It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Woman Has To Be Fat To Be Beautiful

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Fat is NOT beautiful. It is unhealthy and reavealing of a person that does not take care of themself well. And I mean fat fat, not a few extra pounds fat.

In these countries it is done out of ignorance but her ein the US and other developed countries... no excuse.

It is getting so rediculous that I have occasionally felt discriminated because I am very skinny, naturally... I am offended when people assume that I must have an eating disorder or they say something like "Not everyone can be as skinny as you." or "You can spare the extra caloiries can't you?"




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I really wish women would just start giving anyone the middle finger who tries to tell them what is beautiful and what is not.

I've been fat, thin, and everything in between. When I was fat after having my son (190 lbs at 5'8") I was teased relentlessly by my family (although they attempted to make it a light hearted teasing- but it still hurt although I never let it show). I now fluctuate around 110 lbs and now they ask me almost daily if I'm eating. Then you see in fashion magazines these stick-thin models while on the other hand some article in that same issue praises the voluptuousness of 'real women.'

If you're thin- you must be starving yourself. If you're overweight- you're lazy and should diet. If you're curvy- why don't you have 14 year old airbrushed Playboy model hips?

Your culture is saying you should be thin? Then starve yourself. But if you're thin- then you are not curvy like 'real women.' Oh your society places an emphasis on fat women? Then shove that face, little girl.

Seriously. It's ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


I too am naturally thin, as is my daughter, and we both get the same comments and remarks that we must never eat or gorge ourselves then toss it up.
I cannot fathom why a fatter woman would be seen as better to the point they are force fed to get that way.
Does that not cost more for food to keep her in that state?
Make her have more difficulty having children and keeping house if she cannot walk properly or is sick or suffering from injuries?
Not our culture for sure, and not much common sense.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AccessDenied
Does that not cost more for food to keep her in that state?


Exactly. And there lies the rub.

In our American society, food is a-plenty. So the 'more challenging' body style is to be thin. Most likely in that African culture, food is more sparse so the 'challenge' and status symbol is to be overweight because it shows you can achieve abundance.

In history, being fat was actually a status symbol because it showed you had access to the fattening foods the lower classes did not. In our society, food is so plentiful, that the challenge comes from being healthy. So that is what is beautiful in our society.

Basically, whatever is harder to do is defined as being beautiful. Sheer insanity.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by AccessDenied
Does that not cost more for food to keep her in that state?


Exactly. And there lies the rub.

In our American society, food is a-plenty. So the 'more challenging' body style is to be thin. Most likely in that African culture, food is more sparse so the 'challenge' and status symbol is to be overweight because it shows you can achieve abundance.

In history, being fat was actually a status symbol because it showed you had access to the fattening foods the lower classes did not. In our society, food is so plentiful, that the challenge comes from being healthy. So that is what is beautiful in our society.

Basically, whatever is harder to do is defined as being beautiful. Sheer insanity.


That is a really insightful ooint Ashley.
I guess we just idealize whatever is unobtainable.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Id just like to point out that hungry men find overweight or volomptious woman more attractive than after they have had a full meal.When men are hungry natural instincts kick in more and woman with more weight signifies wealth and power...clicky on the linky.Maybe this siw hy they are doing this? I see Ashley beat me to it,but i gave a linky


www.thepsychologist.org.uk...

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Solomons]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
Fat is NOT beautiful. It is unhealthy and reavealing of a person that does not take care of themself well. And I mean fat fat, not a few extra pounds fat.

In these countries it is done out of ignorance but her ein the US and other developed countries... no excuse.

It is getting so rediculous that I have occasionally felt discriminated because I am very skinny, naturally... I am offended when people assume that I must have an eating disorder or they say something like "Not everyone can be as skinny as you." or "You can spare the extra caloiries can't you?"


