Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    See also mosaic::womannotes-v1 topic 363, "FAT IS A FEMINIST ISSUE"
    started by Nancy Wolochowicz.
    
    DougO

    I've been there too Gail.  But suddenly last October something snapped
    inside me.  It started with me accepting myself, and liking what I saw
    in the mirror - *NOT* feeling sorry for myself.  Once I believed and
    accepted that I really was a great person, and could be loved for *me*
    suddenly there was no longer a need to keep the weight on.  In fact I
    couldn't be bothered with chocolate, etc.
    
    I have lost nearly half the weight since then, am walking 6 miles a
    day, and trying to find other exercise to do because I feel sooooo
    good.
    
    Most people who have a weight problem, are really hiding from other
    problems anyway, not one of overeating.  Its easy to find out what it
    is, but the hard part is working through it.  
    
    Mind you, even with my weight on, I was one very healthy woman.  Now,
    I'm getting even better.  I've never had a cholestrol or blood pressure
    problem, and my heart is as good as an athletes.
    
    As far as Rosanne Barr goes, if her weight worried her, you would be
    able to tell with her face.  I think she's accepted what she is and
    just lives...I sure love her show.
    
    ...dale
    

	 When I was in high school I weighed 123lbs.  My nickname was
	 "Bones" and I hated it.  I looked anorexic.  I had the worst
	 preoccupation with my weight.....because all I got was kidded
	 about it.

	 So, when I started putting weight on in college, it was a
	 blessing.  Then I had some emotional problems and put on
	 more....and I was miserable again.  The heaviest I have been in my
	 life was 185lbs.......about 6 months ago.

	 I believe that for the most part, state of mind causes weight
	 problems, not weight causing state of mind problems.  I know
	 many healthy happy overweight people.  I also know many
	 unhealthy, unhappy overweight people.  And most times those
	 people's problems go FAR beyond weight.

	 I've been reading a book called "Emotional Weight" by Colleen
	 A. Sundermeyer, PhD.  She maintains that a person MUST lose
	 their emotional weight before they can hope to lose their
	 phsycial weight.  I've found it to be a wonderful, uplifting
	 book, and I really don't think I could be were I am if I
	 didn't read it.

	 I'm currently at 165lbs as of this morning.  That puts me in
	 my range for height and build.....I know the next 20 won't
	 be easy, but neither is learning to love myself.

	 

	 kath	 

    Well said Kath, and absolutely true.  Now, how do I shutup raving about
    how well I feel!!!! (^'
    
    ...dale
    

    I recently read a wonderful book:
    
    	The Dieter
    	Susan Sussmann
    
    It's the story of a woman who decides to quit smoking after the
    death of her best friend. She manages to stick to her decision,
    but what with her loneliness after this loss and her inability to light
    a cigarette when she feels like one, she promptly puts on weight,
    and more, and more... and the more she tries - though she doesn't
    believe in what she's trying - the more weight she gains.
    
    A side phenomenon - but an important one - is that, as she gains
    weight her personal life slowly disintegrates around her. All the
    problems and their symptons were already present in her life before
    she started gaining weight, but she did not notice them until she
    started looking at herself.
    
    The book is a journey into a woman's mind and her fight for happiness.
    It's not a book about dieting, but about knowing yourself and the
    people you love/live with/know.
    
    The book is moving and humorous and anybody who has had to renounce
    habits such as smoking, overeating, drinking, etc. will appreciate how
    honest it is.
    
    I have wanted to enter a note about this book, but didn't want to
    put it in the "Favourite Books" note, as this one is not yet a favourite
    (I am a re-reader, a book gets to be a favourite after 5 or 6 readings)
                                              
    Also on the subject at hand, my personal opinion is that you can
    be happy while being fat, provided you are not so obese that it
    causes actual physical discomfort, like inflamed thighs when walking,
    or shortness of breath, or...
    
    A childhood friend of mine was and is quite fat. To my knowledge,
    she has never attempted to diet. She is extremely musical, gives
    piano lessons for a living and belongs to a church choir. She is
    also happily married and has 3 children. She exudes happiness and
    serenity. When she met her future husband, he was going out with a 
    very slim, beautiful girl. He discovered my friend had a beautiful
    soul, and never looked back (I know this sounds corny, but it happens
    to be true!)
    
    When I met my future husband, 15 years ago, I was fatter than I
    am now. I also gained about 40 pounds while pregnant, which I took
    a long time loosing. My "fatness" has never, to my knowledge, had
    any impact on the highs and lows of our married life. 
    
    This obviously doesn't mean I have lived a fat and blissful life.
    Actually, I do spend a lot of my time worrying about my weight,
    but I am a natural born worrier, and would certainly worry about
    many other things if I weren't slightly overweight.
    
    To recap, I believe you can be happy in whatever form your body
    has taken, as long as your mind allows you to!
    
    Joana

>    Most people who have a weight problem, are really hiding from other
>    problems anyway, not one of overeating.  

For the most part I agree with this, but I want to point out that some
foods, in particular sucrose, are physically and psychologically addicting,
and some people are more prone to such addiction than others.  And once
addicted, getting out of it is more difficult than simply facing the issues
you are hiding from.  (This from watching a good friend deal with her
compulsion to binge/purge through Overeater's Anon.)

(Most fat people are not addicted to sucrose, I would guess.)

Anyway, for anyone who is interested in this topic in general, see 
ATSE::WEIGHTLOSS, too.

D!

    I saw an interview with Roseanne Barr about a month ago.  She was asked
    what she thought of the negative comments in the media about her weight.
    
    First she commented on the fact that she had seen few negative
    comments on her costar, John Goodman, who is also heavier than
    the average.  (In fact, the media has tagged him as one of the
    "sexiest" men of '89).
    
    Secondly she said, "I am suspicious of the motives of any one who
    is anxious for me to take up less space in this world."  
    
                                                cathy
   

    I think that if someone is comfortable with how they look, they are
    happier.  I wish all the people that are currently heavy, could be
    happy with who and how they are, and whether they decide to change it
    or not is up to them.  I did not have the strength or self-esteem to be
    happy with myself when I was heavy (I maxed out at 200 lbs), and a
    factor that contributed greatly to this was the fact that society
    censors obesity.  Society constantly signals the overweight that they
    are unacceptable as they are, they are not okay, they are not in
    control of themselves and their lust for food is showing.  I mean -
    alcoholics aren't always detectable - their lack of control doesn't
    usually make itself visible, except in the way they stagger and pass
    out late at night.....anyone could be an "invisible" alcoholic - but it
    is impossible to hide if you are one of the  people with food
    addictions, or even people who just LOVE THEIR FOOD (and that's OKAY -
    it isn't always a lack of self-control or a compulsion to eat great
    quantities of food, some people LOVE to eat and that should be okay
    with the world - some people love to paint - some people love to hunt -
    some people love to run - some people LOVE TO EAT).
    
    I was never unhealthy in the physical sense - never suffered dizziness
    or anything - never suffered from high blood pressure or palpitations or
    anything.  But society's dictum that I was unfit for their consumption
    as I was preyed on my mind, and I became unhealthy in an emotional and
    mental sense.  I became depressed, suicidal, unhappy.  I grew to listen
    more and more to the visions and voices all around me, and I grew to
    dislike what I had become (this just compounded some other problems I
    had at the time).
    
    I'd like to think I lost weight because it was MY decision.  Because I
    wanted to get off my asthma medications and working out was the best
    way to do that.  It takes a lot of strength to lose weight, but it
    takes even more inner strength to remain overweight in a society which
    condemns it in every magazine, every movie, every fashion.  Inner
    strength of people who are overweight in this world, and still pleased
    with themselves, is glorious to see.  If someone wishes to be at a
    higher weight than society dictates, and their life is not in danger
    (actually, it is more unhealthy to be 20 pounds underweight than it is
    to be 20 pounds overweight), and they can find serenity in the sea of
    thin-worshipping society in which we swim, then I say more power to
    them.  And I admire them for being themselves, and refusing to buckle
    to society's demands.  
    
    -Jody
      
    

    In addition to the pointer stated earlier, see also:
    
    Womannotes-v2
    62 - Obesity and Women
    
    Human_relations
    219 - Obese turn off
    797 - are looks everything
    
    -Jody
    

    I think Jody hit the nail on the head. It's very difficult to be
    happy with yourself when the society around you laughs and sneers at
    you. Every image we see tells us that thin is beautiful and that
    beauty is what counts. Well there are certainly success stories of
    heavy women that have men who love them as they are most of the time
    men don't get to know the heavy woman because she is counted out
    before she gets started.

    While I could stand to lose a few pounds I'm a fit healthly person
    physically. That still doesn't stop me from feeling devalued every
    time I see the message that size 14 is not as good as size 8. I may
    be healthly but I'm not slender and slender is better. At least
    that's what gets shouted over all the media. I wish I had the
    selfconfidence that it takes to feel worthy without the approval of
    society. liesl

    A good friend of mine has weighed well over 200 lbs. for years.  While
    she isn't happy with her weight she is pretty comfortable with it.  She
    has had a lot of men in her life, both long- and short-term.  I have
    always been impressed with how quickly she made friends and lovers. 
    She's neve seemed to lack for attention due to her weight.
    

>It's very difficult to be
>    happy with yourself when the society around you laughs and sneers at
>    you. 

 Yup.

>Every image we see tells us that thin is beautiful and that
>    beauty is what counts.

 As it turns out, people prefer others that are not obese. And there is such
a thing as "too thin" (often known as scrawny).

 I don't think that people that are slightly overweight get laughed at and
derided so much as that people who have shapely bodies get ogled. The only times
I have seen "laughs and sneers" is when the object of the reaction is truly 
obese. To many people, obesity is physically repulsive. And not everybody that
prefers 'em with shapely bodies "laughs or sneers" either.

 We are bombarded by the sights of shapely bodies because that is what we
prefer to look at. It is more aesthetically pleasing to the vast majority
of people.

 And yet it is very difficult to deal with physical features over which you
have no control. It takes a great deal of inner strength to overcome the fact
that a certain segment of the population will not accept you or withold their
approval due to things that you cannot change.

 One thing that bugs me is that the assumption most often made about obese 
people is that they are piggish in their food intake. This may be true more
often than not, however, it is useful to remember that some people indeed
suffer from medical problems that cause them to be fat, regardless of their
food intake. On the other hand, I hate it when I hear people "excusing" fat
people with "It could just be a medical problem, you know." Maybe- but not all
of them.

 Just some thoughts.

 The Doctah

    
    I don't think that there is any one single reason why people "choose"
    to be overweight.  I know that I had my biggest weight problems
    when I was unhappy with myself.  When my (perennially slim) daughter
    went away to school a couple of years ago she asked me to promise her
    that I would eat real food (as opposed to junk food) while she was
    away.  She said that she didn't want to come home and find me larger
    than life because I didn't like being fat.  She was absolutely right.
    I decided that I either needed to like myself "fat" (like 45 lbs
    overweight) or figure out WHY I was keeping myself fat.  
    
