@jazzabel: I agree in full that it's not as easy as one viewpoint. Not at all. This is why I stay out of those conversations in my 'terp chat groups, and as I am sure you can imagine, the subject comes up often given the nature of the job. I offer the example I gave only as a counterpoint that there is never a perfect solution, a perfect fix. They don't exist, really. Take any direction on the subject and it will harm someone in some way either directly or indirectly in the opposite direction. And I also keep my lip tight on the subject because I know that language ability is my gift. We all have a gift, it's just a matter of finding it and nurturing it. Languages come to me as easily as recipes. I start looking for patterns of function and interconnections and it starts to click into place for me. My hubby was a Spanish major with a minor in education. He went to school to be a teacher of Spanish and even he has difficulty following the reasoning of my line of questions when I hear something I don't understand or a structure that sounds odd or novel. So I know that I myself am, of all people, the poorest example to use when it comes to adapting to another culture's language. I am an aberration. But because, like you, I have lived a life that makes me a stranger in a strange land no matter where I am in the world, no patch of soil where I can stand and say "I am from here" without there being someone next to me saying "Yeah.... not really", I try and see it from all angles.
Again, I suggest you read my post a little more carefully. First, I said "are or claim" because some neos are genuinely worried while some only claim to be as an excuse to beat up people of different ethnicities. Or do you claim that every single neo-nazi is honest-to-God, truly, sincerely worried about their culture / national identity, that not a single one is touting the party lines just for looks while in reality they're just looking to drink, fight, and... well, few of the ones I've known had any idea what to do with women, so fucking doesn't enter the equation all that often. Second, as for the word 'worried,' some neos I've encountered have been what could be classified as 'worried,' meaning they either claimed to be or genuinely were worried their culture and race were being ruined by mixing with other cultures and races, that all the ethnic groups pouring in, "taking over" our country, bringing their cultures with them, mixing it with ours / theirs was damaging our national identity etc. What's weird about that? There have always been people who've been against those changes, but that resistance has always been and always will be futile because the only constant is change. Or then UK neo-nazis are very, very different from all the others I've met (and I've met and known quite a few, some of them well). I was talking about a slightly smaller picture than that. The size which shows quite clearly how stupid things like racism are, how irrational it is to cling to a fixed idea of a certain "culture" when what you have, say, now, or had 10 years ago, 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago is always only the result of the current state of mixed cultures, nationalities, skin / hair / eye colors etc. Do you think the Roman invasion of England didn't affect your culture? Or that of the vikings? Or the people running from the real nazis back during WWII? Why is our time any different from those eras? Btw, may I ask when do you feel the English culture was at its purest? 2014? 2004? 1954? 1514? 1014? 14? ...? @jannert, couldn't agree more. The fitness / figure / bodybuilding competitors should take a united stand against the judges in this matter. I'd imagine the judges could relate eventually because most of them are ex-competitors (although, then again, most of them are men, so not sure how understanding they'd be if they are like The Todd from Scrubs: "flat boobies make me mad."). And sometimes when I've asked girls why they wear high heels, they've said they make their legs and butts look better. I've always disagreed. I think both body parts look better with combat boots.
No one better than me! In the '50's, America had a huge influence in Japan. Japanese people loved the animated films, like Disney, so that influenced their art, leading to the rise of anime and manga! At least, that's how it was explained to me.
I've often wondered if men would say to women, "Look, you're very attractive, but it's hard to see past all that makeup and silly high heels," if that would have an effect. Or saying something like "Well, I prefer women in combat boots," or something like that. I think a lot of women think men expect them to wear makeup and heels, and to be told that some men DON'T might just be the brain-jog they need. I remember battling endlessly with my 1940's-era mother, when I was a teenager, because she WANTED me to wear makeup and high heels and all that stuff, and I wouldn't do it. She kept saying "You'll never get a man," despite the fact that I already had a boyfriend who was on the football team, etc. Try to tell her, "But mom, he HATES makeup." Nope, she wouldn't listen, because in HER day ...yakity yakity yak... That was in the 1960s, and I thought afterwards YAY, we've won THAT battle. So it bothers me a lot to see women returning to that old way of thinking again. Ach well. The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?
