Skip to content

This is your life as a beta, Be Proud!

May 8, 2013

This is your life as a beta:

Image

Be Proud, Very Proud!!!

These are the Women of a Beta.  I bet he is just purely busting with pride… In fact, I know he is.  Let’s all give a big round of applause for the man who “landed an amazing woman”. Oh FFS! Nice man with an good job… proud to have landed a cow.  This is where the beta boys go wrong, horribly wrong. This is not what Men of Value want of their women. Jesus, have some self-respect! Don’t encourage these cows! They just end up thinking, well, this:

Image

Next they won’t even bother with the lipstick!

If men reward these big ‘uns with attention and hop on their necessarily large, and presumably, shame-free bandwagons, next, they will think the whole entire world should look like them.

Image

Oh wait. They already do…

The problem with these mannequins, other than the obligatory ‘ewwww’, is that these shiny plastic babes are essentially the same mannequins as the skinny ones, just made a little bigger around so that size 12 and 16 clothes won’t fall off of them.  Check out the size 16 dolly in the foreground.  How many real live size 16 gals do you think have thighs that don’t touch?  My guess is not that many.

Image

2013 Hog Parade

So, what is the problem with encouraging and normalizing these “healthy body images”?  For one thing, it makes women who look like this:

 Image

Think they look like this:

Image

Go to New Century Man to vote for your preference.

It’s not that much of a stretch to imagine that when “average” size women see the bigger mannequins, they will think that they have “healthy curves”, and once the curvy gals are buying “the same size as the mannequins”, it won’t be too long before even bigger women take over the planet and then… it’s just too frightening to consider.

Image

Somewhere along the line, the legend of the size 12 Marilyn Monroe was born.

Chubsters far and wide, heavy on the wide, love to tell us that Marilyn Monroe was a size 12, or 14, or 16.  It just isn’t true.  According to an article written by Daven Hiskey,

 “So what size was Marilyn Monroe actually?  Luckily, many of her dresses, carefully preserved, are still around to measure off of.  Further, one of her dress makers also chimed in with exact measurements he took.  Those measurements were 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist (approximately 2-3 inches less than the average American woman in the 1950s and 12 inches less than average today); and 35 inch hips, with a bra size of 36D. “

And this:

“As a direct example of her size, the white dress she wore in The Seven Year Itch was recently auctioned off and was put on a mannequin that was a size 2, but they were still unable to zip up the dress as the mannequin was too big.  Many of her other dresses that exist from throughout her career match up to about the same, give or take an inch or two.”

In case you are interested, that looks like this:

Image

Doesn’t look like a size 12-16 to me…

Most interesting of all is that many women of the 1950’s had very similar measurements.  The Telegraph has an article that clearly states this, nevermind the silly comments, the subtitle is, “Almost half of British women mistakenly believe their figures match the ideal body shape desired by men.”

“Scientists who study waist-to-hip ratios – the waist measurement divided by the hip measurement – say a ratio of 0.7, enjoyed by women such as Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor at her peak, is most likely to be attractive to the opposite sex.

But the survey, commissioned by health and beauty event the Vitality Show being held in London next month, revealed that modern women, on average, have a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.83.”

(A statistic that I am sure will be appreciated by JB, so go check out her related article.)

Now the problem here is that when you take a modern woman who is a size 12-14-16, show them pictures of Marilyn, Liz or Judy and repeatedly tell them “hey, you’re the same size” they will inevitably believe that They. Look. Like. Marilyn. Fill up stores with size 12 and 16 mannequins and pretty soon, really big gals will think they look like the mannequins, so they are indeed beautiful and loved and desired by one and all.

Image

Guess where this gal’s Seven Year Itch is located?

Please, stop normalizing obesity and stop pretending that you are other than lazy if you are in double digit sizes.  It isn’t healthy and it isn’t pretty.  And, Men, stop letting women get away with this!!!

Advertisements
99 Comments
  1. darlingdoll permalink

    You know what really irks me about the whole fat acceptance thing is that the proponents consistently talk about how mean all us thin girls are to them. When I see an overweight or obese person, it fully grosses me out. I admit that, but I’m never, ever rude or mean to them. However, I can recall numerous times when I’ve had overweight and obese people be outright rude to me and make comments about my figure or for being thin.

  2. Yes, they can be really mean, I do get grossed out, too, but what irritates me is when some 300# gal tells me that I am hurting my kids by not allowing them bread or pasta.

    I am tired of being called a “stick” when my measurements are essentially that of every average woman from 1950-70. It isn’t that difficult to maintain a normal weight. What gives with all the big women being so excessively mean?

    • darlingdoll permalink

      It’s almost as though they believe that we will be mean to them, so they automatically start making snarky remarks to us. The bottom line is, being overweight is incredibly unhealthy. The human body was not designed to lug around 60+ pounds of excess weight. Obesity drives up medical costs, which is something that everyone, big, normal or small pays for. There is a direct impact on society. And how is it not considered child abuse when parents allow their children to become overweight and stand idly by while 10 year olds develop diabetes and high cholesterol?

    • I’ve been told many times that I am “lucky” to be thin. No, I just watch what I eat & I don’t eat much. Even eating a clean, real-food (paleo-ish) diet you can overeat & gain a bunch of weight. And yes, I had a lot of big girls be mean to me because of it when I was younger.

