Thursday, 26 January 2012

Mrs She's Too Big, Now She's Too Thin

The term ‘size zero’ gets flung around a lot, but the truth is that there are next to no major celebrities with a size zero frame. This article, however made me realise quite how ridiculous the slim ideal is. Models are required to be under a UK size 8. If they’re any bigger, they’re classed as “plus sized”. As a size 8 myself, that means I’d be considered plus sized which is ridiculous considering the average dress size in the UK is 14-16. Models and body ideals that are shoved in women’s faces are always extremely far from the norm, that’s because what is considered to be the most beautiful at any given time in history is usually what is the most difficult to achieve. Take the trend of pale skin and heavy body weights a hundred years ago while poor workers had to work long hours outside in the sunshine. Being able to avoid average appearances signified wealth and health. This ideal has turned around so quickly simply so money can be made out of selling women cosmetics, diet schemes and surgery they really don’t need. Now we’re expected to be unnaturally tanned and unnaturally slim. The slim beauty ideal clearly presents many self-esteem problems as well as disorders such as anorexia and bulimia, but the message is clear; beauty ideals, no matter what they are, are always homogenised and leave no room for manoeuvre. If women don’t fit in with the very tight idea of beauty that culture presents to us, they are marginalised. Ideals are not the norm so that they make women with normal and average bodies feel bad about themselves.

Recently however I’ve noticed a particular beauty ideal dominating western culture. “Curvy” celebrities such as Christina Hendrix, Kelly Brook, Jennifer Lopez and Kim Kardashian are today's role models women want to look like and men want to look at. Gone are the days of the skinny and flat chested Kate Moss ideal and in are womanly “curves”. Now while I think it’s great that other body types are being accepted, it comes at a price; homogenisation, marginalisation of any other body type. These types of images are cropping up all over social media websites:


This picture is objectifying, marginalising and judgemental of women’s bodies. I can’t believe some feminists think this is a positive thing!

I understand the good intention behind images like this, I really do. It’s a backlash against the diet industry and conditions like anorexia and bulimia which are a real problem. But isn’t it hypocritical to imply acceptance of women’s bodies at the same time as rating one body type as better than the other. No matter which way around the images are switched, it's body judging just the same. We should be accepting all body shapes and sizes, not picking out what women should and should not look like. Celebrating "curvy" women is being confused with celebrating the bodies of normal, heavier women but these "curvy" women all weight much less than the average woman. As much as the lower pictures of women arguably possess healthier body weights, they were still exceptionally beautiful - they weren’t the norm and they don’t signify the average woman’s figure. We have to remember that the “curvy” beauty ideal is a beauty ideal all the same which does not reflect the norm can be just as harmful to women’s self-esteem as the slim ideal. The lower row of images signify a beauty ideal which is just as unattainable as the beauty ideal which is denounced in the upper images. They have slim waists yet un-proportionately large breasts and hips which does not reflect the average woman's figure. It isn’t any more ‘normal’ or achievable than the slim ideal.

I am small framed and have always been naturally slim. I’ve hated my body and had self esteem issues since I was a child, yet people have repeatedly told me I’m too slim and I “need” to put on weight. I’m 5’5 and weight 8 and a half stone which puts my BMI in the ‘healthy’ weight category. I’ve never purposefully tried to be slim, I eat whatever I like and have struggled for a long time to put weight on, yet people assume that because I’m slim they have the right to judge me for it. People generally realise it’s not acceptable to tell someone that they “need” to lose weight so why is it okay the other way around. Just like the picture above, women's bodies are being judged and it's no more acceptable whether the woman is fat or thin. It's increasingly become acceptable in the media to declare a celebrity "too thin" - not through any worry about their personal health but purely so they can scrutinise the way they look. Maybe this is down to the "Curvy” ideal or rejection of the older slim idea, but whatever the reason for this, women should never be judged for their natural body shapes, whatever that happens to be. It’s happening no matter whether women are skinny, slim, normal, heavy, fat, pretty, ugly, tall, short, black, white, old, young, poor, rich… It’s happening because we all share one thing in common. We’re women and our bodies are public property.

