cloven hooves The Personal Is Political Beauty Culture Discussion Beauty & Ostracism

Discussion Beauty & Ostracism

Discussion Beauty & Ostracism

 
Nov 17 2024, 3:03 PM
#1
I thought I would post a discussion thread on how women are conditioned to compete with each other over who is more physically appealing. This has been a sore spot for me for a couple decades now.

I am not considered conventionally attractive, nor have I tried to make myself. I am a woman of color so on one hand I think that may have contributed to me not really participating.

On the other hand, I noticed a drastic shift in the mindset of my peers by the age of 12 as many girls started to care deeply about their physical appearance. I think there is a lot of trauma around this time for me because I remember being ostracized for not fitting into this beauty mold. I wasn't exactly bullied for it, but I was completely shunned.

I didn't understand. My mother never raised me that way and at the time I still had a child's brain, thinking about child things. I enjoyed learning and school and wanted to play. Before then, I was happy. Now, I couldn't be myself.

In recent years, I've been trying to forgive myself for having self-esteem issues because I did not cause this. It also stinks that it's hard to have this discussion without acquiring labels such as jealous or jaded or bitter. Patriarchy has really done a number in twisting narratives to continue the status quo.

The older I become, the more I like and appreciate the way I look. I still look the same, but I have more understanding of what the beauty industry stands for and that it is meant to play on your "insecurities". It's all about capitalism. How dare anyone be okay with the way they look naturally, ESPECIALLY if their look does not cater to the male (and now majority female) gaze?

Our physical appearance was never meant to determine whether we were loved and accepted or not. Never. I still struggle with these thoughts and just what I went through as a child, as I'm sure many other women have too. But I'm hoping with time and more knowledge and understanding, and being able to talk about this in spaces like this can lead to further healing ❤.

Here is a nice article that nicely articulates what I'm trying to say Not Everyone Has To Be Beautiful And That's Okay.
Edited Nov 17 2024, 3:20 PM by ShannaBanana.
ShannaBanana
Nov 17 2024, 3:03 PM #1

I thought I would post a discussion thread on how women are conditioned to compete with each other over who is more physically appealing. This has been a sore spot for me for a couple decades now.

I am not considered conventionally attractive, nor have I tried to make myself. I am a woman of color so on one hand I think that may have contributed to me not really participating.

On the other hand, I noticed a drastic shift in the mindset of my peers by the age of 12 as many girls started to care deeply about their physical appearance. I think there is a lot of trauma around this time for me because I remember being ostracized for not fitting into this beauty mold. I wasn't exactly bullied for it, but I was completely shunned.

I didn't understand. My mother never raised me that way and at the time I still had a child's brain, thinking about child things. I enjoyed learning and school and wanted to play. Before then, I was happy. Now, I couldn't be myself.

In recent years, I've been trying to forgive myself for having self-esteem issues because I did not cause this. It also stinks that it's hard to have this discussion without acquiring labels such as jealous or jaded or bitter. Patriarchy has really done a number in twisting narratives to continue the status quo.

The older I become, the more I like and appreciate the way I look. I still look the same, but I have more understanding of what the beauty industry stands for and that it is meant to play on your "insecurities". It's all about capitalism. How dare anyone be okay with the way they look naturally, ESPECIALLY if their look does not cater to the male (and now majority female) gaze?

Our physical appearance was never meant to determine whether we were loved and accepted or not. Never. I still struggle with these thoughts and just what I went through as a child, as I'm sure many other women have too. But I'm hoping with time and more knowledge and understanding, and being able to talk about this in spaces like this can lead to further healing ❤.

Here is a nice article that nicely articulates what I'm trying to say Not Everyone Has To Be Beautiful And That's Okay.

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
586
Nov 18 2024, 2:11 AM
#2
I don't think I'm conventionally attractive either. I think I cared about it in high school, because I wanted to be liked. There's no denying attractive people are treated better by society, there have been studies on this. And high school is a very superficial time.

In middle school, I had most of the same friends from elementary school, and we were all weirdos. So we did not really care about beauty/appearances, we were busy being weird nerds. Though, I do remember a boy telling me I looked like "the wicked witch of the west" in middle school due to my large roman nose. And I've had fleeting insecurities about my nose as recently as a few years ago (I remember I had taken a selfie of my face from the side, stared at it for a while, and then used a marker tool on my phone to "erase" my roman nose bump, and then compared the edited photo to the original several times), so I wonder if that probably had some sort of lasting impression on me.