      Now I’m older & not quite so thin, but not by any stretch large!

      • Welcome, Tcup!

        For most of people there isn’t ‘luck’ involved in being a reasonable weight. I have to agree that a person could gain weight eating paleo, but it would be significantly more difficult to do than if a person eats highly processed foods and grains (of any sort). When we first went Paleo, the kids were mortified, they thought that they would die without their breads, cereal, etc. but after a couple of months, they noticed they didn’t get hungry as often, and our shopping was easier, too. Even as thin little girls, their muscles became more defined, especially in the oldest child, who is an athlete. She had amazing gains in lean muscle mass.

        A person just needs to make up their mind and go for it! I imagine life as a very large person must be much more difficult than for a person who is thin. Maybe that’s why the big ones, especially women, seem so angry all the time?

        • Not enough yummy saturated fat! Once I started eating fat & gave up grains I was soooo much happier!

        • Oh, yeah, for sure! I felt much better without grains. We maintain a paleo-ish attitude and go for about an 80/20 split, but even with allowing some grains, I make that stuff from scratch. It’s part of my ‘food=work’ crusade.

    • Middle-Aged Male permalink

      Missann, if you see this, here’s why Marilyn didn’t have children…she aborted them…

      Love the blog Miss Sadie…

  3. Tim permalink

    Hi there. I love your blog. You are needed to help save the world! Things are really bad out there in our culture’s intersexual relations and you are a source of hope for a return to sanity. Keep up the good work.

  4. When it came to game…at first I tried to use it on any woman that came into my path. Women who are in the process of becoming cows or who already are aren’t even all that fun to game from what I’ve found. They don’t seem to have any fun or enthusiasm in them…and quite a bit of bitterness.

    Now the ones that are healthy weight…or “sticks” in this day and age are more fun to game because they get into it and generally have better outlooks. So not only are fatties horrible to look at…they don’t have a great attitude either.

    They never mention that in those “true beauty” ads.

  5. Tim, Ian over at http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/ has dubbed women like me as “Manoshpere cheerleaders” You are quite correct that more of us are needed.

    Thank you So Much for reading! Please share with women you know, and, more importantly, tell your male friends to stop putting up with the crap they take from “empowered, curve-y, women” You men deserve better!!!

    • well done. the world needs hard lessons and leaders willing to speak up. for women that has to also come from one of them. plus i want the beach scenery out here to be as enjoyable as possible.

  6. cutefirstofficer permalink

    Marilyn Monroe may have been a size 12 back then; however, a size 12 back then and a size 12 today are two VERY different sized pieces of clothing. I have a skirt from around 1993 that states ‘size 8’ – line that skirt up with one from Ann Taylor today and it is now a size zero. Women that take care of themselves are going to end up shopping in the misses section – or A&F…where the skinny, beautiful people shop, per their CEO’s recent comments – lol…

    • Yes, cute first officer! I have an extensive collection of vintage clothing, and I am that “Marilyn size 12″ but in modern sizes, I am a 2. That was my point… why is the great marketing machine ‘teaching” women that being FAT is OK?

    • gunslingergregi permalink

      Monroe had cankles so uhh yea I don’t know

    • Now THAT is a name.

  7. earl, thank you for reading and commenting. I find it strange that it is the big gals are the most angry and rude. I am glad we “sticks” are fun to game. Maybe we are also the most appreciative, because we are rarely approached?

    Thank You for learning, Game! Please have fun with it. The ones who are cows or turning into it have no skills in the kitchen no passion for learning to prepare a great meal, and no desire to produce a beautiful, nutritious meal for their families. I have to wonder if the SAD (Standard American Diet) is so filled with chemicals and fake “food” that passion has been medicated (through food) out of women.

    • I’ve always been in pretty good shape physically but I believe food has quite a bit to do with it. You should see how many vitamins and minerals I take in a day. Plus I try to eat red meat, vegetables, and fruits daily. I won’t lie and say I don’t eat junk food or fast food…but I’ve cut it down quite a bit. The best habit I ever broke was to stop drinking soda. As a result my weight has stayed consistent at around 200 (I’m 6’4″)

      It has also coincided with my better attitude.

      But while most of the manosphere is concerned about the lust effects on women and how it affects them mentally…they rarely talk about the effects of gluttony other than it’s visually disgusting. I think it also shows a woman’s mindset just as much as a promiscuous woman.

  8. sqt permalink

    My sister in law loves to put posts up on Facebook about Marilyn Monroe being a size 12 and other fat acceptance garbage. I so want to put up that quote from above but if I do my life would be hell. (All of the women on my husband’s side of the family are large.)

    The thing I’m sick of hearing the most is how you can be healthy and fat. No. You. Can’t. I’m sorry. But fat is unhealthy. It takes a toll on the organs. It tears up your joints. It causes diabetes. And it irks the heck out of me that I am paying higher health care costs because so many people are obese.

  9. Marilyn (and Liz Taylor and Sophia Loren were a size 12… in 1950! I am in damn good shape but a 22″ waist? I can’t even come close! I am a vintage clothing wearing gal and only 125# at 5″10… we (as women) looked great and took care of our families better than modern-day women. What the hell big gals think they are “hawt” is beyond my comprehension!

