Thin, thinner, the thinnest
The "you're fat and ugly" issue has been my pet peeve for quite some time now. From the medical point of view I completey accept and comprehend the fact that being overweight deteriorates one's health. And the "medical reason" (for me) is the only reason good enough to embark on the yourney of weight loss.
A recent article by J.K. Rowling sparked my enthusiasm for the topic again and I decided to write a post about it. Around that time I also went to Neisha's concert. I noticed imediately as she got on stage that she lost quite some weight and I wondered whether that was a rational decision she made prior to this major concert. About a week later, when my best friend came over for a drink, she explained this mystery by saying that she watched Neisha appear in a Sunday evening TV show (prior to the concert) where she said she was working out because she wanted to look good for the concert. It was just what I thought it was.
But it remains a mystery to me why a woman like her with substantial talent, a good singing voice and a firm educational background in music would go there. I understand that looks is very important for big-(fake)-boobed blondes without any sort of talent for music. Their looks is their ticket to success, but why would a woman who's already succeded because of her talent (even when she was overweight) want to lose weight? To attract more fans? (But would she really?) To look better? And, anyway, what does it mean to look better? Boyfriend and I have completely different tastes in clothing, shoes and what looks good on women. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. What is beautiful for me isn't beautiful for someone else. But generally speaking, 0ur society doesn't treat overweight people as beautiful. So did she lose the weight to be more socially acceptable, to come closer to beiny beautiful?
It's absurd. You have to be abnormally thin, you have to look like a model, have perfect hair and make-up and matching clothing and only then you're considered beautiful. Like J.K. Rowling says, it doesn't matter if you're a benevolent person, if you're happy, energetic, witty, intelligent, broad-minded or independent, it only matters whether you're thin or not. I believe it's also got to do with weak self-esteem. People who have a good opinion of themselves will never submit to the advertisments like "Lose as much as 30 kg with our new pills". And let's face it - the dieting industry is blooming as wildly as it can. Not a week passes in which I haven't seen several big advertisments for "revolutional" new products that just melt away the fat. People who buy such crap and such lies are naive and god help them if they haven't yet learned that you can only lose weight in one way: consume less than you expand. The dieting industry sends a very powerful message that sinks its claws deep in this low self-esteem world and the message is that you're not good as you are, but that you could be happier, more attractive, richer, more powerful, more influential, more loveable, more popular if only you were thinner. (Interestingly, the same industry also likes to remind you that while using their dieting pills your can eat as heartily as you wish - thus in reality gaining more kilos and thus even more desperatelly buying their products, which means more money for them.)
Many (young) women buy this without reflecting on it - they just accept the visual truth of the matter - no fat actress was ever proclaimed beautiful, famous, loved and adored (or so it seems). People seem to love skinny people, our culture values extreme thinness, but hardly ever taking into account that many actresses/singers/spoilt, rich brats have unfulfilling personal lives, marred by depression, constant fear of losing popularity, addiction, divorce or inability to form fullfiling and lasting relationships. The biggest achievement of the skinny girls is that they're just that: thin. Thankyouverymuch, but when I'm 95 and on my death bed, I'd prefer to have some other achievements to remember and I'd like to have people around me who shared their lives with me, in whom I could confide, with whom I could share the joys of my life. Being thin matters very little in the grand scope of things and yet our society makes such a big thing out of it. Why? Is fat really so unattractive? Is a rounder face so disgusting? Is a fuller behind a sin?
What I think is a sin is not taking care of yourself. I do not mean obsessive four-hour daily sessions at a local beauty salon. My point is to recognize your body's true needs: the need for good, healthy, nourishing and diverse foods, the need for pure water, the need for fresh air and the need for exercise which increases endurance (medium activity endurance exercise, such as running, cycling or swimming). If you run 3 to 4 times a week, eat diverse and nutritious foods and still are overweight: deal with it. There is nothing so wholly terrible (not even being fat) as the fact that you're not able to embrace yourself for who you are (and how you look). Again, a fuller body is not a sin. If you're embitered, full of hatred, have a propensity to be mean to others, are revengeful, disinterested, uneducated because of your own laziness and hate yourself, that's a far bigger sin than just the fact that you're fat.