    Now I know that among other things the weight was a shield.  I felt
    unattractive, I was avoiding involvement with men and the weight helped
    to make me look as unattractive (well maybe not quite THAT bad) as I
    felt. Once I started feeling better about me and had worked through 
    the reasons I was avoiding involvement with men I was able to get on
    a weight loss program and stick to it until I had lost 25 of the 45
    lbs.  After several months of not losing I'm now working on the last
    20.
    
    I will never be skinny.  I wasn't at 20 and I won't be at 40.  But I
    will reach a weight that I'm comfortable with.  And I will never again
    try to be skinny because society, a man or any other person thinks I
    should be.
    
    Gale, I'm real uncomfortable with labeling being overweight with the
    term "selfish".  Seems to add guilt to the already (probably) long list
    of negative feelings associated with obesity.
    
    Polly 

    re: .12

> As it turns out, people prefer others that are not obese.
    ...
> We are bombarded by the sights of shapely bodies because that is what we
>prefer to look at. It is more aesthetically pleasing to the vast majority
>of people.

    It wasn't always this way.  For a majority of recorded history heavier
    people were more attractive than thin (often called "sickly" in that
    time) people.  Rubenesque women were adored - heavier people were more
    well liked - babies were overfed so they would be more "robust". 
    Perhaps heavier was perhaps seen as better because it meant you were
    wealthy - and had enough to eat.  In fact, you had a surplus - and in
    times of famine the heavier people lived far longer than the thin ones.  
     
    Society TODAY finds thin people more aesthetically pleasing than fat
    people, but for centuries it was not this way.  Society's conditioning
    has formed our current opinions - society has told us that thin is good
    and aesthetically pleasing and it has been integrated into our minds. 
    A hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, at my heaviest I would have
    been incredibly sexy, and men would have flocked to me.  As I look now
    could easily have been a 50's sweater-girl.  But now?  I am not on
    society's current menu.  I am not sure whether I want to be, or not.  
    Both have their disadvantages.
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .8 - Jody
    >alcoholics aren't always detectable - their lace of control doesn't
    >usually make itself visible, except in the way they stagger and pass
    >out late at night.....anyone could be an "invisible" alcoholic-but it
    >is impossible to hide if you are one of the people with food
    >addictions...
    
    The horrors of addiction are actually very similar, whether the symptom
    is alcohol, food, gambling, etc.  Perhaps this is why so many self-help
    programs (Overeaters Anonymous, Narcotics Anon., Gamblers Anon.) have
    adopted the 12-Step guidelines of Alcoholics Anon.  Lack of control of
    one's drinking is *very* visible, as lack of control of eating for one
    with a food addiction.  (Perhaps even more so, since we do need to
    eat.)  Ever been behind a seemingly-drunk driver?  Ever smelled someone
    reeking of alcohol in line at the grocery store at 10:00 in the
    morning?  Ever picked out the drunk at the end of the bar--the
    well-dressed person with an obviously well-paying job?  Ever shared a
    meal with a person who had food addiction who talked about having to do
    something about it while ravenously consuming the food?  In addition to
    the behaviors that can be rationalized as "normal" ("going thru a
    crisis--that's why s/he is drinking", "it's a holiday--everyone
    overeats"), there are destructive behaviors shared by all addicted
    people.  Addiction has physical effects, destroys all kinds of
    relationships, often leads to money troubles, leads to homicide
    behind the wheel of an auto. 
    
    All overeating may not be addiction.  There are heavy drinkers who are
    not addicted to alcohol.  There is a tricky difference in recovering
    from the two addictions.  Everyone needs to eat.  I'm sure it is less
    complicated in a way to give up alcohol, because if an alcoholic never
    drinks s/he won't get drunk.  But an overeater or binger needs to
    control the object of addiction while continuing to consume it.
    
    Once the physical part is taken care of, there is still the matter
    of why one drank/overate/binged/gambled in the first place--the
    psychological and spiritual illness.  These facets are also visible in
    addicts.  Why one turns to alcohol rather than food rather than
    gambling probably has more to do with physical and/or environmental
    factors than with one's psychology.
    
    Wow, I usually can't get this heavy on a Friday afternoon!  Must be
    something in the planets.
    
    Jody, I *loved* everything else you had to say!
    
    Nancy_always_slim_and_sober_for_nine_years    

>    It wasn't always this way.  For a majority of recorded history heavier
>    people were more attractive than thin (often called "sickly" in that
>    time) people.  Rubenesque women were adored - heavier people were more
>    well liked - babies were overfed so they would be more "robust". 

 This was done for very practical reasons. Stored body fat was a more important
source of energy then because of two major reasons: reliability of food
sources and prevalence of illnesses and diseases. People with a solid store
of body fat were better able to weather famine or illness, since they had
an energy source "built in."

 Additionally, people did not have the time nor inclination to develop
musculature for the sake of developing musculature. Body development was
generally a byproduct of work, not an end of itself.

 As modern medicine became more adept at treating illness and diesease, and
farming techniques became more reliable, the need for humans to store body
fat was reduced. It naturally became less desirable to have a store of fat,
since it was no longer necessary.

>Society's conditioning
>    has formed our current opinions - society has told us that thin is good
>    and aesthetically pleasing and it has been integrated into our minds. 

 I get the impression that you are saying that "societal conditioning" has
somehow formed our opinions for us, even against our natural tendencies.
I don't buy this. Madison Avenue provided us with a number of different body
types. They gauged our reactions, and gave us more of what we preferred. I 
believe that societal opinions simply reflect a consensus (more or less) of
collective opinions of individuals. This does not mean that some people are
not more attracted by Rubenesque body types; it just means that the majority
of us are more attracted to slender and shapely body types.

 I think that if society shaped our opinions for us, they'd be able to make
us believe that <insert_a_property> was sexy almost at will. If this were
true, they would change what "sexy" is each year, and reap the profits thereof.
They can't. Instead, they give us what we want, and reap those profits. The
tail doesn't wag the dog.

>But now?  I am not on
>    society's current menu.  I am not sure whether I want to be, or not.  
>    Both have their disadvantages. 

 You said it.

The Doctah

    Several things:
    
    1. Jody's right: what's acceptable and even what's  *attractive*
       are very dependent on the current fashion. 
    
    2. As someone *else* mentioned, John Goodman is a fat for a man
       as Roseanne is for a woman. I have heard no negative comments
       or "fat jokes" about *him*.
    
       It's OK for men to take up space. Look at "Refrigerator" Perry -
       he was a super bowl hero, fer godsakes, and he was (really and 
       truly, honestly, definitely) *fat*. 
    
    3. IF *you* could not be at peace with yourself if you were fat, do NOT
       make the assumption that this is true of everyone. 
    
    4. Most fat people do NOT (DO NOT) eat more than anyone else.
    
    5. Even the medical establishment is coming around to the fact that
       most stress-related disease in fat people is due to the stress of 
       living in a society that devalues them, and yo-yo dieting, in which
       one constantly loses/gains/loses/gains, etc.
    
    6. Even the medical establishment is coming around to the fact that
       consistent, preferable aerobic, exercise is the best thing for
       fat people. BUT: How many women who are overweight feel comfortable
       going jogging, biking, etc. - when people can actually *see* them?
       No-one *I've* ever known. (Except me. I'm not *comfortable*, you
       understand, but I've done it)
    
       There's something about people making obnoxious, snide comments as
       you go by that's rather off-putting.
    
       Now, if an overweight *guy* goes out jogging, people figure he's a
       line backer or something. But god forbid a fat *woman* actually
       shows herself doing something good for herself in public. Where 
       people can *see* how much space she takes up. Geez.
    
    7. Not one fat person I know particularly cares if you find us
       attractive. After all, *we* may not find *you* attractive. But
       really: don't assume we want your input as to how much we weigh.
    
    8. Don't hide behind health issues, please. If you were concerned for
       everyone's *health* (Well, dear, I don't mind about your being fat,
       but I'm concerned for your *health*) you'd go around hassling
       the smokers you know - they're in more danger than *we* are. I don't
       see anyone insulting smokers the way they do fat folks. When was the
       last time you heard a "smoker" joke?
    
    9. Roseanne takes a lot of the flak she does because she's a fat woman
       and she doesn't care what *you* think about it. It really is none of
       your business - and she let's you know it. What Roseanne owes the
       public is a good performance. If she didn't make anyone laugh, well,
       she'd be a bad performer. But somehow, being a Fat Performer stacks
       the deck.
    
    --DE
    

>    2. As someone *else* mentioned, John Goodman is a fat for a man
>       as Roseanne is for a woman. I have heard no negative comments
>      or "fat jokes" about *him*.

 On the other hand, I never heard him say that all men should be as fat as he
nor did I hear him say he was a god.

 The Doctah

    re: .16
    
    > I think that if society shaped our opinions for us, they'd be able to
    > make us believe that <insert_a_property> was sexy almost at will. If
    > this were true, they would change what "sexy" is each year, and reap
    > the profits thereof. 
    
    They do.  Vogue and Mademoiselle come out with a new collection of
    fashions every year, many of which I consider outrageous for wearing,
    and the prices are certainly very high.  But many women who wish to be
    sexy buy them, and according to Vogue and Mademoiselle they are then
    sexy.  Fashion does change what is sexy every year - narrow lapels -
    skirt length - hips are in, busts are out - busts are in, but cinched
    waists rule - muscles are in - long hair is in - 2.5" heels are in -
    red is in - green is out......and many people rush out to change their
    form, or their wardrobe, to cater to dame fashion's tastes....
    
    -Jody
    

 The Doctah

	I just happen to have the book with me.

	The shape of the Goddess:

		Venus of Willendorf, the Venus of Lespurne, the Venus
		of Laussel

	are full bodied, rounded women, much like Rosanne.  

			O
		       ( )
		      (   )

	Get the idea.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			The Goddess comes in all sizes.

    [This note contains three replies, getting longer and longer, and my own
    personal contribution at the end. -- Charles]

    Re: .12
    > And yet it is very difficult to deal with physical features over which
    > you have no control.

	CLICK!

    If Roseanne Barr were an otherwise attractive young woman with, say, an
    ear that was lost in some accident, and acted strong, self-willed, and 'I
    don't care what you think about my deformity, I like myself' I think we
    would all say that was "classy".

    But because she's older, overweight and not conventionally "pretty", it 
    makes her Attila the Hun. Fooey.

    This society has a problem with strong willed women, with articulate women
    who don't kow-tow to others, with "Fat" women. Roseanne Barr pushes all of
    those buttons.

    Re: .14

    > Rubenesque women were adored ... Society TODAY finds thin people more
    > aesthetically pleasing ... Society's conditioning has formed our current
    > opinions...

    Right on Jody!

    Re: .16

    > As modern medicine became more adept at treating illness and disease
    > ... the need for humans to store body fat was reduced. It naturally
    > became less desirable to have a store of fat, since it was no longer
    > necessary.