We differ in opinion on practically all of the above and I have things to be getting on with. @jannert I dont understand the whole heels and make up thing, my mrs doesnt wear make up often and only wears heels on rare occasions and none of thats ever at my request to be honest if shes dressed up, im not looking at her face or her feet
@jannert : Incidentally, it's always something that makes a woman more vulnerable and easier prey that's been historically considered 'desirable' or 'fashionable'. A woman can't easily run in high heels, certainly not in those porn star shoes that are now almost the norm on the streets. Small, fragile and vulnerable is also an image of a weak, easily dominated woman. Chinese foot binding, rings around necks of African women, which can be all released at once resulting in her breaking her neck instantly, being unnaturally pale in India or Africa (thus having less protection from the strong sun) or overtly dark (through sun tanning booths), taking arsenic for complexion in Victorian times, crinolines, corsets, awfully impractical dresses one has no chance of taking on or off without help, and even today, promoting self-destructivelly thin, plastic surgeried, made up, hair coloured, nail gelled images as the only desirable way to look. Certainly, even if she isn't physically weak, she's viewed as psychologically vulnerable attention seeker who, if she gets raped, 'shouldn't have looked so attractive' so in a way, she got what she was 'asking for'. It's all about weakness and lack of sense of agency. Traditionally, a weak, dependant woman was a beautiful woman. What a message to send the gender that has a biological need to be attractive. It's too easy, really. @Wreybies : Your descriptions of how you relate to language remind me of Tesla's autobiography, where he described in a similar way, how he 'sees' patterns and figures of how to do things simply in his mind's eye. It sounds like you are a genius for linguistics, really, I never met anyone else who could go that deep into a structure in the way you describe it.
I personally dont see the weakness connection, i thought heels were supposed to make the leg look longer and make women appear taller/thinner. As i understand it, men were the first to wear high heels, so im not sure if that ties into the weakness part. Besides, ive met some women in heels that are ferocious!! Also, the african neck rings thing isnt true, i remember seeing a national geographic episode showing how it effects the clavicle and ribcage in order to make the neck appear longer. It also mentioned status and marriage etc. I don't know any man that wants a women to be weak or vulnerable, i prefer a bit of fire.
@Lae : You may not see it that way, but it's a long established anthropological and sociological fact that's been researched, recorded and agreed upon countless times. This isn't to say this can't change and that we shouldn't keep reassessing it, just to indicate that it is an accepted fact and there's been no change to make us think we got things wrong. This is also not something I can educate you about in a comment, so I won't even go there. As far as African neck rings are concerned, anything that twists natural anatomy by as much as 45 degrees is damaging and by definition vulnerable and weaker than normal. Those women can't bend their necks or turn their heads nearly as freely as they could if they weren't wearing those rings. Do you know what even partial immobilisation of a muscular part of a body does to it? I do, and it isn't nice, comfortable or normal. However, researchers might not even be asking the right questions when they are assessing the impact of those things on women's quality of life, so the conclusion that they are 'comfortable' or 'not damaging' is likely flawed. These women were born into this custom, they know no different, and to them the pain and discomfort they are experiencing might be such a baseline, that they don't even identify it as such. This is also true of many other painful aesthetic customs, such as female genital mutilation, which is even perpetuated by women themselves. But here we are entering the domain of a Stockholm Syndrome, which is largely responsible for why some women seem to fervently support the mysoginistic customs, and even embrace them as 'empowering'. What I'm trying to say is, whenever a man sees something like that and claims that there is no problem, a small fairy dies
Most women just don't believe it when I voice my opinions on the matter or they choose to think that I'm a very rare anomaly. And I'm not even; many of my male friends don't really give a shit how their girl dresses (they're gonna imagine her naked most of the time anyway and their goal is to get her clothes off) as long as she's comfortable and some are more likely to drool after girls in steel-toed boots, BDU pants, and hoodies than those who look like Paris Hilton. I think like that as well; wear what you want, wear what makes you comfortable, but I do have a few exceptions to that rule that are my personal opinions either based on my own logic (e.g. I prefer combat boots or sneakers to high heels because if SHTF and we need to leg it, it helps if the lady can also do the 400-yard sprint next to me) or my taste (I just think combat boots look spiffy). That is not to say that all make-up looks bad (if I had to choose a style, I'm partial to the whole "metal / rock" look), but personally I'd save it for special occasions and if I had to choose just one look for the rest of our time together, it would be au naturel. To me, it's ridiculous that some offices actually expect their female employees to wear make-up and heels to work every fucking day. Just like it's ridiculous that fitness competitors must wear high heels, make-up, and fake tits or else. I mean, come on, they're athletes, not beauty pageant competitors!