    • sqt permalink

      You are very slim. I’m 5’9″ but have a good 15lbs on you. Women must give you hell for daring to be so in shape! In my own defense I can’t exercise much (very, very bad arthritis) so I keep my weight down primarily through diet. If I can do it anyone can.

      • sqt permalink

        Don’t get me wrong- I’d love to be your size. I haven’t been that thin since my early 20’s and it was fantastic how well clothes fit. Though nothing was ever long enough in those days….

        • My prom dress still fits. sqt, is isn’t about that.. it is about not being Gigantic. I am guessing yo are not that at all! Still, I am not where near the size of an average woman 50- 60 years ago. Damn!
          even we “sticks’ are not in the best of shape now.. that is why I am so hard on nutrition and what food we feed out families!

        • sqt permalink

          I’m not a large girl by today’s standard for sure. I can still wear my drill team uniform from high school– so, same premise. But yeah, no way I am even close to being a 50’s era size. We are taller though. So there’s that. Even at my slimmest I will never have a 22 inch waist.

  10. While I agree with what you’re saying in general, it’s untrue that being in “double digits” sizes means you are obese and unhealthy. Maybe for short women, but a taller than average woman generally looks anorexic as a size 8. Either way, the better marker is waist-to-hip ratio. Sizes vary and there is no “standard” for any sizing scheme any clothing store uses. If one is a healthy waist-to-hip ratio and a low body fat percentage… we can’t class them as “obese and disgusting” if their they are a size 10. On JB’s latest post, the size 12 was the most attractive (by a survey of men). Look at the image… she’s NOT fat. The size 8, by comparison is a little too thin and the size 6 looks downright sickly. I don’t really buy that Marilyn Monroe could have fit into a today’s size 2… not unless it’s a store with extreme vanity sizing. I was a size 3/4 in high school and considered 15 pounds underweight by doctors. People told me quite frequently to “eat a sandwich”. Given how buxom Marilyn was… no way in hell would even one of her breasts fit into a size 2. But no, she wasn’t a size 12 or 14. Most of her dresses had to be custom made because of her large breasts and small waist. But her dressmaker said she’d be comparable to a size 8 today.

  11. Size 8 UK…. in terms of a size 12 US, that is a 0 to 2 today. Double digits are still fat, and not the way that the fat-mannequins look. I gave the pics to prove it. My size 6 prom dress is a little girls’ size 12 today. I am regularly told to “eat a sandwich” by Modern Day 12’s who think that men want to battle through their rolls… and they think they are the same size as “curvy women” of the past several decades.

    • Again, seriously look at the picture JB posted on her latest post before you make that judgement. I wish there was a way to link to a picture by itself. The size 12 was voted most hot. If you think that’s fat (the girl in that picture, not the number I just stated) you have an eating disorder. I’m not trying to be a bitch, but holy crap. There is nothing wrong with being really thin. But tag size isn’t a very informative number especially since it varies from country to country and store to store. I have a friend who is 6′ tall and trust me… if she was under a size 10 she’d look like skeletor. I don’t know where you shop, and it doesn’t really matter, the number that matters is your actual body fat percentage and your waist-to-hip ratio, everything else can be highly misleading or vanity sizing.

    • here’s the image; http://judgybitch.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/prefer.jpg That size 12 girl in the middle? Not fat. By any stretch of anybody’s imagination.

      • sqt permalink

        Are you sure that’s not a UK size 12? She looks like US size 8 to me– which is pretty fit by today’s standard. Plus that model does have that lovely hip-to-waist ratio we’re always hearing about. Most women I know, even the size 8’s, are thicker around the middle.

        • Maybe it is a UK size 12 and that would make sense. I agree that a size 8 in US size is pretty fit and if the UK 12 is comparable to the US 8, fair enough. I’m not a size 12 by the way (in US OR UK sizing)… I was simply pointing out that the number on a piece of clothing has nothing to do with your waist-to-hip ratio. And this pretty much bears that out. I also know that in the US, my 6′ tall friend couldn’t be a size 8 without looking like Skeletor. Waist. To. Hip. That’s the number we need to focus on… not tags in clothing.

        • sqt permalink

          Oh I agree. The waist-to-hip thing is key. I mentioned that women are taller nowadays and I do think that makes a difference. I’d look silly with a 22 inch waist to be honest- and skeletal.

          Fit women today are also built differently because we have much stronger stomach muscles. I’m not able to exercise like I used to but I still have a pretty flat tummy and you can see the muscle. My grandma did not have abs like mine. I remember talking to a competitive gymnast once. She was 5’1″ but her waist was as broad as mine because she was a solid block of muscle. She didn’t look bulky either. We had this whole discussion about how muscle changed waist size and I still think we were on to something…

        • True re: muscle. Also, ribs. Like I said… to get to 22 inch waist we would have to surgically remove ribs. I’m not kidding or exaggerating. Even at medically underweight, I did not have a 22 inch waist. I wouldn’t just look skeletal… we’d have to go in and saw off ribs. This is why we have standardized health measures of things and doctor’s don’t ask you for your dress size.