Women and men’s magazines have been declaring proudly that they accept and love “curvy” bodies like they are finally accepting normal, natural body types. What they usually mean by “curvy” however is not plus sized models or women with average size 14 bodies, but women who have slim waists and un-proportionately large “curves” on their breasts, bottoms and/or hips. The truth is that very few women naturally have tiny waists and big breasts. The chances are that if you are female and you are reading this article that you will fit into one of two types: If you do manage to have large breasts and bum, your tummy is also curvy so you’re labelled too fat. If you do manage to have a small waist you probably don’t have big breasts so you’re labelled too skinny and un-womanly. Of course there are those lucky few who do manage to get the ‘best of both worlds‘, but they are the exceptions not the norm, they are the ideal.

Angelina Jolie is described as curvy because of her large breasts, despite having a very thin waist. It’s a similar deal with Kim Kardashian and Kelly Brook who are described as “curvy” for being slim while remaining extraordinarily big breasted. Christina Hendrix, declared by Britain’s equality minister as someone “ all women should aspire” to look like, is actually a slim size 10 with a typical models dimensions. The result? Women with average body types are striving to look like her so much that they’re resorting to breast surgery. Even Marilyn Monroe wasn’t nearly as big as most people assume, her waist was about as small as Kate Moss’, the difference is that Kate Moss has average sized breasts for her weight while Monroe’s proportions and perfect hourglass figure were highly unusual, hence why she was such a beauty icon. Monroe is currently often cited as a symbol of the 'empowered' woman whose heavier-than-usual weight and curvy body shape makes her the attainable role model for women. However what people tend to forget is that she was sexually objectified in exactly the same way as current celebrities are, she posed nude for the first Playboy cover and her worth was based on her "sex siren" act and looks. She ended up being a very sad, depressed person, as did Bettie Page who also became severely depressed. According to Bette Davis, Monroe "didn't like sex or men all that much, because she was tired of men always trying to get her into bed." She was a 'sex siren' for everyone, to the whole world, to detriment of her own sexuality.

People don’t seem to realise that people like Marilyn Monroe were objectified and used in exactly the same was as modern celebrities! The picture you posted is objectifying, marginalising and judgemental of women’s bodies. I can’t believe some feminists think this is a positive thing!







Ruben's The Three Graces is probably the nearest we will ever get to an average attainable 'curvy' body type. Painted in the 1600s, Ruben's depicted the beauty ideal of his time, before heavy homogenisation through the media.








These women with rare body shapes are repeatedly described as “real women”. Now it’s great that they love their body shapes and are being accepted for them, but as a result other body shapes are seen as inferior. Are slim women with small breasts or larger women with round tummies not “real women” too, should they not also be proud of their bodies? The skinny ideal threatens self-esteem issues and body disorders, the curvy ideal threatens self-esteem issues and cosmetic surgery. No matter what we look like, women are always going to be judged for either being too fat or too thin. Ideals are all just as destructive as each other. Isn’t the solution to reject ideals and embrace variation rather to favour one body type over the other?

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

This is what a feminist looks like.

People who know me have called me: Open minded, Louis Lane, funny, articulate, talented, natural, brave, inpatient, creative, clever, ugly, pretty, feminist, bitch, slut.

People who don't know me have called me: Femi-nazi, jealous, liar, bitch, fugly bitch, slut, ugly, fat, lesbian, feminist, old, smelly, bored, housewife, hairy, idiot, man hater, closed minded, pretty, brave.


Send your pictures to stopthemyths@hotmail.co.uk to be added here.

Friday, 6 January 2012

Paper-mache Princess.

Work starts at nine.
Not enough light to blend this illusion,
Not enough time.

I blend just enough to be effortless,
But not so much that I’m revealed.
My pale skin hiding beneath the layers,
Waiting to be accepted, not to be concealed.

I live as these other people,
Laminated, polished and frozen.
But somehow something tells me,
They’re really all broken.

They asked me at school what I would like to be,
Now I just want to be a celebrity.
The mask I won’t do without, it is my shield.
You’ll never get close enough for it to be healed.

Someone else’s hair has become glued to mine.
Stripped of all meaning, bleached of all desire.
Glowing layers of paint sprayed onto my skin,
Adhesive nails are already wearing thin.

I work for the weekend, gyrate like on T.V,
Like magazines my legs are smooth and glossy.
Makeup, hair and nails my weekly salary,
Of someone famous I must become married.

Swarms of people drawn to this culture,
From possessing no hobbies they become vultures.
I see them lured, captivated, and pacified,
But something vacant still lingers in their eyes.