Okay. Challenge. Find a pair of high heeled shoes that fit you, and in the privacy of your own home, try walking around in them, for, say, an hour. Walk up and down stairs. Try to do some work. No fair sitting down, just stay on your feet. THEN tell me it doesn't make you a lot weaker, in terms of being able to deal with stuff. If you had to hurry somewhere, or dodge traffic, or run for a bus, or get away from a bad situation. Just how easy would it be?
Oh, I'm not against people wearing playful makeup, ie metal/rock stuff. That's a different kettle of fish, than feeling you need to walk out of the house every day plastered in lipstick and foundation because you are ugly and unfeminine underneath. Face painting is fun, as is theatrical makeup (which is what I would call 'metal' makeup.) Theatre is not the same as being made to think you need to repair your 'imperfect' appearance by disguising 'faults'.
i meant that i dont think it was designed to make women weak and vulnerable, not that it doesnt make them. I would know, im Leanne on weekends.
I'm reminded of that saying about Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire - "She did all the same steps he did, but SHE did them in high heels!"
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you had anything against that sort of make-up, I was just speaking generally. And I'm not sure if we're talking about the same kind of metal make-up: I don't mean corpse paint, just a good dose of black eyeliner and black eyeshadow. I see that look at the uni quite often and I've seen it on at least one girl in the office I used to work at, so it's not that explicit. Oh yeah: No problem, take your time. I'd still like to know which period of the English culture you see as the "true" English culture.
I'd classify that as fun, not a search for media-manipulated female perfection . It's not designed to disguise flaws, but rather to make a statement, to advertise a lifestyle attitude that is chosen, not forced.
According to the all knowing Wikipedia, high heels originated as riding boots, Persian ones being the oldest known. If I recall, cowboys all wore high heels, a group well known for their weakness. As for health, from the same WP article: In 2008, Cerruto et al. reported results that suggest that wearing high heels may improve the muscle tone of a woman's pelvic floor, thus having a potential effect on female stress urinary incontinence. [19] In the original publication, the principal author, Dr. Maria Angela Cerruto of the Department of Biomedical and Surgical Sciences, Urology Clinic, University of Verona, Italy, writes that with her publication she wants to respond to an earlier article in the Daily Mail (29 October 2007) concerning the hypothesis that heeled footwear might cause schizophrenia. I do not have the skills to refute or confirm this hypothesis, but as a woman reading nonscientific papers, I remain astonished in the face of bizarre medical theories published in nonscientific journals in the absence of any scientific filter or key reading, because they might be misunderstood. [...] I am a urologist and I collaborate with physiatrists, with the aim of better understanding the relationship between posture and pelvic floor muscle activity in women with and without stress urinary incontinence.[19] In the publication, the study results of Cerruto et al. show that in both incontinent and continent young women (<50 yr old) an ankle plantar flexion might cause a posterior pelvic tilt that is able to maintain a pelvic muscle tone. Comparison with previous study results[20] shows that the pelvic muscle tone induced by wearing heels is comparable with that from wearing flat moccasins, but enhancing the contractile power of the pelvic musculature actively. During the study various shoe sizes and heel heights were investigated, measuring the maximal pelvic floor muscle activity (in µV) for shoe sizes 37–41 (US size 5.5–9.5) and heel heights from 0 (flat moccasins) to 7 centimeters.[19] Based on study results, Cerruto et al. conclude that heels might affect female pelvic floor muscle activity, reducing myofascial pelvic pain, relaxing the pelvic floor, and improving pelvic organ well-being. Additional to the publication in European Urology, Cerruto et al. also presented the results of their study at the 2007 European Association of Urology Congress in Berlin.