        • sqt permalink

          My mom is 5’1″ and has weighed 90-100 lbs most of her life and she only had a tiny waist (low 20 inch range) when she was in high school. Once she had kids- forget about it. And Marilyn Monroe never had kids either.

        • I wonder why she didn’t have kids. She was 36 when she died, so she had plenty of time and had been married a few times. I wonder if she didn’t want them or just didn’t get around to it.

  12. sqt. That is my point, Our moms and grandmas didn’t call it good putting on and extra 60-70 pounds… You are proof that staying your high-school size is possible! I salute you!

  13. Also, just looking at a article on vanity sizing, a size 2 now is a size 4 from 10 years ago. So I was probably a now-size-2 in high school when I was underweight. So… this is what I’m trying to say. The size on the label of your pants means literally nothing. I think it also is encouraging eating disorders. Being obese is bad, but being underweight isn’t great either. If we would just measure body fat percentage (using an accurate measuring tool), and/or waist-to-hip ratio, it would cut out all the nonsense of size and scale weight. I say scale weight because I’ve known female athletes in top form with so little body fat that they missed periods who were 5′ 6″ and 140 pounds… because they were PURE muscle. I can’t imagine the self-recrimination and issues such a person would have if they bought into “scale weight’. Obviously when you’re 300 pounds…scale weight accurately measures you are fat, but this is why athletes can’t use that or BMI. They have to use waist-to-hip and actual measured body fat percentage. But this girl… you couldn’t even pinch skin around her waist. But… if she just came on here and said she was 5′ 6” and 140 pounds, someone would say she’s fat, and that’s asinine.

  14. Actually, that is precisely my point, missannethropez… The big girls use the “sizes have changed” argument to justify their size 20W’s because that “used to be a 12” 10 years ago.

    As a vintage clothing devotee, yes, I am a size 12, but that is a modern 2, if not a 0. Please, stop justifying the added weight and lack of a discernible waistline.

    • I’m not justifying anything. I’m saying dress size means nothing. It varies too much. What I know is I wore a size 3/4 in high school and had a 16.7 BMI. I was medically underweight… so… when people said I needed to “eat a sandwich” they were not kidding.

      Reading a vanity sizing article just now they are saying a 2 now is a 4 from 10 years ago… so I was probably a 2 now when I was in high school. I’m not saying you are underweight. I’m saying you obviously either shopped at a different place than I did… or your body structure is different from mine.

      People’s bodies are too different to use clothing size as a marker for much of anything anymore. And when I say that I am not using the old “big-boned” argument. I’m saying… look, I could not have a 22 inch waist ever… in any universe unless we literally surgically removed ribs from my body. What is wrong with going by waist-to-hip ratio? If you’re a 0.7 or better, you’re A-okay. If you’re much higher than that, you need some work. Or actual body fat percentage. I’m not justifying anything.

      I’m saying let’s use a “real” measurement instead of saying… well I wear a size xyz… which was a size abc 30 years ago so everybody who is size Q is just monstrous.

  15. You are missing the point. the 12 in JB’s pic is a 22W in comparison to modern sizes.

    • The point I missed was that JB’s post is likely UK size 12 which would, as sqt pointed out translate to US size 8. Fair enough. But isn’t that the point? How variable the sizes are? And being in the US, my point still stands that my 6′ tall friend would be in the hospital if she was a size 8, by US standards, though that’s super variable, too. This just isn’t a scientific measurement which is why I’m harping on waist-to-hip and suggesting that we not have a random cut-off point like anything over a size 8 is fat, because that’s just not true. It depends on the person’s height, their bone structure, how the sizing works in any particular area or store. Encouraging EVERYONE to be a size 8 or under with those variables is encouraging eating disorders in some. It would tell a woman with a 7.0 waist to hip ratio and a healthy body fat percentage that if she’s wearing a size 10 anywhere for any reason… she’s “fat”. It encourages dieting that doesn’t need to happen and low self-esteem. My argument for this is not based on “me being a chubbie”. I’m not a chubbie. My argument for this is based on the fact that my best friend struggled with bulemia and I don’t want to see other girls go down that road because of thoughtless non-scientific numbers thrown about when we can use a measurement that is actually a real measurement.

      • sqt permalink

        There is a bizarre disconnect regarding weight in the media too. Most runway models and actresses are painfully thin. Magazine covers are photoshopped to get rid of excess fat around waists and thighs and help promote the image that the “ideal” woman is super thin yet somehow proportionate and not skeletal looking. I even saw one photoshop where they smoothed out the ribcage of the model because you could distinguish every individual rib and they knew there’d be a backlash.

        On the flip side of the coin you have the fat acceptance movement that has websites devoted to scarily obese women. I believe you can pay to watch these women eat. I think there are even night clubs devoted to catering to fat women and the men who want to date them.

        We’ve lost sight of normal. Is it any wonder that obesity rates are skyrocketing?

        • That’s why I’m leery of extremes on both sides. It’s understandable with FA saying weird crap like “healthy at every size” and “some people’s natural size is 16″… ummmm huh? People are not naturally fat. The only “natural” explanation is a medical problem and there are treatments for that. It’s a behavioral/lifestyle issue. At the same time… we can also go WAY too far in the other direction and that’s not healthy either. Not emotionally and not physically… and men don’t tend to find super skinny any sexier than super fat (having been super skinny in the past I can vouch for this since male attention didn’t pick up until I got closer to a normal weight.)