You are upset because people talk to you about being overly skinny and making assumptions and yet you just blasted 'fat' people in the US for being fat? Get over yourself and let a person be who they are just as you are who you are. Good day to you and your doublestandard.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Diversity and Culture. All cultures are okay. Culture is more important than individuals and human rights. Women and children being treated as chattel is a cultural right, and us snotty arrogant Westerners and our beliefs in human rights out to just butt out.




posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Apparently, British women are the fattest in Europe.


UK Has Fattest Women in Europe



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Are you seriously putting having your joints broken and being beaten in order to force young girls into eating/drinking and poor, consensual Western diet on even footing? But hey, the difference between rape and consensual sex is a matter of choice as well, right?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower


It's only recently really that thin has been "in" (and by recent I mean "within the last 150 years or so); prior to that, skinny meant you were generally last on the list of "Marriable Women". Even in the West




Fat was never regarded as attractive to either the Celt's, Germanic peoples, Roman's, Greek's etc... Between fat and thin is common sense. Marylin Monroe, is probably a perfect example of beauty as defined by the above mentioned people and isn't thin nor is she fat.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

Originally posted by marg6043

We could be doing the same in the US leave it to fundamentalist and we women will become incubators of procreation and the pleasure will be only for the owners of the women body.




Marg, I'm a Christian fundamentalist and that in no way describes my beliefs.


I sure don't believe in slavery and I disagree that marriage is enslavement for the woman. The Bible even says that the husband is to LOVE his wife as he would himself! I've been married for 12 1/2 years and I don't see a ball and chain on me!


I do agree that some men take that too far--about submissive wives--and turn them into slaves. That's not right.


With all do consideration, I am calling BS on this statement. The USA is a part of "Western Civilization", as it is primarily a Caucasian/Germanic/Celtic nation. In fact the first DV laws in the Colonies was a law from Mass. that said a husband could only use highly limited force, to only defend himself if his wife became violent first.

Heck in the UK during the 1800's, orphan girl's got an education while starving 12 year old boy's where being hanged for stealing a loaf of bread.

Sure there are some psycho's out there(control freaks come in all shapes, sizes and genders), but culturally speaking, the Celtic/Germanic peoples have always leaned more towards gynocracy then anything else. And the notion that women where once under men's thumb as chatteled property in the Germanic/Celtic West is absolutely absurd(Even in Ancient Rome it would be a stretch, in Athens maybe, Sparta hahaha that was the first Feminist/Communist state!). It has no basis in reality at all. If anything marriage is indeed slavery, for men.

Look at Lincolns letters to a friend about marriage; it is plain to see that Western men had a bit of fear in them over the oppressive institution even back in the mid 1800's.

Look at your own writing, it reaks of the all girl club mentality.

Originally posted by Amethyst
I do agree that some men take that too far--about submissive wives--and turn them into slaves. That's not right.



How you seek to form a commonality with another gal, at the expense of men via hate rhetoric(scapegoating is an act of hatred. As your "bonding" statement is based upon scapegoating western men, your speech is thus hate speech).

www.avoiceformen.com...
edit on 1-12-2011 by korathin because: added clarification



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by Amethyst

Originally posted by marg6043

We could be doing the same in the US leave it to fundamentalist and we women will become incubators of procreation and the pleasure will be only for the owners of the women body.




Marg, I'm a Christian fundamentalist and that in no way describes my beliefs.


I sure don't believe in slavery and I disagree that marriage is enslavement for the woman. The Bible even says that the husband is to LOVE his wife as he would himself! I've been married for 12 1/2 years and I don't see a ball and chain on me!


I do agree that some men take that too far--about submissive wives--and turn them into slaves. That's not right.


With all do considerate, I am calling BS on this statement. The USA is a part of "Western Civilization", as it is primarily a Caucasian/Germanic/Celtic nation. In fact the first DV laws in the Colonies was a law from Mass. that said a husband could use highly limited force to only defend himself if his wife became violent. Heck in the UK during the 1800's orphan girl's got an education while starving 12 year old boy's where being hanged for stealing a loaf of bread.

