posted
I hate to admit it, but yes, I've been watching this show. It totally amazes me; these women doen't even look like the same people by the time it's all over and done! I can understand wanting obvious procedures like a nose job, etc., but lip surgery to "balance the lips?" That just seems a bit crazy. Are these women empowering themselves or ultimately playing into a beauty myth perpetuated by society?
Posts: 11 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might want to ask though, if they look better. Do they? I wouldn't know--haven't seen the show.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Urrrrrrrrrg. The whole concept of that show ANNOYS ME! What are these television executives thinking!?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the TV exects were thinking, "Hmm...we could probably get a lot of women to watch this show!" After watching for a few weeks, I'm discovering flaws I didn't even know I had! They did a brow lift on a 25 year-old tonight, believe it or not. I always thought those were for much older women. My husband commented that its like the docs have the "perfect face" in mind and just do surgery until the women look as much like that ideal as possible.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's fascinating in a sick sort of way. I watched it last week as I sat in my hotel room, killing time before going to sleep.
The saddest part was at the end and they had to pick one woman over the other to go on to the Swan pageant, the woman *not* chosen said she was disappointed. Disappointed?! Oh my stars...woman, be grateful you just got tens of thousands of dollars worth of goods and services, for FREE. And be grateful that the surgical rejuvination (she was 40, and her work was mostly anti-aging) you received doesn't have to be compared to a dozen other women to see who is the most incredibly changed.
The worst aspect of this show? Its effect. I found myself thinking about how much weight I really need to lose...wondering what this team would think *I* needed. I've always been pretty comfortable with my looks, so I could see how destructive this show could really be... Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't actually seen the show, but if the ads for it are any indication, I think it is horrible. It's just another voice trying to tell women that they aren't good enough, and can't be good enough unless they scuplt their bodies into the conventional idea of some mythical ideal woman.
It isn't bad enough that we have conventional ads and informercials that have women in tears, talking about how disgusted they were with themselves until they became a size six or so(actually, I saw one a day or two ago that was a celebration of becoming a size zero).
But now, here, we have a show that not only tells women that they have to be thin, but they also have to have perfect features, perfect hair, perfect everything. If they don't they're "ugly", and this show just perpetuates the idea that there is no place in society for what culture declares "ugly".
quote:...wondering what this team would think *I* needed.
You know, pretty much every make-over show does that to you, including Queer Eye ("Whoa, it's true. I don't have any class."). As I said in the last topic about this show, I just don't understand what the hubbub is about with this show in particular. Sure, it might be offensive, but save American Idol and Survivor (both of which are on the edge), I haven't seen a reality show that isn't.
[Edit: Oh yeah, and like most of you, I'm sure, I'm basing this solely on the ads.]
posted
Is it really practical to think that people will ever not have a standard of beauty that doesn't include some physical standard?
"Oooh, but Mr. Saxon, we just want a more realistic standard."
Anything that is a standard will still relegate some women to the non-standard side. There is no standard that will include all women.
"Surely the standard should be a person's 'inner beauty'."
First of all, whatever standard of inner beauty you choose will still relegate some people to the ugly side. And, again, is it practical to think that there will ever be a standard of beauty that doesn't include the physical? And by that, I mean clothes, too. Personally, I think that the whole 'dressing up' ideal for church and business interviews and dates, what have you, is just another example of the man grinding us all beneath his well heeled loafer. I mean, clearly if the ideal is liking people for their 'inner qualities', clothes are right out. So, let's throw out the other 4,555,534 redundant shoes, shirts, slacks, dresses, etc, etc we have in our closets to help fight against this nasty ideal of beauty.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say anything about not having any standards of what constitutes beauty. All I'm saying is, don't treat people who don't happen to reach whatever standard of beauty you subscribe to like crap.
I personally think that Johnny Depp is a very attractive man and that Leonardo DiCaprio is about the least attractive man I've ever seen in my life - doesn't mean I think all men have to look like Depp and that men who look like DiCaprio should have to go around with a bag on their heads.
