Feminists and nonconformists - where do your goals come from?

I'm more concerned about improving my health and if losing weight allows me to also get into a smaller size clothing all the better. I want to feel good about myself, by that I mean being healthy enough to do the things I want to do, especially spend time with my grandchildren being active.

Since I'm 5'3 and was 271 pounds at my heaviest, it was only luck that my weight hadn't negatively impacted my health. However, it was only a matter of time and really, I want to see my children grow up, want to enjoy life, want to ride my bike, want to hike. want to live my life and not sit, addled with health complications, watching it go by.

So no, not society, but my own desire for a better quality life.

CoffeeNCardio wrote: »

As a very outspoken advocate against body-shaming, and a born and bred feminist, I can happily say that it's MY body and I'll make it look however I dam well please. If that happens to mimic societal beauty standards, so be it. I know what I want to look like. I know how I want to feel (energetic and happy). And uterus notwithstanding, I'm perfectly capable of making that decision in spite of the fashion industry.

I also really like clothes I find pretty. I like to feel pretty. I have no issue existing in both spheres and cannot comprehend why I shouldn't.

Being a feminist doesn't mean you have to stop caring what you look like. It means you don't let other people decide that for you. Whether that be some guy saying you're ugly because you don't meet his standard of sexual desirability (cause you are more than a sexual object) or some other woman saying you need to meet standards to be socially acceptable.

Unless it's Kim Kardashian?

Fifty something grandma here, I have lost significant weight and achieved major health gains but I am still officially obese.

If I belch, shave, fart, and jiggle my belly fat in front of my hubby, have I achieved equality?

I undertook this weight loss to get my health and mobility back. A leaner body can do things like enter a tough mudder or hike a mountain.

As for dressing up and painting up, I treat it as a bit of theatre to increase my influence. Standing tall, a sparkle in the eye, a great haircut and a conspiratorial grin do more than all the outward dressings.

Now, combine that with an intelligence with something worthwhile to say.....

HA! They change the channel to the Kardashians.

EQComics wrote: »

People who talk about "society's expectations" talk like "society" is some separate entity or something. It's us. *We* are "society." You can choose to be attractive to us (which includes you), or not. It just so happens that what we find healthy also happens to be physically attractive, too, so it's a double-whammy of good for anybody who gets healthy.

It is and it isn't. If the society as a whole, all the individual components of society, and biology were all in perfect harmony, then beauty standards would never vary from time to time and place to place, and they do, quite widely. They change over time and across cultures. So yes, "we" are all a part of society but "we" as individuals and subsets of society can and should question the received expectations and standards, especially for things like aesthetics that often *aren't* strongly linked to health. It's a pretty broad stretch to say that all the things we find attractive in our current society are also signs of health. Plenty of them aren't, or aren't necessarily.

Huge swaths of society would tell you that a "healthy tan" is attractive, and they really feel that way, even as we know that there's no such thing as "healthy tanning." And two hundred years ago, those same tans would have been seen as unattractive and very pale complexions were prized- tanning-as-beautiful is a relatively recent development.

Quite low BMIs achieved through unhealthy means like intense restriction, purging, drug use, or exercise bulimia are celebrated in some circles. Likewise, plenty of people will tell you that female body builders and figure competitors in amazing physical health are unattractive to them. In other times and places, permanently mutilated feet, wasp waists from tightlacing, hairline plucking, etc, have all been considered attractive, and have nothing to do with health.

There's a correlation between beauty standards and health- few people find overt signs of disease sexy- but it's not a particularly strong one.

I've struggled my whole life with this, now at age 36 I feel comfortable with myself and my imperfect body. Now I'm starting to get back in shape to prevent health issues and a little vanity always helps. I actually thank Kim Kardashian, J-lo and other beautiful but different body types from whatt used to dominate as being attractive (waif look etc). It's made different shaped women more accepted , not that I need the acceptance but it certainly helps.

cristalball wrote: »

How do you know if you are bowing to society's views and pressures to try to obtain the "ideal" body or if your goals are more internally and personally motivated? Or does it even matter? I ask because I'm not sure for my own goals and was curious about others.

After reading some of the later replies on this thread, I have an afterthought.

Digging into your wording, it seems like you're questioning your own motives (though maybe I'm reading too much into it).

In my mind, if we feel that the dark side of our culture works to undermine women, objectify our bodies, and soften us up to better absorb whack-a-doo marketing messages . . . then ego strength and confidence are subversive to that.