          Oh, and re: FA, they LIE about their level of activity and their food intake. They claim they eat almost nothing and exercise ALL THE TIME. But most of that is self-deception… except in the case of something like a thyroid problem, but wouldn’t you go get that checked out? The issue with disordered eating on either side of the spectrum is… you can’t trust the narrator. What they say is going on is not what is actually going on, but it’s what they truly believe and really see.

        • sqt permalink

          I know I had my thyroid checked out. I only knew one other woman who genuinely had a major thyroid problem and she worked her butt off to stay thin. Once her condition was diagnosed and she was put on medication she slimmed right back down. She runs marathons now.

          A former sister-in-law of mine was the classic but I hardly eat anything type who had a fridge filled with junk. I remember that she and my brother used to fight over food (he is a bit chubby too). But you’re right- it doesn’t matter if a person is too fat or too thin, they’re probably lying about how much they eat either way.

          I do think the modern diet is killing us. Between the processing, hormones and caloric content it’s really hard not to be fat. You have to concentrate on eating real food and I think most people are too lazy for that.

        • Sadly you almost can “hardly eat anything” if all of it is junk and still gain weight. The amount of food you can eat on like… the primal diet suggested on Mark’s Daily Apple where your focus is on meat and veggies with some fruit (I can’t remember if Mark suggests a cheat meal or occasional dessert, but I think without it in our culture it’s almost impossible to adhere 100% to. Never eating a cookie again is also extreme) is HUGE compared to what you can eat on the standard american diet.

          Plus grains are fattening anyway. Which, for some reason people USED to know. Part of the problem in the US is the insane food pyramid. 6-11 servings of grain a day is INSANE, and that’s what is “recommended”, or it used to be. I know they changed to some goofy “plate” concept a little while ago so they may have gone easier on grains, I’m not sure. But with Monsanto being so coddled here and grains being big business financially, I doubt it. If people would just cut out grains and seriously limit sugar and do moderate exercise, they would naturally slim down. Even with an endocrine problem… not every single endocrine issue requires medication, some can be course corrected with just a clean diet.

          Another problem… a lot of Americans for some weird reason think corn is a vegetable. It’s a grain… and fattening just like other grains. Not saying you can never eat corn, but dude… moderation.

          Not only lying about how much they eat, but how “normal” they are. Disordered relationships with food and body image come in different varieties. We shouldn’t be normalizing anything but health and moderation.

          Re: lazy, yes, but also most people have taken on too much. They work full time, have kids, have a house to keep up, have this or that other activity… between all that most people don’t have time to cook, which is part of the problem. And most restaurants have salads with crazy calorie and fat counts because they are adding all these things to it that are too high calorie and too high portion. Even a salad isn’t just a salad anymore.

        • sqt permalink

          I’m a big fan of MDA. I don’t eat grains. Wheat and corn are the devil as far as I’m concerned.

    • And obviously I meant a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio. I just caught that!! HA. Wow that would be OBESE.

  16. Perhaps “methinks the Lady doth protest too much” Is is baby weight, dear? Why as, a fit, shapely woman do you argue so much for the thick?

    • So… because I’m suggesting we use WAIST-TO-HIP ratio, which cannot lie and has NO vanity… this means I’m a chubbie? REALLY? Wow. Again, I’m not arguing for “thick” I pointed out waist-to-hip ratio about five times now. Why are you so resistant to waist-to-hip ratio? How is saying… 0.7 waist-to-hip is healthy justifying obesity? Also, I’ve never had a baby, so I’ve never had baby weight. I’m no longer underweight but I’m not overweight either. I got to a medically healthy weight as advised by my doctor.

      Not that that is your business OR that anybody could prove anybody’s size without pictures. Even then, it’s the internet so it might not even be the stated person’s picture or might be a picture from 20 years ago or might be photo-shopped… or or or… so outside of meeting in person to gauge each other’s relative fatness or thinness, it seems completely goofy for you to even “go there” with me, and absurd when I’m not arguing for “chunky monkeys” but an actually scientific form of measurement.

      There is no need to be so nasty when I’m simply saying waist-to-hip or body fat percentage as measured by an actual body fat measuring tool are ACCURATE measures and what we should be discussing. Anything else has major margins of error. I’m not sure why you’re so anti-science about this. But thinking you aren’t doing even as good as people in the 1950’s size-wise, when your BMI for 125 pounds at 5’10” is medically underweight is… well… it’s a little suspect.

      Also, JB’s picture with the sizes is not women from the 1950s and those are not 1950s sizes. But… it doesn’t matter either way because you could find a size 12 that is much bigger than that size twelve because of waist-to-hip. This is why we should stick with waist-to-hip.

      So how about we cut out the ad hom and debate like ladies?

      • I meant to say “you could find a size 12 much bigger than that because of vanity sizing” I’ve got waist-to-hip on the brain.

      • The problem with using weight-to-hip as the only standard is that, obviously some very big gals could use that to justify their size. Vanity sizing and vintage aside, I stick by my original statement that once you are consistently in double-digit US sizing, you have a problem.

