skin-lightening products are actually incredibly bad for you, carcinogenic or contain substances that can fuck you up;
b) there is cultural pressure around this stuff, a beauty standard. Often the idea is that darker skin is uglier or lower class, that you won’t be able to get a job (see the recent spate of TV commercials from India for good examples for this) if you have darker skin, you won’t be able to find a husband, etc. This is obviously not neutral, and it’s wrong. And in many ways, there’s social pressure around having big breasts too, that I think everyone posting on this thread would agree is bad. Women should not be pressured to have light skin or big breasts. That doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for an individual to make their own decision that takes into account both their personal preferences and social pressures acting on them.
So yeah, I don’t object to individual dark-skinned people using lightening creams. I object to the cultural standards that say light-skinned people are better or higher-class. It’s discrimination based on skin color — colorism. (Not always the same as racism, especially in Asia, although there’s definitely some cross-influence.)
Holly, I didn’t mean to generalize and should have further explained why I was asking the question.
All my life I have made decisions independent of both the patriarchy and matriarchy. Sometimes the decisions jived with what one or the other thought, but it was never why a particular decision was made.
I asked the question because I was truly curious about when a woman’s decision becomes her own, irregardless of what either the patriarchy or matriarchy think. From everything I see it’s seems to be far easier just to acknowledge in yourself that you’ve made the decisions you’ve wanted, and not argue with those who would tell you different.
No decision we make to change ourselves is independent of the stereotypes of society. You are right, it is just easier to say “it’s my choice” than to submit yourself to examination for your choice.
with dark hair are serious, boring, etc.
On that note, is it ok to admit if I want to change how I look because society’s unfair prejudice will change perceptions of me?
Fuck. You’re briliant…
This is kinda depressing but also… illuminating.
Thankyou.
Comments on this entry are closed.