Heels DO look good. One, it makes a woman look taller. Two, it corrects her posture. Three, it accentuates her calves and more importantly her buttocks. Four, and this is rare today at least in the states, where class and grace have all but disintegrated (for male and female alike) and hence all the hobbling, but if done properly, heels can allow for a sexy walk that make you look like Tyra. Heels are awesome, and that's why they have endured despite the pain they might induce. *** Also, I can add that from the male perspective, there is something extremely attractive about a female with long legs stumbling in heels. Some sort of primitive instinct gets triggered.
Oh, did I fail to mention? Wearing heels often enough to acquire expertise in walking in a tall, sexy manner while wearing them also wrecks "her" calf muscles by shortening them, to where it becomes painful to stand on the flat. Wearing high heels totally wrecks the alignment of "her" foot, hence all the gel gizmos on the market just now that are designed to cushion the balls and heels of "her" feet. Just ask any doctor. And the pointy-toe ones give "her" bunions and hammer toes, which are VERY sexy indeed. And wearing them as a matter of habit puts "her" back out of alignment, so in later years she pays for her youthfully sexy walk by hobbling around town with a cane. Again, just ask any doctor. And for every one I see sashaying along like "Tyra", I see 10 who are hobbling or lurching from step to step, which is not terribly sexy, unless it's your thing. Furthermore, they look incredibly stupid doing it, which is DEFINITELY not sexy, unless it's your thing. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. You like tall, self-crippled, stupid women with their bums in the air ...fine, they're all around us.
I'm afraid you've missed the point with this one. Cowboys wore boots with heels because the heels prevented the boots from slipping through the stirrups. Ditto any other riding boot. They were not designed for walking any distance. Cowboys notoriously hated walking in the boots, by the way, and preferred to be sitting a horse rather than clumping around on foot. And the heels of old-fashioned cowboy boots were only a couple of inches high, and quite sturdy. AND most of them had the underslung Cuban heel, which means the weight of their bodies, when walking did not come down on the heel of their foot as hard as it does with women's high heeled shoes. I've done tons of research into cowboy clothing and gear, and have several shelves of books relating to this subject, as it's a subject I write about. As I sit here typing, I have a photo (for research purposes) of an old-time pair of cowboy boots tacked up on my corkboard behind my computer. The base of the underslung heel is about 2 inches wide, 3 inches long, and the back of the foot is raised about 2 inches from the ball of the foot. Compare that to spike-heeled fashion shoes, or even today's fashion cowboy boots, worn by women? I worked for many years as a doctor's receptionist, and saw first-hand what bad shoes can do to women's feet. And I'm not talking elderly women either. I'm talking women in their 30s and 40s, with such badly deformed feet due to high heels that they had to regularly visit a chiropodist, and could no longer wear high heels at all—and who complained constantly that their feet were 'killing them.' One of the women I worked with could only wear sandals, because her toes were so deformed she couldn't wear normal shoes at all. And never mind the patients with sprained ankles and broken legs and twisted knees, from falling off their shoes. It's not a joke, folks. It really isn't.
@Bryan Romer : Your link is a perfect example how any claim can be supported by a link from Google. But not all information (or study) is created equal, and information itself isn't a substitute for understanding or knowledge. In fact, at work we 'affectionately' call it a 'Google doctor' and you'd be surprised what kind of irrelevant and sometimes downright wrong stuff patients dig up in the depths of internet. Just because a doctor put their name to something, doesn't mean it's relevant information. 1. Compare cowboy boots, with 1 1/2 inch wide, solid heel on a comfortable boot (otherwise known as 'not very feminine, sensible librarian shoes) which are designed to help them ride all day (not walk), with your average stiletto or court shoe or a platform with 5+ inch heels which are thin, unstable and considered beautiful and feminine. Actually, female-style high heel shoes are more akin to Chinese foot binding than cowboys. Cinderella is, after all, a Chinese fairytale only appropriated for the western reader. 2. I'm a lot more concerned about extremely debilitating effects high heels have on women's musculoskeletal system, than an incidental benefit on incontinence. Pelvic floor exercises, one of the well known prevention and treatment methods for the urinary incontinence, works well and doesn't have awful side effects such as foot ligament inflammation and shortening, stress fractures, bunions and deformities, arthritis of the knees, lower back pain, leg muscle atrophy and the list goes on. I spent 15 years in heels every day. When I finally tried to wear flats, it took me 18 months of hopping around and limping, until I stretched my calf muscle enough to be able to put my foot down. Once I rehabilitated my foot, getting onto even 3 inch heels (considered 'sensible' and conservative) I experience instability and discomfort that I now remember just stubbornly walking through as a teenager. Because I wanted my legs to look longer and butt tighter. If I knew then what I realised later on, I'd have stuck to my Pumas and Doc Martens all the way. And according to orthopaedic surgeons, mixing and matching heels and flats is also really bad for your back, so that isn't a healthy option either. Whichever way you look at it, heels are bad, and it's in very poor taste when men, who don't have to wear them, laugh it all off and insist on 'sexiness'. Like, really annoying.