        As for “medically” underweight, I will put that in the same category as the USDA food pyramid. When I am teaching classes for local community education, more than once a week, my lean mass goes up 5-10 lbs, but my size does not. Same jeans, bras, etc. so I am not buying the thing where sizes don’t matter.

        • There is definitely truth in that, you’re right. But, waist-to-hip is an actual standard and it does reflect the health rammifications of various sizes. Plus, most women who are overweight/fat do NOT have the correct waist-to-hip (I keep typing waist-to-hop haha) ratio. It’s pretty epicly hard to gain weight to FAT level or even just a little chunky and still maintain perfect waist-to-hip as that’s really not how most women’s fat accumulates in general. But when you combine weight and waist-to-hip and body fat percentage you have a full picture of the fitness level of another human being… though men don’t do that… I’ve never met a single man who asked for my dress size or my waist to hip ratio or my body fat percentage. Men eyeball it. These various measurements are just to keep people honest and realistic about where they are and where they need to be for optimum fitness. But dress sizes can’t do that because while at the extremes we know what they mean… i.e. past a certain dress size you are chunky or fat, period and there’s no way around it… or underneath a certain dress size you are skinny/slim, period, there are a lot of people in the medically normal and healthy and fit range… the women most men find highly attractive who cannot be measured solely by a number on a pair of pants because it’s too variable and leads to neurotic BS.

          Again, my 6′ tall friend would look like SKELETOR as a US size 8, believe that or not, her body structure will not allow that size on her body without honest-to-god anorexia. I’m not saying US size 12, 14, 16, etc is normal/thin. I’m saying US size 10 is not fat on a 6′ tall woman of larger bone structure. (And again, not using the “big boned” argument… there really are different frame sizes for women and you can’t help how your bones are. dude.)

          re: vintage sizing… you might find this enlightening if you didn’t already know it: http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_birth_of_size_10/ If the assumption is… “If that was a size 10 then what was a size 6” you’re wrong… there was no size 6.

          Again, I didn’t say sizes don’t matter “at all”, but they are not a scientific measurement. I’ve known too many girls with eating disorders who thought they needed to squeeze into a size 2, not realizing the 2 was a vanity size and they were shopping somewhere with more normal sizing and were therefore an 8.

          Re: medically underweight… If you’re not going to put any stock at all in BMI as a health and fitness measure, than why you would put it in an arbitrary clothing size with no across-the-boards standard, I have no idea. But whatever floats your boat.

        • Also, the USDA food pyramid is a political document. BMI is a basic health barometer on the same level as “cholesterol” or “blood pressure”. It’s purpose is health assessment, and it is used by doctors. The only time BMI is not a good indicator of general basic standards of health and fitness is when used on pro-athletes who have a lot of muscle. Their estimated “fat” percentage in that case isn’t fat at all.

          And from a health stand point a few pounds over or under “normal” isn’t necessarily DIRE. I’m not saying OMG get help quick! I’m just saying… empirically if you are 125 pounds and 5’10”, you’re a little underweight. Turning around and claiming any woman who is a size 10 has to be overweight when sizing standards are not an actual standard and don’t have any variables for height and body frame, while denying that underweight BMI means you’re underweight, is a little hypocritical.

          BMI takes into account height AND body frame which is why their is such a range of “healthy weight” to account for that. It is certainly not a “perfect” standard, but it is an actual standard.

        • I am not making any statement that the size itself is an empirical standard. It could and should be some sort of psychological red flag. Everyone knows that sizes vary from store to store. If you accept yourself as a size 10 and you regularly have to start buying 12’s, and then 14’s and then 16’s… where does it stop? Basically no one looks at their BMI or any of the other more medical type assessments, but we all have to buy clothes. It is an easier benchmark for the general population and one that is easily understood. That’s why I highlighted it.

        • And sorry for the grammar. It should have been “Its purpose” not “It’s purpose” and “there is such a range” not “their is such a range”. Ugh.

        • I am not wearing my grammar police hat today, no worries!

        • Oh I agree with you there, regarding not just continuing to buy larger and larger sizes. I mean at the very least this should trigger a trip to the scale. re: the more medical numbers: I must be a weirdo then (wouldn’t be the first time or on the first subject), I just feel like when someone wants to get or stay in great shape they look at the numbers that matter.

          From that perspective of “we all have to buy clothes”, I agree. But like I said… “hair trigger”. I want to be fair to people and I don’t want to shuffle outliers off into categories of “fat” based on a number that isn’t rational because for THEM and their height and body frame it isn’t. Nor do I want to encourage low self-esteem and disordered eating and body image in women who aren’t actually fat but who have been told something that makes them feel like they are. But I also know that people in FA like to go to extremes with arguments, and I can understand why you might have thought I was in that camp of thought, particularly since this is my first trip to this blog. I just saw it linked from JB’s blog in the trackbacks and it was one of those things I needed to say… in fact, will probably compile my thoughts and blog about it for tomorrow’s post.

