all 22 comments

[–]meranii 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Couldn't agree more. It's not more authentic, unless you're a brainless idiot you already know that women have stretch marks/cellulite/rolls/wrinles/hair on their body, it's just instagram advertising finding a new niche that they can wring some money out of. It's not aimed at men to get them to stop shaming women with unrealistic beauty standards (they're too busy jerking it to bikini pics of underage girls on insta anyway), it's aimed at insecure women who are more likely to spend their money with companies that give them the feeling they're "celebrating" their natural bodies. If this advertising trend doesn't work out for them they're right back to airbrushing everything.

I personally don't care if the models of the online shops I frequent have clear skin, cellulite or scars or whatever, but 99% of the models there are still size 00 and1.80m tall, I would actually appreciate if they had more average body types so the clothes won't fit completely different on 99.9% of their female customers. That would be a pragmatic change in my eyes.

[–]powpowpowpow 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In a way, I think its a bit positive, speaking as someone who heavily struggled with their body image

When I first saw an IG girl having belly rolls, celulite and stretch marks I felt like I wasn't weird or a freak anymore because I wasn't the only one and its ok

So yeah, even if it comes from the wrong place I think it can bring something positive out of it, but I agree that packaging it as woke, stunning and brave can get quite aggravating

[–]jet199 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

The thing is the non empowering version has the same effect.

Thousands of women read the Daily Mail to see celebrities' cellulite and make themselves feel better.

Pretending is either stunning or shameful is not helpful. It's just normal.

[–]powpowpowpow 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, what I meant is that it is good for these things to have visibility, that's all

I agree that shouldn't be any type of packaging besides "it's normal"

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Maybe. But we live in a capitalist world. In the end we will need to pay money to get some goods. Might as well support a company willing to acknowledge your needs than one that goes out of their way to ignore it and gaslight you into buying clothes that are uncomfortable. I do for example like wearing Aaerie over Victoria secret even though surprisingly VS more bra sizes for different shapes than aaerie. But VS is uncomfortable and a lot of it is design to be sexy for men than comfortable for women. Aaerie actually shows women of my age and body type and in fact their clothes feel very comfortable. Same with Soma. I didn’t find either ads of those stores sexual actually. If I need new bras and I have limited budget, who do you think I would support? Someone willing to meet my needs.

Yes it’s capitalism. I’m just wondering how would a communism handle different body types exactly?

[–]vitunrotta 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I’m just wondering how would a communism handle different body types exactly?

I don't see the relevance here, honestly. It's not like there's only two options: full-blown capitalism or China-type communism. Yes, we require functioning economies and to an extent, therefore, also capitalism - but it needn't be just that. We should have countries where the economy is for the people, instead of people existing solely to keep up the economy. That is the essence of hardcore capitalism - to keep people as mindless little worker ants and bring massive riches to a handful of people (who aren't even taxed!). And need I mention there is no such thing as "trickle down economics..." Such trite.

Coming from a social democracy myself, I do believe a middle ground can be reached (even in bigger countries than the endlessly quoted Nordic countries). The biggest issue in my opinion for Americans especially is this strange idea that ANY socialist idea is basically 100% communism and/or totalitarianism & fascism. Not sure if you are from the U.S. but a lot of people from there have such peculiar, visceral reaction to functional, mildly socialist ideas (like, free health care, education etc.). I just don't get it. It's very backwards.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why would the discussion of body type acceptance and communism not be relevant in a thread about body type acceptance and capitalism esp. in a sub that is anti capitalism and has a basis for marxism. Capitalism is still about goods and services sold for profit. If there is a market for it they will exploit it. So how would communism handle it? What would the feminist thing be in that case? I am genuinely asking since I think it’s easy to critize something you notice and not so much something you imagine.

You gave me the same talking points about communism everyone on both sides of the debate bring up like a mantra. I came from a semi socialist country and I think body acceptance there was easier because people had fewer but tailored clothes. People would get the cloth and get a tailor to stitch it to the design and measurement of the person. In fact I think western world issue with body acceptance is mostly created because of the mass production of already stitched clothes. You can standardize it only so far and everyone else will have to adjust to it. It’s the sacrifice people need to do for efficiency. Mass produced clothes are never going to fit perfectly. Then there is imagery in advertising where it gets troubling I guess. In the end people have needs many times it’s individual. This thread complains that is just capitalism that’s driving the body acceptance movement. Sure but that’s because they identified a market. They are playing within the parameters of the economic system we have. How would body acceptance play out on a communist system? In the end communist systems will still have to produce goods towards more varied set of people. They would still have to advertise to their target demographic. Criticizing advertising never made sense to me to be honest esp. what I usually see in communist circles.

[–]vitunrotta 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Right. So firstly - my bad that I read your comment in a thwarted way. You’re right in that capitalism exists to mainly exploit any and every person, and also any and every ideology, like feminism. They just neatly wrap it up in a sellable package and boy do we buy into that shit.

I am completely confused why you keep bringing communism into the discussion as if it was the only way to fight capitalism, though. I am personally VERY anti-capitalist and also VERY anti-communist (but still fiscally very left). In fact, I’d wager most people are but hey that’s just my guess.

Few facts: Capitalism is horseshit and exists only to create massive amounts of wealth for a very few people, usually by sheer exploitation of the poor and uneducated and in some cases literal slavework. Communism is horseshit and exists only to keep big crowds under totalitarian power, and allows the nation to have full control of any and every aspect of any individual’s life that resides there. Scare tactics, you may say.