In order to be more healthy, overweight people should aspire to lower their weight, but not because then they'll look better, but because they'll have much lower risk for suffering an infarction and other cardiovascular complications, which are the number one cause of mortality among Slovenians. Sadly, most people diet because they want to look better. They might lose weight, but their negative attitude towards themselves won't change, it will stay with them and perpetuate the negativity directed against themselves.
It hardly comes as a surprize that only 2% of Slovenian women, accorting to a Dove research, consider themselves beautiful. It shocks me. There are more than 2% of thin women in Slovenia, so thinness is not something that makes you feel beautiful or special. The women on Dove billboards, who are 89 years old, have lots of freckles over face and body, are overweight, have a crooked nose respectively... aren't ugly. They're beautiful, but not by the standards of bleached-blondes with artificial boobs, a Twiggy-like-feather-light body, a rhinoplasty and collagen implants in their lips. Have you ever paused to think how very ALIKE all these women look? In the words of dear Rowling, their function in the world is nothing else but supporting both: the manufacturing of crocodile-skin handbags and the breeding of rat-sized dogs.
I have often bragged here how well I look, but this has got nothing to do with how I really look. It has to do with being proud of myself, my achievements and the abilities of my body, my perseverance, independence and sense. If I posted my photos, you might not find me beautiful (or you would), but that would not waver my self-esteem or even get me thinking that there might be a grain of truth in your words. Frankly, I don't even care if I'm beautiful. Even though (mostly men) have often complimented me on my looks, I always winced at such moments. I didn't have so much to do with not being able to accept a compliment than it had to do with the fact that I wanted people to notice me, myself, the person behind the facade, who's intelligent, opinionated, daring, curious, decisive and independent. I knew beauty's of short duration (our society does not consider people over forty as beautiful) and thus I'd rather be something other than beautiful.
And you?
Labels: random ramblings
8 Comments:
I think that at least a part of this debate is about the meaning of the word "beautiful".
It seems that you suggest that this word should be defined in such a way that a reasonably large proportion of women could be considered beautiful. Most other people, on the other hand, think of the word "beautiful" as being more like a superlative -- something that can only be attained by a very small percentage of people.
I don't doubt that the main message of your post is sound -- i.e. that people should't hate themselves for not being terribly skinny and for not looking like movie stars -- but at the same time I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be easier for you to get your message across by not insisting on using the word "beautiful" in a way that is significantly different from the way most other people use it.
In my opinion, 2% of women considering themselves beautiful is not shocking but rather a sign that most women have a realistic opinion of themselves. I don't doubt that beauty is distributed normally, like so many other bodily characteristics. A small percentage of people are really beautiful, a similar percentage are really ugly, but the vast majority is somewhere in between -- somewhere around the average. I don't think that anything particularly useful can be achieved by trying to get everyone to pretend that this majority (or a significant part of it) is beautiful. I think it's preferable to acknowledge that they are simply average, and then work on the other side of the problem: i.e. get people to accept the fact that being average is OK, that it isn't something to be ashamed of or something to obsess about.
Am... well I did use the words beautiful and thin quite interchangably, because in our culture someone who is overweight cannot be considered beautiful. I think the interpretation is not the problem, even when you could hardly have many people agree on what is beautiful or what is not. I think perception is problematic. Someone who has high self-esteem will consider herself beautiful regardless of the fact whether people around her will consider her as such. Women in our culture will hardly ever have the guts to publicly proclaim themselves beautiful, because it's the cultural norm that women should be modest and shy. Not all women are, however, though when asked whether they find themselves beautiful, most women will reply that they don't beause they've got fatty bellies or such. Even models and beauty pageants (so someone who is considered beautiful by many people) will tell you that if they could, they'd correct this or that. Women who know that not everything in their body is perfectly symetrical but who choose to go beyond that norm, will proclaim themselves beautiful.