          The average person who really cares about their health and size is going to, IMO, be at least aware of where they fall on some basic numbers. People who don’t care, I figure they’re going to be oblivious about their dress size going up and up anyway. And with no standard set sizes, say someone stays in the same size, but… they have switched to a different store and don’t realize the store uses vanity sizing so they’ve gained weight but maybe don’t notice? Though even as I’m typing that it sounds ludicrous because the fit on their old clothes would have changed. But they can justify it… they can say: “I’m still xyz size! Look at the label!”

          And thanks re: grammar, I just hate when I do that because I know better lol.

  17. Well I understand why being part of the herd is the mentality of women and verbal barbs are very influencing. But I would say…

    The more women are offended because you are doing the right things…the more you are on the correct track. I learned this as a guy.

    So the question many women should ask themselves…do you want to be liked by other women or loved from a man.

    • True, but sometimes “you need to eat a sandwich” really means just that. When I was in high school and constantly being told that… the girls who were a little curvier than me but still thin (i.e. they were cheerleaders and such) were NOT being told that. Point is… there is also “too thin” just like there is “too big”, and when we start trying to measure “healthy weight” by the tag label on somebody’s pants, instead of something rational and scientific like waist-to-hip we’ll have BOTH “too fat” girls arguing they are just like marilyn monroe… as well as girls medically underweight who still think they could stand to lose a few. It’s a problem on both ends.

  18. 26 waist to 37 hips.. Yeah, not eaactly “obese” at 5’10…… but go on, I let the comments fly… Only big girls have protests to this rhetoric, so enjoy!!!

    • I didn’t say you were too big or obese. I said 125 pounds at 5′ 10″ is medically UNDERweight, not a LOT medically underweight, but still medically underweight. The red flag for me is up above you seemed to be suggesting you could do better… compared to those girls in the 1950s (many of whom wore girdles)… which implies you think you aren’t good enough/thin enough/could stand to lose a few pounds. If you think that about yourself… that’s something that I don’t think we should enable. While I would never tell you to “eat a sandwich”, because I know from personal experience how hurtful that is…and I’m sure you’ve had to deal with it a lot (people can be just as cruel teasing the too-thin as the too-fat), I hope you don’t think you should lose any weight.

      If I misread the earlier comment where you mentioned your weight and height and seemed to imply you could still stand to do better (i.e. weigh less), then I apologize. Because of having a friend who was bulemic, I have a hair-trigger when it comes to things people say that sound unhealthy in the “too thin” area.

      I was too thin in high school, but I KNEW I was medically underweight and worked hard under my doctor’s advice to gain a few pounds and get to a normal weight for me. I didn’t think I needed to “do better” as far as being thinner. That’s the difference. Again, I could have misread you, and if I did, I apologize. My intent was not to hurt you or be mean, but that I just don’t think we should normalize too thin anymore than too fat. It’s okay to be thin… even a little bit underweight probably won’t kill you… it’s the body image that goes with it and how healthy “that” is. If you think you look great, then awesome, if you still think you should lose a little, it’s worrisome.

      Again, your “only big girls have protests to this rhetoric” is asinine. clothing sizes are not a scientific standard and too variable all over the map. The fact that a size 12 in the UK can be highly sexy (as shown by JB’s image) pretty much proves that “anything over an 8” is NOT fat. Sizes vary too much all over the place. It could be too fat, it could be too thin. It depends on entirely arbitrary decisions by manufacturers.

      Again… what is wrong with waist-to-hip and actual body measurements and actual body fat percentage as the standards we use to determine fitness INSTEAD OF non-scientific numbers like clothing size?

      Something I mentioned on JB’s blog is… not every store uses the same types of vanity sizing so if you are a size 2 or 0 in one place but would be a size 8 in another place, and you have a friend who shops at the other place and is an 8, but you say you’re a 2 or 0, then that’s going to create extremely unhealthy body image issues for her if she’s hung up on the clothing size… because then she’ll think: “Damn, I’m an 8 and she’s a 2 or 0… I must be a COW.”

      The fact that you are worried that I might think you are “obese” when that would be an insane thing for me to think given the weight and height you already stated again sends up that red flag regarding normalizing underweight as a standard. And I don’t mean “personal opinion underweight” I mean medically underweight. Again… scientific standards and forms of measurement. It protects people from lying to themselves and being unhealthy in the “too fat” or “too thin” range because it is not a variable and arbitrary standard. Asking for that doesn’t indicate that I am a “fattie”, but if you think it does, that’s about you, not me.

      • sqt permalink

        I wish I had the hip to waist ratio that would allow me to gain some weight. I look at Sophia Vergara and think why couldn’t I have a rack like that? But it wasn’t meant to be. So I must stay slim enough to keep as much to a nice ration as I can. Unfortunately I do not gain weight in my boobs.

        • sqt permalink

          *ratio– So funny. I saw the typo right before I clicked “post comment” but it was too late..

        • You won’t sag as much. That’s the bright side. 😉

  19. Oh, and guys and gals, if you are going to talk about, MDA, please feel free to link it!!! http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ and don’t forget my less-about-food, but still paleo dude, Richard at http://freetheanimal.com/ (If you are new to Paleo/Primal, start with Mark.)

    • Right, I see you comment at Richard’s. Was it you who had a different blog and a story about how you can’t eat potatoes? I was looking for that article not too long ago & was trying to find the blog, but couldn’t remember the name.

