tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post8638956533412354376..comments2023-09-29T06:00:09.242-05:00Comments on Julie Pippert: Using My Words: The non-compendious exposition of a Perfect Post and a Perfect QuestionJulie Pipperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03169574697104642479noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-69323420003870691402007-04-06T09:12:00.000-05:002007-04-06T09:12:00.000-05:00Pelosi is great, except that she can't bend forwar...Pelosi is great, except that she can't bend forward. Her face is pulled so far back that if she leans forward more than vertical her eyeballs will fall out. And her staff HATES picking her eyeballs up off the floor.Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16504810076352510226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-57976708659824437832007-04-05T23:42:00.000-05:002007-04-05T23:42:00.000-05:00Gwen, the celeb point? Too true.I actually noticed...Gwen, the celeb point? Too true.<BR/><BR/>I actually noticed that on AI, for example. The little video diaries.<BR/><BR/>And as for the kids. Well. I think my are stunningly adorable and can't help myself sometimes. I try to be more specific, or sub in a word like "precious" to you know, not fixate them on "beautiful and sweet" but I'm sure it's so ingrained in me that it's more failure than success LOL.Julie Pipperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169574697104642479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-64900833661322053772007-04-05T23:40:00.000-05:002007-04-05T23:40:00.000-05:00Bones,Thanks for thoughtful reply!Sorry work is su...Bones,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for thoughtful reply!<BR/><BR/>Sorry work is sucking rock sin some way for you. Really. I get that 100%.<BR/><BR/>Especially now. Holy cow, especially now. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, first:<BR/><BR/>"It’s long been documented that men find women who have some of the same characteristics of their mothers."<BR/><BR/>Them's fighting words, my friend.<BR/><BR/>LOL<BR/><BR/>Yeah you can always count on Gwen to get to a great point or the heart of the matter. The animal kingdom point is almost it's own blog post.<BR/><BR/>I agree that we pick people who enable us to act out roles and scripts, which are hopefully not too unhealthy.<BR/><BR/>And yes, looks or intelligence (as selection factors) are both inherent.<BR/><BR/>However, I maintain one provides actual benefit whereas the other is merely aesthetics.<BR/><BR/>I.E. if I marry a smart man, we have a better chance at success and living well. He might be a better partner due to superior communication skills, and creative thinking and contributions to life situations. If I marry a man who is *simply* good looking, then well, eye-candy, but what else does beauty add? (I guess luckily the two aren't mutually exclusive LOL.)<BR/><BR/>As for marketing and media...err...<BR/><BR/>I might be odd (no...really?) but I don't shop at VS b/c it's overpriced and poor quality IME and no amount of strutting defies suspension of disbelief models can overcome that. I don't buy Dov either b/c it is too drying, and no amount of real women models can overcome that.<BR/><BR/>However, on any given day, I far prefer the Dove real women models in front of my eyes than the VS models. And I am comparing both in underwear.<BR/><BR/>I agree though that it isn't altruistic, the Dove campaign.<BR/><BR/>Still...can we negate the good it is doing simply because it also happens to benefit the bottom line?<BR/><BR/>All in all, you make excellent points (and thanks for reading, wiht more thanks for the comments, always awesome...and I like your blog too).<BR/><BR/>I think it is a highly subconscious process too.<BR/><BR/>My eldest has begun expressing likes and dislikes of certain types of men. We were watching some show and her comments revealed an evolving "taste" that I'm intrigued to watch grow.<BR/><BR/>Don't worry. I only put my kids on glass slides and under the microscope once a week.<BR/><BR/>And the male and female birds? Oh so many fun places to go with that!<BR/><BR/>Hope your weekend makes up for the week.<BR/><BR/>I hear the ladies in DC have found fashion! Thanks to Nancy Pelosi! Who freed them from the boxy black suit prison! And now they vie with the cherry trees for Most Colorful Sight. Or so said the NPR report today on Marketplace. I know, I know.Julie Pipperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169574697104642479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-78840421520242604392007-04-05T13:25:00.000-05:002007-04-05T13:25:00.000-05:00Okay.. here’s my beef. A particular friend of min...Okay.. here’s my beef. <BR/><BR/>A particular friend of mine who is a civic-minded woman loves to take shots at Victoria’s Secret as the poster-child for making women feel like they have to be thin. I’m saying that’s BS. <BR/><BR/>Dove gets all these kudos and pats on the back for the Dove campaign. And it’s a great campaign- but they aren’t doing it for the kudos. And Victoria’s secret doesn’t have thin models because they are trying to send the wrong message about the ways they