Women's Issues

I do agree. I personally don't want children. I never have, and that feeling has only gotten stronger as I've aged, so I highly doubt that I'll ever change my mind. I just think there's got to be some sort of middle ground between "hand them out like candy" and "never let them happen ever". Though, if I had to choose one, I'd go with "hand them out like candy" since there's plenty of unwanted kids up for adoption.

Well, the problem sometimes is that the primary physician signs off on it, and the surgeon still refuses to do it. And sometimes the physician doesn't think it's appropriate unless the patient already has a child, despite what the patient thinks.

edited 1st Apr '13 7:59:40 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

If it were just that, maybe I would be more understanding. However considering the heavy restrictions to the point of stupidity over the procedure in combination with the blatant war on women's health in general it's hard to ignore.

I have talked with doctors in three different states. Even though it is medically documented that having another baby will kill either one or both of us, no one will do it until I am at least 32. I am 26 now.

Yeah, tell me about it. I have a friend who has a child and had to fight to get her tubes tied even though she suffered post-partum psychosis and spent a couple of weeks in a mental institute.

I am not surprised. I looked straight at the doctor and said how many miscarriages did I have to have before I get treatment. Every pregnancy I have had has been while using supposedly the most effective birth control out there. I have one happy accident in my son. I don't need anymore tragedies.

But somehow doctors know more about my heart and body than me.

We have made some progress in liberating women into other roles, but we still haven't broken off this idea women's innate value is as incubator.

& Whoa, well, yeah. I agree that's a problem. I mean, there's a huge difference between "I don't want kids." and "I could die or suffer mentally if I have a kid."

edited 1st Apr '13 8:08:37 PM by RockLeeYourFace

Why should there be a difference though?

Why should one "No, I don't want children" be respected more than another?

My cousin loves her career. My aunt loved her career. Neither wanted babies. Why should they be denied respect of their wishes for their life just because the could have healthy pregnancies?

Mind you they will sterilize men in their twenties if they ask for it. Besides, getting your tubes tied doesn't mean they can't still extract eggs from your ovaries and use artificial insemination.

Wow. I had no idea this sort of thing was going on. An age limit? That's crazy.

@Gabrael: Sorry to hear about that.

@lonijay: While legally when you turn 18 you're pretty much free to charge of your health care options. In practice it comes down to being able to find a physician willing to help you. Doctors in general tend to be a paternalistic lot who think they know what's best regardless of what their patient saids in the matter.

This isn't always a bad thing. Michael Jackson's Doctor for example was criminally negligent in allowing him to self medicate. But typically they err way over on the other side.

edited 1st Apr '13 10:45:03 PM by joeyjojo

Ideally once you are 18 you choose. So long as you are not a woman.

The only age limit on a tubal ligation ought to be 18. Seriously, that shit is pants-on-head crazy. caveat

I know the person DG was talking about in her example; the poor woman did time in a hospital, suffering what can best be described as a bad acid trip - that lasted three weeks. After that, she kinda did not want to have any more kids. The docs balked at her request for a tubal ligation...it was a fight for her to get it. Which sounded ridiculous then and it sounds ridiculous now.

It is stuff like this that makes me not able to dismiss feminism completely, no matter how much I may dislike half of what they say.

Unfortunate Implications of the "curvy" acceptance campaign

I'm of two minds on this subject. The write-up argues that the "Say No To Size Zero" argument has the unintended effect of alienating women who actually are healthily slender. I'm honestly getting a bit tired of the "curvy is beautiful" messages being thrown around the net primarily because it undermines or totally ignores how variable the definition of beauty actually is.

On the other hand, some of the commenters have justifiably pointed out that the mainstream media has proposed an image of thinness as beautiful for such a long time and with such prominence that a pro-curvy campaign shouldn't be viewed antagonistically. My other major problem with curvy acceptance is that many people tend to hold up curvy women as beautiful while rejecting slender women in that same breath. It's a contradictory message that eschews one highly subjective beauty standard in favor of another highly subjective beauty standard. Many women don't actually intend to antagonize skinny women, but it often comes off that way. And there are some women who do intend to antagonize skinny women. The actress Monique is notorious for her "skinny bitch" comedy bits and she starred in a movie dedicated to espousing that idea. I'm not suggesting we reach for the pitchforks and torches, but the pendulum of aesthetics is definitely swinging unfairly in the opposite direction.

However, it's important to consider that this pro-curvy attitude that has surfaced over the past few years is not without an understandable root cause. As I said before, many magazines, TV shows, movies and such present unrealistic standards of beauty to women, and several journalists and photographers have spoken out against virulent photoshopping in magazines targeting women. In some of Gabrael's women's fitness magazines, the two of us can spot image editing results such as trimming waistlines, smaller thighs, lifted breasts, modified complexions, and so on. This is somewhat jarring for a fitness magazine because these women are exceptionally athletic and should be able to visually demonstrate that hard work without much touching-up. That's a separate argument, though.

Female celebrities have discussed the issue of pro-curvy physiques such as the Vitoria Secret models (many of whom have regimented fitness and diet plans), America Ferrara (the lead actress in Ugly Betty), and Christina Hendricks of Mad Men. Despite initially embracing her label as an example of "the new Hollywood curvy", Hendricks has distanced herself from that label as of recently, charging that Hollywood has a prohibitively narrow definition of "curvy". Hendricks allegedly believes that, despite being a bit on the thick side and especially buxom, viewers and media pundits shouldn't be quick to assume that she's some sort of super-duper plus-size actress. Furthermore, the meaning of the term "plus-size" has gotten out of hand, as a good number of women in the US and abroad would actually fit under the definition of plus-size despite not appearing so in terms of conventional beauty standards.