I'm average looking, and I'm pretty okay with that. But I had someone - a total stranger, as a matter of fact - tell me once that because I didn't meet his standard of physical attractiveness, I might as well be dead because there was no use for me to exist. In those words, he said that. That's the kind of climate that shows like "The Swan" encourage, and I don't think it's very constructive.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of me thinks the show is not so bad. I watched one episode because from the comercials I had the impression that is was just another makeover show only much worse. But, to me at least, it seem that they were trying (with some of them) to find women who had psychological problems with the way they looked and help them.
In the episode I watched the lady had a "witch" nose which made her feel self conscious and ugly to her husband. So, I guess I'm divided on whether or not the show is bad.
posted
I think the main problem with 'The Swan' is that it makes people think that there is such a thing as 'a standard' held by a large percentage of people in the country. I look at social standards just like standards of fashion. Things come, things go, but on a rainy day, people always want a functional umbrella and a waterproof set of galoshes.
I think everyone has some kind of standard for physical beauty.
I think everyone has some kind of standard for inner beauty.
I think people learn these standards from the usual components of family, friends and, yes, media to some degree. But don't forget that there *are* many different types of media. Because these factors are different for everyone, I don't think that what people really find beautiful fall in line with what is fashionably chic. For instance, I think there is a pretty large segment of the population who gets off on, god help us, being different and takes a perverse satisfaction in going against the current. Watch some of the various talk shows some time to see the many shapes love really forms in.
Don't forget, too, that there *is* definitely a social push to not judge people solely on who they are on the 'outside'. That's not absent from media and the rest of the population. This thread is an example of that.
You had the one guy who was rude to you, but how many men have come on to you or told you they thought you were good looking, lma? I bet it was at least as many as one? Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched the Swan for a total of ten minutes-mostly out of curiosity. What I saw disturbed me greatly.
It was a doctor or host demeaning a woman because she decided she did not want to go through with all of the elective surgery "they" suggested. Her reasoning was because she liked her body/face and needed some part of her original identity to feel ok about herself.
The host or doctor treated her like it was such a bad decision, that she could be so much better, and the show treated it like this woman’s decision (based on personal preference and comfort) was somehow scandalous or wrong.
quote:You had the one guy who was rude to you, but how many men have come on to you or told you they thought you were good looking, lma? I bet it was at least as many as one?
Well, yes. But that really isn't the point.
The point is, shows like these seem to give some segment of the population the idea that they have full right to be rude, even hateful and hurtful, to anyone who doesn't pass muster based on their own particular standard of beauty. And that just isn't okay, as far as I'm concerned.
Taking it to a personal level, I don't care what anyone says about me beyond my hearing. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to say something like that to someone, with the clear intention of making that person feel bad about themselves, is just wrong. There are enough people in the world who do things like that without the encouragement of shows like "The Swan".
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't find Leo DiCaprio all that attractive, either...or Brad Pitt.
Anyway, "The Swan" actually amuses me in some sort of sick, train-wreck way. I mean, a lot of these women would have been perfectly fine on their own. At most, I'd say some of them just needed to get back into an exercise routine or get a new haircut or something like that. Strangely enough, makeover shows like this particular one make me want cosmetic surgery _less_, which I suppose is part of the reason that I enjoy watching them.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Personally, I think that the whole 'dressing up' ideal for church and business interviews and dates, what have you, is just another example of the man grinding us all beneath his well heeled loafer."
It would be if men did not have to dress-up for work also, but for any professional, dressing in business attire is required, regardless of sex. Personally, I think that way too many people dress sloppily and present themselves poorly.