Sure there are some psycho's out there(control freaks come in all shapes, sizes and genders)e, but culturally speaking, the Celtic/Germanic peoples have always leaned more towards gynocracy then anything else. And the notion that women where once under men's thumb as chatteled property in the Germanic/Celtic West is absolutely absurd(Even in Ancient Rome it would be a stretch, in Athens maybe, Sparta hahaha that was the first Feminist/Communist state!). It has no basis in reality at all. If anything marriage is indeed slavery, for men. Look at Lincolns letters to a friend about marriage; it is plain to see that Western men had a bit of fear in them over the oppressive institution even back in the mid 1800's.

Look at your own writing, it reaks of the all girl club mentality. How you seek to form a commonality with another gal, at the expense of men via hate rhetoric(scapegoating is an act of hatred. As your "bonding" statement is based upon scapegoating western men, your speech is thus hate speech).


While I agree, in essence, the marriage contract, in it's original traditional form, does transfer 'ownership' or financial responsibility, from the father (or male relative or guardian) to the husband. Women, from the medieval period onwards, were bound, legally, to males. It was, ostensibly, for their own, and the wider societies benefit. It gave them protection from desertion and ensured recognition of off-spring as heirs, and therefore the responsibility of the husband. It also meant that those children were owned by the father, and that the dissolvement of the union would mean losing those children. It also meant that women often had no choice in who they married. It meant that they could not choose to suport themselves as independent individuals. It meant that they could be sold into prostitution or slavery too.

Therefore while the development of the contractual marriage may have infringed upon male liberties by demanding that they take financial responsibility for their households, and ultimately their choices, it was for the benefit of the state or PTB, not the female party. In any shape or form. Her lot remained, pretty much unchanged, until the 20th century, some are still fighting for the basic right to education, some still are not permitted to choose their own husband, or indeed have any reproductive rights that aren't overseen in some way by male governance. Marriage, in of itself, only gives the woman the ability to seek legal recourse if the male at any point fails to meet his agreed responsibilities. That is hardly an infringement of civil liberties, moral ones perhaps...women, before and after marriage at that time, had no legal independence...none whatsoever...they even had to have a male representative or guardian to represent them in seeking that legal recourse.


edit on 1-12-2011 by Omphale because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Omphale
 



I am calling fraud on your statement. Because if what your saying is true: Hershey Chocolate Company never could of formed. As The founder of that Company secured the loans from his female relatives(and they placed a good number of conditions on the loan). Also during the Victorian Age many wealthy women refused to marry so as to not lose their independence and control of their wealth(gold digging men was their main fear).

Don't confuse the History of White women with the histories of other women(in fact one could say that White women are the number one cause of racism from the colonial to modern age, as white men had no problem marrying non white women[which white women flipped out over]). They have nothing in common at all. For example: Do you know the reason why women weren't allowed their own banking accounts and taking out bank loans? Because if they defaulted their husband or nearest male relative would be held accountable for the debt.

So it was viewed as unfair to her husband/male relatives. Society still has this attitude of males being held responsible for female debt(look up all the guy's stuck having to pay of loans in divorce that women got before they where even married: college loans, auto loans etc).

Any talk of the middle ages is disingenuous. As most people were serfs/ slaves of the land. And not only that, they lived to 30 if they where lucky. Had no education and where illiterate. Men and women both had a rotten, miserable lot in life(then again when people talk about gendered grievances they think the top 5% of men= all men).

Heck look up during the (I think Second or Third Punic War) Punic war how Wealthy Roman women protested against the Roman Senate over law's that limited the amount of gold women could own and the type of clothing they could buy(the modern equivalent would be having designer goods outlawed). I think Women were limited to like 8 ounces of gold(I think, so would equal a limit of 13,940 dollar cash in hand limit). Women sure where slaves back then who couldn't own anything!

en.wikipedia.org...