    I don't buy it. If this were true, pale skinny nerds would be sexy too,
    since excess melanin is no longer necessary to protect from UV, and brains
    are obviously more desirable since they are necessary. Big muscles and
    tans are no longer necessary either. Doctah I believe you are arguing from
    your conclusions.

    > I get the impression that you are saying that "societal conditioning"
    > has somehow formed our opinions for us, even against our natural
    > tendencies. I don't buy this.

    [#6: I am not a number! I'm a free man! #2: <HA HA Ha Ha ha ha!>]

    Gee it seems obvious to me that "societal conditioning" can and does
    override "natural tendencies". [We could spend all our time arguing about
    "natural tendencies".] *Modern* societies vary widely on what is
    "beautiful". This would militate against your belief that we are natural

    > ... I believe that societal opinions simply reflect a consensus (more or
    > less) of collective opinions of individuals.

    I disagree that fashion is formed by consensus. I personally believe that
    there is a cabal of gay men that sets fashion, and that it starts in the
    gay community then is stolen by strates. Witness "disco", I believe that
    was a deliberate attempt by the illuminati to gauge just how stupid and
    pliant people are.  Unfortunately "no one ever went broke underestimating
    the stupidity of the American public."

    > I think that if society shaped our opinions for us, they'd be able to
    > make us believe that <insert_a_property> was sexy almost at will.

    "They" *can* make us believe that <insert_a_property> is sexy almost at
    will. It can't be done on a yearly basis, but just how long has it taken
    for perfume for men (oops, I mean "fragrances") to catch on?  My previous
    facetious remarks notwithstanding, I believe that society DOES control
    "what is sexy" and it DOES change. However it does not change quickly, nor
    purposefully.

    ***** End of replies

    As most of you know, I'm one of those men who find "plump" women more
    attractive than their skinny cousins. It's gotten to the point around here
    that if I remark that I find someone attractive, she usually makes a joke
    about "Oh no! I guess I need to lose some weight!" This is sort of funny,
    but deep down it makes me sad. Most of you have never met my wife Janice,
    if you did, you probably would class her as "overweight". She's quite
    healthy, climbs rocks, downhill skiis, rides her bike to work, all that
    good stuff. So health-schmelth, this woman can climb rings around most of
    you (Hi Ellen! Maybe not you...). More importantly she's self confident
    and comfortable with herself. If she wants a pound of See's candy or a
    pint of Pralines and Cream, she eats it. If she wants a salad and seltzer
    for dinner, that's what she gets. Anyone who gives her a hard time about
    it had better be ready to duck! Classy woman.

    I don't give her "advice" about her weight, some because I *like* her
    weight, but mostly because she hasn't asked me for it. When she lost
    twenty pounds I told her I liked the way she looked. When she gained forty
    I told her I liked the way she looked. And I did, and I do. The one thing
    I have told her is in response to the question "How do you eat so much and
    stay so thin." The secret is this: Eat when you're hungry, and when you
    aren't hungry anymore, stop. When you ARE hungry, eat what you want, not
    what you think you should. If you want cold pizza and coke for breakfast,
    go for it! If you want Cheerios for dinner, do it! If you want Haagen-daz
    for lunch, dive in! If you order a $30 filet-mignon and discover after two
    bites that you aren't hungry anymore WRAP THE REST UP AND EAT IT LATER
    (then have dessert!)  Don't eat because it's "time", don't eat because
    your bored, angry, sad, or because it's in front of you.

    After I told her this she laughed and laughed and said that's exactly what
    this book she was reading said. The book is "Diets don't work." and I
    recommend it for anyone who wants to change their weight (gain or lose).

    It seems to me that the philosphy expressed above fits nicely with the "I
    like me the way I am" attitude too.

    Whenever discussions about weight come up, I hear a lot of people trying
    to justify just WHY they think it's ok to be down on "Fat". Then I hear a
    lot of people who say they're "Fat and Happy", I miss the people who say
    "I like Fat people" or even "a person's weight doesn't matter". I can't be
    the only one! Let's value some differences out there!

	-- Charles

    True confession time: I've never seen Roseanne... I have NO idea what
    she's like other than what I've heard and read.

>    > And yet it is very difficult to deal with physical features over which
>    > you have no control.
>
>	CLICK!
>
>    If Roseanne Barr were an otherwise attractive young woman with, say, an
>    ear that was lost in some accident, 

 Of all of the people who have lost an ear in an accident, how many can grow one
back by changing their eating habits or any other way short of surgery? How many
can have any direct effect themselves? Contrast this to the number of overweight
people who can directly control their "physical deformity?" (I disagree with
this characterization, BTW- I think it is a condition, not a deformity).

>    But because she's older, overweight and not conventionally "pretty", it 
>    makes her Attila the Hun. Fooey.
 
 Talk about taking a comment out of context! I merely said that the features
being described (in and of themselves) as being classy were equally valid
descriptions of Attila the Hun, a man never described in my presence as 
"classy." Slight difference, wouldn't you say, Charles?

>    Witness "disco", I believe that
>    was a deliberate attempt by the illuminati to gauge just how stupid and
>    pliant people are. 

 I couldn't agree more. The experiment succeeded beyopnd their wildest dreams.

>    "They" *can* make us believe that <insert_a_property> is sexy almost at
>    will. 

 I disagree.

>I believe that society DOES control "what is sexy" and it DOES change.

 Wait a minute. Are you saying that "society" may be viewed in this instance as
the collection of all opinions regarding what is sexy, and that people's
tastes change and are thus reflected in the distribution of these opinions?
If so I agree with you. However, I suspect you are saying that an elite group
of people hold regularly scheduled meetings to decide what is going to be
"sexy" this year, and that all the sheep simply nod their heads in agreement.
I can't agree with that. I like to give people more credit than that. Gee-
you may be right. :-(

 The Doctah

RE: .24 (Mike Z.)

    Human aesthetics  do  change,  and  quite  quickly. Reuben's women
    would  be  considered  almost  fat  by today's standards, but were
    considered  very  attractive when he painted them. A hundred years
    ago  it  was  considered elegant to be very pale, twenty years ago
    being tanned was desireable, and the pendulum may be swinging back
    now that we know how harmful sun exposure can be.

    What we find attractive is very much a function of society and not
    biology.

--David

    in re .27
    
    in re .27 Mike Z,
    
    sorry but you are wrong, :-) men at that time found women that size
    to be very attractive. 
    
    Bonnie

    RE: The DOctah
    
    1. Roseanne says she's a goddess? 
        a) See Peggy's reply about the Willendorf Goddess
        b) She has a line in her act wherein she says something like: "I
    don't want to be called a "housewife" - I want to be called a "domestic
    goddess". PArt of her act. Not stating that she's a goddess.
    
    2. She says alll women should be fat?
    	a) I'm sure your reaction would please her. IT would prove her
    point.
    	b) We live in a culture that *screams* "All women should be
    thin!!!" No one seems to be outraged by *that*!
    
    Saying "all women should be <fat/thin>" is like saying "all women
    should have blue eyes" . Not all women are meant to be thin, just as
    not all women are meant to be fat. If a woman is naturally thin,
    doesn't need to diet to gain or lose, whatever she eats she stays at
    125 lbs, great. Fine. No problem. Don't fight mother nature. 
    
    If that weight is 200 lbs, well then you need not only to *fight*
    mother nature, but to goddam *conquer* her. Road apples. 
    
    RE: Darwinism, etc.
    
    WE may indeed one day be bred not to need extra fat stores. However, as
    a species we still need to store extra fat. IT hasn''t been long enough
    since we were unsure of getting enough to eat. A couple of generations,
    maybe. Not long enough. Not to mention the fact than human beings go
    hungry every day on this planet. And in this country. So long as
    starvation is a possibility, we'll maintain the need for some genes to
    encourage fat storage.
    
    RE: Mike Z
    
    Sorry, I happen to believe that caring about who I am *right now*, and
    not needing anyone's input on my weight is mentally healthy. It would
    be for a thin person; it is for a fat person, too.
    
    --DE
    

If only pale green skin were in, maybe us engineers could get some
dates!

;-)

    
    
    In reply to the original question : (and I'm going to take a beating
    for this view), I think Roseanne is repulsive.  I also think that her
    husband is repulsive.  (By the way, I feel the same way about smoking.) 
    Here is why :
    ( I think )
    Ever since I can remember, my mom has been about 20 pounds overweight. 
    Not a big deal to me but she hated the weight.  Then I went away to
    school, and within about 1 year she was 50 pounds overweight.  I did
    some sightseeing with my parents and that's when I noticed my mom's
    physical shape.  She couldn't climb 2 flights of stairs without
    stopping for air and she got beet-red in the face.  My father and I
    became alarmed about her weight, as it had obviously affected her
    aerobic capacity.  No, we didn't make fat jokes.  I just talked with
    her alot about how good I felt after taking an aerobics class, etc.  My
    point is that being more than X pounds overweight, (20 for my mom),
    adversely affects ones health.  And if I care about someone, I will
    say something to encourage weight loss.  (Just as I encourage smokers
    whom I work with to kick the habit.)
    In my opinion, Roseanne is telling people that it's OK to put your life
    at risk.  Even if you're a mother, father ...  That, coupled with
    society's imprinting on me, makes Roseanne Barr unattractive.  However,
    I agree that piling additional guilt on overweight people doesn't help. 
    I just think that being in the public eye, she has a responsibility to
    encourage people to enjoy life to the fullest.  I believe that all
    people have a weight that, once exceeded, decreases their health.  (and
    thus also decreases their ability to enjoy life.)  People should not be
    told that it's OK to be dangerously overweight.  (You don't see any of
    these stars smoking! )
    
    In defense of people who are overweight :
    
    I am 15 pounds overweight and trying desperately to loose those pounds. 
    I work out aerobically 3-5 times a week for 30-60 minutes.  If I eat
    only 1000 calories a day, I only MAINTAIN my weight.  To loose weight,
    I have to reduce to around 800 calories per day.  That is my metabolism
    and that is why since age 15, I've been 20-30 pounds overweight. 
    I don't think that fat people eat much if any more than thin people. 
    They simply don't metabolize fat as well.  
    
    RE: society shaping what's pretty.
    I think that society shapes what's pretty with their spending dollars. 
    Since the current craze is health, thin and healthy, not scrawny, is in. 
    Also, medium to smaller sized breasts are in.  I guess since breasts
    are mostly made up of fat, lots of fat is out. (No matter where it is.) 
    Granted, not all people agree, but what you see in magazines is what is
    backed by the public's dollar.  
    
    RE: the other side of the coin.
    People with looks like a model also have problems.  I have a girlfriend
    who is just gorgeous.  She is absolutely hated by lots of women and
    feared by men.  Not only is she beautiful, but she is assertive.  She
    is often lonely and has a hard time getting dates.  So the point is
    well taken that aggressive women aren't appreciated, (beautiful or
    ugly).
    