I’m a paper-mache princess,
A real life doll.
Disposable, I’ll break,
Replaced with a remake.

Laura Connett.

Tuesday, 3 January 2012

Believing what you want to believe.

As a rape survivor who, like most others did not receive justice, this sort of reporting (which happens frequently) severely pisses me off:

Article.

The article is about actor Michael Le Vell. Now while I am impartial to his situation and don't care to speculate whether he is guilty of anything or not, the article suggests he has been found innocent while actually he has not.

First part of the article:
"Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has told his family of his joy at being cleared of child rape allegations."

Later part of the article:
"Following enquiries by Greater Manchester Police I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to put before a court."

Being "cleared" of a crime means going through the courts and being found 'not guilty', or being found not guilty in preliminary investigations. In his situation, the case will not be brought to court because the law will not even allow a trial unless there is a high chance of a ‘guilty’ verdict. Because rape is usually committed in private, the high amount of evidence required by law usually does not exist. Evidence usually required includes witnesses and CCTV recordings - which is ridiculous considering the most common place to be raped is in your own home.

Only 6% of reported rapes end in conviction because the vast majority of them do not even reach court. This is because the law is tailored towards ‘stranger rape’ scenarios where there will be CCTV evidence, witnesses and severe physical assault. However only 8% of rapes are committed by strangers and possibly may even happen this way, so most rape cases do not possess the required evidence to even get a trial.

Now, as a feminist who has encountered the same thing happening to me, I'm not even suggesting that we should believe the alleged victim must be telling the truth. The fact is that since there has been no legal finding one way or the other, we should remain impartial. That is unless we have access to the evidence in the CPS report, which we don't. My point is that people are far too ready to believe the woman must be lying. Even though it's not been proven one way or the other, they'll be on the side of the accused being innocent and the woman being a liar. Based on absolutely nothing at all.

From Twitter.

Now looking through the comments under the article, the vast majority of readers have wrongly deduced that the alleged perpetrator has been found not guilty and are outraged for the poor man that he has been “falsely accused”! So if, like 94% of rape survivors, you don’t get a chance in court to receive justice (because you didn’t film your ex-partner raping you and he didn't invite a witness to watch!) you are often seen as a liar. I'd like to add here that in my case, a signed confession and emails to the same effect, which he admitted to writing, were not deemed enough evidence to take him to trial.

Notice the amount of people who agree (green arrow) and disagree (red arrow).

Most rapists don't reach court because the law is flawed, this does not mean they have been found 'not guilty' and are falsely accused. For more on how the law is biased towards 'stranger rapes' see my petition here.

I still wish I had a bloody camcorder.

[All statistics from the UK Home Office Report. Alan, J and Myhill, A.]

Thursday, 29 December 2011

What's the difference between porn and nudity?


This is a topic I see brought up time and time again. Men and women these days just don't understand what the difference is between nudity and pornography.

On the topic of banning newspaper pornography (also known as 'page 3 girls'), a supporter said: "the next logical step is to ban children from beaches and swimming pools where they can see lots of partially-clad women in the flesh" [From The Daily Star Facebook page]

Defending fully nude Playboy pornography being displayed in a shop window, a supporter said: "Assuming young children were breast fed it's not all that long in the past that they were doing more than just looking at bare breasts and there was nothing improper with that." [From The Daily Mail]

Two thing these idiots - I mean, people, have in common here. They are both defending the public display of pornography through the argument that non-sexualised partial nudity is fine. They really, honestly believe there is no difference between non-sexualised natural nudity and posed, strongly coded pornography which sole purpose is to sexually stimulate. The latter commenter really believes he can compare breast feeding with porn.

Lets just say those two things were the same, then. It is still illegal to walk around publicly fully nude, so why should it not be illegal to display fully nude and pornographic images in public then?

The hypothetical swimming pool or breast feeding situations they argued are not even similar visually, disregarding the pornographic element, to the full nudity they were defending. Secondly, would these people really support mothers breast feeding their infants publicly in shop windows and pictures of breast feeding in newspapers? The general consensus at the moment is no. A lot of people seem to think there is something "disgusting" about that (because it's natural, in a similar way big tummies and body hair is also "disgusting".) Facebook allows pro-rape groups to threaten and laugh about raping women, but bans pages on breast feeding and non-sexualised images of mothers feeding their babies.