Agreed. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why it appeals to me if there has to be make-up. I blame both sexes for the whole situation, men for perpetuating it and women for going along with it. When it comes to looks, I doubt we'll ever reach true equality or it'll be in the far, far future as things need to change in a major way for real equality to become the norm in this regard. Looks are also a double-edged sword: there's more pressure on women to look a certain way and the ideals are often less healthy than those imposed on men, but, then again, in normal social interaction, women wield far more power with their looks than your average man. A cute girl need only walk into a club and she'll essentially have to shoo guys away form her whereas a cute guy can walk into the same club and chances are, if he doesn't take the initiative, he'll get to spend the evening in peace. The same goes for online dating: if a pretty girl posts a picture on her profile, she'll get more contacts within the first few hours than she knows what to do with (the number of messages can be in the hundreds in one week). If a good-looking guy does the same, he'll get only a few contacts per week at best. I've also noticed this on forums: even though neither of us makes it a secret that we're married (we often even mention it up front when entering a new community), KaTrian routinely gets far more contacts from men than I do from women. Granted, most of the contacts we get are respectful and related to something else than flirting etc, but there are always those guys who make it their sacred duty to tell her how beautiful she is. Of course, that might be a culture clash as well; in some cultures, it's even expected of men to complement women's looks even if they aren't looking to hit on her and even if she's married, but where we're from, especially if the compliments are given in private, it's intrusive and doesn't get a positive reaction. Speak for yourself. If looks are concerned, I prefer women who look like they are comfortable both mentally and physically, whatever it is they are wearing. And now that it was brought up, I think women's butts look better in "normal-heeled" footwear, be they sneakers / hikers / combat boots / whatever, but I might be in the minority on this one. I also think men's butts look better in normal-heeled footwear. Maybe it's also a generation thing: older guys are often stuck in the old way of looking at women, heels and all, while younger guys usually just don't care, they like women and their butts in whatever the women prefer. And there's the cultural thing: in countries like Finland, the sexes are pretty equal, especially among younger generations. In general of course. It's usually old farts who insist Russian women in miniskirts, fishnets, heavy make-up, and fake boobs are Real Women and women in normal jeans, sneakers, and hoodies with no make-up are abominations and border on men without balls. I've never heard a young guy say anything to that effect around here (culture probably affects this as well). ETA: I always thought the heel of the cowboy boots was to prevent them from slipping from stirrups and making it that much more effective when you stomp on some jackass's foot.