Conclusion - both are nothing but a “nice” idea that is advertised (in capitalism, literally) as some kind of freedom - when they’re anything BUT.

I tried explaining that there is a lot more grey area between these two extreme ideologies (or whatever they should be called) and some countries have very successfully found the best way of mixing the two worlds (this is CERTAINLY not to say things are perfect, but there’s a middle ground for sure).

I must admit I am at a loss as to what “semi-socialist” means? I will not ask you to announce your country of origin as I fully respect your right to privacy, but if possible, is there another very similar country you could think of being “semi-socialist” so that I can have an idea of what this actually means?

Finally and most importantly: it’s completely redundant to talk about “how would a communist be more feminist” because they are literally known for the complete lack of free speech - which is the FIRST, most important, imperative thing to have in any society to have even ONE feminist (who can call herself that without fearing for their life). So no, communism would not be any more understanding or body positive or any of that - it would force its own ideals down your throat just like capitalism does. Perhaps I am not understanding your point of view? Am I missing something here? I’m quite confused, in all honesty, feel free to clarify your points if you have time.

In the meantime I can say from actual, lived experience that a socialist democratic country/way of running one is at this moment THE most equal in every way and also allows women (and men) much more freedom to express themselves in what ever way they want or don’t, and very few people care how others look, who they marry, what religion they follow (or don’t) etc.

I’ll reiterate: both big C’s are bullshit. To me it feels like I’m trying to discuss if the best way to treat cancer is to eat blueberries or blackberries. Que confusão.

Edit; clarified wording.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well Gender Critical is a radical feminist movement and it’s foundation is in Marxism. Marxism has ties to communism, hence why I bring it up. I’m anti capitalist but not pro communism. I think it’s totally fair question to bring up in this space.

Semi socialist is that the government owns majority share in companies but private citizens are allowed to run businesses as well. So the government owns banks, airlines, oil, mining etc but private citizens are allowed to open their own to compete.

[–]tea4two 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I lived in a communist country and in that particular country was subjected to more capitalism and advertising than ever before in my life. (I didn't expect that.) The local models were even skinnier, more plastic surgeried, and photoshopped (to an alien degree) than what I saw in American advertising. Very little variation in features, no variation in age, size etc.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think I know which country you are talking about. It really is the worst of both systems really. I would think communism would force you into a stricter mould since competition isn’t encouraged.

[–]vitunrotta 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Heh, I ranted about something similar a few days ago. I do think that it's great to see e.g. cellulite normalized as we ALL have it and it's just a simple fact of life... So it is nice to see that hey, my butt isn't really nasty and ugly, it's just a normal butt etc.

But it boils down to the fucking tiresome idea of needing to be BEAUTIFUL and that we're all PRETTY and bla di blah. It keeps annoying me massively that women, no matter how they actually look like, are still basically only valued by their looks and the word BEAUTIFUL is the biggest compliment a woman can wish for.

I personally wait for the day when we are finally free from that stupidity. We're still very much locked and shackled on our looks, no matter how much companies try to sell this to us as some kind of "empowerment." Screw that, I ain't buying it (literally or figuratively).

[–]materialrealityplz 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I just wish they showed hairy women. waiting

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Aerie did actually. Butch woman without waxed arms. They also showed an older woman probably in her sixties with sagging tummy and boobs modeling bra and underwear. Fair point that stores like Gap would never do that but Aaerie is American Eagle and they did.

Then again that was last year so who knows.

[–]GCaccountforSaidit 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

...people wax their arms?

I feel like every time I turn around I find out other women are waxing parts I'd never thought were supposed to be. I was only told I needed to shave to the knees, under the arms, and pluck eyebrows to a nice shape. I've long since stopped any of that but...really? Arms?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah. Lot of people wax their arms especially in the South. In the PNW I’ve noticed fewer people wax their arms. Definitely a regional thing. Since I moved to the PNW I haven’t shaved much.

[–]unexpectedly_local 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wanna see a hairy femme woman from one of these companies lol. let's get really controversial

[–]Eurowoman24 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

not to as many people as possible - as many people as possible in their target market (group a business is geared towards) Otherwise I agree!

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In don't want anything to do with empowerment.

You either have power or you don't.

If something lends you power it can take it away too.

If your look is fashionable and opens doors for you this year in 5 years time it will be a different look getting those benefits.

[–]msteacherlady 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I made a comment similar to this...somewhere around here. Hell yeah! I mean, it's nice to see what clothes look like on real bodies, but companies who do that may find that helps them make more sales and have less returns. Other companies may still be fine selling a dream instead. Marketing is not about what makes our lives better. It's not like I never buy anything ever, but I don't follow brands. I'm not completely immune to marketing, but I try.

[–]yousaythosethings 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep this is nothing more than woke capitalism.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You absolutely hit the nail on the head. What's more, since this is the result of capitalist ethos and not genuine social progress, we can be sure that capitalism will do as it always does. As soon as the balance of power wavers and it becomes profitable to sue doctors for being cavalier with permanent body-altering procedures, we are going to see hundreds of cases of desisters and detransitioners opening malpractice lawsuits. If there is money on the table, the second it becomes available, people will grasp for it furiously. It will start with the people who truly feel they have been disserviced by their doctors, but then the garden-variety bandwagon TRAs will be influenced by the reversing pendulum, just as they have always been influenced by whatever the dominant norm around them is. The doctors keeping a wide berth from this whole movement are being quite wise.