Today, I clicked on the mainpage and saw this article. For a women's website that frequently makes fun of women's clothing, calling some women gorgeous (I mean yes, Kat Dennings is very conventionally attractive, what's new?)and chooses to get more money by publishing advertisements of necklaces, bags, thus reinforcing women's compulsion to be prettier, I found it ironic. Why not add some vacuum cleaners and diaper advertisements too? I get that Jezebel needs money, but couldn't they have dildo advertisements instead? Anyway, I don't want to sound all grumpy about Jezebel. Now let's delve into this article.

I think my biggest problem with it is that it assumes that all women have the choice to be ugly, or pretty. This is supported by links to articles, about how being pretty is about wearing makeup, doing your hair right, wearing the right clothes. BUT. This is not true because:

Some women do not fall within the universal standard of beauty even if they get the right products. The industry would certainly like us to think so, but this is not how our bodies work. There are some of us who are morbidly obese, then others who are so skinny that they look emaciated, and are told that no men would touch them because they're flat and they look like 'Africans'. (Not in my words. I promise.) Even if, their bodies are fine, their noses may be so big that no amount of contouring would help. Their eyes may be too small. Their lips may be too big. Let's all remember, that these are often the features of coloured women, since the universal standard of beauty is based on the face of a white woman. Then there are others with defects. It is narrow-minded to think that every woman has a choice. Maybe plastic surgery is an option, but then, pretty wouldn't be your skill set. It'd be the plastic surgeon's skill set, and also tons of money put into vanity, rather than correcting cleft lips for people who need the surgeries. Many women would be left out by their generalization. They aren't radical feminists for not complying, this is just the way they are.


And the article isn't doing its cause any favours. Until we acknowledge, that not all "ugly" women can be miraculously saved by trying hard, via makeup and pretty clothes, this wouldn't work. An entire group of women are ignored by the article.

I do think that it is important that women are not allowed to be ugly, but whoever they choose to be, at least, in the way men are offered this opportunities. I think everyone needs to be less superficial, and I (personally) don't think body diversity is the main tool that can be used to achieve this. I think more television programs, or movies, are needed to convey the complexity of females. Also, less makeup that took hours of many artists' time. So that we can finally establish, that we are human beings with colourful personalities, that are capable of achievements and conceiving (not just babies!) but opinions.


Don't get me wrong- I like that there are articles confronting the standard of beauty women are subjected to. I really like it, which is why I'm talking about it, which is why I want to prolong the conversation about it.

Anyway. Just my two cents worth. Sorry for taking up space on Groupthink, I know this isn't really interesting but I couldn't resist because I really wanted to see your comments :D Hopefully nothing here was offensive.