want women to look. <BR/><BR/>Neither of those organizations would have the ad campaigns they have if their research and focus groups didn’t tell them that the ad campaigns would sell product. There may be some guys who work on designing the campaigns, but the bottom line is, VS’s market research shows that having thin women with big boobs sells more underwear than Dove women would. And unless it’s Valentine’s Day, women are doing the underwear-buying. Not guys. <BR/><BR/>But guys do place far too high a premium on looks. There’s no denying that. But don’t we all place too high a premium on things that are arbitrary? If you will remember a while back, I commented on how hypocritical it is to claim that <I>looks</I> are a shallow measure of a person, but to think that <I>intelligence</I> is a fair measure. They are both arbitrary; one has no more or less control over their potential for smarts than they do over eye color. If anything, body mass is LESS arbitrary. That doesn’t make it a fair reason to judge people, however.<BR/><BR/>People judge people for different reasons, I suppose. And we should be so lucky that people selected mates based on looks! I’m a firm believer that people select mates based on events that happen in their childhood. Women who were victims of violence subconsciously find guys who will subject them to violence. And defend them. It’s long been documented that men find women who have some of the same characteristics of their mothers. The bottom line is we pick mates based on subconscious attractions that are sometimes good and sometimes bad for us. I’d dare to say that our conscious decision-making plays a miniscule role in the entire process.<BR/><BR/>This is kind of rambling, I realize. I’m steaming from a series of bad events at work. But I wanted to answer sooner rather than later. Everyone had excellent points. I really liked the one about lack of diversity in the animal kingdom. If I were feeling more chipper, I’d make some kind of flippant comment about male birds being far more colorful than female birds, but I’d get in trouble and regret it, so I won’t make the comment.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for entertaining the question Julie. Your blog gets me through the day.Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16504810076352510226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-55884901955526052312007-04-04T07:58:00.000-05:002007-04-04T07:58:00.000-05:00Julie- this is a temporary placeholder. I've rea...Julie- this is a temporary placeholder. I've read it ands spent some time thinking about my response, but i have an all-day meeting. I'll give you my thoughts this evening.<BR/>-BonesBoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16504810076352510226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-5625545929708235142007-04-03T19:23:00.000-05:002007-04-03T19:23:00.000-05:00I agree about the way we talk to kids. This is a ...I agree about the way we talk to kids. This is a constant struggle for me, because while I want my daughters to be whole, I still find them pretty damn cute and feel like telling them that every now and then. And I've also read research that claims that a large part of a girl's self esteem is based on having a father who affirms her PHYSICAL beauty. <BR/><BR/>I was perusing US magazine today, don't ask me why, and I noticed something about celebs, the ones we destroy ourselves over not looking like: in their daily lives, they are pretty ordinary, even not stick thin. But get them in a movie or on the red carpet and it all changes. All that beauty is so much work, but we forget that; we assume it's normal life, something to try to attain.<BR/><BR/>My sister has this theory that very few people anymore are normal sized. She thinks everyone is either very large or very small and so we've lost any sense of what "normal" or "average" looks like. Therefore, we have no realistic model of what to achieve, if, say, we're trying to lose weight. Because how much weight is enough? The funnyish thing is that my sister counts herself as average, but I know lots and LOTS of people who would call her thin. I guess because the images we see all the time are so skewed, we don't even know what "good enough" looks like anymore. <BR/><BR/>Re: genes and how they don't turn out at all like Mendel said they would. Ain't that the truth? lol. I went to school with Danielle Crawford, Cindy Crawford's little sister, who was attractive enough (and very cool and sweet, in case you care) but was NO Cindy Crawford. Like you said on another post, amazingly beautiful people really are rare, which is, genetically speaking, counterintuitive, isn't it?Gwenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12526629366170486737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-28826849521588149832007-04-03T16:25:00.000-05:002007-04-03T16:25:00.000-05:00Chani, I'll have to think more, so this isn't per ...Chani, I'll have to think more, so this isn't per se my only response.<BR/><BR/>However, what can we do? A major social engineering campaign? Yes.<BR/><BR/>Grass roots.