Humanities & Classics 1002
|
|
Renaissance Forum
Humanities & Classics 1002 |
    |
|
In Reply to: Re: beauty posted by Cassie Piram on February 09, 1999 at 19:44:08:
Did anyone read the article in last weeks Statesmen titled, "Is it really 'Your
Body, Your Call' ?" I was extremely offended by this person's viewpoint and I
would have written a letter to the editor about it, if I hadn't been so busy
already writing a letter to the editor in defense of the Study in England
Program. One letter per week is enough. Anyway, if you didn't get a chance to
read the article, it is just ridiculous. The guy who wrote it talks about the
posters around campus with Marilyn Monroe saying that she is a size 12 and sexy.
The guy who wrote the article first says that this is a good message to send out
to women, that they should not judge their bodies according to starving fashion
models, but THEN he says that 144 lbs may be average, but it is not Ideal. He
goes on to give statistics about how many obese women there are in America.
This guy who at first seems to be harmlessly defending a woman's right to her
own body image then says that if we support positive body image we are
supporting, "America's growing and alarming trend toward maintaining our
reputation as by far the fattest developed nation in the world". When I re-read
the title of his stupid article, I realized that he was hinting at the fact that
women should not have the right to feel good about their body, no matter what
size they are. He answers 'No' to the question, Is it really 'Your Body, Your
call'?
He is saying that women should play into societies idea of what is beautiful and
what is "normal". This is so ridiculous. Why does he care if women are tring
to promote a more positive self-image? Is he really concerned about the health
problems of the obese people of the world? Somehow, I doubt it. I think that
he was most concerned about trying to perpetuate the social convention that thin
is in and even being "average" is not good enough. Women should not stop until
they have become "ideal". This is so aggravating!
It made me think though, did the Renaissance Women really have a better deal?
They still had societies ideals to contend with, they were just of a reverse
nature. Poor women would not have been able to get the right Renaissance "look"
because they didn't have as much food and they wouldn't have been pale because
they probably worked outdoors. So "Beauty" was restricted back then too. It's
not as if any body type was acceptable either. You could be curvier and
rounder, but you had to wear a G.D. corset! Is this really something to be
envious of? Image that. "Yeah, give me the Big Mac value meal, Super Size it
and make it snappy! I have to go get a few ribs removed today because this
corset doesn't fit." The ideal situation would not be a reversal, where thin is
out and chubby is in, it would be a world without standards to live up to. Each
person could be considered beautiful for their own uniqueness, rather than
another person's ideal. It seems odd that the Renaissance was supposed to be a
time that encouraged the development of the individual, yet each individual was
supposed to live up to a certain image that people like Castiglione, Machiavelli
and others had conjured up. Contradictions everywhere! It seems that in their
excitement to elevate the human spirit, Renaissance people created almost
inhuman standards to judge themselves and others by. Hmmmm....I like where this
thought is going. I will ponde