I think for me, my low self esteem about my appearance, was mainly caused the overarching societal message through media and advertisements that women and girls "should" be beautiful. My mother, who was, and still is, extremely into appearances, may have also been a factor. She would sometimes try to make me look "nice" and "pretty" and take pictures of me. As soon as she got her aesthetician's license, she would want to wax my eyebrows (and body hair), tint my lashes, curl my lashes, etc.

Quote:In recent years, I've been trying to forgive myself for having self-esteem issues because I did not cause this. It also stinks that it's hard to have this discussion without acquiring labels such as jealous or jaded or bitter


I was about to say that for me it's not hard to have these discussions, but I realize I have them online in feminist spaces lol, so of course it wouldn't be hard for me there. I'm sure if I tried to talk about it in real life with my friends, the best I would get are weird "pro beauty culture" platitudes like "noooo you're really pretty," or worse, makeup advice or possibly even plastic surgery advice. :puke: The issue isn't that I'm not beautiful and I need to be, the issue is that I'm not beautiful and society makes it feel like I should be, just because I'm a woman.

Quote:Our physical appearance was never meant to determine whether we were loved and accepted or not. Never.


Definitely! 💜

Quote:Here is a nice article that nicely articulates what I'm trying to say Not Everyone Has To Be Beautiful And That's Okay.


The Patty and Selma header image for that article LOL. I love it.

As I've gotten older, I have been caring less and less about my appearance. One thing that makes my heart hurt, is when I stumbled upon some old school photos of myself from middle school and high school. I was like "aw what a sweet young girl" but I remember how much I hated myself and how ugly I thought I was in those moments. I wish girls didn't grow up in a world that constantly suggests that 1. they aren't beautiful enough and 2. that it even matters that they're beautiful in the first place.
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Nov 18 2024, 2:11 AM #2

I don't think I'm conventionally attractive either. I think I cared about it in high school, because I wanted to be liked. There's no denying attractive people are treated better by society, there have been studies on this. And high school is a very superficial time.

In middle school, I had most of the same friends from elementary school, and we were all weirdos. So we did not really care about beauty/appearances, we were busy being weird nerds. Though, I do remember a boy telling me I looked like "the wicked witch of the west" in middle school due to my large roman nose. And I've had fleeting insecurities about my nose as recently as a few years ago (I remember I had taken a selfie of my face from the side, stared at it for a while, and then used a marker tool on my phone to "erase" my roman nose bump, and then compared the edited photo to the original several times), so I wonder if that probably had some sort of lasting impression on me.

I think for me, my low self esteem about my appearance, was mainly caused the overarching societal message through media and advertisements that women and girls "should" be beautiful. My mother, who was, and still is, extremely into appearances, may have also been a factor. She would sometimes try to make me look "nice" and "pretty" and take pictures of me. As soon as she got her aesthetician's license, she would want to wax my eyebrows (and body hair), tint my lashes, curl my lashes, etc.

Quote:In recent years, I've been trying to forgive myself for having self-esteem issues because I did not cause this. It also stinks that it's hard to have this discussion without acquiring labels such as jealous or jaded or bitter


I was about to say that for me it's not hard to have these discussions, but I realize I have them online in feminist spaces lol, so of course it wouldn't be hard for me there. I'm sure if I tried to talk about it in real life with my friends, the best I would get are weird "pro beauty culture" platitudes like "noooo you're really pretty," or worse, makeup advice or possibly even plastic surgery advice. :puke: The issue isn't that I'm not beautiful and I need to be, the issue is that I'm not beautiful and society makes it feel like I should be, just because I'm a woman.

Quote:Our physical appearance was never meant to determine whether we were loved and accepted or not. Never.


Definitely! 💜

Quote:Here is a nice article that nicely articulates what I'm trying to say Not Everyone Has To Be Beautiful And That's Okay.


The Patty and Selma header image for that article LOL. I love it.

As I've gotten older, I have been caring less and less about my appearance. One thing that makes my heart hurt, is when I stumbled upon some old school photos of myself from middle school and high school. I was like "aw what a sweet young girl" but I remember how much I hated myself and how ugly I thought I was in those moments. I wish girls didn't grow up in a world that constantly suggests that 1. they aren't beautiful enough and 2. that it even matters that they're beautiful in the first place.

