Yes, however who are the consumers of those Ads, shows, and magazines? Other women. It's women that created that market, not men. Yes, men prefer women in shape, that's a reality, it can't be avoided, it was the mass want of women to achieve that, most likely to catch some stud themselves that is successful. You cannot blame men for the marketplace women created, that is not on us that is on the women that done so.
Why isn't there so much of it for boys? Well, on TV there's plenty of it, but why is it not as many? Because men care far less about their appearance, because they haven't given much of a marketplace for it, and in areas they do give a marketplace for it you deffo see it produced, such as physical fitness magazines which plaster well-built men in the front.
Let's not forget that there's a whole marketplace for romance novels which very much does fall in to showing how men should be sexy, but again men don't give much of a rats ass and women fill that marketplace.
Also, why come in on someone who didn't ask for you opinion and then say you're not going to waste any more of your energy as if they were just waiting for you to shine some input they never asked you for, it comes off as egotistical.
No, that market and those beauty standards were created by advertising and marketing agencies that were run by men, starting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to foster insecurity in and sexualize women in order to exploit them as consumers. That happened because of the industrial revolution and eventually intensified with the advent of suburban sprawl, the standardizing of electricity (hello time saving appliance) and television, which incorporated targeted advertising virtually from its beginnings as a live performance medium.) It's an intersectional phenomenon and it was embraced by many women because of technology and industry that gave women more time due to less labor in the home (washing machines, gas and electric ovens, refrigerators and equally importantly, manufactured food, particular food mixes and prepared foods, which not only took much of the labor out of cooking, but also the thinking, as well as buying raw ingredients and it's also important to note that the rise of supermarkets and fast food also had a particular effect on how women lived) and because men were the primary breadwinners, often working long hours, women became the primary consumers. I'm sure the trope of the wife spending the husband's money existed before the post-war consumer shift and the second wave of the women's movement (which was sandwiched between the African American movement and the LGBTQ+ movement) but as manufactured clothing became cheaper and make up and personal care products advanced technologically, there was a boom that was fueled by the post-WWII economic boom. WWII, as you might now, was the first time many women ever held jobs outside the home. The autonomy and freedom of movement the absence of a male dominated workforce provided during the war contrasted sharply to the increasingly empty lives women led due to advancing industry and technology, leading many women to outright refuse to continue on in the role of housewife. Women entering the workforce fed the rights movement, but a lot of women adopted beauty products and fashion in order to navigate the still male dominated work force. Mad Men is not an exaggeration, but later on you get women like Helen Gurley Brown, who was editor in chief at Cosmopolitan and is kind of credited with introducing the world to the trope of the sex positive single career woman. Sex in the City tries to be HGB, but what it really succeeds in is demonstrating how complex and often unsatisfying that is for many women who focus on self and career because it's an identity born out of capitalism and is at odds with the traditional roles of women in Western society, which of course, haven't died because they are supported by the accepted family structure, which is our primary cultural understanding of human relationships and interactions. I get what you're saying about romance novels. It's a valid thing, but maybe if women were more, as a matter of cultural course, encouraged and supported by the men in their lives and a male dominated society to live lives that weren't largely mediated through their relationships with men, which is reinforced by family, religion, and culture, as well as capitalism, (manufacturers, advertisers, and entertainment media are all intentionally fostering insecurity in women to stimulate consumerism, remember?) women wouldn't have the desire to pick out men's flaws and if more men treated the women in their lives as friends and equals (and I'm definitely not saying this is everybody, or that men should treat women as men, but as equally important, i.e., their needs matter just as much as yours and you put as much work into meeting their needs as they put into meeting yours,) a lot of those women wouldn't feel the need to even read novels about idealized men. Most women don't actually want a man who looks like Fabio. Fabio is fucking ridiculous. p.s. I love when men, (and I'm seeing it a lot on this site and this post,) call women egotistical for offering unsolicited criticism when they're doing the same fucking thing. Nobody fucking asked you what thought, either. Please consider the hypocrisy in that.
I'm not too fussy when it comes to grammar and what not, and although I can't say I've taken a liking to you, nor am I going to say it takes part in measuring your intelligence, could you please put what you say in paragraphs? It makes it easier to seperate points.
