kurt vonnegut said:
Quote:
For instance, you said we should celebrate healthy bodies even though it looks different for everyone. This isn't a measurable standard that comes from society but from the individual. It does, in fact, lead to what I said. The natural response is, who are you to determine what is healthy for them? The question is always by what standard and your response doesn't have one that can stand up against the individual.
This sidebar on the thread came about because bigtruck was critical of a cultural phenomenon of 'celebrating obesity' where people are labeled as body shamers for pointing out obesity. I believe that I was pretty clearly on record as agreeing with him. What I aimed to point out is that there can also be a cultural standard of beauty which is unrealistic or unachievable for most women. The 'celebrate obesity' movement is a reaction to the 'women must look like and be built like a supermodel' in order to be considered attractive movement. Both spectrums / movements are problematic in different ways.
What I am advocating for is a cultural condition where people are encouraged to be healthy rather than aim toward some arbitrary standard of beauty. I accept that what is 'healthy' can be debated, but I view this position as preferable over alternatives that either set impossible standards or encourage obviously unhealthy lifestyles. People are built differently. A 'healthy' lifestyle applied to different bodies will not result in a uniform body type. I hardly think that is objectionable, right? For many women, no amount of diet and exercise and healthy living will make them look like a supermodel. And I think that is okay.
You apparently object to this, which is fine, but I'm not sure what you are advocating as the 'better' cultural position. I think we are in agreement in our understanding of celebrating obesity as a negative. Would it be better if we establish Heidi Klum as the standard of beauty and judge all women based on their ability to measure up to her? No? Then what position are you promoting here?
Quote:
You dehumanize yourself too. You're not Kurt the individual but a "straight white male". You're an avatar in your own mind, a canvas on which to paint stereotypes, a void which others fill with their ideas and preconceptions. You checked your privilege on a forum of people just like you before making a claim to moderation and you didn't discuss equality but equity. Those are not moderate concepts or a pendulum swinging back but acquiescence.
Recognition that I am a straight white man is a far cry from defining myself in those terms. I don't really know how to respond to this message above. You've projected a lot on me here. Where did I promote equity over equality? It sorta feels like I could state that the sky is blue, and you would object on the basis that I'm a liberal and therefore everything I say must be woke agenda pushing.
To a certain extent yes, you make many assumptions that I disagree with. For instance, the idea of the dialectic is inherent in your argument. There is a worldview difference I reject outright.
All cultural beauty standards are unattainable for most but that's not an inherently 'bad' thing. Nor does it make people feel 'bad' for failing to measure up; that's an individual response that is chosen. It simply means that in a given time and place, there is a general beauty preference. Most people find happiness outside of that and have historically, even when told to look like a supermodel, gotten married and had children.
What's new and given permission is for each individual to make a claim on beauty. That's not how beauty works. Like identity, it has to be recognized by others and the only path outside of this paradigm is that which recognizes an objective measure, something outside the individual that transcends them. Hence even deferring to 'healthy' isn't sufficient. Healthy has a range set by someone else and the body positivity movement rejects outside limitations. Beauty must always accept limitations outside itself (it is in the eye of the beholder, not the object itself). So that takes us back to where we originally were - culturally set definitions. It's not a new place.
To acknowledge yourself as a white heterosexual male before opining on people who aren't is to operate in a framework. To treat incidental characteristics as carrying weight in an argument is disingenuous. It centers individual experience as the measure of truth which is what you do when you make arguments such as yours, comparing yourself to being gay in 1900. So yes, it's part of a worldview that perhaps you're now blind to (which is perhaps why you view me as arguing with anything). 20 years ago you wouldn't have said and it would be unnecessary. You're using the language and arguments of equity while advocating for different things. Perhaps I can steal a line and say you can't take apart the master's house with the master's tools.