    Rachael

	 RE: -.1 (Rachael)

	 But isn't it a person's right to be what they want to be?
	 Whether that is healthy, unhealthy, smoker, not smoker,
	 etc.......

         Don't these people make a choice to be what they are?  I feel
         they do?  And I also feel that people have alternatives if
         they want to change......nothing is impossible. And I don't
         feel there is anything wrong with being what you want to
         be.....

	 but we all must accept the consequences of our choice.

	 My father is overweight.......by about 60 lbs.  He only
	 half-heartedly diets, which, to me, means that he
	 is consiously making the choice to be overweight.  He has
	 also had two heart attacks (at the age of 34).  He is also a
	 high-stress person.

	 My father will die of a heart attack or some other such
	 occurance.  My father will never make it to enjoying his
	 retirement.  (If he does, it will be a miracle).  He has
	 accepted this choice.....I have accepted this choice.  I, of
	 course, wish he would DO something to prevent it, but if it
	 is his choice, I don't feel it's my place to challenge that
	 choice.

	 And I would hope that he would respect my choice to be
	 whatever I wish to be.  Not to agree with it, but to accept
	 it.  For, I choose my own destiny and no one knows what is
	 right for me except me.  And if I am not happy with my
	 choice, then only I am able to change it.

	 kath
	 

>    2. She says alll women should be fat?
>    	a) I'm sure your reaction would please her. IT would prove her
>    point.
>    	b) We live in a culture that *screams* "All women should be
>    thin!!!" No one seems to be outraged by *that*!

 Please explain the significance/relevance of a).

re: b)

 No. We don't "*scream* 'All women should be thin."

 We simply say that we prefer to look at shapely women than obese women. If
*you* want people to look at *you*, then you have to be attractive in their
eyes. If you don't care about attractiveness, or wish to appeal to a smaller
audience, then it is perfectly reasonable to take on an unconventional
appearance.

 You seem to be making the same mistake I hear many people make. And that is
projecting your observations about what "society" deems "attractive" into
demands that society makes upon you. It just isn't so. You don't HAVE to
cater to society. You CAN be your own person. And I'll tell you what- the people
that won't pay attention to you because you aren't a classical beauty will
be replaced by people that will pay attention to you and respect you for being
your own person. In my mind, it's a viable tradeoff.

 The Doctah

    
    
    Kath:
    
    You have a point.  If someone is HAPPY being overweight or anything
    else, than it is their right to remain that way.  However, I know in my
    mom's case, she was unhappy.  She felt that she couldn't do anything
    with her husband or family and she got very depressed when it came time
    to buy clothes.  She had originally gained weight because she was
    unhappy and the weight made her more unhappy.  Personally, I think she
    was asserting her right to be whomever "she wanted to be".  I think
    that sometimes a star like Roseanne portrays a certain attitude.  Her
    demeanor says to some people "I have class and courage because I have
    decided to be overweight and I don't care if you like it or not".  (This
    was the question posed in the first note.)  So someone, like my mom, who
    feels that she has little control over her own life uses an example
    like Roseanne, to decide that they will assert themselves with their
    weight.  I'm not sure how I think Roseanne could act that I would agree
    with.  I just see her as an abrasive woman who encourages, by her very
    being, overeating and underexercising for young (in their 30's)
    mothers.  On her show, she is a mother and if she died from a heart
    attack, her children would have no mother.  That is her right.  I just
    don't agree that she should exercise that right.
    
    Rachael 
    

re: Doctah

> I think that if society shaped our opinions for us, they'd be able to make
>us believe that <insert_a_property> was sexy almost at will. If this were
>true, they would change what "sexy" is each year, and reap the profits thereof.

You've just described the entire 'beauty' industry and the machinery that
keeps it going.  Jovan even comes right out and TELLS you what to think in 
their "What is sexy" campaign.  (I know I've always gotten off watching
milk being poured over peaches!  ;-)  )

Women's magazines thrive just for this purpose.  They are ads and propaganda
from the beauty industry to women.  Women buy them to find out what is sexy 
today, what is hot now, what the boys want now.  If what is sexy were truly
determined by individuals for themselves, the entire beauty industry would
collapse because you can't cater to personal whim.  To "go national", (where 
the big bucks are), you have to standardize personal opinion as best you can 
and cater to IT.  Many men find brunettes sexy but that doesn't stop Clairol 
from telling the world men like blondes!  And it doesn't stop men who like
brunettes from taking out an occasional blonde to flash, (because their
personal opinion takes a backseat to the media message!).

re: Mike Z.

>	Society has no problem with Maria Shriver, Barbara Walters, Diane
>    Sawyer, or Candace Bergen.

That's because these women strive to emulate the current standards of
acceptability to men.  None are fat.  None affect the look of Roseanne
Barr whose style is often seen as 'thumbing her nose' at the male-
defined 'duty to beauty'.  All women aren't expected to succeed at beauty,
but all are expected to run the race.  Roseanne both excites and disgusts 
because she appears to refuse to run the race.  How "classy" she may be or 
even how "pretty" her face may be is secondary to the fact that she is not 
tyrranized by the impossible standards that tyrranize most women in this 
culture *and she's getting rich by gleefully showing it to other women on 
national TV!*  She threatens to convince other women that the duty to 
beauty is superfluous, irrational and unnecessary.

It's female freedom most people are responding to when they deem her 
repulsive, classy, refreshing, etc.  That's why there isn't the same level
of 'interest' in John Goodman's weight.  He's no physical prize to women, 
but, like most men, he is not expected to be wasting his life worrying about 
how attractive he is to the opposite sex so his unattractiveness is not seen
as a failure nor does he threaten women by daring to show fat men are ok.  
Women are expected to find fat men ok.  We're expected to go for the deeper
qualities and not respond to superficial sexual signals anyway.

Roseanne, because she is female, is expected to actively demonstrate her 
willingness to comply with male desire via concern for her appearance.  If 
she were actively dieting, self-deprecating and wore makeup and did her hair,
(the active demonstration of compliance), people would feel bad for her 
weight "problem" rather than repulsed.  I give you Delta Burke on Designing 
Women as an example.  She's pretty hefty but because she runs the race, 
people are more sympathetic and benevolent to her.  And men are not threatened
by her because she's suffering over her weight as we, as a culture,
expect women who 'fail' to suffer.  Roseanne hasn't failed, she QUIT and
she's not suffering, either.  Therein lies the difference in people's
perception between the two.

>	If you believe in Darwinsim, human aesthetics are the result of
>    years of selective evolution.

May be.  But human aesthetics are traditionally secondary to cultural 
contrivance.  It wasn't human aesthetics that deemed a broken, misshapen
foot, (the lotus foot), lovely.  It wasn't human aesthetics that deamnded
women squeeze themselves into unconsciousness with corsets or vomit to stay
thin, and it isn't human aesthetics that says a woman in sheer hose and
high heels on a New England day in January looks sexy rather than stupid.  
It's human contrivance and it changes with cultural, (male), whim.  Paulina 
Porizkova would have been a skinny, gawky dog in the 50s, Michelle Pfeiffer
a vacuous, unsophisticated little girl and Marilyn Monroe today would seem 
hefty and unhealthy, (an overweight drinker).  All things exist all the time.
There are always and have always been skinny women, fat women, dainty feet, 
big feet, long-haired blondes, short haired brunettes.  Only the capricious 
window of male desire changes, (and the media changes it to sell stars, to
sell magazines, to sell makeup, etc), and men in turn encourage, through 
covert social control, those women who fit a model of another time to pay a 
little more attention to their looks, (to male desire).

Only in the last 20 years has the image of feminine beauty EVER meshed with
'human aesthetics' as it does now in the fitness craze.  For the first time,
in nearly  all of human history, the naturally healthy woman is being seen as 
desirable and some of the contraptions of traditional femininity, (which de-
pend heavily on hiding the 'realness' of the woman), are being seen as odd.
And as women normalize themselves into being individuals, (some with dainty
feet, some hefty), you can be sure the media and the beauty industry will
try harder and harder to create some kind of national standard on which to
market their wares.  They will always look for the "face of the 90s", (THE
face?  Only ONE face?), they will always monitor the female population looking
for Miss America or the Model of the Year, Pet of the Month, Little Miss
Hemisphere, (the beauty pageant for little girls to get them started on
compliance young), Miss Cornfield, etc.
    

    re .35 >Women buy (womens magazines) to find out what is 
           >sexy today, what is hot now, what the boys want now.

    Funny, they never asked *me*, and I'm a certified boy :-)
    
    From what I've seen, the styles and fashions are designed by 
    either women or men with excruciatingly poor taste, folks
    who think 'helpless' or 'bizarre' or 'gaudy' is sexy. 
    These people go to great lengths to impress each other
    with 'daring' and 'difference'. 
        
    I think the women who *buy* this junk are out to impress each 
    other with their 'fashion sense'. They sure aren't out
    to impress *men*. Most guys couldn't care about clothes and
    makeup if their lives depended on it. "Yeah, honey, that looks
    sexy, now what say we get naked ?" pretty well sums it up.

    Dana

    I know that there is a lot of truth to what Sandy says about the
    way the media dictates to us what is attractive.  I know this because
    of the hell I went through as a teenager in the 60's who couldn't
    make my hair be straight no matter what I did to it, and because
    of the feelings of undesirability and worthlessness I've had at
    various times in my life because I have smaller than ideal breasts.
     However, despite all this, it seems obvious to me that the larger
    percentage of people find slim more attractive to look at than fat.
  I, personally, think that the worst thing that the media has done
    to distort what men consider attractive about women's looks, is
    that the media has put so much emphasis on perfection....perfect
    facial features, and hair, and perfect bodies.  This tends to make
    even average or slightly above average looking women feel bad about
    themselves, and makes a lot of men never satisfied with the looks
    of the women they can actually date.  But, I think that even without
    the media and it's damage, that a larger percentage of people would
    find thin more attractive than fat.
    
    The way I feel about fat is this.  I, personally, am glad I am not
    fat.  I don't care if other people are overweight or not, unless
    it's a problem to them.  There is also a big difference between
    being somewhat overweight and being obese.  I guess I feel bad for
    obese people.  I figure they probably can't help it, and that it
    probably has created problems and hardship in their lives.  I do
    think that obese men look just as unattractive as obese women, if
    not worse.  And, I could never be enthusiastic about being physically
    intimate with an obese person.  
    
    Re Dana, I think some women just enjoy buying new, different styles
    of clothes, and dressing up in them.  Some women think it's fun.
     It doesn't mean they want to impress anybody else, men or women.
     They're just having fun.
    
    Lorna
     

    re: Dana Charbonneau
    
    >Funny, they never asked *me*, and I'm a certified boy :-)
     
    Their job is to TELL you, just as they tell women.  We just went
    through this!  You are told via men's mags and every other medium 
    you pay attention to.  Even sightless radio tells you.  The women 
    jocks are named "Lips" or something like that and their looks are 
    almost always an ongoing subject.
    
    >Most guys couldn't care about clothes and makeup if their lives 
    >depended on it. 
    
