Beauty dumbed-down - why clothing sizes are being upped
sceptical | 03.09.2004 18:14
It's official. Beauty is being dumbed down. Feminist journalists across the country and proclaiming in their columns of irrelevance that the "hour glass figure is dead".
It's official. Beauty is being dumbed down. Feminist journalists across the country and proclaiming in their columns of irrelevance that the "hour glass figure is dead". The source of this triumphalist and premature statement is the revelation that clothes sizes are going to be re-jigged.
It appears that the modern, fatter, woman is not keen on being told she is a size 14 when in fact she would rather be a 12. The sizings, based on 1950s measurements of women, are said to be outdated and "not in touch with the 21st century realities". Ahh, so its the sizings that are too small, and not the women that are too big?
Those of us who happen to be male should be smiling already at this little gem of what is termed, "chick logic", that is the non-logic of females. Another interesting point is the fact that whenever we are being told by self-righteous journalists to accept yet another unsavoury aspect of life, usually as a result of feminism, liberalism, socialism, selfishness or greed, that the term "the 21st century" is used. That term is almost an implication that anyone who dislikes or would rather a particular change not happen is somehow still living in another century altogether and needs to rejoin the rest of enlightened humanity to suffer without question.
What should be a shock is, the waistline of the average woman has soared from 27.5 inches to 34 inches. This horrendous. Rather than ordering a large-scale national fat camp to combat this, they want to re-do the sizes! Rather than celebrate our attractive women, we are bending over backwards to accommodate the less attractive, and thereby devaluing true beauty.
Perhaps I am unusual, perhaps as someone who rather likes the hourglass figure, and slim waistlines, I am alone in condemning this excercise in dumbing down, in expunging from the records all evidence that the average woman had a smaller waist and that a size 8 is a size 8, and not a "new" size designed to appease someone who has had one Big Mac too many. I don't think I am unusual at all. In fact, I would suggest that the vast majority of men in this country would rather the sizings remain as they are.
================================
The hour-glass figure
Studies have shown that men prefer women with a waist to hip ratio of 0.7. You can calculate your own using this formula:
waist measurement ÷ hip measurement = ratio.
This seems to apply whatever the woman's overall weight. A group of researchers even compared this ratio with the average ratio of Miss America winners over the years. It was exactly the same. This ratio would seem to make sense as an indicator of a woman's reproductive health. When women age their waist tends to become less pronounced as they put on fat around the stomach. This coincides with them becoming less fertile.
================================
The sizings remaining as-is would strike a blow for standards in this country. Standards of beauty - yes beauty because a slim woman with a good figure, an hourglass figure, is the gold standard of beauty among whites. We have seen this all before, with the "everyone must win" doctrine allowing all grades A* - E as passes in the GCSEs whereas previously only A* - C earned a pass. The logic that everyone must be given a small size regardless of their actual size, in order to make them feel good, akin the Emperors New Clothes is a flawed one.
Keeping the sizings as they are gives those that cannot fit into the smaller sizes something to aim for, whereas making the sizes larger only exacerbates the problem because the incentive to reduce a size will no doubt be taken away by the fact that they can go down a size by simply staying as they are. Of course there will always be pressure for women to be slim, but the question begs, how slim? If a size 14 is now a size 12, and a size 12 is now a size 10, will that also be considered slim? Will our definition of what is slim be "enlarged" by this inflation in sizings? These questions cannot be answered as yet.
A journalist in a provincial newspaper for Wales The Western Mail suggested that the likes of Jennifer Lopez and Beyonce were the ones that were seen to be abnormal because of their hour-glass figures. What rubbish. For a start to lump Jennifer Lopez who is a Cuban of Spanish/Southern European racial extraction, with a mixed-race mulatto in the form of Beyonce, should be a hanging offence. Secondly, it is the hour-glass figure that should be considered normal, and fat stomachs abnormal. Ask any warm blooded man whether he would prefer a "boy like" woman with no figure and a large waist or a slim classically beautiful woman with an hour glass figure.
The argument for inflating clothing sizes also wrests on the process of normalisation. Not the technological normalisation, but a social normalisation. A process where the abnormal is gradually shifted into the realm of the normal and accepted. We have seen this with homosexuality, which was once abhorred by the vast majority of normal people, but now is well on the way to being considered normal, although not quite yet. This was done over a period of decades, with the media, politicians, and even the church playing a part. The result of that has been the allowing of homosexual organisations to push schools and left wing local councils into allowing "gay" propaganda to be included on the syllabus for sex education lessons in schools. Other forms of unfortunate behaviour are also being normalised, the idea that there are no consequences to cheap behaviour and sexual promiscuity by women has resulted in a massive increase in rapes over the past two decades. Evidently there are consequences to these things.
The normalisation of abnormally fat waists and misshapen figures on women is designed to appeal to the large number of "modern" women who have these problems. Like a mirror designed to make the person using it look thinner this measure is just a con-trick and will fool nobody - at the moment. Come 20 years time will size 14 be considered the peak of slender beauty? I should hope not, but with the rising rates of laziness and over-consumption, and the idea that sizes can be altered just to fit an increasingly abnormal population, only makes this more likely.