Classical Roman law did not allow any domestic abuse by a husband to his wife


Honestly it is getting to the point that I am starting to view comments like yours(that lack depth and substance) as being intentional acts of bigotry. I know on an intellectual level your just repeating what you where told. But emotionally, knowing what I know, it is just so frustrating dealing with these hateful myths time and time again.

P.S,
In the 19th And early 20th Century the only real mechanism for women to "make sure a guy supported her" was the KKK. The KKK was the first organization in America that enforced child support and alimony. And if you actually examined all the Womens rights movements from the 1800's upwards: They didn't want equality at all. They worked merely to gain control of "their children and husbands", as well as gain a monopoly on male sexuality(one of the reasons homosexuality was so reviled in the West).

That is one of the reason why various women's rights groups pushed for prohibition right after they got the right to vote(Yes prohibition was the very first thing women voters forced on the country after they got the right to vote). They got tired of their husbands going from work to the bar, then home to sleep. Never once did they ask themselves "why is my husband drinking so much", they only focused on how much on an inconvenience it was to them.

Not the fact their Husband just seen his buddy fall into a grinder. Or he is stressed out over the constant risk of losing his life on the job. Heck even now no one gives a damn about the 93% male death rate in the work place deaths(men make up 93% of workplace deaths).

Heck in the UK women's equality Ministers are flipping out demanding more be done because women's share of work related deaths by percentage increased(only because so many men lost their job's that the male work death raw numbers went down. The number of women killed on the job didn't increase at all).

Women's rights groups never once, till the 1980's worked towards earning a livable wage for themselves to support their children*. That would be/is highly honorable. But seeking the right to enslave another is disgusting tyranny at it's "finest".

*There was a minority leftist women 's movement in the mid 1800's that wanted to work. But the Mothers of the Republic women's right's movement (fought for the right to be "kept women", stay at home mom's)that greatly, greatly outnumbered them, crushed them like bugs via violence and intimidation.

Google the WKKK, look this stuff up for yourself. There is no reason to perpetuate a lack of knowing. Because knowledge may not always bring power, but it sure as heck can bring freedom.
edit on 4-12-2011 by korathin because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2011 by korathin because: spelled "no" as "to", had to fix

edit on 4-12-2011 by korathin because: added the word "hateful" as a modifier to the word "myth".



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
I am calling fraud on your statement. Because if what your saying is true: Hershey Chocolate Company never could of formed. As The founder of that Company secured the loans from his female relatives(and they placed a good number of conditions on the loan). Also during the Victorian Age many wealthy women refused to marry so as to not lose their independence and control of their wealth(gold digging men was their main fear).


Yes, there has, over centuries been progress. Steps forward and steps back. And all things are relative. In France, women have had personal and legal independence since the socialist revolution, though at times there have been constraints on those rights due to intermittent occupations. In Britain, by the Georgian era, women of the upper classes were actively lobbying for legal and financial emancipation, so naturally, by the Victorian era there were women who had control over their own affairs. This was particularly the case with the new money created by the Industrial Revolution, women raised in the working classes are used to handling the household economy. It was natural for them to continue to do so when those economies expanded and for those administrative and book-keeping skills to be passed on to their daughters who were able to fill and bureaucratic skill shortage created by the industrialisation process. As you point out, for many women, of independent wealth, were reluctant to marry because it meant losing that independence. Marriage meant losing that legal independence. Marriage, certainly in Britain, no longer requires a woman to do that. Which I think is a good thing.


Originally posted by korathin
Don't confuse the History of White women with the histories of other women(in fact one could say that White women are the number one cause of racism from the colonial to modern age, as white men had no problem marrying non white women[which white women flipped out over]).


White men, though, seemed to have considerable problems, with coloured men, of any shade, even looking at white women. I’m sure the white women wouldn’t have objected so much if they’d been allowed to sample to local delicacies with as much abandon.


Originally posted by korathin
They have nothing in common at all. For example: Do you know the reason why women weren't allowed their own banking accounts and taking out bank loans? Because if they defaulted their husband or nearest male relative would be held accountable for the debt.


This is because some cultures developed a notion that women are feeble minded and unable to resist the charms of con artists and other chancers. Women raised in a sheltered environment, kept away from the glares of strangers and rewarded only for their feminine charms or outward appearance, will, inevitably turn out feeble minded and unable to survive in the real world. As demonstrated by the Ottomans of Turkey, that sort of feeble mindedness is not isolated to the fairer sex either. Boys are equally useless if pampered and protected. In a legal system that requires that a male takes responsibility you will inevitably have some females who rebel against that, and some that abuse it, while the rest happily toe the line.

Originally posted by korathin
So it was viewed as unfair to her husband/male relatives. Society still has this attitude of males being held responsible for female debt(look up all the guy's stuck having to pay of loans in divorce that women got before they where even married: college loans, auto loans etc).


Well we can all find something to whine about if we try hard enough. That isn’t anything close to an argument. Is anyone being forced to do anything?


Originally posted by korathin
Any talk of the middle ages is disingenuous. As most people were serfs/ slaves of the land. And not only that, they lived to 30 if they where lucky. Had no education and where illiterate. Men and women both had a rotten, miserable lot in life(then again when people talk about gendered grievances they think the top 5% of men= all men).


So if someone only lives until they are thirty they should therefore have no expectations, no goals in life, no quality of life? To presume that illiteracy and education are exclusive of each other is naïve. Do you think that we suddenly developed our incredible intellectual capacity upon the invention of writing? Writing was an invention that allowed for the development of a standardised system of education, we had, as a species, clearly being doing very well indeed at passing on information through a non-written system long before then.

The middle-ages may seem disingenuous to you, but it was a transitionary period. The widespread emergence of towns lead to a whole new cultural existence and liberation from feudal lords for many serfs. A rich international trade network meant that knowledge and peoples were mixing in more cosmopolitian regions of Europe. The university emerged. Ecclesiastical conferences were attended by clergy from the whole know world. To say that it was a dreary world is to completely miss the bigger picture. And again, you find exceptions, women who were cutting a path for themselves, and achieving some independence, often power even. Poor people had no representation or identity within the courts, and men and women, most often, at that level were fighting a collective fight. Feudalism was little removed from slavery, depending who your lord was, if you’re owned, you’re owned, all legal rights belong to the Lord. Including any rights that a man may think exclusive between a husband and his wife. Many communities were formed by like-minded folk, and they would form the bed-rock of the later civil war, and when these fighters for equal rights were slapped in the face by Cromwell and the Capitalists that he sold out to, they would form the basis of the first colonists in the US.

History can easily be skimmed over and rash conclusions drawn from a limited perspective. The middle ages was a turbulent period of massive social change and a very significant aspect of how we have arrived at the point in history that we now stand.


Originally posted by korathin
Heck look up during the (I think Second or Third Punic War) Punic war how Wealthy Roman women protested against the Roman Senate over law's that limited the amount of gold women could own and the type of clothing they could buy(the modern equivalent would be having designer goods outlawed). I think Women were limited to like 8 ounces of gold(I think, so would equal a limit of 13,940 dollar cash in hand limit). Women sure where slaves back then who couldn't own anything!


Slaves were able to save up to buy their manumission. Male slaves could that is. A female slave had to wait until a male slave was willing to buy her freedom. During the Punic War, and at various periods in Ancient Rome, and comparably in Ancient Greece, the shortage of males, due to conflict, ended up with women being given greater powers to manage financial affairs. Wealthy women, wealthy at the expense of sacrifices made by now dead relatives on the battlefield, uneducated and undisciplined, due to a sheltered existence, go on spending frenzy and need to be curtailed, hardly unusual. The reinstitution of the prestige of the Vestal Virgins you will find usually did the trick. Sometimes it is just a matter of providing a better role model. These women were often not given even the most basic of education. Only exceptional fathers seem to have believed there to be any necessity in providing girls with even a basic education.


Originally posted by korathin


Classical Roman law did not allow any domestic abuse by a husband to his wife


Again, I don’t see that you are making any point. Classical Romans, naturally considered themselves to be the height of civilisation and a people of culture. No culture allows it’s people to metre out punishment. A husband could not beat his wife, but he could take her to court and ask them to do it for him.


Originally posted by korathin
Honestly it is getting to the point that I am starting to view comments like yours(that lack depth and substance) as being intentional acts of bigotry. I know on an intellectual level your just repeating what you where told. But emotionally, knowing what I know, it is just so frustrating dealing with these hateful myths time and time again.


Well if I am repeating what I have been told, I have at least been told more than you have sought out for yourself. You haven’t provided a single valid argument and have blatantly failed to make any point at all.


Originally posted by korathin
P.S,
In the 19th And early 20th Century the only real mechanism for women to "make sure a guy supported her" was the KKK. The KKK was the first organization in America that enforced child support and alimony. And if you actually examined all the Womens rights movements from the 1800's upwards: They didn't want equality at all. They worked merely to gain control of "their children and husbands", as well as gain a monopoly on male sexuality(one of the reasons homosexuality was so reviled in the West).


Actually you will find that if you read some of the vast body of writing generated by the women who fought for female emancipations in the US, such as Sojouner Truth and Susan Anthony Brooks, you will find just how embarrassingly incorrect you are. The KKK, as you have exampled, probably did more to set back the cause than to promote. Why would hooded masked men, spreading hate and fear, be needed to stick their nose in unwantedly, if those women had possessed equal rights to them in courts of law. Women want to represent themselves, and their rights, not have a costumed fool do it for them. Not then, not ever.


Originally posted by korathin
That is one of the reason why various women's rights groups pushed for prohibition right after they got the right to vote(Yes prohibition was the very first thing women voters forced on the country after they got the right to vote). They got tired of their husbands going from work to the bar, then home to sleep. Never once did they ask themselves "why is my husband drinking so much", they only focused on how much on an inconvenience it was to them.


Who backed those prohibition votes? You think any vote gets through, like that, without effective lobbying at the back of it…and the money to pave the way, and grease palms? Ever read Titan, the biography of John D Rockerfeller? You should, it might shine some light on some things for you. You seem only able to comprehend the little picture. Your perception is very limited.


Originally posted by korathin
Not the fact their Husband just seen his buddy fall into a grinder. Or he is stressed out over the constant risk of losing his life on the job. Heck even now no one gives a damn about the 93% male death rate in the work place deaths(men make up 93% of workplace deaths).


Health and safety is not really the issue, neither is how a couple choose to run their families economy or their personal relationship and responsibilities.


Originally posted by korathin
Heck in the UK women's equality Ministers are flipping out demanding more be done because women's share of work related deaths by percentage increased(only because so many men lost their job's that the male work death raw numbers went down. The number of women killed on the job didn't increase at all).

Women's rights groups never once, till the 1980's worked towards earning a livable wage for themselves to support their children*. That would be/is highly honorable. But seeking the right to enslave another is disgusting tyranny at it's "finest".


One right at a time. Don’t you comprehend that? Rome was not built in a day, and it isn’t finished yet.


Originally posted by korathin
*There was a minority leftist women 's movement in the mid 1800's that wanted to work. But the Mothers of the Republic women's right's movement (fought for the right to be "kept women", stay at home mom's)that greatly, greatly outnumbered them, crushed them like bugs via violence and intimidation.


Choice. It is up to the individual how they exercise it…and it takes two to tango.

Originally posted by korathin
Google the WKKK, look this stuff up for yourself. There is no reason to perpetuate a lack of knowing. Because knowledge may not always bring power, but it sure as heck can bring freedom


I suggest you take your own advice and rely on something a little more substantial than Google.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join