    This is where I disagree, Dana.  Most men don't pay attention to
    the mechanics or the hassle of it, but they recognize, and most often 
    prefer, the final effects of women who employ its use.  Most men don't 
    understand the facial proportions the eyebrow line should follow but 
    they know when it's right and when it isnt'.  And given two women, the 
    one who is "fashionably turned out" will attract their attention more
    than the one who is just plain dressed, clean and neat with no makeup
    even if woman B is actually the more classically beautiful.  First
    impressions count when men are appraising strange women.  One survey
    I read said that after looks, men notice a woman's "fashion sense".
    I interpret that to mean how she dresses, how she wears her hair
    - in effect, whether or not she's running the race.  Take a look
    at the movie, "She's Out of Control", a classic tale of a plain
    female who gets little male attention until she transforms herself
    with the illusion of fashion and makeup.  Suddenly men respond
    differently to the very same woman with the very same looks and
    the males would probably, to a one, insist they don't care a fig
    for fashion and makeup.  There are countless other instances of female 
    "makeover" from plain and ignored female to fashioned and made-up
    object of desire. 
    
    >"Yeah, honey, that looks sexy, now what say we get naked ?" pretty 
    >well sums it up.

    Men's choice of whom to say this to is often more affected by fashion
    and makeup than they realize.  It's the feminine art of illusion
    and it's used so much specifically because men respond to it.  In
    that sense, fashion and makeup mean quite a lot to many men and 
    consequently, to the women trying to get them.
    
    No one has to follow the dictates of society.  Men can cry.  But
    do they very much?  Why not? 

    I think there's a strong economic factor here too. Where would the
    fashion and cosmetic industries be without all those women made
    (by advertising & the media) to feel bad about their bodies, so
    they have to spend big bucks buying makeup, designer clothes, etc.
    in order to measure up?

>    Their job is to TELL you, just as they tell women.

 I acknowledge that they try to tell us, but they also react to what we want.
As tastes change, the media implicitly acknowledges this change by providing
us with what we want. When the dollars stop rolling in, they will quickly
abandon any tack. They won't continue to harp away at something that isn't
working; there's no "But this is what you're supposed to like this year."
They can't afford to be that way. They've got to give the people what they want.

> Most men don't pay attention to
>    the mechanics or the hassle of it, but they recognize, and most often 
>    prefer, the final effects of women who employ its use. 

 This happens.

>One survey
>    I read said that after looks, men notice a woman's "fashion sense".
>    I interpret that to mean how she dresses, how she wears her hair
>    - in effect, whether or not she's running the race.  

 You've got to put the results of any survey into perspective.

 I have met a number of women whom I considered to be extremely attractive. I 
have been sexually drawn to these women. However, my libido often picks women
who aren't right for the rest of me. Great, I can have a relationship with this
woman who is quite the looker, but I will never get anywhere on time because she
is constantly playing with her hair and makeup, I can't do any of the fun things
with her because she might break a nail, etc. Forget it. I'm not interested 
anymore. I don't want a doll to adorn my arm. I want the fully operational
model.

 The point of the preceeding paragraph is that what men consider attractive for
a sexual encounter is not always the same as what men consider attractive for
a relationship.

 The Doctah

    We seem to be mixing up three different kinds of overweight here.  
    
    => the morbidly obese -- people who are so overweight they
       endanger their health
    => those who are heavier than fashion would decree
    => those who are out of shape, which is often accompanied by flab
       and excess weight
    
    I imagine someone whose health is in danger who can't control
    their weight does suffer from serious self-esteem or physical
    problems.  Someone who gets out of shape has a different set of
    problems.  Someone who is merely heavier than fashion decrees
    might have problems, but more likely just isn't conforming.
    
    A number of notes have referred to a woman's weight as an
    absolute, without any reference to factors such as muscle mass,
    bone structure, or even the size of the woman in question.  If my
    slightly built,  five-foot-tall mother weighed 125 lbs., she'd be
    quite overweight.  I inherited the blocky, short-legged build from
    my father's side of the family and even though I'm only 5'4" I
    look like a bag of bones at 125 lbs.  I wasn't even comfortable
    when my weight dropped that low.  I was much more comfortable when
    I let my weight go back up to about 145.  I can hold that weight
    without much thought -- I can have a chocolate eclair for dessert
    if I feel like it, and don't have to worry about enjoying an
    after-dinner brandy.  I can stay in shape at that weight -- I can
    carry firewood, go on 30-mile bike rides, hike indefinitely, and
    generally feel good and look good.  
    
    I've never noticed any shortage of men who find real women, women
    who don't look like fashion plates, attractive.  They may like to
    look at slim conventionally beautiful women, but that doesn't seem
    to mean any more than my liking to look at pretty old houses.  I
    admire, but it doesn't mean I *want* one!
    
    --bonnie

	 I'm getting very uncomfortable with the direction this note
	 is taking and the implications that are being made.

	 I design my own clothes, so I love to buy the Vogue/Cosmo/etc
	 magazines to get ideas of what I feel will fit me and my
	 personality.  I see nothing wrong with using makeup to
	 enhance my features, to present a facet of me and my "look."
	 I am working out/body toning/losing weight with a goal to be
	 trim because I feel so much better about myself when I am
	 trim.  When I am trim, I can portray the image of the "real
	 me" that I want to be.

	 From the tones/implications of some of these notes in here, I
	 feel I am now being told that I am succumbing to society's
	 rules simply because I enjoy designer clothes, because I wear
	 makeup to enhance my features and because I desire to be
	 trim.  I feel that I am being told that these are not my
	 desires, but rather "their" desires.

	 I'm very uncomfortable with that implication.  If that is not
	 the implication that is being made, then PLEASE clarify.
	 Because most people that know me would say that I'm not the
	 "tag along with society" type.  I desire only to be allowed
	 to be "me."

         I present a total image that expresses what is the me inside
         of this shell.  The fact that, in some instances, this image
         coincides with society's image, is merely because I have the
         ability to review and possibly accept other's
         "recommendations" to determine if they could possibly be an
         as yet undiscovered facet of me.  The fact that someone else
         came up with the "recommendation" has nothing to do with my
         continuing definition of "me-ness."

	 After all, I wouldn't re-design a piece of code that already
	 exists simply because *I* didn't design  it to begin with.
	 But rather, adapt that piece of code to my coding needs.


	 kath
	 

    I certainly didn't mean to imply that you're a mindless pawn of
    the fashion industry, Kath!  Or that slim people have anything
    wrong with them, or that wanting to be slim is wrong. 
    
    But there are many, many people who try to tell those of us who
    don't express ourselves in the same way that you do that our ways
    are not valid, that your way is the only valid way.
    
    I'm not a slim person.  I come from robust peasant stock and I'd
    make a great shot-putter.  If I tried to wear designer clothes and
    diet myself thin, I'd just look silly.  I know.  I've tried it. 
    I'm much better off, and much happier, going with what *I* am --
    plain, unadorned, hard-working, and straightforward.  
    
    The important thing is that we're both comfortable with our own
    choices.  I think that's what others find attractive, our own
    self-image of ourselves as integrated, attractive people.
    
    --bonnie

Kathy, I don't think anyone here has taken time to speculate on the 
private motives behind Kathy Gallup's "look".  If the theories here
don't apply to your personal motives, fine.  What are you worrying
about?  I don't have a weight problem at all, and never did.  I can
eat banana splits, cheescake washed down with dark rum, pizzas and
beer, steaks and red wine but that doesn't mean I don't recognize 
the tyrrany of weight requirements for women or stop me from discussing 
it academically.  Personally, it doesn't affect me in the least.  I wish 
everyone could separate themselves personally from an academic discussion.
We're discussing the *culture* and not any particular individual within
it.    

re: Doctah -
        
> I acknowledge that they try to tell us, but they also react to what we want.

True, but to a much lesser degree and generally not to women.  If it were 
as you say it is, the standard model of feminine beauty would not be 
"skinnier than most women can ever hope to be".  Fashion, (and beauty), 
would be marketed to and FOR the majority of women who are not 6 feet tall, 
weighing 100 pounds. But they don't give women what the majority of women 
want - they give them miniskirts, high heels and pictures of "the com-
petition" wearing them.  To ignore all this would be the same thing to
many women as it would be for a man to cry in front of women daily.

>I don't want a doll to adorn my arm. I want the fully operational model.

It's interesting and very telling that you find the two mutually exclusive.
Wife/mistress.  Goodgirl/badgirl.  Madonna/whore.  Beautiful and useless/
plain and 'fully operational'.

You've just uncovered the ultimate challenge to women - be beautiful but 
be quiet about the pains it takes to get there.  Be thin but don't bother 
men with your diets.  Have beautiful hair but don't be unavailable because
you have to see the hairdresser.  Be young and fresh but don't admit you
spent your money on a facelift.  In other words, pretend you aren't a
mere human but a mythical beauty so men can pretend that's what they've
got.

You'll never see the SI models wincing in pain as hot wax is poured into 
their crotches the day before those pictures are taken.  You don't HAVE
to wait the hours it takes to get the makeup on, the hair positioned, the
swimsuit glued on.  Yes, they GLUE them to the skin!  And you don't
SEE them nibbling on lettuce leaves while you dive into a chateubriand.
You only see the smiling results.  No on saw the little Chinese girls 
screaming in pain as their feet were broken.  Few men care to know the
pain, both physical and psychological, that culturally contrived, arbitrary
images of female beauty cause women.  Just shut up and run the race as
best you can.

> The point of the preceeding paragraph is that what men consider attractive 
>for a sexual encounter is not always the same as what men consider attractive
>for a relationship.

(Men?  All men?  Shouldn't some men be objecting?  Where are the qualifiers 
women are expected to use here?)

I'd LOVE to hear some of the differences you were thinking of when you 
wrote this.  Please think a minute and tell me.  Offline if you have to.
I really want you to think about the full impact of what you just said.

Because to me it sounds like you believe and have accepted that men, (*most*
men - I'll be a good girl and use my qualifiers!), divide women into wives 
and mistresses, good girls and bad girls - ones for sex and ones for re-
lationships.  That's what they said to Prince Andrew when he was having fun 
with Koo Stark.  She's ok to play with but not to marry.  Fergie is better
to marry and if she's not so much fun to play with, well, there's always
a mistress.  I'm glad you said it and not me.  Because I believe most men
DO feel this way about women.  And if most men don't keep mistresses in the
flesh, they keep paper harems - stacks of skin mags - to give them the
"bad girl" that their "relationship women" are not supposed to be.  Pretty
limited roles, (2), allowed women, no?  Forgive them if they're forced by
their culture to knock themselves out trying to be worthy of both sex AND 
of love and if some aren't so perfect as to walk that fine line without
swaying over into "a useless ornament" or a "plain companion".    

    Not to interrupt this latest branch of the discussion..
    <we now pause for the following messages>
    
    RE: 940.35 Sandy, *exactly* - well said!
    
    RE: Doc
    
    Roseanne's supposed reaction to your seming outrage at her alleged
    statement that all women should be fat.
    I can only imagine that she would *expect* her comment to foster
    outrage, whereas for someone like Cloris Leachman to say that all fat
    women should be "locked up somewhere" until they lose weight causes
    no comment at all. (She *did* say that)
    
    I believe you said it yourself, Doc, in a note not long ago. Men are
    expected to take up space. Tall men are more respected than short men.
    Tall *women*, on the other hand, exhibit many of the same
    self-effacing, apologetic, self-denigrating behaviours that *fat women*
    display. If you are a female and youtake up more than your "allotted"
    space, you are expected to be, at the very *least*, apologetic about
    it.
    
    <back to the discussion>
    
    --DE
     

Re: .47 & "Tall Women"

	I don't think it's so much tall women taking up "more than their 
allotted space."  It's that tall women make the short men (that subscribe 
to the height = status mindset) feel even shorter.

	At 5'9", I don't exactly tower over many people.  Two of my past
realtionships were with women over 6'00".  It didn't bother me, and as
far as I know, it didn't bother them.   If tall women show "many of the same
self-effacing, apologetic, self-denigrating behaviours that *fat women*
display" then it's because they're afraid of offending some insecure male's
macho image.

	Rational?  I don't think so, but the universe doesn't operate by
my rules and opinions.  As an ex-SO of mine once said, "height doesn't 
matter when you're lying down."


					--D

>    Roseanne's supposed reaction to your seming outrage at her alleged
>    statement that all women should be fat.

 Outrage? Hardly. Amusement is more like it. I hardly think it was an
"alleged statement." 

 "All women should be fat like me. It's sexier."

>whereas for someone like Cloris Leachman to say that all fat
>    women should be "locked up somewhere" until they lose weight causes
>    no comment at all. (She *did* say that)

 An equally brilliant statement. (I do remember thinking when I heard it "What
a dork!")

> If you are a female and youtake up more than your "allotted"
>    space, you are expected to be, at the very *least*, apologetic about
>    it.

 What?

 The Doctah

.48>  	"They come a runnin' just as fast as they can, cuz
.48>	Every woman crazy 'bout a sharp-dressed man."
    	      ^^^^^

Actually, Steve, I believe the correct word used is "girl".  Perhaps
that makes a difference.  Perhaps not.

Carla

>True, but to a much lesser degree and generally not to women.

 I agree that women's tastes aren't taken into account (WRT women's looks)
to the degree that men's are, but then again, it seems that in our heterocentric
society, that is natural (though kinda dumb).

 I think that women are exploited as a market differently than men. Men are
exploited by catering to their desires. Women are exploited by comparing each
one to the best (looking) of the best, and using these women as a yardstick.
It's all very unfair- but it makes mucho $$ so it continues.

>It's interesting and very telling that you find the two mutually exclusive.

 I don't. It's just that the "beautiful & fully operational" ones seem to be
very scarce, and in very high demand from bidders with deeper pockets than
mine (in both a figurative and literal sense).

>Because to me it sounds like you believe and have accepted that men, (*most*
>men - I'll be a good girl and use my qualifiers!), divide women into wives 
>and mistresses, good girls and bad girls - ones for sex and ones for re-
>lationships. 

 Well, it seems I am excelling at miscommunication today. That what a day with
only a sick 11 month old will do for ya. :-)

 That's not it, but it's getting off the subject. 

 The Doctah

RE:  39

Do you think most men like the prettied up look?  I'm not so sure.  I
know I *tend* to be physically attracted to women that wear no or
little makeup, don't perm their hair, and have a healthy, athletic,
all natural look.  [Probally narcissism on my part.]  I've heard a lot
of other men say the same thing.  Course, these are only tendencies
and it depends on emotional, intellectual, and spiritual attraction as
well.

john

    re: .52 (Carla)
    
    Well shut mah mouth and call me dummy!  You're absolutely right,
    Carla.  And I don't know if it makes a difference either.  Of
    course, I'm still trying to figure out the meaning of their 
    swivelling "cotton ball" guitars. . .
    
    Steve

    A *very* interesting discussion.  I almost forgot that intelligent
    conversation can be found in these notesfiles.  ;)   (as opposed
    to outside the notesfiles, I mean....)
    
    I am not thin.  In fact, I am about sixty pounds overweight.  I
    don't think that qualifies me as particulary ugly or hideous, just
    fat.  Okie, I admit it.  I dunno if that is accepting myself as
    I am or just acknowledging facts, and to tell the truth I don't
    worry too much about it.  But having been fat all my life, I do
    feel I have some "this side of the fence" views on what the "rest"
    of society treats those who are fat like.
    
    As a child and even a teenager (and who the hell knows, maybe even
    as an adult), I got called names.  Sometimes to my face, sometimes
    to my back, and sometimes when they thought I couldn't hear, and
    undoubtedly when I *couldn't* hear.  Apparantly I wasn't living
    up to someone's expectations, and whether or not someone/society
    decided what I should look like came from conditioning or just natural
    aesthetics really doesn't make that much difference.  What makes
    the difference is that I didn't fall into the perceived norm, and
    still don't.  
         
    I don't resent people for being thin, not do I resent people fatter
    than I for being fatter than I.  I DO resent people who somehow
    think I am LESS than a "real" woman (or person, or whatever) because
    I am overweight.  Okie, I am.  My body doesn't get photographed
    and plastered on covers of magazines.  I am entirely aware of that.
    BUT (and of course, this doesn't apply to ALL people, but a goodly
    amount to make it noticable), it seems the perceived notion is that
    you aren't somehow likable, other than a platonic sense, if you
    are fat.  I imagine it goes both ways (for men and women alike),
    but tends to sag a bit more on the woman's end.  John Goodman IS
    a case in point.  I even think he IS handsome, but then again, I
    think Roseanne Barr is pretty.  No Love Goddess, but she isn't ugly.
    I don't think ALL fat people are handsome or pretty, but then again,
    I don't think ALL skinny people are handsome or pretty either. 
    
    Since I bear a more physical semblace to Roseanne than say, Paulina,
    I guess it doesn't bother me that she makes remarks like "all women
    should look like me...." especially in the light that you can take
    that remark seriously, as a joke, or a little bit of both, like
    I do.  I think she's brave, saying that, when obviously it will
    come with ridicule and "how CAN she say something like that LOOKING
    as she does?", and I do admire her for just being her and not being
    another stereotype (at least on sitcom TV).  Whether or not she
    is classy depends a bit more on just her figure and what SHE thinks
    about it....class entails the entire personality of the person,
    not simply one aspect of it. 
    
    Since I didn't save all those notes before mine ( ;)  I can't address
    all the arguements going on, altho Doctah's and GEMVAX::Ciccolino
    (sp?) particulary catch my interest.  I understand and agree with
    the Doctah that yes, society as a whole, prefers to look up thin
    people as physically attractive, but I don't think that's just because
    "that's the way it is" (my quotes not his).  I think GEMVAX (wish 
    I knew your first
    name :) has a lot of good, valid points when it comes to industry,
    so to speak, dictating what society wants or sees.  And I think
    it IS wrong, repeat, WRONG, to cast overweight people into this
    huge mold of undesirables, but unfortunately, THAT is, too often,
    "the way it is".  
    
    I have the very good fortune to have met a man whom, across 3000
    miles and only a photo and long, over-the-modem conversations, deemed
    me worthy of love (sarcasm).  :)   My first thought upon meeting
    him in person was "Oh, no, he won't like me, or continue to love
    me, or even wanna TOUCH me, cause I'm fat."  I am very happy to
    say that I was wrong.  No, this is not a man who is only attracted
    to overweight women, and no, he isn't overweight himself.  Through
    my relationship with him, I learned that being overweight doesn't
    automatically disqualify you to love, sex, relationship, or what
    have you.  I will admit that before then, I figure that for the
    rest of my overweight-ness, I'd never meet anyone who'd be the least
    bit interested in me, and "that's the way it was".   Fortunately,
    what seems to be the social norm is not always the way it is, and
    there are exceptions to every rule.
    
    (ramble ramble)
    
    For what is it worth, I DO want to and am losing weight, but not
    because my boyfriend told/asked/wants me to, simply because I want
    to see what I look like thin.  I am also interested (and hoping
    to be proved wrong) that once I am thin, if I will be any
    more....what's a good word?...approachable, by men.  :)  Perhaps
    a somewhat cruel or shallow interest, but it has been something
    that intrigued me for some time (especially while in high school).
    I have heard of people who have lost weight and suddenly those people
    who didn't look twice at them were zipping over and asking for a
    date.  I dunno whether it's funny or infuriating.  
    
    Enuf of dat for a while....just my thoughts on a very interesting
    topic.
    
    ---kim
    
    
    

    Oh, one last thought.
    
    I was watching Sally Jesse Raphael one day and the show was about
    Fat Women (or something like that...I think the gist of the show
    was similar to this topic).  Anyway, one man stood up and defended
    overweight women as being just as beautiful and sexy as "regular"
    women (the man was you basic well dressed, not unattractive type
    guy).  In fact, he said he PREFERRED plump women over thin women.
    
    The reaction to him was something similar to: 
    
    "There's something wrong with you."
    
    "You must like overweight women because you know they can't get
    anyone else, so it's a security thing...."
    
    "You must like getting an easy date/(implied lay)."
    
    There were some, including SJR, who defended the man's preferences,
    stating that it was no different than a man who preferred blondes,
    redheads, women with freckles, etc....and she seemed very surprised
    that a lot of people in the audience thought that the man HAD to
    have something wrong with him.  
    
    What do you folks think?  Is there someone wrong with a guy who
    actually LIKES overweight women over the more "conventional" model?
    :)
    
    
    ---kim

    <heavy sarcasm on>

    When I was straight, I really wasn't happy.  Fortunately, I was able 
    to learn to love women.  Of course, it wasn't easy; it took me until
    I was almost 18 to let go of those unwanted men and to keep them out 
    of my life ... permanently, and without feeling deprived or
    dissatisfied at all.  Sometimes I might think that one of them is nice
    and I think about saying hello, but I'm one of those women who if
    I even look at a man... before I know it he's in my life weighing me down.

    There are other women who haven't figured out yet how to lose those
    unwanted men and keep them out of their life.  I pity them.  Of course,
    when I was straight, I said I was happy, but it wasn't true.  Now I
    know better.  Study after study has proven that women who are married
    to men get depressed more.  I only hope that those poor women will
    come to see the light as I have.  Oh sure, for some of you, having men
    around makes you feel comfortable, helps you hide your unhappiness,
    and keeps women from noticing you; but in the long run, every woman
    would be happier, just as I am, if she cut men out of her life
    completely.  Try this:  when you get the urge to spend time with a
    man, take a brisk walk or chew on a piece of celery instead.  
              
    <heavy sarcasm off>
    
    Justine

    RE: .58  Good one, Justine!  You've really captured that Family Circle
    tone.  The only thing that's missing is "Before" and "After" pictures.
    
    Dale

	 RE: .45 (Bonnie Randall)

>    I certainly didn't mean to imply that you're a mindless pawn of
>    the fashion industry, Kath!  Or that slim people have anything
>    wrong with them, or that wanting to be slim is wrong. 

	 I'm sorry, I thought I made myself clear.  I was simply using
	 myself as an example that not everyone necessarily fits the
	 generalization.  (And I am by no means slim....it's just a
	 desire!)  I in no way thought that anyone was referring to
	 me. And I in no way took it "personally."

	 I guess I'm reading two things in this discussion.

	 1)  Society says being overweight is bad(and people fall
		for it).
	 2)  Society says being thin is good(and people fall for
		it).

	 I guess the only point I was trying to make was that neither
	 #1 nor #2 are correct.  Perhaps I'm just working from a
	 "western perspective", but I don't see an overwhelming
	 majority of people who fall for #1 and/or #2.

	 While there ARE many people that do fall for both of these,
	 there are also many other people that might appear to fall
	 for them, but aren't.  An overweight person can be depressed
	 and upset, but there is no guarentee that the weight is the
	 cause.  A slim and trim person can be happy and vibrant, but
	 there is no guarentee that their "lack of weight" is the
	 reason.

	 Personally, I think everyone is beautiful in their own way.
	 And no one is "bad" or "good" because of their weight.
	 Weight is an expression of personality, and yes, sometimes,
	 is an indicator of other problems that go much deeper than
	 weight.

         I think I would be more comfortable with talking about what
         society dictates, instead of negative generalizations about
         how people react....and I think my discomfort results from
	 the fact that I don't see society's blind following to be a
	 majority......in fact, I see a small minority.

	 FWIW...I think many people follow society because they've
	 made a concious decision that what society is saying is
	 something that they also find desireable. (ie, I love lycra
	 leggings, and they are the rage..but I simply find them
	 comfortable and flattering to my figure).  I don't find that
	 to be wrong or bad at all.  I think, also, that blindly
	 following society is something that is a sort of immaturity
	 (at the risk of insulting someone, I don't mean to).  I see most of
	 the fads staying with the younger generation and with
	 those that have self esteem and self worth problems.

	 I rarely, if ever, see women dressed like they are straight
	 out of Vogue and let Clinique do their makeup, simply for
	 "the" image.  And when I do, I most often see that what she looks
	 like is most definitely a projection of her personality.

	 I guess I just don't see that many people blindly following
	 society.  I have to admit, just this year, I did meet a woman
	 like this.....but she was definitely not the norm in any
	 circles I rotate in.  It's hard for me to accept the "many
	 people blindly believe" when I don't see it.

         FWIW.....having to do with fitness.  All the women I've
         talked to/listened to at my health club are serious into
         their health....of course, there are always the lookers and
         seekers, but for the most part, they are frowned upon and
         basically ignored (and usually less than 25 years old).


	 kath
	 

>Whether or not she
>    is classy depends a bit more on just her figure and what SHE thinks
>    about it....****class entails the entire personality of the person,
>    not simply one aspect of it. ****

 Thanks, Kim. That is exactly the point I was originally trying to make.

>Is there someone wrong with a guy who
>    actually LIKES overweight women over the more "conventional" model?

 I don't think so. Different strokes for different folks.

re: Justine

 That was a hoot.

 The Doctah

    
    re: guy on Sally Jesse Raphael, (or however you spell it).
    I don't think there's anything wrong with him.  I agree with SJR. 
    People like different kinds of people.  That's what "makes the world go
    round".
    
    Rachael
    

Kath (in .60):
>	 I rarely, if ever, see women dressed like they are straight
>	 out of Vogue and let Clinique do their makeup, simply for
>	 "the" image.  And when I do, I most often see that what she looks
>	 like is most definitely a projection of her personality.

>	 I guess I just don't see that many people blindly following
>	 society.  

Kath, I believe that your circle of friends probably *don't* blindly follow
the dictates of the fashion industry, and when their tastes and Vogue's
coincide, it is a reflection of themselves, not of what magazines they buy.
So is it with *my* friends.

But I don't think you or I are typical, nor are our respective circle of
friends.  I would be inclined to believe that many, many women do buy particular
clothes and particular make-up so they can fit the current rage, whether that
rage is *them* or not.  I tend to believe that many, many  women want to loose
weight not because it will make them feel better about themselve, or because
it's how they see themselves in their "inner vision" but because they feel out
of place not fitting the "image" the media spoon feeds us. Whether that "many,
many" is a majority or not I won't even venture to guess.  But I think it
exists, and in quantites enough to keep the magazines, the designers, the
weight loss centers, the diet pill manufacturers and the cosmetic companies in
business.

Perhaps I am just more cynical about humanity than you.  But it seems to me
that most people I meet out in the "real world" (as opposed to DEC or college)
tend to follow society blindly in many things, from fashion to politics...
I think we are a society of sheep, and the exceptions that you or I hang out
with don't change that.

(In my more elitist moments, it seems to me most people don't develop their own
views because they don't *think* enough to do so...most people don't develop a
style of dress to express their inner personality because they don't have much
of an inner personality.  I try to stay away from such attitudes in  myself, but
I think, somewhere deep inside, I really do believe that "...you can't go broke
underestimating the intelligence of the American public.")

D!

    re: men who like plump women
    
    Warning:  potentially offensive anecdote follows form feed.
    
    My brother He's been married for more than 12 years to a lovely
    woman best described as Junoesque.  She still doesn't believe that
    he thinks she's one of the most beautiful women he's ever seen.  
    
    He says he likes large women better than thin ones because . . .
    
    
    . . . when you make love to a thin woman, her hipbones poke into
    his, but a plump woman is cushiony and comfortable.
    
    --bonnie

	 RE: .63 (D!)
	 

>But I don't think you or I are typical, nor are our respective circle of
>friends.  I would be inclined to believe that many, many women do buy particular
>clothes and particular make-up so they can fit the current rage, whether that
>rage is *them* or not.


	 At the risk of offending a lot of people.  I'm going to go
	 out on a limb and say that I know more "plastic" people on
	 the east coast and in California than I do in all my years
	 growing up in the Arizona plus the past two years in
	 Colorado.

	 I see that there are people out there that blindly follow
	 society.  But from my experiences, I have a hard time
	 believing that *many* people actually devote their life to
	 it.  People I've surrounded myself with are very laid
	 back....very much themselves.

	 Perhaps it doesn't exist here, in my circles, but perhaps
	 it's so subtle that I don't really see much of it.  At least
	 not the extent that it seems to be portrayed here.
	 	 


	 I have to admit, though.....I rarely go to dance clubs
	 anymore because they seem filled with plastic models of
	 society.  I'm sure there are some great people there, but
	 what I perceive on the surface is some people that are
	 desparately trying to be accepted as adults....and most all
	 are less than 25.

	 Is it really a "common occurance" in the greater than 25
	 range?  Or does it occur on a much smaller scale?

	 kath

Kath:

>	 At the risk of offending a lot of people.  I'm going to go
>	 out on a limb and say that I know more "plastic" people on
>	 the east coast and in California than I do in all my years
>	 growing up in the Arizona plus the past two years in
>	 Colorado.

I still think it has to do with who you hang out with.  

I grew up in the Southwest for the most part, too (New Mexico, which
I really don't believe is *that* different from Arizona in culture,
although certainly in scenery! :-) and I don't see any more "plastic"
back here in the east than I did living in NM.

D!

    On images of women's bodies in general...
    Do you think this obsession with "perfection" is part of the reason
    that women's clothing comes in a very limited number of sizes?  We have
    as many variations as men, possibly more, yet we're forced to somehow
    fit into these clothes that...did you ever wonder how *they* decided
    what the generic sizes are?  I mean, what is a size 9/10 anyway?  I
    certainly have more flesh on my bones as the even-sizer than some
    seventeen-yr-old does as the 9.  I fell into this trap recently when I
    liked the way the teeny bop working in The Limited fit into her jeans
    and was surprised that I didn't look as anorexic as she did when I
    tried them on.  Katherine Hepburn maybe, but not like this no-butt, no-
    hipped young thing.  Help me, I'm falling...
    
    I mean, is it too much to ask to be able to buy some pants that fit my
    hips as well my leg length?  I can get into Levi's that are long
    enough...even Levi doesn't make pants in different sizes and shapes for
    women.  
    
    But the most important question I have is:  WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THIS? 
    Now, I'm serious here--I need to get some control over this situation. 
    Do we write letters?  Boycott stores that hire *only* size 3/4's,
    whatever size that is?  Vogue mag. is my version of the Sears Christmas
    Wishbook--do I give it up because they've taken to using teeny bop
    models instead of grown women?   HELP ME--I'M ON THE VERGE...
    
    Nancy  

	 RE: -.1 (D!)

	 Then I'm either

		1)  Overly optimistic, or
		2)  Blind


	 kat

    Re .67, I'm a size 3/4 and I like to think of myself as a "grown
    woman" !  (I'm 40 yrs. old so I should be by now!) :-)
    
    But, I know what you mean.  "Grown-women" come in all sizes - starting
    at Size 3/4!
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: men liking fat women
    
    A good friend of mine was told by his colleagues in the Air Force
    that he wasn't a "real man" because he had a fat wife.
    
    RE: tall women
    
    Well, six feet is not particularly tall for a woman today. Many men
    go over 7' now. I was thinking more of women who are 6'3" and taller.
    
    A woman I knew in massage school was 6'7" tall. There were very few men
    who would go out with her. She made "tall" jokes, wore a sweatshirt
    that said "You have to be five feet tall to ride this ride", and was
    generally quite apologetic about her height.
    
    I recently heard a very short woman who had married a very tall man
    (6'6" or thereabouts) say she had two kids, and "Thank God" the boy is
    6'5" and the girl is 5'3". 
    
    If the problem is that tall women make men feel shorter , *why* is that
    a problem? Why does it matter whether a man "feels" short or not? What
    is it about shortness and tallness?
    
    There have indeed been studies done that show that tall men move
    farther in management that short men. Why? I submit that men who take
    up more space, who "command" a space, are more respected.
    
    Women who "commmand" a space (whether physically or "psychically") are
    viewed as a threat. Maybe taking space away from men, or making them
    look like "less" (shorter?). In addition, fat women aren't "doing their
    part" by adorning the landscape, a cardinal sin.  
    
    Bottom line about fatness for me:
    
    If you are fat, and bothered by the *weight* itself (i.e., carrying 
    yourself around or not being able to run the Olympic hurdles) then
    the problem is yours to own. 
    
    If you are fat, and what bothers you is the attitude of society and
    its effects (not being able to get natural fiber clothes, being called
    names, being viewed as less able in your job, dealing with too-small
    theater seats) then the problem is NOT yours.
    
    Saying to someone "I don't find you attractive. *DO* something about
    it!"  is silly. But that's what people say to fat women all the time.
    It's real important to define whose problem it *really* is.
    
    --DE
    

>    A good friend of mine was told by his colleagues in the Air Force
>    that he wasn't a "real man" because he had a fat wife.

 Says alot more about his colleagues than it says about him.

>I submit that men who take
>    up more space, who "command" a space, are more respected.

 It's not just a matter of space. Otherwise, short but rotund men would command
more respect than short, svelte men. I do not believe that this is the case.

 Think back to when you were a child. Everybody was taller than you. Grownups,
whom you physically had to look up to, commanded respect. I believe that this 
carries over into adulthood. People are subconsciously more inclined to 
automatically give respect to a stranger who is taller than them than they are
to respect a stranger that is less than or equal to their height. 

 Personally, I have never been bothered by tall women. Sheesh, had I ruled them
out, it would have seriously reduced my chances! :-)

 The Doctah

    RE: .72
    
    Well, the entire population is getting taller. I myself have known
    3 guys over 7 feet (but then, I was involved in athletics for
    many years - maybe that skews my sample)
    
    Still, back in the '50's a 6-foot tall woman was likely to be described
    as a "freak" (and often was). I think now both sexes have to be taller
    to "earn" that title.
    
    Maybe the fact that basketball is so popular, and for a guy to be close
    to 7' is not unusual in that situation, we see more tall folks that we
    normally would. Still, no matter how tall the population in general,
    there are going to be people who are taller. Outsize people are treated
    differently.
    
    RE: Doc and portly men, tall guys, etc.
    
    Hmmm...well, then in the ranks of being able to "command" a room and
    get positive reward for it, the hierarchy would be: Tall and fat men,
    tall and slight men, short and portly men, short and slight men, tall
    and fat women, tall and thin women, short and fat women, short and thin
    women?
    
    --DE
    

RE:                            <<< Note 940.72 by WAYLAY::GORDON "Better bondage through technology..." >>>

>	Many?  What's your definition of many?  Over 6', sure, but over
>7' is still pretty rare - or computers tend to attract shorter people...

Doug, I know what you mean.

Personally, I only go for the tall and svelty computers so it's a good
match.

john 

    I was going to enter some dynamite quotes tonight, but I CAN'T find my
    copy of the book ANYWHERE.  Anyone out there have a copy of Kim
    Chernin's "The Obsession:  Reflections on the Tyranny of Slenderness"?
    
    -Jody
    

If I do, and I can find it, what should I do after that Jody?
	Mez

    Lend it to me?  Or read and enter excerpts yourself?  It's a really
    thought-provoking book....I just thought there might be stuff there
    pertinent to this conversation, specifically around how society
    perceives fat and thin (particularly in women), and the subconscious
    assertions they make about those two ends of the weight spectrum.  
    
    Also maybe something from "Fat is a Feminist Issue" by Susie Oerbach
    (sp?) - because I can't find my copy of that either (I probably lent it
    out and forgot about it....I lose more books that way!)
    
    -Jody
    

    A couple of related titles...
    
    	Never Too Thin
    	Fasting Girls (on anorexia I think)

    Re: .67
    
    Nancy, I can think of two lines of jeans sized for women with
    hips:  LL Bean and Sasson.  I think you know where you can get the
    LL Bean jeans.  TJ MAXX carries the line of Sasson for Women, or
    something like that, at pretty reasonable prices.  They're cut
    fuller through the hips and thighs and last very well.
    
    --bonnie

    
    While we're on the subject of how society limits clothing sizes...
    
    Has anyone EVER seen a bikini with a top larger than a bandaid?
    That is, without the bottom being a larger size?  I have yet to 
    ever see that a swimsuit company has figured out that God didn't  
    hand out tops and bottoms the same.  Some women actually have more 
    on one end and less on the other!!  It seems like swimsuits were 
    either made for models who live on salad and have no body fat or 
    they were made for pre-pubescent (sp?) girls.  (or for those women
    lucky enough to look like models)
    
    (thank you, I feel better now that I've got that off my chest.)
    
    Rachael
    

    There's a catalog called "Joyce Holder's Just Bikini's" which not only
    sell top and bottom SIZES separately, you can get different colors and
    patterns and styles and mix and match 'em.  Of course, they're about
    $25-$30 a piece (for the separates), but they offer straps for the
    larger sizes, and underwires  for some styles, and both skimpy and
    broad styles for top and bottom.
    
    I haven't got a copy now, nor the address.  Maybe check the CATALOGS
    notesfile?
    
    -Jody
    

    set mode=semicynical
    
    Fashion isn't to blame for *all* of the sizing problems.  Most
    manufacturers are well aware that a lot of people aren't the
    standard size.  They aren't making clothes to make you look good,
    they're making clothes to make money.
    
    Off-the-rack clothes are made in large quantities to standard
    patterns, and they fit you only if you're a standard size.  Most
    people aren't a standard size.  Ask the man who takes an
    extra-long sleeve how much more he pays for shirts (when he can
    find them), or the small-footed person of any gender who has to
    buy kid's shoes because adult shoes aren't sized down that small,
    as well as the woman who can't find jeans to fit her hips.  
    
    Now, all standard sizes aren't the same size, so if you're patient
    and willing to look in a lot of stores, you can sometimes find
    some manufacturer or designer whose idea of 'standard' is
    something closer to what you are.  But if you really are in a size
    minority, either too large or too small, too short or too tall,
    too skinny or too brawny, you won't find much outside of specialty
    shops because there aren't enough people of that size and shape to
    make it worth manufacturing their size of clothing in quantities
    large enough to generate income.
    
    My advice is, learn to sew.  Then you can have nice-looking
    clothes that fit you and suit your build and the manufacturers
    won't be getting your money for clothes you don't like anyway.
    
    --bonnie

	 I just heard an ad on the radio for a "fresh garden salad" at
	 a local convenience store.  It went on for almost a minute
	 with trying to lay a guilt trip on the listener about
	 "overindulging over the holidays" and the last line of the
	 commercial was.....

		"after all, you just have to look good, you don't
		 have to feel good."



	 My doses of reality are coming just a little too quickly
	 here lately.


	 kathy

    
    
    Kath:
    	What conveneince store?  I want to send nasty grams.
    
    Rachael
    

    Well, I didn't think I was *ever* going to get through all 84 replies! 
    Some very interesting stuff has been said here.
    
    Up until I was 25, I never had trouble with my weight.  I had a shapely
    figure, I was the perfect weight for my height, and perfect size 4
    petite.  (Don't everybody gag at once!)  Then my metabolism started
    changing (I thought, Oh no, what will 40 bring?!).  I started gaining
    weight very slowly.  I have never been obese, I've never even been fat. 
    But I couldn't fit into my size 4 clothes, and I couldn't afford to buy
    new clothes.  So I joined Weight Watchers.  At 5'0", with a *very*
    small frame, 120# is too much for my personal comfort (especially since
    I couldn't afford to buy new clothes!).  I've lost the weight, and like
    where I am about now (106-108).  This is a good weight for me.  I am
    comfortable at it.
    
    My mother is overweight.  She was always too skinny, until after her
    fifth child (funny how that can do things to your body!).  She is not
    happy with her weight.  Her doctor told her she should lose some of the
    weight because of her high blood pressure, so we go to Weight Watchers
    together.  But the primary reason she's unhappy with her weight is
    because everyone tells her she's too fat.  Consequently, she only buys
    cheap clothes, because she's "going to" lose weight soon.  So she
    doesn't feel good in those clothes, because they are not attractive. 
    She feels bad.  Her mother and sister harp on her all the time about
    her weight, but come to visit bearing cookies and cakes.  My father
    badgers her about being too heavy, but insists on having cookies and
    cakes and ice cream in the house "for Michael" (their grandson, who
    lives with them).  My point is that my mother's unhappiness is not
    caused by her weight.  It is caused because no one will leave her alone
    about it.  If she loses that weight, they will find some other area
    where she doesn't measure up (the doctor excluded; he is truly
    concerned for her health).  She will not be any happier.  I don't know
    what to do about this.  I don't want know how to encourage her.  She's
    an attractive woman.  I want her to be happy, not to be thin (because
    that's not what is causing her unhappiness).  Any suggestions?
    
    Also, comments were made about Delta Burke being accepted because she
    wears makeup and goes through the motions.  Obviously, you've been
    oblivious to the tremendous flack she has taken because of her weight
    gain.  A special episode of Designing Women was aired as a result.  I
    found the episode very moving.  At her high school reunion, she
    received an award for most changed person, and she responded, "I came
    here thinking I was beautiful, but I found out that I am just fat....I
    do deserve this reward, but not for the reasons you've given it to
    me...."  I thought it was a beautiful show.
    
    I, too, think Roseanne is a pretty woman, and I think the double
    standards still exist, or John Goodman (who is only okay when you
    objectively look at his face) wouldn't be considered one of the sexiest
    men in the world.  Or as Elayne Boosler put it to an overweight,
    somewhat sloppy-looking man with a scraggly beard in the audience,
    "Take yourself, for instance.  You wouldn't be caught dead with a woman
    who looked like you do!"
    
    (Sigh) I do see the changes coming though.  It's depressing.  I thought
    that once society realized that this double standard is not okay,
    woman wouldn't be given such a hassle.  Instead, men are now being
    shaped and formed and hounded.  They must be thin, they must be
    beautiful.  Too bad, isn't it?
    
    By the way, I think Lee jeans should receive a very special award for
    the wonderful magazine ad they have.  A relaxed, ordinary-looking woman
    is sitting on porch in a pair jean, work short, and sneakers.  The
    "headline" is something like, "There are <x#> of models in the United
    States.  We make our jeans for the other <x#> million women."  Hurray!! 
    Long before that ad, Lee Riders were the only jeans I would wear,
    because they are made for women with HIPS!
    
    BTW, Rachael, I happen to have the Joyce Holder Swimwear '90 catalogue,
    and the address is Joyce Holder Just Bikinis, Inc., 1800 Quail Street,
    Newport Beach, CA 92660.  They even make a bikini top that *starts*
    with a D cup!
    
    Doctah, I like what you have to say, no matter how naive I believe it
    to be.  I don't agree with you.  It would be nice if things are as you
    see them, and maybe they are that way for some men.  But I wouldn't
    have a roommate recovering from anorexia if society didn't hold up
    pencil thin women as models of the "perfect" woman.  I wish I could
    agree with you, but I can't.  Maybe some day.
    
    Finally, it was noted (by Jody, I believe) that food addictions are
    noticeable, while others are not.  Someone pointed out that the others
    are noticeable, but no one pointed out that one weight-related disease
    is not necessarily noticeable.  I'm talking about bulimia.  Most
    bulimics do *not* lose weight.  They binge, then purge.  Eventually,
    the acids from their stomachs destroy the esophogus, the teeth, the
    gums, but they rarely gain or lose weight.  I know that's not really
    the subject of this discussion, but I wanted to mention it, since it
    *is* related.
    
    That's all.  It's late.  I'm tired.  I'm going to go get something to
    eat. ;-)
    
    Susan