Nov 18 2024, 3:21 AM
#3
This is a weird topic for me bc I was an ugly duckling type who became "pretty" in my teen years, then I started drinking heavily and gained a bunch of weight in my 20s. I felt like I went from ugly to pretty to ugly again. I have literally had ppl say that to me.

I find as I get older, I care less about my appearance and am just more comfortable in my own skin, but there's still occasional lingering insecurities
RusticTroglodyte
Nov 18 2024, 3:21 AM #3

This is a weird topic for me bc I was an ugly duckling type who became "pretty" in my teen years, then I started drinking heavily and gained a bunch of weight in my 20s. I felt like I went from ugly to pretty to ugly again. I have literally had ppl say that to me.

I find as I get older, I care less about my appearance and am just more comfortable in my own skin, but there's still occasional lingering insecurities

Nov 18 2024, 7:57 PM
#4
Quote:There's no denying attractive people are treated better by society, there have been studies on this.


I really hate the myth of "pretty privilege". Male attention is not a privilege. Sexual objectification and harassment is not a privilege. The idea of conventional beauty is a double-edged sword that pits women against each other -- both sides are harmed in different ways.

Studies have shown that women are paid more for engaging in beauty practices like make-up. That is not the same as someone naturally being conventionally attractive. It's about a woman demonstrating that she's willing to mold herself to men's desires.
Edited Nov 18 2024, 8:14 PM by real_feminist.
real_feminist
Nov 18 2024, 7:57 PM #4

Quote:There's no denying attractive people are treated better by society, there have been studies on this.


I really hate the myth of "pretty privilege". Male attention is not a privilege. Sexual objectification and harassment is not a privilege. The idea of conventional beauty is a double-edged sword that pits women against each other -- both sides are harmed in different ways.

Studies have shown that women are paid more for engaging in beauty practices like make-up. That is not the same as someone naturally being conventionally attractive. It's about a woman demonstrating that she's willing to mold herself to men's desires.

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
586
Nov 18 2024, 9:58 PM
#5
(Nov 18 2024, 7:57 PM)real_feminist
Quote:There's no denying attractive people are treated better by society, there have been studies on this.


I really hate the myth of "pretty privilege". Male attention is not a privilege. Sexual objectification and harassment is not a privilege. The idea of conventional beauty is a double-edged sword that pits women against each other -- both sides are harmed in different ways.

Studies have shown that women are paid more for engaging in beauty practices like make-up. That is not the same as someone naturally being conventionally attractive. It's about a woman demonstrating that she's willing to mold herself to men's desires.

To be honest, I wasn't thinking of "pretty privilege" when I made that statement. I was thinking more of studies that show both sexes get judged on their appearances and get "benefits" for it. 

How beautiful people see the world: Cooperativeness judgments of and by beautiful people Our findings demonstrate the robustness of the beauty bias and its irrelevance for making accurate predictions. We further observe that individuals are affected by the beauty bias irrespective of their beauty. Overall, the results highlight the importance of strong institutions that protect individuals from falling prey to the beauty bias.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268123004584

About the book Beauty Pays The first book to seriously measure the advantages of beauty, Beauty Pays demonstrates how society favors the beautiful and how better-looking people experience startling but undeniable benefits in all aspects of life. Noted economist Daniel Hamermesh shows that the attractive are more likely to be employed, work more productively and profitably, receive more substantial pay, obtain loan approvals, negotiate loans with better terms, and have more handsome and highly educated spouses. Hamermesh explains why this happens and what it means for the beautiful—and the not-so-beautiful—among us.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400839445/html

Facial Attractiveness and Lifetime Earnings: Evidence from a Cohort Study We use unique longitudinal data to document an economically and statistically significant positive correlation between the facial attractiveness of male high school graduates and their subsequent labor market earnings. [...] Our findings are consistent with attractiveness being an enduring, positive labor market characteristic.
https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/97/1/14/58207/Facial-Attractiveness-and-Lifetime-Earnings

I consider "pretty privilege" something separate, which is essentially a form of misogyny conventionally attractive women receive. I think the OP of this post even somewhat mentions this in her post where she says "women are conditioned to compete with each other over who is more physically appealing", which I think conventionally attractive women sometimes find themselves in these unintentional "competitions" that derive from internalized misogyny.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Nov 18 2024, 9:58 PM #5

(Nov 18 2024, 7:57 PM)real_feminist
Quote:There's no denying attractive people are treated better by society, there have been studies on this.