In the Men's Issues thread, there was a discussion about the so-called bodybuilder physique as the ideal of male attractiveness, and numerous men and women agree that this isn't as desirable as some would have us believe. Likewise, I go to threads on female video game characters and such, and I see people saying "we need to stop making video game characters who look like supermodels". Fair enough, but I'm noticing that the terms "bodybuilder" and "supermodel" have become catch-all terms for someone who is, in a very broad sense, physically attractive and at least somewhat fit. The terms are misused. Of course, people do so for the sake of hyperbole, but it leads to some strange lexical-aesthetic dynamics.

When someone talks about a so-called bodybuilder physique that people on average might find more appealing, they probably mean this or this◊.

When a literal interpretation of "bodybuilder" would be this◊

Likewise, when people say "supermodel", they probably mean this◊ when they're actually saying this

And when the media and many people in general say "plus-size", this◊ and this◊ somehow fall under the same definition despite the woman in the second link not being all that big. If I didn't run a Google search on plus-size models and if you gave me images of the blonde woman in the second link without telling me her size, I'm pretty certain I wouldn't call her plus-size, yet if you look at her measurements, that's apparently what she is "officially" in fashion parlance.

"Curvy" is a surprisingly vague and often over-generalized term. You've likely heard of the Marilyn Monroe physique that is attributed to some celebrities including Hendricks. Monroe, as a sex symbol, is often held up as a prime example of how a curvy woman can be beautiful. However, recall that even in her heyday, there were plenty of people who thought Monroe was unattractive because of her size, so I wouldn't laud her as a universally accepted vision of plus-size beauty.

EDIT: I forgot that we have a trope that covers a big chunk of what I said: Hollywood Pudgy.

edited 3rd Apr '13 3:09:04 PM by Aprilla

Instead of a "curvy is beautiful" campaign, I much rather see a "respect is beautiful" movement.

I agree that having more variety in body types in our media would be ideal. I am even willing to go farther and say I want to see a variety in skin tones, hair styles, and facial structures. Media is saturated with blonde white girls. Its boring.

Empowerment is not sincere if it is at the expense of another. I don't mind bigger girls getting their appropriate representation. They deserve it. I was glad to see a commercial for a new movie with the larger blonde from Bridesmaids as the one getting married. Sorry, I forgot the title.

But ragging on someone whose body type is more conventional is a sign of weak confidence. There is a fan club for all shapes and forms. There is no reason to be hostile towards those who are smaller. I remember the shit Chalista Flockhart received for being so skinny. That's just how she is. Just like Kirsty Alley is always going to be a bit chunky. That's okay too.

Victoria Secret may get flack but they have strict fitness standards for their models. They almost dropped Candice Swindell because she got too skinny. Alexandra Lima had a baby and they were quick to have her come back even at her larger size.

I want a healthy social atmosphere. I don't care what a woman's size is because healthy bodies are good bodies. And healthy bodies come in all forms. I do fear that some are embracing this "big is beautiful" as a shield to continue to make unhealthy life choices. I remember an MTV True Life episode about people who loved being fat. One girl intentionally gained 120 extra pounds because she only felt beautiful asa big girl. And her cholesterol, blood pressure, and chances of diabetes was really dangerous. The doctor told her to loose at least 100 pounds.

We need healthy esteems yes. But we cant have them at the expense of other health concerns.

The message from any X is beautiful campaign is it doesn't matter how you look, you're a sex object for someone's personal preference.

edited 3rd Apr '13 6:05:34 PM by joeyjojo

That's why I'm proud to not have any sexual preferences.

Our culture places inordinate emphasis on women's appearance. I would rather see campaigns try to counteract that. The problem is less that too few women are considered beautiful than that beauty is made so outrageously important.

Joey nailed it.

Sexual desirability is our common measurement of beauty and basic worth.

How many people consider themselves ugly just because no one hits on them or tells them? Another problem with this is internal validation is being based solely on external sources, which are often unreliable.

Like my eldest son told me he was considered average back in Romania. But over here, he's become quite the attention getter. He hasn't changed in appearance. It's just he has changed locations and aesthetic standards.

While I think both genders have this problem, women seem to have a different set of hurdles due to their history of being property for so long. A pretty daughter could fetch a higher price than a homely on. A pretty wife was a mark of honor to the man. So there is a lengthy baggage train on girls to be sexually appealing to the general public.

(NSFW) Its regarding the Topless Jihad in Europe.

I'm glad they're not resorting to violence to get their point across. I just hope their casualties are kept to a minimum.

EDIT: Snipped the link - Willbyr

edited 5th Apr '13 9:58:07 PM by Willbyr

All Jazeera did a really good special on them a few months ago.

I am proud of them. That's pretty strong for where these women are from.

While I can appreciate the sentiment behind this topless thing going around, I question just how effective it actually is. I mean, how does taking your shirt off in Europe convince a bunch of extremists in Tunisia that mistreating women is bad?

(not that I would want them to go do it in Tunisia and get killed, mind you)

Considering where most of these women are from originally (Eastern Europe) and how poorly women are treated there, they seem to be trying to encourage a global perspective for women, its just the West us the only safe place to protest.

The other thing that bugs me about the link (just thought of this a few minutes ago) is photo 7 with the woman yelling at some random Middle Eastern guy. Unfortunate Implications much? Not all Muslims support the crap in Tunisia after all...

No NSFW links such as that, even for serious topics.

Would a discussion about how terrible it is that a woman's bare chest is considered NSFW but a man's bare chest isn't fit in this thread? :P

I think it would - though it's not like that in every country. In Germany it's not forbidden by law for women to go even completely naked. I consider that fear of topless women to be quite strange...

[edit]
Short link (sfw - relevant statement at 7:10) to "prove" that going topless is fine here: [1]

edited 7th Apr '13 3:42:16 AM by Uchuujinsan