And being a woman, I can say that men have it just as bad, if not worse, than women for dressing professionally. For starters, men don't have as many options for dressing up as women do. Women's suits are varied and can even have stretch lycra in them--the epitome of comfort in suiting. Also, men have to wear collared shirts with ties; I would hate that. The first thing my dad would always do when coming home from a day at work, was take off his tie. Women can also wear short-sleeved suits with sleeveless collared button-ups under their suits. Men don't have short-sleeved suits and have to walk around sweating in the summertime in order to look professional. Not to mention that we can also wear skirts, which are much cooler in the heat than wool-blend trouser pants.
Basically, women have it so much easier than men for dressing professionally. We can have convenient "innovations" in professional attire and blame these innovations on "fashion." Men don't have that option; they have Brooks Brothers, whose latest innovation was probably the 3-piece suit.
When one is representing a business or an organization, it is very important to be and look professional. If that requires getting out of bed a little earlier, big deal. If someone absolutely cannot deal with this, they are probably in the wrong profession, and should go flip burgers at McDonald's or something.
quote: It would be if men did not have to dress-up for work also, but for any professional, dressing in business attire is required, regardless of sex.
"The man" is not the male gender. The man is the man. He brings others down in a gender neutral way.
edit: FIJC, you've edited you're post twice without mentioning it. Fixing grammar without saying anything is fine, in my opinion, but adding new stuff twice without a mention is a little annoying.
quote: It would be if men did not have to dress-up for work also, but for any professional, dressing in business attire is required, regardless of sex. Personally, I think that way too many people dress sloppily and present themselves poorly.
When you are representing a business or an organization, it is very important to be and look professional. If that requires getting out of bed a little earlier, big deal. If someone absolutely cannot deal with this, they are obviously in the wrong profession, and should go flip burgers at McDonald's or something.
I wasn't aware this thread was just about women.
I thought we were talking about standards of beauty.
I specifically thought that we were talking about the fact that people should be judged by their inner beauty. That paying attention to what society thinks is 'beautiful' is bad for those who can't fit that standard. Or is that not why people are upset about 'The Swan'?
Your point that people have to dress well for interviews or for a business just shows that society reinforces false standards of beauty.
Further, your bit about people dressing sloppily just shows you are judging them by surface appearances. Maybe they're really wonderful people inside. Maybe *you* have sucky fashion sense when it comes to them and they think they're dressed just fine, thanks. In any case, not everyone can dress well. Maybe they're color blind or just didn't have time to not dress sloppy because they had a thousand other things better to do than dress up in a way that the rest of the world considers unsloppy? Maybe they're introverts, or depressed. Maybe they don't pay attention to what everyone is saying isn't sloppy. Maybe they'd rather read a book or maybe they have to take care of their sick mother rather than take time to make sure their clothes aren't sloppy.
You know, FIJC(edit:sorry), you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. If you really took a moment and got to know those badly dressed people, I bet you'd find they are just like you and me.
posted
Stormy, please tell me you're not equating SURGERY -- potentially life-threatening, and occasionally people do die undergoing these procedures -- to dressing professionally or attractively!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's a difference between trying to be beautiful for a job interview and trying to look neat and under control. You wouldn't want your lawyer in sweat pants and a tank top. Much of the world, especially business, is based upon appearance. You want to look respectable, efficient, and effective. You clothes do make a statement, and if that statement is "Wash me, for the love of God, wash me!" people are far less likely to want your services.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Your point that people have to dress well for interviews or for a business just shows that society reinforces false standards of beauty."
I think that there are two standards for beauty--the aesthetic beauty on the outside, and the beauty of a person's inner spirit.
I do not view dressing professionally for business as reinforcing a false standard of beauty. I am not sure that dressing professionally equates beauty; I think it simply equates professionalism. An outwardly unattractive person can dress professionally, as can an attractive person; I do not view outward beauty as having anything to do with looking like a professional.
quote:"Further, your bit about people dressing sloppily just shows you are judging them by surface appearances."