I really hate the myth of "pretty privilege". Male attention is not a privilege. Sexual objectification and harassment is not a privilege. The idea of conventional beauty is a double-edged sword that pits women against each other -- both sides are harmed in different ways.

Studies have shown that women are paid more for engaging in beauty practices like make-up. That is not the same as someone naturally being conventionally attractive. It's about a woman demonstrating that she's willing to mold herself to men's desires.

To be honest, I wasn't thinking of "pretty privilege" when I made that statement. I was thinking more of studies that show both sexes get judged on their appearances and get "benefits" for it. 

How beautiful people see the world: Cooperativeness judgments of and by beautiful people Our findings demonstrate the robustness of the beauty bias and its irrelevance for making accurate predictions. We further observe that individuals are affected by the beauty bias irrespective of their beauty. Overall, the results highlight the importance of strong institutions that protect individuals from falling prey to the beauty bias.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268123004584

About the book Beauty Pays The first book to seriously measure the advantages of beauty, Beauty Pays demonstrates how society favors the beautiful and how better-looking people experience startling but undeniable benefits in all aspects of life. Noted economist Daniel Hamermesh shows that the attractive are more likely to be employed, work more productively and profitably, receive more substantial pay, obtain loan approvals, negotiate loans with better terms, and have more handsome and highly educated spouses. Hamermesh explains why this happens and what it means for the beautiful—and the not-so-beautiful—among us.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400839445/html

Facial Attractiveness and Lifetime Earnings: Evidence from a Cohort Study We use unique longitudinal data to document an economically and statistically significant positive correlation between the facial attractiveness of male high school graduates and their subsequent labor market earnings. [...] Our findings are consistent with attractiveness being an enduring, positive labor market characteristic.
https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/97/1/14/58207/Facial-Attractiveness-and-Lifetime-Earnings

I consider "pretty privilege" something separate, which is essentially a form of misogyny conventionally attractive women receive. I think the OP of this post even somewhat mentions this in her post where she says "women are conditioned to compete with each other over who is more physically appealing", which I think conventionally attractive women sometimes find themselves in these unintentional "competitions" that derive from internalized misogyny.


Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Nov 30 2024, 9:17 AM
#6
I think you missed this part of what I said: "Studies have shown that women are paid more for engaging in beauty practices like wearing make-up."

Yes, there have been studies that showed people were paid more for being "attractive" but follow-up studies were done to see if the "attractiveness" was due to innate characteristics or things like wearing make-up. It showed that for women the former was irrelevant and latter was responsible for the pay difference. People care about *effort* to conform to beauty standards because it shows a willingness to play along with Patriarchy. It is a proxy for internalized misogyny, submission, eagerness for male approval.

The expectations for black women to relax their hair are an obvious example of this and how it's about grooming not inherent beauty.
Edited Nov 30 2024, 9:22 AM by real_feminist.
real_feminist
Nov 30 2024, 9:17 AM #6

I think you missed this part of what I said: "Studies have shown that women are paid more for engaging in beauty practices like wearing make-up."

Yes, there have been studies that showed people were paid more for being "attractive" but follow-up studies were done to see if the "attractiveness" was due to innate characteristics or things like wearing make-up. It showed that for women the former was irrelevant and latter was responsible for the pay difference. People care about *effort* to conform to beauty standards because it shows a willingness to play along with Patriarchy. It is a proxy for internalized misogyny, submission, eagerness for male approval.

The expectations for black women to relax their hair are an obvious example of this and how it's about grooming not inherent beauty.

Dec 27 2024, 3:57 PM
#7
Quote:The idea of conventional beauty is a double-edged sword that pits women against each other -- both sides are harmed in different ways.

