Communicator (communicator) wrote,
Communicator
communicator

Judgement of Paris

Thanks to trixieleitz for providing a link to this page, which is a celebration of a more healthy model of female beauty than the one promulgated by mass media.

The judgement of paris site has obviously been set up by a guy who likes junoesque ladies. However I think it's a warm and respectful tribute, not a leering or belittling one.

I think there is a big mix up in leftist/feminist circles about attitudes to beauty. FWIW I think that beauty is not democratic or fair. Some women are just more beautiful than others. You can't fight this, and it makes feminism look ridiculous to even try. But, as a feminist, there are two issues to do with beauty which I think we can address, by arguing against lazy conventional thinking.

The first is the idea that women who are not beautiful are ridiculous and worthy of condemnation. For example, a plain woman could make just as good a doctor or politician as a pretty woman, and she should not be judged more harshly than a similarly plain man would be. I detest Anne Widdecombe, and adore Mo Mowlam. Their level of physical attractiveness doesn't enter into it.

The second is the way an artificially strict definition of beauty is put forward as if it was the law of gravity or something. I can't argue with a person who says that they find any woman who is not stick-thin and under 25 to be ugly. This may be their personal feeling. But it is not the law. I look about me and I see people forming relationships, which seem to satisfy them, based on much more friendly and inclusive attractions. Are these people wrong? No.

I agree that not everyone is equally beautiful. But lots of people are quite beautiful, and that means the rest of us are quite lucky, and should stop griping.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic
  • 5 comments