I think it is quite possible to think that someone is a horrible dresser, but still believe they are a great person. I know because I am in college and just about everyone dresses in sweats and t-shirts. I don't choose to do this, but am still friends with a lot of people who don't care how they look.
quote:"Maybe they're really wonderful people inside. Maybe *you* have sucky fashion sense when it comes to them and they think they're dressed just fine, thanks. In any case, not everyone can dress well. Maybe they're color blind or just didn't have time to not dress sloppy because they had a thousand other things better to do than dress up in a way that the rest of the world considers unsloppy? Maybe they're introverts, or depressed. Maybe they don't pay attention to what everyone is saying isn't sloppy. Maybe they'd rather read a book or maybe they have to take care of their sick mother rather than take time to make sure their clothes aren't sloppy."
I think you are making a lot of assumptions about me. Again, one can acknowledge that someone doesn't dress well, but still be friends with them. Ulimately, it is the person that matters, and not outward appearences. It just so happens that dressing professionally is part of the job in the white-collar world. Fortunately, people have the choice as to what vocation one ought to go into.
quote:"You know, Sun, you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. If you really took a moment and got to know those badly dressed people, I bet you'd find they are just like you and me."
Have you ever thought that you are making even more assumptions about me, than what I actually do everyday in my own life? I have some friends who dress nicely and some friends who do not. Ultimately, I look for those who have personalities compatible to mine.
No, the risk was not stated. However, a show whose message is "Buy more/better clothes/makeup/stuff so you can be One of the Beautiful People" is NOT equivalent to one that says "Have lots of surgery so you can be One of the Beautiful People." And you seemed to be equating them.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Rivka, except for the risk involved with the surgery, I can't see that they're not exactly the same. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
First of all, the risk alone makes a big difference, IMO. On a moral basis, I mean. Encouraging someone to spend more than they can afford is bad; encouraging them to undergo unnecessary surgery is far worse. (Even setting aside the FAR higher costs involved.)
Additionally: surgical changes (short of yet MORE surgery, and sometimes even then) are permanent. If you decide that you don't like the new clothes/hairstyle/makeup after all, it's not that difficult to change back.
There tends to be very little recovery time after new purchases.
Proper hygiene and grooming are something that most people can manage without a huge investment of time or money. "Makeovers" take more of each, but not drastically (if they DO, then they're a bit extreme as well). Surgery takes a HUGE investment of time and money; and oh yeah -- it could kill you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
First of all, the risk alone makes a big difference, IMO. On a moral basis, I mean. Encouraging someone to spend more than they can afford is bad; encouraging them to undergo unnecessary surgery is far worse. (Even setting aside the FAR higher costs involved.)
I've already said that the physical aspect sets them apart.
quote: Additionally: surgical changes (short of yet MORE surgery, and sometimes even then) are permanent. If you decide that you don't like the new clothes/hairstyle/makeup after all, it's not that difficult to change back.
While that's true, I think a lot of the surgical changes are things that will be good fashion choices, so to speak, (assuming the surgery holds out. a big if.)for the rest of the person's life. A slim waist and perky boobs are likely to not go out of style any time in our lifetime.
In any case, the thread has revolved around the issue of *why* these people are doing it, of the vanity reasons these people are getting this surgery, and how this validates shallowness in society. Whether you're having surgery or putting on the best clothes you have before you go out, you are still working to make yourself toe some social standard of beauty. This is why I say they are both just as shallow, if they are shallow, even though the risks are different. I'm NOT saying they are alike in terms of risks, so you can stop beating that dead horse. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that I think that since there IS so much greater risk, pushing changes that require surgery is far more shallow. *shrug*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, if tv is responsible for shaping what people find attractive, I have to say that I approve of the recent 'King of Queens' trend of showing fat guys with good looking women.
Nothing like the double standard! Woot!
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
On Queer Eye, the man goes through a makeover and at the worst, gets his back hair removed. At the end they usually end up with a new plasma TV or golf clubs.
On this show, every woman goes under painful surgery--just to begin. Then they have to fight it out with all the other contestants or come away with nothing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