Well, are you absolutelly certain that "beautiful" is a superlative? Why? We were taught (directly, but mostly indirectly since we percieved it was socially inaproppriate) that being beautiful is what only other people are and that we ourselves are most certainly not beautiful. A child who says she is beautiful will be made fun of and scorned and tortured by her friends until she gives up claiming she's beautiful and then she can be normal like everyone else. People don't like other people claiming they percieve themselves as beautiful and aware of the fact, because it makes them feel even more strongly that they themselves are not beautiful and that being close to someone who is, makes them even less visually desirable.
We (and especially women, where it is oh, so important that she tries to be beautiful) were taught that only other people are beautiful, that we aren't and that people who certainly are are models and filmstars. Why? With all the help they get (stylists, make-up and hair artists, professional photographers, hour long photo shoots, plastic surgeon and many surgeries) any woman would look as beautiful as they do. So there's the potential in any woman to be beautiful. Why deny the fact? Also, many women who are percieved as beautiful undergo several plastic surgeries, so it's not them who's "beautiful", but their new look, who is. Why should I completely reconstruct my face in order to be percieved as beautiful? Why should beautiful be a superlative? Because you aren't beautiful or because you were thaught that is improdent to have a good self-esteem? Many women say they don't want to be self-conscious, but having a good self-esteem isn't being self-conscious.
I've heard women who are perfectly good-looking to say that they were not, because they never thought they were and in my eyes there was nothing wanting. So it's not about who's really beautiful or not (there's not even an absolute rule for it) but rather the fact that some people choose to go beyond physically perfect and see the glow in one person, the divine spark or whatever you chose to call it and they name it beautiful. Anyone can be beautiful. It's not just beauty pageants. I'm quite sure that your girlfriend is what you'd call "average and a realistic opinion of herself", but you find her extremely beautiful. It's not just because you're in love with her, it's because you know her well and because of what she does for you.
Well, are you absolutelly certain that "beautiful" is a superlative? Why?
That's just my impression based on how I usually find the word "beautiful" used. Additionally, consider the dictionary definitions: "having qualities that delight the senses"; "excellent, wonderful"; "aesthetically pleasing"; "ki ima v estetskem pogledu pozitivne lastnosti ... po obsegu, količini presega povprečje ... izraža visoko stopnjo pozitivnega" (SSKJ).
So there's the potential in any woman to be beautiful. Why deny the fact?
It isn't obvious to me that this is the case. I agree that any woman's appearance could be improved by the sort of help that is available to models and filmstars. But I'm not sure if any woman's appearance could be brought to a typical model/filmstar level even with all that help. I suspect that the women who actually end up becoming models or filmstars probably had better predispositions to begin with (even before the hairdressers and surgeons got to work on them).
Why should I completely reconstruct my face in order to be percieved as beautiful?
Well, surely nobody is saying that this is what anyone should do. But it might well turn out that unless you do that, fewer people will perceive you as beautiful. At that point you would have several options:
(1) you could ignore the fact that few people consider you beautiful, and emphasise the principle that it shouldn't matter all that much whether a person is (or is considered to be) beautiful or not;
(2) or you could start looking for a plastic surgeon;
(3) or you could try to persuade other people to change their standards of beauty (or the way they use the word "beautiful") so that you will then begin to be perceived as beautiful by them.
It seems to me that you are advocating option (3) here, while I am trying to suggest that option (1) is perhaps better and somewhat less quixotic.
I agree with you that it's a good idea to look for the glow in a person rather than just for a pleasing appearance. What I disagree with is that we should use the word "beautiful" in both cases. Why not keep the word "beautiful" for the meaning in which it is currently usually used, i.e. "having a pleasing appearance", and use some other term for the glow in the person and the divine spark? Why not simply say that the person in question is kind, or friendly, or has a good character, or is fun to be around, or whatever else that inner glow happens to consist of, rather than insisting on calling such a person "beautiful" when it is quite clear that most people wouldn't use the word "beautiful" in such a way?
Surely most people would agree that not everyone is clever; not everyone is wealthy; not everyone is kind; not everyone is a Gandhi. Why then insist that everyone is beautiful? Why should beauty be so different from all other positive and desirable characteristics?
