The Ideal Image of Women

The Three Graces & Gal Godot

The issues of feminists have caught my attention recently and I thought it'd be nice to start with one article that came across me:

FYI, click the picture to read the article

What is "an ideal image" of a woman?

Is it a certain body figure such as the "banana", "apple", "pear" or "hourglass"?

Is it a certain hairstyle or unique facial features?

No, those are all preferences and it means no matter what they are, some people like them. Here the article suggests that they have the "scientific proof" of what makes a woman's look ideal.

Meet the 34-year-old Kelly Brook.

As scientists reveal, different standards asides, what attractiveness bases on is the function specifically from women. Of course, they'd say so. They are "scientists". Before we call that statement outrageous and condemning them being out of date in this liberal era, take it in for a second. In fact, biologically speaking, only a woman can bear children. That's where these guys are looking into, not how women should look nor change into but the ideal vessel to help reproduce. Here we have fallen into another "clickbait", you and I...

If you check out the original, they even gave you specific digits of height, bust, weight, and hip, very specific... because they are scientists.

Throughout different eras, this so-called "ideal image" has changed as well. If we ever look at the depictions of women in history, both east and west, women do in fact look "bigger" and logically speaking, they were ideal because they were more likely to carry out their pregnancy and survive after giving birth to new lives.

Wait a minute... That's not what we (generally speaking) have in mind, is it? Aren't they supposed to look more like these women?

-skinny/slim/fit

-long hair/big eyes/sharp facial features

-chesty

-just... so fit!

What happened here? How did we go from what used to be attractive but we call fat now to so thin that they used to call it ill?

BUSINESS................. It is that simple. We have improved as a species from mere reproduction to individual fascination. Making money out of one birth per year per person is just too slow. If people constantly working on images that are mostly improbable to the majority, if we make people think that they need to look certain "unnatural" ways, provide the service, products, surgeries... you name it. MONEY, MONEY and SO MUCH MONEY!!!

Understand that, and we would know more clearly on contemporary illnesses such as anorexia, bulimia, depression...etc. We are first, taught to follow, and then realized that we cannot follow. I believe that sadly, mental illnesses are good for business...

What we have been knowing was “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.”- by Friedrich Nietzsche (what doesn't kill you makes you stronger) but on the contrary, it makes us "stranger". It doesn't give you a headshot but instead left you bleeding by sticking a slow knife, turning and turning. (Okay that is two Batman quote there. I'll try to keep it down...)

What I'm here to say is that one must be content with one's got first so they could pursue a betterment of that origin. Yes, models look great, movies stars (look like they) have great lives BUT so do you... We always forget how unique each of us are. We try too much to blend in or not try enough and envy what others have (worked on). Everything is a choice. If you want something, go get it; if not, live by what you've got. This isn't 50, 100 years ago. We are indeed, in the best era of our civilization.

How does this tie to feminism? I guess we'll find out whether I'm inspired or not in this coming week.

#selfreflect