Jannert, can't argue with the medical details. That's something that has to be accounted for in all future arguments, for sure. What can I say, then, but that women seem to get by?Certainly the super models do. If nothing else, we can fall back on "everything in moderation, including moderation itself." Let's delve deeper. You mentioned "beauty is in the eye of the..." cliche, so I want to throw by you three hypothetical women, each of them anywhere between a 6 and 7 on the 1-10 scale (anything lower is probably not so noticeable and anything higher can start to get away with breaking more rules, eg, there are exceptions). All three are identical. Girl 1 is in heels (and a killer outfit to match), back is erect, her butt's out, she's strutting like a runway model. Girl 2 is in heels (also in a nice outfit), but she's stumbling all over the place. Girl 3 is in flats (and less striking clothes to match) and she's walking normal. Again, all three girls are identical in all ways except for the walks and attire. Girl 1 is going to get the most attention. Look around you. This is the reality. She worked for it. Her feminine body parts are accentuated, and she's got an above average walk. Yeah, not everyone can do what the runway models do, and that's why they're great. Plus she's got the clopping going on, and who doesn't love horses? Girl 2 is going to get the left over stares. Yeah, maybe she looks like a bit of a moron, stumbling all over the place, but I'm sorry, that has its appeal to male's natural predatory instincts. Don't discriminate against men born with more testosterone! Girl 3 is just a girl, just one of the many many other girls walking. She hasn't done anything to earn any bit of extra attention. We're not talking about health, or anything else, we're talking pure aesthetics and what will grab attention. T_Trian can say he finds girls bodies more attractive in regular shoes all he wants, but he's the minority in this, which is why heels have been so popular for so long. The simple reality is that it is attention grabbing. Whether a girl wants attention or not is an entirely different story. You mentioned health, and might I add to you that in the capitalistic world we all adhere to, nobody gives much of a ****. If you don't want to work long hours for sub par pay, they'll find someone else. If you don't want to wear heels, someone else will, and is going to get the stares and be called beautiful. Before I get called shallow, I want to point out that we are actively engaging in a discussion centered around aesthetics, and before I get called misogynistic, I want to point out my expectations on attraction run both ways. @T.Trian wants to say it's a generational thing- that young men don't care about this stuff, which may be true (although T, I think I'm younger than you), but that's simply because their expectations have lowered, and you can see it in their appearances too. Young scruffy men with stick arms, slouches, and sagging stomachs So, I have to ask, what is the problem? Let the Dons (tall, square jawed, traditionally masculine) have the Valencias (heels, good posture, sexy walk) and let everyone else bathe in mediocrity, again, aesthetically speaking.
For posterity sake @123456789 , my sister was a model and I've known loads of them and let it be told that you'll be hard pressed to find a model in heels or make up in their spare time. They loathe the heels especially because they are so tall, it hurts their feet and back and they tower over everyone. Most beautiful models, and I'm talking London Fashion Week and the like, without make up and clothes, usually look very ordinary and 'mediocre'.
I've no idea what age you are and it's really beside my point. I just commented that it's mostly old fogies around here who complain about it if a girl dares to dress in practical and comfortable outfits. Sure, there are exceptions to every rule: some old guys appreciate a simpler look, some youngsters stain their Kleenex thinking of Tyra, but generally speaking, what I said has been my (subjective) observation. I also wouldn't equate fashionable clothes with physical fitness. Plenty of athletes wear simple, comfortable, and practical outfits even when they're out and about and plenty of people in fashionable outfits are out of shape sticks or overweight, trying (usually in vain) to compensate with heels and expensive outfits, hoping they would make them look better. That being said, I don't really see the connection between heels and good posture vs. no heels and bad posture or a man who prefers women in heels and is fit vs. preferring women in comfy / practical clothes and being a fat / weak slob. Come to think of it, most serious athletes I know, do prefer nice-looking but practical and comfortable clothes and shoes, men and women alike. And you know what? They look great because their bodies are trim and fit, i.e. they could wear potato sacks and they'd still outshine skeletal or overweight people in designer garb. Well, in my humble opinion, of course. I did say everyone should wear what they want, so there's no problem on my part when it comes to women who love heels and designer dresses, boob and rib jobs, botox, and whatnot. Problems arise when that's presented as the only real acceptable option, that if you want to look good, get a job, a partner, and friends, advance your career etc, you have to do things that cause discomfort or even harm, like spend hours every day in heels or have cosmetic surgery. Kinda like you present the Valencias (heels, good posture, sexy walk) vs. no heels, bad posture, unsexy walk, i.e. mediocrity. Btw, just so you know, heels don't give a woman good posture or a sexy walk. Besides, the heavily altered (made-up, cut up etc) looks are boring to me. Sure, that look works for some situations (like catalogue modeling, Hollywood galas, porn etc), but I've always preferred a more natural look, something that you see in high fashion as well, so it's not all about trying to impersonate a blank wall. @jazzabel, I'd have to agree with all of that. Back in high school there was a girl who modeled in Milan and she preferred regular clothes and never wore heels to school and very little make-up. Clearly she wasn't mediocre or anything because she was a high fashion model, but hey, what do I know?