      At any rate, I’m glad I found you! I like your blog.

    • sqt permalink

      It’s amazing to me how many people I see at these anti-feminist sites that also love MDA. There must be something in our overall mindset that draws us to many of the same things.

      • I think the same thing! I have to wonder if being fit (and primal-caveman-ready) is connected… either way, Desire to be fit and healthy, look decent and adhere to Red Pill is all related?

        • sqt permalink

          It must be. Feminism is so I’m not going to do anything I don’t want to do. I’m a special snowflake and I should be able to as fat and unattractive as I want to be and don’t you dare tell me I’m anything other than perfect!

          I think people like us realize that our happiness is tied in to how much effort we’re willing to put out in taking care of ourselves and being good to others (most notably our men).

      • You wouldn’t think the two would automatically go together would you? LOL

        • It does make sense… getting back to traditional gender roles and also eating as we were evolved to …not that much of a stretch to see how the two concepts fit together!

        • Good point! I didn’t think about it that way, but both things are rebelling against a modern culture that just isn’t working. Just because it’s two supposedly different topics doesn’t mean it really is.

  20. Got here from Roosh’s twitter… Love it. Don’t know how I didn’t find you before!

  21. So true. Mexico is the second most obese country in the World. Yes, the fat is dropping South of the border, downb Mexico way. Although the problem is spread among population, it’s very concentrated on young and middle aged women. So, it’s becoming even more and more common watching scenes like the picture posted above: a decent, responsible and reliable man ‘happily’ married to a aging whale. Meanwhile the thugs are hoarding and getting all the fun with the hotter, thinner chicks. Society consoles itself indulging, promoting and gloryfying a ‘healthier femenine body and scent’ whatever that means.

  22. Mosche, I don’t entirely understand how people get to be so large. My God, the excuses and rationalization that they go through must be exhausting! I feel a little sorry for the guy in the picture. I know him personally, and he didn’t marry her and then watch as she ballooned up, they are newlyweds! He chose that. I was shocked when I first saw her, and it strikes me as odd because they just don’t look like a couple at all, and she relentlessly hen-pecks and corrects him.

    It may be more and more common, but that doesn’t make it right.

  23. Thanks for doing your bit to fat shame. You are doing a public service, which will make the world a better and more pleasant.

  24. mike permalink

    great few posts so far. your attitude toward victimization is refreshing.

    seems like I can learn from you!

  25. I’m doing a slow clap for this post.

  26. The Awakening of the Disseminating permalink

    we need fat bitches. it’s foolish to turn the whole world into a playground for alpha males, because then 80% of men would have to be celibate. we should be encouraging women to remain big and fat

    • Cute, but maybe not quite accurate… I don’t think that trying to stamp out fat acceptance will turn the world into Alpha wonderland, I do think that it will make their leftovers more visually appealing for the 80%… win-win, no?

  27. First I want to say that I’m not attracted to really skinny girls. I like them soft not bony, but there’s just too much promotion of fat women going on. Promoting stick think supermodels isn’t healthy so then why is promoting overweight women healthy?

    It’s fine to promote self-acceptance, but that’s not what’s going on. We need to approach it the same way we approach smoking: it’s an unhealthy habit and nobody thinks it’s a good thing.

    I’m a guy and I’m underweight right now and it sucks. I accept it and love my body shape, but I’m still driven to gain more muscle mass. People need to stop rationalizing unhealthy states so that they can be lazy and not do anything about it.

    Thanks for the post

    ~http://theprometheanman.blogspot.com

  28. Outstanding content and type of publishing. It looks like I’ll come back on this web site in the evening and find out exactly what else you may have in store 🙂 !!! I’m just likely to
    find if my wife and I could possibly acquire something connected with health
    and fitness news!!

  29. I’m against fat promotion, but the other extreme is not good either. I think there’s a large chunk of western women who are often way too obsessed with their bodies, and not obsessed enough with other things that matter too, like their attitude.

    Girls need to learn about the margin of error. Jennifer Lopez + or – 5 pounds is still Jennifer Lopez. You need to have an ass, too. Once you’re not fat anymore stop worrying about the 0.5 pounds you might have gained and learn how to be nice instead.

  30. Now I’ve got that Morrissey song stuck in my head again….

    Guess where this gal’s Seven Year Itch is located?,/i>

    There are far too many disturbingly possible places to even begin guessing.

  31. CarbSanity permalink

    Real men appreciate women with curves (read: NOT obese women – there IS a difference) – not anorexic-looking nutjobs like…thought I was going to say yourself, didn’t I? 🙂

    • Jeeeebus. you completely fat cows just refuse to accept that men like women with visible waistlines! Graze on, dear…You can’t change biological and evolutionary fact.

  32. These kind of craving may be relieved in several to half a year.
    We’ve got stated earlier that it’s not necessary to happen to be the
    particular casinos to accomplish your gambling, yet there are several different gains too.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The Way Forward | Paradigm Shift
  2. Fat Isn’t Good But Dress Size Is Not a Scientific Number | missannethropez
  3. Why Yes, I AM a Twit, Thank You For Noticing! | missannethropez
  4. A Few of My Favorite May Things | TempestTcup

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: