h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Beauty is in the eye of society. *Who* says that supermodels are beautyful? Rubens wouldn't've thought so. At that day and age beautiful (women) were what we (the "western culture") today would term 'Fat' thus equalling 'ugly'. Thus plastic surgery is for the ones who want to conform/give in to society's ideas and "ideals". That makes the knive acceptable whenever one feels the need to have it. I'm not saying that that's good IMHO, but *who* decides what is acceptable? - Society. We are constantly told that we have to look beautiful (advertising etc (Presidents of the US nowadays spend a whole lotta time on looking good!)) thus relying on surgery is acceptable. NB that even in ancient Egypt the body was modified to look "better". Who do you want to be beautiful for? Others? Yourself? If 'yourself' why don't you accept for youself that you *are* beautiful? Who says that you aren't? Society?
Accept yourself. Ignore society. Make your own decisions. Be strong. Do what thou wilt...

I read so much drivel about women today, about how they feel oppressed by the male-controlled media and being forced into an anorexic stereotype to feel good about themselves. This is, beyond a doubt, the worst application of reason in human history. Women get this idea of beauty from magazines written for women. Fashion magazines, basically. The fashion world is dominated by two types of people: women, and gay men. Of these two groups, which is well suited to determining what a heterosexual male finds attractive? And isn't attractiveness to the opposite sex, after all, the entire point behind magazines like Cosmopolitan? So the entire heterosexual male population has to hear about it, and deal with all the emotional baggage that comes along with it... insecurity, poor health after a string of ill-advised crash diets, etc.

Women of the world, I invite you to get over yourselves. If you take care of yourself, you'll be healthy. If you're healthy, you'll look good. The women I have found myself attracted to have come in a fairly wide variety of colors, shapes, and sizes. So quit worrying if you have an extra inch of waist... it's not the end of the world. You'll know if you're carrying too much weight, but don't sweat the small stuff.

This post has been removed.

Isn't it just a bit too easy to once again blame 'the media' for undesirable societal developments? So called 'women's magazines' are out there to make money - true enough. Of course they're out there to make money - otherwise it wouldn't make much sense, would it? Is it really 'the media' that forces a slim ideal of beauty down our throats? Is it imaginable that the media relate messages not already existing in society? I don't think so. Women's magazines mirror the values and ideals cherished by those who read them - otherwise they wouldn't buy them in the first place, I guess. I recently had the opportunity to talk to a - female - journalist working for a German women's magazine: She told me that just about the entire staff there felt at times really bad, because of the many articles on diet, fitness and beauty in their magazine. They were afraid that they'd possibly harm their female readers with those articles. Being a woman herself, she understandaby felt very uncomfortable with this. But she also told me, that when - one or two years ago - they did banish diet articles, the result was that fewer women bought the magazine.
True enough: Lots of women feel uncomfortable with the current trend to emphazise beauty, fitness and so on. Some girls or women (and men for that matter) even go as far as developing eating disorders or body image distortions - but most certainly not because they unfortunately read to many women's magazines, watched to many soap operas or whatever. Eating disorders are the result of a very complex development, involving the families (families of anorectics and bulimics share some significant features), personal problems (e.g. a limited ability to cope with stress) and some other variables listed in the WHO's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and the APA's Diagnostical Statistical Manual (DSM-IV). Also, eating disorders are not exclusively modern problems - they've always existed, even before anyone knew what a women's magazine would possibly be.
It's much too easy to blame the media - and it doesn't help those affected by eating disorders, either.

"True enough: Lots of women feel uncomfortable with the current trend to emphazise beauty, fitness and so on." As I said: Who do you want to be beautiful for? Others? Yourself? If 'yourself' why don't you accept for youself that you *are* beautiful? Who says that you aren't? Society? Accept yourself. Ignore society. Make your own decisions. Be strong. Do what thou wilt...
The concept of what is beautyful changes (physical appearance slower than hair-dos and they in turn slower than fashion-wear). There's nothing objective about it. You don't have to accept *for yorself* what a bunch of people tell you about *their* perceptions. Why not ignore the current trend to emphazise beauty, fitness and so on?
(eating disorders explicitly excluded (since slightly off topic(?)) from the scope of anything I wrote here!)

Eating disorders and excessive vanity are not limited to women, but it is more prevalent with them. But yes, there are equally trashy men's magazines printing the same rubbish that the women's are. I even worked with one dude who did the binge-and-purge thing. He was such a jerk, and so arrogant that he set everyone's teeth on edge. Then I learned that the best way to get even with him wasn't to yell or insult, but to just come up to him casually after it had blown over, give him an appraising glance, and say "Are you putting on a little weight?" Dude would be purging for a week.

Well, since Diana mentioned body image distortions (which are typically related to eating disorders or restrained eating behaviour), I felt that we were discussing the whole range of effects the so-called slim ideal allegedly has. Many people seem to share the idea that the media may be at least partly responsible for eating disorders in our society. I don't, as I said.
While I woholeheartedly applaud the idea that anyone would be well advised to dismiss society's or people's demands as to how one has to look, I do have doubts that it's easy to so. One way or the other we all seem to be influenced by what people say and in the end we want our personalities, our looks to be appreciated by those, who we care about. I think, it's an ideal, you know: We try to be self-sufficient (as that word correct?), we try hard not to be influenced too much, but - alas - we're human beings. I started running a couple of weeks ago, working out a bit, you know, strictly for reasons related to my health. Of course. It's healthy. It's good for my body. And, well, I kind of like the way my body looks afterwards. Incidentally society - or some women I could name - seems to appreciate male bodies that look healthy. Of course that is nothing to do with my decision to work out a bit - catch my drift?

Yep, catching the drift. But there's a slight difference between running/exercising and going for the knive.
And as for dismissing society's views: I never said it'd be easy (or possible up to 100%) (you didn't imply that I said so, I know).

Sure. There's a difference, just how big that difference is, I don't know. I guess it's not so much a quailitative difference (do you say that?) but just a gradual one. Anyway, I agree of course, if only for the sake of my reputation - nah, just jokin'.
Let's keep on dismissing society's demands or at least trying hard to do so, I'm sure it's worth it. And it probably builds character of which you can never have enough.

Yep, a qualitative difference. In so far as one (running/excercising) is accomplished by yourself while the other (knive) is accomplished/done by someone else; it's passive. Also, the first can be "un-done" (by stopping to exercise).

And of course, exercise has far-reaching physiological benefits, whereas surgery is solely cosmetic. That exercise falls in with that whole "be healthy and take care of yourself" thing I was going on about earlier. Healthy is attractive. Massive globs of fat are not. Neither is the reconstructed look. People who go under the knife look good on television, but look like Frankenstein's monster in person. Some of them look like that anyway, no matter what camera filters or lighting techniques are employed.

"Isn't it just a bit too easy to once again blame 'the media' for undesirable societal developments?"

The media has a tremendous impact on society. It is not the sole cause of this stuff, of course, but it is a major contributor.



"So called 'women's magazines' are out there to make money - true enough. Of course they're out there to make money - otherwise it wouldn't make much sense, would it?"

I don't have a problem with them being out there to make money. However, if the people involved lived by proper morals, they would find a way to make money without continuously popularizing harmful bullshit. Also, while making money is part of it, creating a worthwhile publication should be part of it too... not *just* money.



"Is it really 'the media' that forces a slim ideal of beauty down our throats? Is it imaginable that the media relate messages not already existing in society? I don't think so."

The media doesn't force the (extremely) slim ideal of beauty down people's throats. It has been presenting it for decades, and people gobble it up, becasue they think that's what everyone else thinks is beautiful, and that following other people is the thing to do. The society is messed-up, but media has helped form the society, and it's like... a spiral, kinda.

There is *NO* biological reason for a body like Callista Flockhart's (spelling?) to be considered highly desirable. Why is it considered such, then? In a way, you're right... the media mostly relates messages currently existing in society... but where did those messages come from to begin with? Not from biology, is for sure... so, where?



"Women's magazines mirror the values and ideals cherished by those who read them - otherwise they wouldn't buy them in the first place, I guess."

Why do they have such stupid values and ideals? Again, it's not purely biological (though the drive to be considered attractive is, what society currently consideres attractive is not). So, how did society get such messed up ideals?



"I recently had the opportunity to talk to a - female - journalist working for a German women's magazine: She told me that just about the entire staff there felt at times really bad, because of the many articles on diet, fitness and beauty in their magazine. They were afraid that they'd possibly harm their female readers with those articles. Being a woman herself, she understandaby felt very uncomfortable with this. But she also told me, that when - one or two years ago - they did banish diet articles, the result was that fewer women bought the magazine."

Well, the people working for the zine need to do a personal cost-benefit analysis. Are the extra money and sales worth being moral sell-outs? If people focus on nothing but money, society gets messed up. They're focusing on nothing but money, they're helping contribute to the mess that is modern society. If people want things to change for the better, they have to start somewhere. Of course... if the magizine in question is a small one that has to compete with the biggies, its options are limited if it wants to survive. That complicates things considerably. The big zines don't have this problem.



"True enough: Lots of women feel uncomfortable with the current trend to emphazise beauty, fitness and so on."

The current trend does *NOT* emphasize fitness. It emphasizes extreme thinness, for the purpose of being more attractive. If it emphasized fitness for the purpose of being healthy and feeling better, it would be dandy, and probably end up in more women being more beautiful as a result (given the biological reasons for beauty.)



"Some girls or women (and men for that matter) even go as far as developing eating disorders or body image distortions - but most certainly not because they unfortunately read to many women's magazines, watched to many soap operas or whatever."

The vast majority of women who read the zines and watch the soaps don't get eating disorders, of course. But, they do tend to accept an irrational POV toward beauty, thinness, and food. This is a bad thing, it's the messing-up of minds, and is part their fault for failing to be rational, and part society's/the media's fault for bombarding them with bullshit.



"Eating disorders are the result of a very complex development, involving the families (families of anorectics and bulimics share some significant features), personal problems (e.g. a limited ability to cope with stress) and some other variables listed in the WHO's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and the APA's Diagnostical Statistical Manual (DSM-IV). Also, eating disorders are not exclusively modern problems - they've always existed, even before anyone knew what a women's magazine would possibly be."

True. I don't have stats, but I would guess that there are more people with eating disorders nowadays than in most other eras. (Late Roman era excepted... the vomitoriums and all.) I suspect that people who have problems to begin with channel those issues into eating disorders more often nowadays.



"It's much too easy to blame the media - and it doesn't help those affected by eating disorders, either."

Well, then, what causes it? Why does our society have such a funky view of thinness and beauty? Again, it's not biological. And those who have bona fide eating disorders can go get therapy... that's how they can get help, that problem is essentially solved, that's not why I'm discussing this. I'm curious about how to help reduce irrationality from society in general (becasue it is harmful to people, even if it isn't the cause of full-fledged eating disorders).... that involves finding out what causes it. The media plays a considerable role in keeping nuttiness going, at least.

As far as being too easy to blame the media for women's funky views about thinness... what do you blame? Society? If so, how did it get that way? I'm not blaming the media out of ease, I'm saying it's a contributor, becasue... that's what makes sense.

" I'm curious about how to help reduce irrationality from society in general (becasue it is harmful to people, even if it isn't the cause of full-fledged eating disorders).... that involves finding out what causes it. The media plays a considerable role in keeping nuttiness going, at least."

Seems that things balance out at the lowest common denominator... and spiral downwards from there.
Tell the media what you think of it. Don't buy their mags and don't own/use a TV. Live without a TV. At the very least this protects you from their ideals. And maybe you set an example for others.

hey y'all!
As my current profession is to sell Youth, Beauty, and The American Dream, I can tell you that there are an awful lot of women out there who are really a sad bunch. They seem to believe that happiness will be found in the perfect shade of lipstick, that being snipped and tucked and inflated will bring true love into their lives, and that a bad hair day will bring about the end of the world as they know it. C'mon, get a grip! If they would spend their energy on developing themselves as interesting and intrinsically valid human beings, they would realize that all the fashion hoopla is just for fun, that we have the option to decorate ourselves when we feel like it, and to just be we when we don't. Unfortunately, since so many just don't get it, can you blame the opportunists for making a buck? If women didn't buy the stuff, the market would evaporate and a whole bunch of people would have to find a real job. Meanwhile, it can be a lot of fun--and just think! I get paid pretty well to color!

Not watching TV also gives you plenty of time to have a life, too. Better to be a participant than a voyeur, I always say. And much more fun...

Hmph ... quite a lot to comment on. Thanks anyway for going into detail to make your point clear.
I don't agree, though.
First of all you say that the media have a tremendous impact on society. Well - do they? How do you know? It's pretty much face valid it seems, but still: Where is the evidence? Of course: People use the media and thus gain knowledge, their emotions change or get enhanced. These are media effects. But (and here it comes): How do you know what they make of it? The idea that media content can be translated into media effects is pretty much out of fashion these days and for very good reasons, too: It's just too easy. No hypodermic needle, no transmission belt involved here. Current thinking in media psychology (and the study of media effects) has it that people use the media according to expected - cognitive, emotional, social ... - benefits. The point is: The audience is not passive. What we make of the media we use in a given situation depends on past experiences, emotional states, cognitive competences and so on. So it's very, very tricky to predict the effects any given media content can have on audiences.
Secondly, as for the so called 'slim ideal': Is there a 'slim ideal'? I've read most of the content analyses that tried to demonstrate that the female body as presented in the media is very slim to say the least. Also, these studies tried to examine whether this would be a trend of recent decades or not. I didn't find any of these studies very convincing. Without going into detail suffice is to say that content analysis is a very tricky enterprise indeed: Are the waistlines of Miss America contestants or Playboy centerfolds significant indicators for societal trends? Well...
And going back into history (to demonstrate that current beauty ideals are slimmer than those of the centuries past) is pretty much useless. Are Rubens' women representative for the beauty ideal of the 17th century? Or Michelangelo's female athletes? You cannot tell.
A much better way to study a beauty ideal is to simply ask people. I don't see the point in content-analysing the media. Ask people (e.g. a representative sample) and they will tell you. A recent study in Germany indicated that people are in fact much more content with their bodies, that they care a lot and that they feel much more influenced by their partners (when it comes to attractiveness-ratings), their friends, and their families than by the media. I think that's a good sign. Western civilizations usually tend to neglect the body and cherish the mind, which - psyhologically - is definitely not a very good idea. It seems that we began to free ourselves from Cartesian thinking ('I think therfor I am' - my body body doesn't matter).
Why then are there eating disorders, why do some people overemphazise the beauty of a slim body? I don't think this is very much to do with the media. Again, I cannot go into detail here (I'm planning on writing an entry on the topic), but let me say this:
One thing is that some people seem to be vulnerable to messages concerning their bodily attractiveness even before they show any symptoms of disordered eating. There may be some genetical factors involved, but mostly this is explained with familial factors. Families of anorectics and bulimics usually share some distinct features: They are not able to express emotions, they tend to neglect bodily needs (I think therefor I am!), conflicts are usually 'solved' in a distinctly 'rational' way (denying the fact that in any familial argument quite a lot of emotions are involved). Also, anorectics and bulimics often are not very able to cope with stress (which of course might be related to their family's characteristics), they tend to be overemphazise achievement, and sometimes there's also some kind of personal loss involved (loss of a family member, partner or whatever). What I'm trying to say is, that there are very many factors involved - simply watching soaps or reading fashion magazines certainly is not enough to give you the idea that starving (to death!) might be a good way to deal with personal problems. Society (and thus the media) might be a kind of bacground, but, again, there have always been people with eating disorders and - at least in societies where food is in abundance - and there will always be. Just as there will always be depresed people, schizophrenics, borderliners, etc.

I've written too much, I guess (and still there's so much to be said). I hope it doesn't sound too confusing. It's tricky to explain all this, especially when English is not your mother language.
Ah, and Callista Flockhart - well, she clearly suffers from an eating disorder. As - obviously - does Kate Moss. Poor girls.

"And going back into history (to demonstrate that current beauty ideals are slimmer than those of the centuries past) is pretty much useless. Are Rubens' women representative for the beauty ideal of the 17th century? Or Michelangelo's female athletes? You cannot tell."

Ok. But I can hazard an educated guess that both of them would not have become that famous if the'd been running around painting/sculpturing people who were considered "ugly" or at least "not beautiful" (admittedly there is such a thing as technique to art as well ). Point I was trying to make is that the concept of beauty is an ever evolving one.
I can't argue about the media bit, lacking knowledge.
But can we agree that there is an "official" picture of beauty that is presented to us by society/media (eg (Super-)Models/Miss World whatever (about whom no-one would hear if it wasn't for the media)) that has not a lot to do with what an individual considers beautiful? And that people who have plasic surgery to conform to the "official" picture are misguieded? Are Lacking selfesteem, are not accepting themselves? Especially when some of these (Role-?)Models are suffering from eating disorders?

Eating disoders: An element of Control is in there as well. As in "I can't controll my life, I shall controll my body in the way of not eating. Thus I can control people around me, who care for me". All this unconsously of course.

Yeah, control - I forgot that. Thanks for adding it - - because it's definitely a most important feature. Anorectics tend to be control freaks, supposedly for those reasons you mentioned.
As to your educated guess: Well, of course, but that wouldn't tell you too much, I think. Cranach, Botticelli, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Rafael - all these guys worked at around the same time (well, more or less), and look how different the females they painted are. Does that tell you anything apart from the fact that they preferred diferent types of women (if in fact they preferred women at all)? Nah, I don't think so. You'll have to dig up a lot more evidence to decide upon the question which body type people preferred at any given time. And I think that even nowadays that would be more or less impossible.
I do agree that what is presented in the media is not the whole range of body types that exists. There are more slim females, more good looking people - but again: so what? I watch the shows that I want to watch, I read the magazines I want to read. I am the one making selections, I'm not forced to look at slim female figures if I don't want to. And even if I do, I don't have to let that influence my personal preferences. It may influence me, though, but that's up to me. I think that some people feel that there's an 'official' picture (although there's nothing official about slim females being overrepresented in the media), and they think they have to conform, for reasons that are very individual, and surely have to do with their personal situation, their families, and so on. But they cannot blame the media (or society for that matter) for giving them an impression or a feeling that there's a need to conform where no such thing exists. Mind you - I don't blame those people, and I am aware of the fact that all of us sometimes feel the need to conform or experience societal pressures.
And one last thing: Society - that's us, isn't it? We are part of that thing, and we influence it as well. This is a dynamic process (which makes discussions like this one so important).

" It [media] may influence me, though, but that's up to me. "
I just fear/feel that quite lot of (esp. young (12-18)) people don't have that in relation to the media. They seem (to me) to have lost their "immune system" that should protect them from the TV doing the thinking/making the decisions for them (reckon Neil Postman said the same for information (?)). Someone on TV comes up with a piece of cloth on their head and suddenly heaps of (mainly) kids are doing the same (did happen over here). That's not healthy IMHO. They'll do whatever they're told is hip (hair-do, clothing...).
I should think the same goes for the concept of beauty. If so they would not come up with an (rather) independed concept of beauty but just accept the one handed to them. (sorry, I'm a cultural pessimist. (Mainstream) Society's a failed experiment.)

"And one last thing: Society - that's us, isn't it?" Pity. Makes it more difficult to bitch about it, doesn't it?

Yup, that's it, but then - bitching about society is part of the process that ultimately might change society to the better. Bitching about society's perfectly acceptable, I think. Healthy, too.
No, seriously: Children are a different matter. I agree with that. They still have to leearn how to deal with the media and what to make of what they see. Media education's a pretty important thing, I think, and should be an integral part of our educational system, starting in kindergarden. But media education doesn't mean telling kids that TV's junk and they should rather read a good book, as Mr. Postman seems to think (I really do not like Postman very much - he never seems to bother himself with presenting empirical evidence for what he claims to be the ultimate truth). As media education is currently not an integral part of our educational system (at least in germany it isn't, but I suspect that it's not any different elsewhere), children are a particularly vulnerable target group. But again: Even for children friends, the familiy, peers are much more important. And then there's always the benefits of modern media technology: Children can (and do) learn a lot more about the world then they could some decades ago, and a lot easier, too, because the access to information is much less limited. Adults have always been worrying about bad influences on children and will always, but that doesn't help chidren very much, I guess. I perfectly understand your cultural pessimism, though. The world could be a better place (I'd have one or two ideas about that) - - but then: it could be much worse, and in many parts of the world it IS worse, even without modern media.

What does 'IMHO' mean, I wonder? I've read it a couple of times now, and can't figure out what it stands for. Could someone please enlighten me? Thank you.