Another factor with this story is that, once again, the 1950s are shown-up to be a decade where women were slimmer and had curvier figures, divorce rates were much lower, people had more sex (yes this is true) and men were men, women were women, and there was no mistaking which was which. A pre-feminist paradise by the sounds of it...
It appears that the modern, fatter, woman is not keen on being told she is a size 14 when in fact she would rather be a 12. The sizings, based on 1950s measurements of women, are said to be outdated and "not in touch with the 21st century realities". Ahh, so its the sizings that are too small, and not the women that are too big?
Those of us who happen to be male should be smiling already at this little gem of what is termed, "chick logic", that is the non-logic of females. Another interesting point is the fact that whenever we are being told by self-righteous journalists to accept yet another unsavoury aspect of life, usually as a result of feminism, liberalism, socialism, selfishness or greed, that the term "the 21st century" is used. That term is almost an implication that anyone who dislikes or would rather a particular change not happen is somehow still living in another century altogether and needs to rejoin the rest of enlightened humanity to suffer without question.
What should be a shock is, the waistline of the average woman has soared from 27.5 inches to 34 inches. This horrendous. Rather than ordering a large-scale national fat camp to combat this, they want to re-do the sizes! Rather than celebrate our attractive women, we are bending over backwards to accommodate the less attractive, and thereby devaluing true beauty.
Perhaps I am unusual, perhaps as someone who rather likes the hourglass figure, and slim waistlines, I am alone in condemning this excercise in dumbing down, in expunging from the records all evidence that the average woman had a smaller waist and that a size 8 is a size 8, and not a "new" size designed to appease someone who has had one Big Mac too many. I don't think I am unusual at all. In fact, I would suggest that the vast majority of men in this country would rather the sizings remain as they are.
================================
The hour-glass figure
Studies have shown that men prefer women with a waist to hip ratio of 0.7. You can calculate your own using this formula:
waist measurement ÷ hip measurement = ratio.
This seems to apply whatever the woman's overall weight. A group of researchers even compared this ratio with the average ratio of Miss America winners over the years. It was exactly the same. This ratio would seem to make sense as an indicator of a woman's reproductive health. When women age their waist tends to become less pronounced as they put on fat around the stomach. This coincides with them becoming less fertile.
================================
The sizings remaining as-is would strike a blow for standards in this country. Standards of beauty - yes beauty because a slim woman with a good figure, an hourglass figure, is the gold standard of beauty among whites. We have seen this all before, with the "everyone must win" doctrine allowing all grades A* - E as passes in the GCSEs whereas previously only A* - C earned a pass. The logic that everyone must be given a small size regardless of their actual size, in order to make them feel good, akin the Emperors New Clothes is a flawed one.
Keeping the sizings as they are gives those that cannot fit into the smaller sizes something to aim for, whereas making the sizes larger only exacerbates the problem because the incentive to reduce a size will no doubt be taken away by the fact that they can go down a size by simply staying as they are. Of course there will always be pressure for women to be slim, but the question begs, how slim? If a size 14 is now a size 12, and a size 12 is now a size 10, will that also be considered slim? Will our definition of what is slim be "enlarged" by this inflation in sizings? These questions cannot be answered as yet.
A journalist in a provincial newspaper for Wales The Western Mail suggested that the likes of Jennifer Lopez and Beyonce were the ones that were seen to be abnormal because of their hour-glass figures. What rubbish. For a start to lump Jennifer Lopez who is a Cuban of Spanish/Southern European racial extraction, with a mixed-race mulatto in the form of Beyonce, should be a hanging offence. Secondly, it is the hour-glass figure that should be considered normal, and fat stomachs abnormal. Ask any warm blooded man whether he would prefer a "boy like" woman with no figure and a large waist or a slim classically beautiful woman with an hour glass figure.
The argument for inflating clothing sizes also wrests on the process of normalisation. Not the technological normalisation, but a social normalisation. A process where the abnormal is gradually shifted into the realm of the normal and accepted. We have seen this with homosexuality, which was once abhorred by the vast majority of normal people, but now is well on the way to being considered normal, although not quite yet. This was done over a period of decades, with the media, politicians, and even the church playing a part. The result of that has been the allowing of homosexual organisations to push schools and left wing local councils into allowing "gay" propaganda to be included on the syllabus for sex education lessons in schools. Other forms of unfortunate behaviour are also being normalised, the idea that there are no consequences to cheap behaviour and sexual promiscuity by women has resulted in a massive increase in rapes over the past two decades. Evidently there are consequences to these things.
The normalisation of abnormally fat waists and misshapen figures on women is designed to appeal to the large number of "modern" women who have these problems. Like a mirror designed to make the person using it look thinner this measure is just a con-trick and will fool nobody - at the moment. Come 20 years time will size 14 be considered the peak of slender beauty? I should hope not, but with the rising rates of laziness and over-consumption, and the idea that sizes can be altered just to fit an increasingly abnormal population, only makes this more likely.
Another factor with this story is that, once again, the 1950s are shown-up to be a decade where women were slimmer and had curvier figures, divorce rates were much lower, people had more sex (yes this is true) and men were men, women were women, and there was no mistaking which was which. A pre-feminist paradise by the sounds of it...
sceptical
Comments
Display the following 5 comments