Those market places were created by people, let's just assume male (although today it certainly isn't exclusive to males), to reach a consumer group to make a profit. The industry would not of been sustainable if women were not interested, nor would it be sustainable if women did not stay interested. If some women became interested due to insecurity then that's their issue, not the free-market's. They didn't create it to make women they don't know insecure, they made it to make money, and the reason why it progressed so much is because women enjoy purchasing and viewing the products the industry creates. You're trying to blame men for what women buy, which not only devalues women as humans by taking away their agency but implies they're too emotionally immature to make decisions on what they buy to fit their wants.
Apologies but I'm drunk. I'd usually be able to pick out points from single blocks of text but not when I'm drunk so, on my part, I'm finding it difficult, so bare with me.
You say something about if men encouraged women to live life as if it isn't reliant on involvement men, and to that I say it isn't our jobs to tell you how to live your life. Sure, if a man is saying you need to live life by pleasing a man, he's an idiot and an asshole, but it isn't my place to teach you otherwise, I have my own life to lead. Aswell as that, I know for a fact women in general know this, that they don't need a man to live. The fact is that they want a man to live with, it's not a need, it's a want, a very strong want, same goes with men in regards to women, aswell as gays with gays and lesbians with lesbians, we all have that strong want to have that intimate connection to go through life with.
But what you said about romance novel men is interesting. You essentially imply that if men were better than they are then women wouldn't need romance novels, as a way to justify why women sexualize men in romance novels. You're essemtially saying that the reason why women sexualize men in romance novels is because average men don't meet the standard of the men in romance novels, and to that I have to say you're arguing against yourself. Your talk about the beauty standards can go along the same path. Men like these sexy women in magazines and TV because women don't meet the attractiveness standards men would prefer.
To make it more clear, you're saying:
The reason why women prefer men in romance novels is because they meet women's standards, even if they're very hard to obtain by the average male, regardless of if it makes men insecure.
Yet, say the reason why men prefer sexy women on TV and in magazines because they meet men's prefered standards of beauty is bad because it makes women insecure.
As for the hypocrisy part. Yes, you did ask me. You made a post on a public forum to the entire userbase. When I said it I was regarding someone who was responding to post directed to someone other than themselves. It's not hypocrisy.
Seriously Guys..
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Yes, however who are the consumers of those Ads, shows, and magazines? Other women. It's women that created that market, not men. Yes, men prefer women in shape, that's a reality, it can't be avoided, it was the mass want of women to achieve that, most likely to catch some stud themselves that is successful. You cannot blame men for the marketplace women created, that is not on us that is on the women that done so.
Why isn't there so much of it for boys? Well, on TV there's plenty of it, but why is it not as many? Because men care far less about their appearance, because they haven't given much of a marketplace for it, and in areas they do give a marketplace for it you deffo see it produced, such as physical fitness magazines which plaster well-built men in the front.
Let's not forget that there's a whole marketplace for romance novels which very much does fall in to showing how men should be sexy, but again men don't give much of a rats ass and women fill that marketplace.
Also, why come in on someone who didn't ask for you opinion and then say you're not going to waste any more of your energy as if they were just waiting for you to shine some input they never asked you for, it comes off as egotistical.