I think that as well as being naive of the differences between porn and nakedness (good luck in your relationships by the way) that they're therefore extremely hypocritical, and well, idiots providing illogical arguments that most people seem to accept any way.

I can speculate on the reasons behind this being normalisation of sexualised women's bodies. The difference today is that if you reject porn, it's still inescapable. Day-time TV shows, billboard adverts, music videos, daily newspapers and magazines all represent women in this way. We're forgetting that this isn't natural, and doesn't mean it's automatically O.K.

UR JUS JELUZ

The commenter from the Daily Mail also nicely added: "Are the Art Galleries to have their paintings painted over with jeans and T shirts to preserve the sensibilities of jealous old ladies?"

This is also an issue I see brought up every time I voice my apparent "freedom of speech" against the normalisation of pornography. I'm told by a stranger that I "must just be jelus" (note that they can rarely spell what they are dishing out.) They really, truly believe that everyone in the world believes the same thing that they do and the only reason they may be 'pretending' to be against it is because we all secretly love and really want to be in porn too but we can't because we MUST be old/ugly/fat/feminist; which means we're jealous.

I've been called old fat and ugly because I don't like porn. I'm 23, a UK dress size 8, and I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I'm not ugly. I'm guessing the guys sitting behind their desks thinking up defences of porn just because they use it, are much more likely to be old, fat or ugly.

Wednesday, 7 December 2011

Putting women in their place

Just a quick thought...

For some people they're just clichés, but for me there is something really sinister about the terms "acting like a woman scorned" and "women crying rape". The meanings are widely known and their persuasiveness is already culturally ingrained, they can dismiss and belittle a person in just a second - just like the "you're just jealous" argument which works instantly without need of argument because it is understood and cannot be disproved.

Sunday, 13 November 2011

Why I won't be doing Christmas this Christmas

I'm sick of materialism at Christmas. I want to counteract this greedy atmosphere!

My family have never gone over the top with celebrating Christmas, although "over the top" for me would be a feeble celebration to most people. Today I heard my first Christmas song at work. These Christmas songs will now be playing every day for the next two months. Two months - that's a sixth of the year which is dedicated to this one day of commercialism, materialism, selfishness and waste. Something about this seems so wrong to me, that while we are over indulging by wasting food, things and money - there are a lot of people out there with really big problems that a few quid could save them from.

Most of the country are not Church-going Christians any more, the most Christian of Christians, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, do not even celebrate Christmas with material goods. The only pre-requisite of celebrating Christmas is a strong greed for lots of food and lots of things and the expectation that if you don’t join in with this then you’re a kill joy, or tight with money.

While I may seem like a miserable 'Scrooge' here, I do understand why people love it so much. For kids it's a happy and magical time, for some it may be the only time of year families sit around the table to talk and eat together. But why the expectation of expensive gifts? most of which will be left in a corner then make it's way to the bin a few months later.

Solution 1:
I recently found out about a website,Good Gifts, which I think is a great alternative to having to reluctantly buy someone something they don't really want. Buy a friend a charitable good gift in their name; it could be a goat, food, books, saving puffins... there are loads of ideas on the site and you can type a Christmas message to the recipient that goes along with their ‘gift’.

If they don’t like it then tough, you’ve shown this person you’ve thought about them and aren’t just tight with your money. If nothing else, you can feel good with yourself that you’ve not wasted packaging and money on unethical companies that are only after profit. It's MUCH more fun and rewarding than shitty toiletry gift sets that nobody wants! Plus, it's all done with a click of a button and no wasting of wrapping paper :)

Solution 2:
If you want something to show for your efforts other than a piece of paper, you could buy something from Lush such as Charity Pot Body Lotion which is fair trade, anti-animal testing and of which the profits go to charity!



Solution 3:
Buy Christmas cards from charity shops. Most of them sell brand new cards that aren’t much more expensive than your typical ones. They always print the charity on the card so the person you’re sending it to knows the profits are going to a good cause and you do too!

Solution 4:
Donate or volunteer to hand out food to homeless people at Christmas. A lot of churches take part in similar things too, so think about contacting your local one to see how you can make someone very happy. Visit Caring At Christmas.

Solution 5:
Do nothing, it's just another day!