ext_21147 ([identity profile] futurebird.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2010-12-20 04:53 pm
Entry tags:

(no subject)

This article is sort of clumsy. It seems like she's about to make the point that far too many of the black women we see in media as examples of beauty are still closer to a Eurocentric beauty model, or they are "anything but African American, slave decent, people like us" (ie. Wek, who is stunning, but looks quite different from most black American woman.)

But, then she stops short of saying that, and gets caught up in her own personal BS. This is easy to do. I do it. I've seen other women do it. In addition the article talks far to much about what black men want-- as if that were the most central issue. She equates the term 'Exotic' with those black women who have a mixture of European and black features-- something that didn't really ring true to me, but maybe we have experienced the word in different ways.

That all said, I think that the still prevalent and powerful Eurocentric/anything but you-people nature of print and popular media can have a damaging impact on the mind of young black girls and boys. It can warp our ideas about beauty no matter what type of sexual or aesthetic preferences we may have. It can influence what black people and people of all races think will be desirable in a partner. We each tell ourselves that our choice of partners is independent social pressures, but looking at population-wide trends suggests otherwise.

The Wrong Kind of Different
As a young girl in a mostly white environment I never thought of myself as exotic or special. There was a girl who moved to our suburb from Iraq and she was very exotic and special in the eyes of my peers. Now in my 8-year-old mind that was very enviable! I wished I could be exotic in that way. I knew nothing of the BS and baggage that my Iraq-born peer must have been facing-- to my mind it was like being a princess ...to come from a far away place... to be different. It never occurred to me that I was pretty different-- that was the wrong kind of different. I thought I was more plain than everyone else since, in the words of one teacher who thought she was helping "brown is the most common skin tone in the world." How do we internalize all of this by such a tender age? I was not the only young person who felt this way-- it was a view I shared with and learned from my mostly white peers.

Yo' Mama.
She's so, dark, fat, nappy and big lipped. And she's on welfare. Why did the boys, both black and white love these jokes so much? They play a big role in spelling out what a woman should NOT be. My parents deftly blocked some of this, my mom went out of her way to impress upon me that dark skin is beautiful. That darker skin could be more beautiful. I knew enough to say "Hey that's not funny!" when the dark skin or nappy hair jokes came out. Sadly, I also learned that being fat and being on welfare are solely matters of Personal Responsibility(TM). And I had a pretty warped idea of what "fat" meant. My grandma has warped ideas about nappy hair. (she thinks it's gross) I know a black woman who loves her body but hides from the sun like getting a few shades darker would kill her. (do you know many of us are vitamin D deficient?) So, some of these jokes stick to us. In what ways were notions of beauty spelled out for you as a young person?

Solution
We need to see beautiful woman who are dark, fat, black american and nappy. Well, in fact, I see such woman every day. But, I do not see them in media-- and that may seem minor but I think it can have a huge impact. We need to have this beauty publicly identified an affirmed shout it from the rooftops this is what is beautiful, pretty, lovely, elegant. Use these words. Not some other almost there words, like 'curvy' or 'strong.' To correct this kind of thinking you need to go in the opposite direction with equal and opposite force. It's not enough to have one or two such icons... how many thousands of times have you seen a woman who is thin, white, with european features described as beautiful? We don't even notice it any more. It takes time to unlearn. It's not enough to decide that it is true just for ourselves, we need to make it clear for this next generation of girls-- who are bust internalizing most of the same BS we grew up with. Nor is it enough to have a few women here and there who are black but with very european features, or features not common in American black women-- that too sends a negative message. Like the white guys in college who explained to me that black woman are beautiful if they are the "right kid" of black woman. Which brings me to this last point; cultural change may start from within the black community, but this issue (which is only a small part of a larger issue that involves women of all races) is something that people of all races should think about and take up. Just as fighting homophobia is not just work for gay people-- this doesn't get solved unless we all talk about it openly. Demand better media and discover the greater spectrum of beauty.

[identity profile] mijopo.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 12:45 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, I agree with futurebird that this just trivializes the notion of "beautiful" and is, in fact, incoherent. It's like saying all people are smart or all possessions are valuable. You can't make the claim without effectively changing the meaning of the terms as they are relative notions to some extent. (there can't be beauty without ugliness or value w/o valueless or intelligence w/o lack of intelligence)

[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 06:37 am (UTC)(link)
Well thats my whole point. My definition of beauty differs a bit. Which still doesnt mean i 'devalue' beauty (as if its a quantitative 'value').

Btw i never implied that the presence of beauty somehow stipulates the absence of ugliness. But i'm saying they can coexist.

[identity profile] mijopo.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 11:18 am (UTC)(link)
So, your claim is that all women are beautiful although some of them are also ugly?

[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 01:29 pm (UTC)(link)
Sigh. There are several people who are very dense on definitions.

No, thats totally not what i'm saying. I'm saying there's something beautiful and something ugly in everyone (man, woman, dog, cat, bumblebee, amoeba). And i prefer to focus on the beautiful part and disregard the ugly part. Is that at least a little clearer? I really hope it is, because its getting a little exhausting to always have to explain and explain... :(

[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 01:37 pm (UTC)(link)
One may be only hoping to have the occasional comfort to NOT have to explain every word they say.

[identity profile] mijopo.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 01:50 pm (UTC)(link)
That is a little clearer, but it's also a different claim. Even if it were the case that there's something beautiful in all women, it wouldn't follow that all women are beautiful. If X has a part that has property Y, it doesn't follow that X has property Y.

I really hope it is, because its getting a little exhausting to always have to explain and explain... :(

Sorry, guess that's the price you pay for making absurd claims. :)

[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 01:58 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm full of absurdities, i thought you knew by now :)

[identity profile] mijopo.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 02:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Quite on the contrary, which may also explain the surprised reactions.

[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 03:04 pm (UTC)(link)
You dunno me then. But enough about that.

[identity profile] pmax3.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 11:41 am (UTC)(link)
Stop arguing. They won't understand us artists.

[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 01:30 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm slowly and painfully beginning to arrive at the point you just made :)

[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 08:04 am (UTC)(link)
It's like saying all people are smart or all possessions are valuable.

False dichotomy.

this just trivializes the notion of "beautiful" and is, in fact, incoherent

The very notion of the necessity for an "either beautiful or ugly" dichotomy is incoherent.

[identity profile] mijopo.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 11:20 am (UTC)(link)
I think you need to look up what "dichotomy" means, why don't you do that and then get back to me. (And check "incoherent" while you're at it.)

[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 12:58 pm (UTC)(link)
A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts, meaning it is a procedure in which a whole is divided into two parts, or in half. It is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets) that are:

* jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and
* mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

The two parts thus formed are complements. In logic, the partitions are opposites if there exists a proposition such that it holds over one and not the other.

[identity profile] mijopo.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 01:05 pm (UTC)(link)
Excellent, now we're making progress. Now I want you to go back and re-examine the claim you made that I had made (a) a false dichotomy and (b) where I claimed the necessity for "either beautiful or ugly". Note that the fact that there can't be beauty without ugliness is not, at all, the same thing as claiming that everything is one or the other.

[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com 2010-12-21 01:33 pm (UTC)(link)
You know what? Fuck it. My head hurts already and I'm definitely not in the mood to argue about semantics till kingdom come. Maybe some other day, sorry.