If you want to look a certain way, I don't see a need to agonize over your motives. Just own it. Be confident; pursue your goals. Your way of thinking about it, or your goals themselves, may change over time, and that's fine, too. But you're not talking about a situation where your choices have ethical or material implications for others. Do what you want; why worry about why?

newmeadow wrote: »

rainwater467 wrote: »

I feel like the feminist movement told women that they should work. I wanted to stay home when I had children. I felt like many considered this decision weak. I think women should support each other rather than criticize. Be good to yourself a do what makes you happy.

Yeah thanks neofeminism. Which was promoted in the 1960s by wealthy and educated women who didn't have to work and would be inheriting a bundle. Usually from their daddies. Bad, evil paternalistic structure, huh?

They successfully convinced the female majority - from a vastly less privileged socio/economic niche coincidently - that working full time instead of choosing full time motherhood would be fun and empowering. Who could forget the polyester, shoulder padded chicky business ensembles of the 1980s, complete with ruffled collar?

What they didn't tell us is that doubling the workforce by having women enter it en masse made wages plummet for everyone and cheapened the workplace social culture as a whole. It also drove the market to require bachelor's degrees for jobs that used only require common sense and competency, thanks to the incredible competition for work. Crippling student debt anyone? Oops.

So now there is no choice for most women who have children. They have to work full time. So how is it gals? Fun and empowering?

There is always a choice. I think that is the point that @rainwater467 was making. The problem comes from being judged as "less than" because her choice was to go the traditional route.

I am a SAHM, as well. I have heard people (other women, mostly, though some men have, as well) make comments regarding mothers who don't work. We are often perceived as being lazy and we are looked down upon for choosing to stay home. My family has taken a financial hit due to my staying home, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. And I don't let anyone else's opinion on the subject bother me.

newmeadow wrote: »

rainwater467 wrote: »

I feel like the feminist movement told women that they should work. I wanted to stay home when I had children. I felt like many considered this decision weak. I think women should support each other rather than criticize. Be good to yourself a do what makes you happy.

Yeah thanks neofeminism. Which was promoted in the 1960s by wealthy and educated women who didn't have to work and would be inheriting a bundle. Usually from their daddies. Bad, evil paternalistic structure, huh?

They successfully convinced the female majority - from a vastly less privileged socio/economic niche coincidently - that working full time instead of choosing full time motherhood would be fun and empowering. Who could forget the polyester, shoulder padded chicky business ensembles of the 1980s, complete with ruffled collar?

What they didn't tell us is that doubling the workforce by having women enter it en masse made wages plummet for everyone and cheapened the workplace social culture as a whole. It also drove the market to require bachelor's degrees for jobs that used only require common sense and competency, thanks to the incredible competition for work. Crippling student debt anyone? Oops.

So now there is no choice for most women who have children. They have to work full time. So how is it gals? Fun and empowering?

Bitter, much? Now in my 7th decade, I can concur that folks always seem to have an agenda for other folks. Sometimes it is coupled, as with @newmeadow 's remarks, with the idea that the "rightful" wage earners were somehow deprived. Sorry, not buying that particular victim fantasy.

With regard to the question at hand, cultural standards change over time - seems like at present, women are getting to decide for themselves. But are we immune from the larger cultural context? Nope. It's all good, tho.

DavPul wrote: »

newmeadow wrote: »

rainwater467 wrote: »

I feel like the feminist movement told women that they should work. I wanted to stay home when I had children. I felt like many considered this decision weak. I think women should support each other rather than criticize. Be good to yourself a do what makes you happy.

Yeah thanks neofeminism. Which was promoted in the 1960s by wealthy and educated women who didn't have to work and would be inheriting a bundle. Usually from their daddies. Bad, evil paternalistic structure, huh?

They successfully convinced the female majority - from a vastly less privileged socio/economic niche coincidently - that working full time instead of choosing full time motherhood would be fun and empowering. Who could forget the polyester, shoulder padded chicky business ensembles of the 1980s, complete with ruffled collar?

What they didn't tell us is that doubling the workforce by having women enter it en masse made wages plummet for everyone and cheapened the workplace social culture as a whole. It also drove the market to require bachelor's degrees for jobs that used to only require common sense and competency, thanks to the incredible competition for work. Crippling student debt anyone? Oops.

So now there is no choice for most women who have children. They have to work full time. So how is it gals? Fun and empowering?

There's at least 83 things wrong with this post

I think you're low balling that. By a lot.