Absolutely! I hate how liberal feminism has succeeded in marketing sexual exploitation and femininity as subversive and empowering, and then portraying women who push back on this as SWERFs, or as internalised misogynists who think they're better than other women, or "ugly man-hating lesbians" with a plethora of other libfems rushing to rehabilitate feminism's image by repackaging it as sexy and nonthreatening in comparison - See, feminists do err CAN wear makeup and shave their legs and be into sexual degradation! And if anyone disagrees, they're wrong because they're telling women what to do with their life, because that's the only measure of how feminist something is or isn't. Like, if some weirdo woman wants to have hairy legs, I guess she has the right to, but us other normal women will be here not looking like militant nutcases,

It portrays any criticism of patriarchal power structures as a part of petty infighting among women on the background of the unchangeable God-given proper patriarchal order of the world, rather than an attack on this patriarchal order itself. The point is to liberate these women for their own benefit and safety, not to make them win or lose (hint: you always lose) the stupid-ass Madonna-wh*re game that men want them to play. The real solution is not to play in the first place. But because liberal feminism isn't willing to question core patriarchal structures, its main lesson is just the useless sentiment that "you should never tell women what to do" (in line with general useless liberal sentiment that you should never tell anyone what to do, because that's oppressive and judgemental) which ofc only gets used to tell women that playing along with the patriarchy is actually good for them because that's what they want, and real militant feminism is bad and extreme and mean.

Quote:Studies have shown that women are paid more for engaging in beauty practices like make-up.

Yes! This gets seriously overlooked - women who can better imitate the artificial ideal of an attractive women are preferred for entirely different reasons than men are. They are eyecandy first and foremost. Good looks can benefit men for sure, but they're not the be-all end-all of their existence. Just compare the amounts of ugly male actors to ugly female actors. Yes, young, jacked, good-looking men might gain popularity, but they're not the only type of male actor that's out there, nor the only type that's massively famous and acclaimed. But women?

Quote:I consider "pretty privilege" something separate, which is essentially a form of misogyny conventionally attractive women receive.

That makes it seem as if ugly and pretty women suffer from entirely different kinds of misogyny. They don't - pretty women are treated as the sex objects that they're supposed to be, whereas ugly women are derided or cast aside for NOT being the sex objects that they're supposed to be. The treatment might be superficially different (one is inundated with sexual attention, the other isn't), but it is rooted in the exact same ideas about women being sex objects and having no reason to exist outside of that. You can't separate the focus on women's looks from patriarchal structures in general - that might work with men, but not with women whose entire value revolves around it, and who are seen as having little to offer outside of that.

I fully believe that this attempt to divide misogyny into different kinds of oppression is what pushed liberal feminism down its slippery slope - if hyperfeminine and beautiful women experience an entirely different kind of oppression based on femininity and beauty, why limit this oppression solely to women? Wouldn't feminine men also suffer as a result of this? And as a corollary, wouldn't masculine women be privileged in comparison to feminine women? That's how you end up with gay men and TIMs in women's spaces, because they're seen as poor little victims siding with women who are so outside of patriarchal power structures that they don't benefit from them in any way, just like women.

In reality, male socialisation gives them a completely different, objectified interpretation of women and femininity (a degrading form of existence meant to get men's rocks off and little else) that still objectifies and exploits women, and the discrimination that these men deal with also has entirely different roots - a woman who isn't the sex object she is meant to be is completely different from a man who's expected to benefit from the patriarchy, but isn't doing it as well as he's supposed to. Failed men at the bottom of their precious pecking order are not comparable to women who aren't even in the running.
Edited Dec 27 2024, 4:04 PM by YesYourNigel.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
YesYourNigel
Dec 27 2024, 3:57 PM #7

Quote:The idea of conventional beauty is a double-edged sword that pits women against each other -- both sides are harmed in different ways.

Absolutely! I hate how liberal feminism has succeeded in marketing sexual exploitation and femininity as subversive and empowering, and then portraying women who push back on this as SWERFs, or as internalised misogynists who think they're better than other women, or "ugly man-hating lesbians" with a plethora of other libfems rushing to rehabilitate feminism's image by repackaging it as sexy and nonthreatening in comparison - See, feminists do err CAN wear makeup and shave their legs and be into sexual degradation! And if anyone disagrees, they're wrong because they're telling women what to do with their life, because that's the only measure of how feminist something is or isn't. Like, if some weirdo woman wants to have hairy legs, I guess she has the right to, but us other normal women will be here not looking like militant nutcases,