--
Anonymous Post Author
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
No, that market and those beauty standards were created by advertising and marketing agencies that were run by men, starting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to foster insecurity in and sexualize women in order to exploit them as consumers. That happened because of the industrial revolution and eventually intensified with the advent of suburban sprawl, the standardizing of electricity (hello time saving appliance) and television, which incorporated targeted advertising virtually from its beginnings as a live performance medium.) It's an intersectional phenomenon and it was embraced by many women because of technology and industry that gave women more time due to less labor in the home (washing machines, gas and electric ovens, refrigerators and equally importantly, manufactured food, particular food mixes and prepared foods, which not only took much of the labor out of cooking, but also the thinking, as well as buying raw ingredients and it's also important to note that the rise of supermarkets and fast food also had a particular effect on how women lived) and because men were the primary breadwinners, often working long hours, women became the primary consumers. I'm sure the trope of the wife spending the husband's money existed before the post-war consumer shift and the second wave of the women's movement (which was sandwiched between the African American movement and the LGBTQ+ movement) but as manufactured clothing became cheaper and make up and personal care products advanced technologically, there was a boom that was fueled by the post-WWII economic boom. WWII, as you might now, was the first time many women ever held jobs outside the home. The autonomy and freedom of movement the absence of a male dominated workforce provided during the war contrasted sharply to the increasingly empty lives women led due to advancing industry and technology, leading many women to outright refuse to continue on in the role of housewife. Women entering the workforce fed the rights movement, but a lot of women adopted beauty products and fashion in order to navigate the still male dominated work force. Mad Men is not an exaggeration, but later on you get women like Helen Gurley Brown, who was editor in chief at Cosmopolitan and is kind of credited with introducing the world to the trope of the sex positive single career woman. Sex in the City tries to be HGB, but what it really succeeds in is demonstrating how complex and often unsatisfying that is for many women who focus on self and career because it's an identity born out of capitalism and is at odds with the traditional roles of women in Western society, which of course, haven't died because they are supported by the accepted family structure, which is our primary cultural understanding of human relationships and interactions. I get what you're saying about romance novels. It's a valid thing, but maybe if women were more, as a matter of cultural course, encouraged and supported by the men in their lives and a male dominated society to live lives that weren't largely mediated through their relationships with men, which is reinforced by family, religion, and culture, as well as capitalism, (manufacturers, advertisers, and entertainment media are all intentionally fostering insecurity in women to stimulate consumerism, remember?) women wouldn't have the desire to pick out men's flaws and if more men treated the women in their lives as friends and equals (and I'm definitely not saying this is everybody, or that men should treat women as men, but as equally important, i.e., their needs matter just as much as yours and you put as much work into meeting their needs as they put into meeting yours,) a lot of those women wouldn't feel the need to even read novels about idealized men. Most women don't actually want a man who looks like Fabio. Fabio is fucking ridiculous. p.s. I love when men, (and I'm seeing it a lot on this site and this post,) call women egotistical for offering unsolicited criticism when they're doing the same fucking thing. Nobody fucking asked you what thought, either. Please consider the hypocrisy in that.
--
[Old Memory]
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I'm not too fussy when it comes to grammar and what not, and although I can't say I've taken a liking to you, nor am I going to say it takes part in measuring your intelligence, could you please put what you say in paragraphs? It makes it easier to seperate points.
Those market places were created by people, let's just assume male (although today it certainly isn't exclusive to males), to reach a consumer group to make a profit. The industry would not of been sustainable if women were not interested, nor would it be sustainable if women did not stay interested. If some women became interested due to insecurity then that's their issue, not the free-market's. They didn't create it to make women they don't know insecure, they made it to make money, and the reason why it progressed so much is because women enjoy purchasing and viewing the products the industry creates. You're trying to blame men for what women buy, which not only devalues women as humans by taking away their agency but implies they're too emotionally immature to make decisions on what they buy to fit their wants.
Apologies but I'm drunk. I'd usually be able to pick out points from single blocks of text but not when I'm drunk so, on my part, I'm finding it difficult, so bare with me.
You say something about if men encouraged women to live life as if it isn't reliant on involvement men, and to that I say it isn't our jobs to tell you how to live your life. Sure, if a man is saying you need to live life by pleasing a man, he's an idiot and an asshole, but it isn't my place to teach you otherwise, I have my own life to lead. Aswell as that, I know for a fact women in general know this, that they don't need a man to live. The fact is that they want a man to live with, it's not a need, it's a want, a very strong want, same goes with men in regards to women, aswell as gays with gays and lesbians with lesbians, we all have that strong want to have that intimate connection to go through life with.
But what you said about romance novel men is interesting. You essentially imply that if men were better than they are then women wouldn't need romance novels, as a way to justify why women sexualize men in romance novels. You're essemtially saying that the reason why women sexualize men in romance novels is because average men don't meet the standard of the men in romance novels, and to that I have to say you're arguing against yourself. Your talk about the beauty standards can go along the same path. Men like these sexy women in magazines and TV because women don't meet the attractiveness standards men would prefer.
To make it more clear, you're saying:
The reason why women prefer men in romance novels is because they meet women's standards, even if they're very hard to obtain by the average male, regardless of if it makes men insecure.
Yet, say the reason why men prefer sexy women on TV and in magazines because they meet men's prefered standards of beauty is bad because it makes women insecure.
As for the hypocrisy part. Yes, you did ask me. You made a post on a public forum to the entire userbase. When I said it I was regarding someone who was responding to post directed to someone other than themselves. It's not hypocrisy.