This was interesting and thought-provoking. There's a therapeutic element to all the "body-positive" marketing that's now directed at me as a female consumer. The underlying assumption seems to be that I've been oppressed by Western beauty standards and that, by buying the company's products, I can throw off those shackles and finally appreciate my body for what it is. Case in point: I just received a swimsuit catalog featuring three morbidly obese models, right next to a body-positivity "worksheet" wherein I was encouraged to celebrate my body: "Thank you for [blank]", "I'm amazed by how you [blank]". Then they asked you to post your answers to the company's Instagram. Weird blending of capitalism, self-help and struggle session.
And here's the thing: I live in an affluent blue metro area. Most women around these parts are hitting the gym/Pilates/hot yoga, eating healthy, and maintaining a good weight. What's the thinking? That the target audience will say to themselves, "yeah, I'd never let myself go like that . . . but isn't it great that this company is so inclusive? I'm going to buy one of their $100 swimsuits to support their niceness!" It's like skinny girl noblesse oblige.
Feminism, like many other reform movements that have had an unhealthy relationship with Marxist "critical theories," has been very successful at dissolving traditional norms and social bonds, but they have failed utterly to provide any workable norms or social bonds to replace the old ones. Now, much of their ideology is thoroughly mainstream and enshrined in law, but feminism as a movement has failed to mature beyond stupid knee-jerk teenage-style rebellion, which was understandable when feminists really were marginalized and relatively powerless, but not when the movement has achieved real power and influence. If at this point -- after decades of pro-feminist social engineering that has been profoundly expensive and disruptive to society on all levels -- if at this point, all feminists have to offer is more stupid slogans about "the patriarchy," then they're long overdue for a real backlash, which will inevitably come.
> "The tendency towards + identity is the Orc-ification of the consumer. "
Awww. Damn. I read the Montana post and the Coinbase ad post and was really impressed with you as a writer. But this is where you lost me. Your statement is nonsensical. I think the problem with really smart writers is that they get overly intellectual just for the sake of it. The plus sign in the alphabet list stands for Pedos. Somehow you missed that. So the rest of your ideas in this article fall apart after that misunderstanding.
You're an amazing writer falling a little bit into the kind of BS intellectualism taught at college, where professors are just obsessed with their own thoughts. Regardless, you're on the path to great things in life if you can write so well. But please consider replacing the spurious and speculative statements with statistics/facts for the readers who have put all the modern criticism college games behind them.
Sep 14, 2022·edited Sep 14, 2022Liked by Isaac Simpson
>The real answer is money.
This is too narrow. The real answer is power, of which money is a part. Social prestige (think low paid journalists spouting the party line not because they become rich but they have power and influence over others), and political influence and control are other instances of "power" that aren't simply money. Additionally this addresses the conflict between "go woke go broke" in theory and reality of wokeness getting more pervasive all the time. "Burgers?"
The first feminist was the mother of the author of Frankenstein, Mary Wollstonecraft, who wrote a treatise on the Rights of Women in 1793. If you don't have the concept of human rights you can't possibly create an identity about liberated women defying Christian teaching on female honor.
This was interesting and thought-provoking. There's a therapeutic element to all the "body-positive" marketing that's now directed at me as a female consumer. The underlying assumption seems to be that I've been oppressed by Western beauty standards and that, by buying the company's products, I can throw off those shackles and finally appreciate my body for what it is. Case in point: I just received a swimsuit catalog featuring three morbidly obese models, right next to a body-positivity "worksheet" wherein I was encouraged to celebrate my body: "Thank you for [blank]", "I'm amazed by how you [blank]". Then they asked you to post your answers to the company's Instagram. Weird blending of capitalism, self-help and struggle session.
And here's the thing: I live in an affluent blue metro area. Most women around these parts are hitting the gym/Pilates/hot yoga, eating healthy, and maintaining a good weight. What's the thinking? That the target audience will say to themselves, "yeah, I'd never let myself go like that . . . but isn't it great that this company is so inclusive? I'm going to buy one of their $100 swimsuits to support their niceness!" It's like skinny girl noblesse oblige.
Feminism, like many other reform movements that have had an unhealthy relationship with Marxist "critical theories," has been very successful at dissolving traditional norms and social bonds, but they have failed utterly to provide any workable norms or social bonds to replace the old ones. Now, much of their ideology is thoroughly mainstream and enshrined in law, but feminism as a movement has failed to mature beyond stupid knee-jerk teenage-style rebellion, which was understandable when feminists really were marginalized and relatively powerless, but not when the movement has achieved real power and influence. If at this point -- after decades of pro-feminist social engineering that has been profoundly expensive and disruptive to society on all levels -- if at this point, all feminists have to offer is more stupid slogans about "the patriarchy," then they're long overdue for a real backlash, which will inevitably come.
> "The tendency towards + identity is the Orc-ification of the consumer. "
Awww. Damn. I read the Montana post and the Coinbase ad post and was really impressed with you as a writer. But this is where you lost me. Your statement is nonsensical. I think the problem with really smart writers is that they get overly intellectual just for the sake of it. The plus sign in the alphabet list stands for Pedos. Somehow you missed that. So the rest of your ideas in this article fall apart after that misunderstanding.
You're an amazing writer falling a little bit into the kind of BS intellectualism taught at college, where professors are just obsessed with their own thoughts. Regardless, you're on the path to great things in life if you can write so well. But please consider replacing the spurious and speculative statements with statistics/facts for the readers who have put all the modern criticism college games behind them.
>The real answer is money.
This is too narrow. The real answer is power, of which money is a part. Social prestige (think low paid journalists spouting the party line not because they become rich but they have power and influence over others), and political influence and control are other instances of "power" that aren't simply money. Additionally this addresses the conflict between "go woke go broke" in theory and reality of wokeness getting more pervasive all the time. "Burgers?"
Excellent stuff...gotta say Isaac, I've been really impressed with your output as of late. You're cranking out content like a mother****er.
The first feminist was the mother of the author of Frankenstein, Mary Wollstonecraft, who wrote a treatise on the Rights of Women in 1793. If you don't have the concept of human rights you can't possibly create an identity about liberated women defying Christian teaching on female honor.
Happy to see the point that this is an across the board issue and not just on the 'left'.