It portrays any criticism of patriarchal power structures as a part of petty infighting among women on the background of the unchangeable God-given proper patriarchal order of the world, rather than an attack on this patriarchal order itself. The point is to liberate these women for their own benefit and safety, not to make them win or lose (hint: you always lose) the stupid-ass Madonna-wh*re game that men want them to play. The real solution is not to play in the first place. But because liberal feminism isn't willing to question core patriarchal structures, its main lesson is just the useless sentiment that "you should never tell women what to do" (in line with general useless liberal sentiment that you should never tell anyone what to do, because that's oppressive and judgemental) which ofc only gets used to tell women that playing along with the patriarchy is actually good for them because that's what they want, and real militant feminism is bad and extreme and mean.

Quote:Studies have shown that women are paid more for engaging in beauty practices like make-up.

Yes! This gets seriously overlooked - women who can better imitate the artificial ideal of an attractive women are preferred for entirely different reasons than men are. They are eyecandy first and foremost. Good looks can benefit men for sure, but they're not the be-all end-all of their existence. Just compare the amounts of ugly male actors to ugly female actors. Yes, young, jacked, good-looking men might gain popularity, but they're not the only type of male actor that's out there, nor the only type that's massively famous and acclaimed. But women?

Quote:I consider "pretty privilege" something separate, which is essentially a form of misogyny conventionally attractive women receive.

That makes it seem as if ugly and pretty women suffer from entirely different kinds of misogyny. They don't - pretty women are treated as the sex objects that they're supposed to be, whereas ugly women are derided or cast aside for NOT being the sex objects that they're supposed to be. The treatment might be superficially different (one is inundated with sexual attention, the other isn't), but it is rooted in the exact same ideas about women being sex objects and having no reason to exist outside of that. You can't separate the focus on women's looks from patriarchal structures in general - that might work with men, but not with women whose entire value revolves around it, and who are seen as having little to offer outside of that.

I fully believe that this attempt to divide misogyny into different kinds of oppression is what pushed liberal feminism down its slippery slope - if hyperfeminine and beautiful women experience an entirely different kind of oppression based on femininity and beauty, why limit this oppression solely to women? Wouldn't feminine men also suffer as a result of this? And as a corollary, wouldn't masculine women be privileged in comparison to feminine women? That's how you end up with gay men and TIMs in women's spaces, because they're seen as poor little victims siding with women who are so outside of patriarchal power structures that they don't benefit from them in any way, just like women.

In reality, male socialisation gives them a completely different, objectified interpretation of women and femininity (a degrading form of existence meant to get men's rocks off and little else) that still objectifies and exploits women, and the discrimination that these men deal with also has entirely different roots - a woman who isn't the sex object she is meant to be is completely different from a man who's expected to benefit from the patriarchy, but isn't doing it as well as he's supposed to. Failed men at the bottom of their precious pecking order are not comparable to women who aren't even in the running.


I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
586
Dec 27 2024, 4:45 PM
#8
(Dec 27 2024, 3:57 PM)YesYourNigel
Quote:I consider "pretty privilege" something separate, which is essentially a form of misogyny conventionally attractive women receive.

That makes it seem as if ugly and pretty women suffer from entirely different kinds of misogyny. They don't - pretty women are treated as the sex objects that they're supposed to be, whereas ugly women are derided or cast aside for NOT being the sex objects that they're supposed to be. The treatment might be superficially different (one is inundated with sexual attention, the other isn't), but it is rooted in the exact same ideas about women being sex objects and having no reason to exist outside of that. You can't separate the focus on women's looks from patriarchal structures in general - that might work with men, but not with women whose entire value revolves around it, and who are seen as having little to offer outside of that.

I think I may have been unclear in my post and it has led to misunderstanding. My consideration of "pretty privilege" was not meant to be an endorsement of the term/concept, but instead I meant to point out that people dismissing conventionally attractive women's struggles by claiming they have "pretty privilege" is a form of misogyny conventionally attractive women receive.

While I agree that women are currently "rewarded" by being submissive in patriarchal systems by conforming to misogynistic beauty standards, I believe that since men do experience "benefits" if they are conventionally attractive, as noted in the studies I referenced earlier, the same could be true for conventionally attractive women if we didn't live in a patriarchy/deal with beauty culture. I would consider this separate from "pretty privilege" since the concept of "pretty privilege" is itself created from misogyny (the idea that the oppression of conventionally attractive women is "invalid" or "irrelevant" because they are deemed "the best sex objects" in men's eyes). But since women have to deal with deeply entrenched patriarchal systems, I guess there really isn't a point to considering this, since it's buried under so many layers of misogyny that would need to be excised first. 

Quote:I fully believe that this attempt to divide misogyny into different kinds of oppression is what pushed liberal feminism down its slippery slope - if hyperfeminine and beautiful women experience an entirely different kind of oppression based on femininity and beauty, why limit this oppression solely to women? Wouldn't feminine men also suffer as a result of this? And as a corollary, wouldn't masculine women be privileged in comparison to feminine women? That's how you end up with gay men and TIMs in women's spaces, because they're seen as poor little victims siding with women who are so outside of patriarchal power structures that they don't benefit from them in any way, just like women.

I agree. It essentially turns into a "hierarchy of oppression" when there are no hierarchies of oppression. "Beauty" is an interesting one because it falsely gives some women hope that they can "ascend" in the hierarchy, by just conforming to beauty standards. I think it is an easy trap to fall into, because they have a "choice" in the matter to use beauty products and services; it is not something they have to just "deal with" like an innate characteristic. In the end, they just become women who conform better to patriarchy, which then gives them "rewards" (like a more comfortable cage), all the while they have "ascended" naught. It kind of reminds me of "the master's tools will not dismantle the master's house."

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Dec 27 2024, 4:45 PM #8

(Dec 27 2024, 3:57 PM)YesYourNigel
Quote:I consider "pretty privilege" something separate, which is essentially a form of misogyny conventionally attractive women receive.

That makes it seem as if ugly and pretty women suffer from entirely different kinds of misogyny. They don't - pretty women are treated as the sex objects that they're supposed to be, whereas ugly women are derided or cast aside for NOT being the sex objects that they're supposed to be. The treatment might be superficially different (one is inundated with sexual attention, the other isn't), but it is rooted in the exact same ideas about women being sex objects and having no reason to exist outside of that. You can't separate the focus on women's looks from patriarchal structures in general - that might work with men, but not with women whose entire value revolves around it, and who are seen as having little to offer outside of that.

I think I may have been unclear in my post and it has led to misunderstanding. My consideration of "pretty privilege" was not meant to be an endorsement of the term/concept, but instead I meant to point out that people dismissing conventionally attractive women's struggles by claiming they have "pretty privilege" is a form of misogyny conventionally attractive women receive.

While I agree that women are currently "rewarded" by being submissive in patriarchal systems by conforming to misogynistic beauty standards, I believe that since men do experience "benefits" if they are conventionally attractive, as noted in the studies I referenced earlier, the same could be true for conventionally attractive women if we didn't live in a patriarchy/deal with beauty culture. I would consider this separate from "pretty privilege" since the concept of "pretty privilege" is itself created from misogyny (the idea that the oppression of conventionally attractive women is "invalid" or "irrelevant" because they are deemed "the best sex objects" in men's eyes). But since women have to deal with deeply entrenched patriarchal systems, I guess there really isn't a point to considering this, since it's buried under so many layers of misogyny that would need to be excised first. 

Quote:I fully believe that this attempt to divide misogyny into different kinds of oppression is what pushed liberal feminism down its slippery slope - if hyperfeminine and beautiful women experience an entirely different kind of oppression based on femininity and beauty, why limit this oppression solely to women? Wouldn't feminine men also suffer as a result of this? And as a corollary, wouldn't masculine women be privileged in comparison to feminine women? That's how you end up with gay men and TIMs in women's spaces, because they're seen as poor little victims siding with women who are so outside of patriarchal power structures that they don't benefit from them in any way, just like women.

I agree. It essentially turns into a "hierarchy of oppression" when there are no hierarchies of oppression. "Beauty" is an interesting one because it falsely gives some women hope that they can "ascend" in the hierarchy, by just conforming to beauty standards. I think it is an easy trap to fall into, because they have a "choice" in the matter to use beauty products and services; it is not something they have to just "deal with" like an innate characteristic. In the end, they just become women who conform better to patriarchy, which then gives them "rewards" (like a more comfortable cage), all the while they have "ascended" naught. It kind of reminds me of "the master's tools will not dismantle the master's house."


Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)
Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)