We should agree to disagree. AS for myself, I would be perfectly content if beauty wasn't so important as it's made out to be. Unfortunately I hear too many young girls say that they want to be beautiful. When I ask them about smart, goodnatured, etc. they say that being beautiful gets you attention and attention amkes them happy. It seems that their lives revolve around a single goal: to be beautiful and thus be happy.
AS I already mentioned in my blog entry, beauty is the classic meaning of the word isn't imporant to em, but it seems to be very important in the world in general. Why?
Everyone has the potential to be beautiful. Either by surgery or by working on their personality.
Nadezhda!
I am on Rožnik and just as I start reading a print of your treatise on beauty (you are a star, I am subscribed to your clippings), two prominent Slovene jogged by: first the editor of Finance and some minutes later in the opposite direction (hey, they should've met) the director of our anti-corruption committee. The later flew swiftly by like he hadn't had any altitude gain behind him whatsoever. Like a cold bullet. The former however didn't looked good, forcing himself to run, but doing so very slowly, almost not moving. This definitely didn't look like a right journey to weight loss. People die because of that! I've read about it.
I think that people who want to be beautiful in a conventional way also want to live forever.
But beauty can mean some many things ...
If universe for example is beautiful, this beauty can also be found on an inversely smaller scale. As William Blake put it:
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
My opinion on beauty has always involved a strong link to optimism and freedom from any kind of neuroses. A free spirit is a beautiful one. I wrote a poem about this:
Here and now, I declare:
what beauty is, I can't tell;
may it be modesty in everything,
since it is foolish to exuberate in anything.
(- to exuberate means to overdo it)
But I can't say that certain things like sex appeal can't "fool me"! Human I am. I wrote about this in my section on vanity here, if anyone is interested.
It's really sad that one can't learn quicker to observe the inner beauty and cherish it before the outer one. So many nice persons go by, s m r k!
I also connect beauty to hygiene. Here my question lies for you: Is it true that the medical students do some kind of an experiment that involves finding out that washing hands doesn't wash away more than 20% of bacteria? What's the point of washing then? How was the experiment set out and what were your true findings? Would you be so nice and write a short paragraph?
Please.
Thank you.
And congratulations on the Road of Beauty already found! Some are still hoping to find it. But where there's a hope, there's a way.
Your "section on vanity" links back to my blog. I think you'll have to fix that.
It is my theory (only a theory!) that people are so obsessed with external beauty, because that is fairly easy to judge or estimate in very short time. You will try to maintain contact with people who you find beautiful, but you'll forget the ones who you did not find beautiful. People today are very inclined to giving quick judgments and if there's something you can judge quickly (without being very mistaken), it's how one looks. Which is foolish. None of my best friends is much of a looker, but they all mean very much to me, are supportive and true friends.
The hygiene part: I don't remember actually proving any such thing (20%). We did wash our hands at microbiology class once and did that, but as far as I can remember, no culture ever grew on those particular agar plates. The procedure was simple: we had two agar plates each. We touched one plate with unwashed hands and the other with washed hands. A week later there were cultures on the unwashed plates, but not on the washed. If you're attempting doing this at home, let me warn you that doctors have a different, a more thorough method of washing their hands and we sometimes also use desinfecting agents. Also, if you want to cultivate the bacteria, you have to keep the agar plates in a warm, stabile environment.
About the hygiene part: So what you are saying is that by proper cleaning one can kill all the bacteria?
That's odd, since some other medical student told me the exact opposite. But I didn't completely remember her exact words, so I asked you.
I know that doctors wash their hands more thoroughly. Once a surgeon showed me how.
I don't yet have their kind of soaping agent though. :)
Proper cleaning does not kill or atenuate the bacteria but simply washes them off your working area and thus ensures that there is a minimal risk of infection. One does also use a desinfecting agent which "kills" the bacteria.
Proper washing of the hands is more effective than general washing because it is more thorough. You don't need a special soap to wash your hands more thoroughly.
[ Post a Comment ]