<BR/><BR/>Let's stop making appearance so important to kids. Let's stop making them think we love how they look, or rather, that we love them for how they look. Let's not link love with looks.<BR/><BR/>This is hard.<BR/><BR/>I try, though.Julie Pipperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169574697104642479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-61130139963826476022007-04-03T15:38:00.000-05:002007-04-03T15:38:00.000-05:00Julie, I don't think I wrote that well ~ which I c...Julie, I don't think I wrote that well ~ which I can vaguely account for by mentioning it was my first comment of the day. :)If I came across as critical, I apologize because that was certainly not my intent. It's not my style. <BR/><BR/>What I really meant to say is that I believe *buying into* the societal definition of beauty is hollow and silly. Continuing to give it energy only makes it more powerful. <BR/><BR/><I>I think we need to be conscious of what we see, hear and deal with. Then we need to even more consciously rise above it.</I><BR/><BR/>I would have to agree. That's correct. But perhaps we need to look at some ways to get beyond it. What would it take, in your opinion, to get rid of the singular definition of attractiveness that we see around us now? Do you think consciousness alone would do it? <BR/><BR/>Given that you would be dealing with as much groupthink as there is in the culture, do you think it would take a major social engineering campaign to do it? Listen to how many people say "well, that's just how it is, so I guess I have to go along.." <BR/><BR/>Even then, people continue to segregate themselves. I remember when it was socially acceptable to make racial generalizations. That became socially unacceptable so the culture targeted people who are overweight. It's okay to talk about other people's "fat asses" or make character judgements based on body type. (Fat people are all lazy.) What next? Hair color? Eye color? <BR/><BR/>That's really at the root of all of this. Have you ever noticed how many people surround themselves with others who look just like themselves? <BR/><BR/>All I can think of is how damaging this has been for those who don't fit into the mold. How many lives have been destroyed because of it? Teenage girls have <I>committed suicide</I> over this stuff. <BR/><BR/>So in that regard, if I seem a bit touchy on the subject, that's why.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Peace, <BR/><BR/>~Vhanithailandchanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171731740204067889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-64228215739390809262007-04-03T14:32:00.000-05:002007-04-03T14:32:00.000-05:00Chani:Hmm I think I need to read Cecileaux's whole...Chani:<BR/><BR/>Hmm I think I need to read Cecileaux's whole post, but...out of context, that reads a bit like a negating of the fact that sometimes it's a rocky process getting to love (and sometimes requires learning some lessons and growing---which couldn't be accomplished without trying, and sometimes making a mistake), and that love is a multi-faceted concept. But I could be wrong so I'll check it out.<BR/><BR/>Attractiveness does change with times. It seems to be predicated on the royalty (in the US, celebrities, I guess). The privileged.<BR/><BR/>I disagree that discussing societal standards of attractiveness is hollow and silly (obviously). I think the discussion is important. I think we need to be conscious of what we see, hear and deal with. Then we need to even more consciously rise above it. Because I do agree---and did mention in the post---that character matters more.<BR/><BR/>I have another limited view around me in that I am not surrounded by people who believe anything can be fixed by leaving or find people disposable. I know I don't.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure---as things appear differently to me now than ten years ago---things will appear differently to me ten years from now.<BR/><BR/>Spaghetti on the wall?<BR/><BR/>************************************<BR/><BR/>Gwen, you've hit my main point with all these vanity posts.<BR/><BR/>As much as we might want to say it shouldn't...as much as we might want to say it doesn't...as much as we might wish it isn't: the truth is, physical appearance does matter.<BR/><BR/>And, I don't think that is per se a problem. I don't think it is right or wrong: it simply is.<BR/><BR/>The implementation of it is when it goes wrong. Having a narrow definition of attractive, and sticking to it. Making decisions solely based on appearance. Things like that.<BR/><BR/>You bring up a really interesting point about human diversity versus animal diversity.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if animals find themselves looking as homogenous as they look to us. Somehow, I doubt it. Maybe lions are like Swedes.<BR/><BR/>Your selection criteria point is excellent.<BR/><BR/>As I said, I think it is an initial factor (weighted with more importance in the male, or weighted with different factors at least) but certainly not the most important final criteria. So I agree.<BR/><BR/>Your child's phenotype is sort of a crap shoot, isn't it? There's no guarantee.<BR/><BR/>Our case: dark dad, fair mom, both dark-haired, one brown-eyed, one blue-eyed (both with blue and brown eyes in family). Two kids: one brunette (light), one blonde, both fair (how they both missed the dark skin boggles my mind and evokes guilt) and both with brown eyes. Patience looks like my child. Persistence (blonde aside) looks like my husband's child. My sister and I look unrelated. We have some mannerisms in common, so if you know us, we appear to be raised in the same family (which we were) but you'd probably never guess we share the same biological parents.<BR/><BR/>Anyway! (Slapping hand over mouth to stop genetic speculation)<BR/><BR/>I have wondered about that. I think it goes all the way back to definitions of masculine and feminine and what each is inherently (something that asks both to extend and suppress true selves since we all fall on a continuum) and ultimately, because women bear the young.Julie Pipperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169574697104642479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-16689733564642178032007-04-03T10:40:00.000-05:002007-04-03T10:40:00.000-05:00If nothing else, I like to consider myself equal o...If nothing else, I like to consider myself equal opportunity shallow: I judge big bellied men just as harshly as I do big bellied woman. ;)<BR/><BR/>Okay, all joking aside (hmmm .... but maybe that wasn't a joke), I don't know how one takes physical appearance completely out of the picture. We have eyes. We see. We appreciate the beauty of other forms of nature; why is humankind so different? <BR/><BR/>What I find interesting about the human species is how, empirically speaking, ugly it can be. Is there such a wide variety of physical attributes among lions, for instance? No. All lions don't look identical but their attractiveness doesn't vary as widely as human beings. Self selection has mostly taken care of that. And so lions are judged by other lions, are chosen by other lions, using other criteria. Is it more or less shallow? Who can say? If the biological need of the lion species is to create more fast hunters because fast hunters survive longer, then the fastest, best hunters are going to be the ones chosen for mating. Maybe that seems unfair to the poor hunting slow lion who really wishes she'd get more attention from Leo, but it's not.<BR/><BR/>So. What are humans self selecting for? It's not actually attractiveness, is it? I mean, spend a day in an airport. Or a rest area. or your child's school dance. Whatever importance we appear to place on physical characteristics, it doesn't really affect our mating habits.<BR/><BR/>To answer the question you posed at the end of your first section, before you edited and expanded with input from your husband: are men held to higher standards of behavior than women?<BR/><BR/>I would say, NO. emphatically. Women get the short end of the stick all the way around, GENERALLY speaking. Why is that?Gwenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12526629366170486737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-24873566512136359232007-04-03T09:02:00.000-05:002007-04-03T09:02:00.000-05:00Julie, I think the best post I have seen on this t...Julie, I think the best post I have seen on this topic (aside from yours, of course :) was written on a blog by Cecileaux. <BR/><BR/>www.cecileaux.blogspot.com<BR/><BR/>He wrote this following paragraph: <BR/><BR/><I>They say they want love, but they don't; they want a human object that performs certain functions and fulfills certain needs and they want to seal the deal with a contract commonly known as marriage, or maybe something more ambiguous, such as cohabitation. A little honesty with oneself about this might spare everyone a great deal of wasted time and anguish.</I><BR/><BR/>While many people might be able to get above and beyond this, I believe for the most part, Cecileaux is right. <BR/><BR/>Attractiveness is kind of like "popularity". It's a shifting, fluid concept that changes with the whims of the group. Additionally, what I might find attractive might not be attractive to someone else. <BR/><BR/>I can't recall now but I think I wrote a blog entry some time back, discussing the merits or demerits of arranged marriage. <BR/><BR/>All of this to say, I believe the discussion of societal standards of attractiveness are rather hollow and silly because in the long run, when you consider the possibility of spending a lifetime with someone, he or she had better be a person of character, someone who can stick around during the hard times, someone who is responsible and understands the nature of commitment. <BR/><BR/>This whole packaged idea of what's attractive and what isn't is firmly in the arena of 20-somethings and 30-somethings who still have lots and lots of time left in their lives and believe anything can be fixed by leaving. People are rather disposable. Once we get a bit older, the whole thing takes on an entirely different significance. <BR/><BR/>Okay. Well, I'm probably throwing spaghetti against a wall here ~ but there it is. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Peace, <BR/><BR/>~Chanithailandchanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171731740204067889noreply@blogger.com