The attached reference is around a UK female swimmer who appears to have succumbed to pressure and had a nose job. She also makes the comment that male athletes are not subject to the same pressures about their appearance, or subject to the same comments etc.

While I agree with the base observation, there is more to the story than just this.
Women are certainly judged by their appearance and the better looking ones reap significant benefits over those not so endowed. The issue is women competing with women for men's attention. Men are not judged as much by their appearance, but more by their achievements than are women, once again in competition with each other for women.

What is also relevant and as commentators point out that these women are not just expected to excel in their sport but also present an expected level of beauty, and the same does not apply to male athletes. However women athletes are not required to perform to the same level as male athletes, and are still able to be recognized with ultimate awards despite the fact they are protected because they are women and have their own event. If men were to be subject to the same pressures about their appearance as women are, something that runs deep in the makeup of both men and women, would we also require that women are treated equally to men in terms of athletic and sports ability. Once again this is unlikely to ever happen, as while it would offer gender equity in terms of events the social impact of disenfranchising women from this sort of protection would not be tolerated.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 49022.html

Who is the source of the pressures mentioned? Twitter?

If men were to be subject to the same pressures about their appearance as women are, something that runs deep in the makeup of both men and women, would we also require that women are treated equally to men in terms of athletic and sports ability.

If .. who would put such pressure on them? Women on twitter?

Anyway, I feel I am missing the point here, can you elaborate more?

Check this out:

Women in the Public Eye: Cleavage or Classy? Pick One. - http://www.gamespot.com/profile/tempert ... /26023035/

This is what she talks about:



And this is the response from Meg Turney:

tuco wrote:Anyway, I feel I am missing the point here, can you elaborate more?

Women are parasitical creatures who prey on men and compete with other women in the matter of appearance to help them gain the attention of CEO's in order to make themselves appear very important and so that they can benefit from the wealth created by the hard work of the men without having to lift a finger themselves.

Men's appearance doesn't matter because the only thing about men that matters to the women they wish to attract is how powerful they are and how much money they can make for their women folk to go and spend on fripperies and things to make themselves even more beautiful.

M'kay?

Well, if it works for them ..

tuco wrote:Well, if it works for them ..

Indeed, but really I was just providing a potted version of what this thread is likely to devolve into to save us all a lot of time.....

Now we can all go to the end of the thread in double quick time and just say repeatedly; no, it really isn't like that.

It's not that women aren't ''required'' to perform to the same level as men, it's that they can't. You could require them to run 100m in under 10 seconds all day long - you'd remain frustrated. The same ''protection'' is given to male boxers who weigh less, disabled athletes and different age groups. Awards are still given out in all these areas as recognition for being the best in one's category.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

tuco wrote:Well, if it works for them ..

Indeed, but really I was just providing a potted version of what this thread is likely to devolve into to save us all a lot of time.....

Now we can all go to the end of the thread in double quick time and just say repeatedly; no, it really isn't like that.

Or, in threads like these, you could choose to ignore Scot Dutchy's posts, like the rest of us do, turn away from the strawman arguments, drop the wounded persecution act, and instead join in with the adult conversation, which you might come to realise contains nothing like the distorted caricature of everyone else's position that you keep trying to reinforce to yourself.

TMB wrote:The attached reference is around a UK female swimmer who appears to have succumbed to pressure and had a nose job. She also makes the comment that male athletes are not subject to the same pressures about their appearance, or subject to the same comments etc.

While I agree with the base observation, there is more to the story than just this.
Women are certainly judged by their appearance and the better looking ones reap significant benefits over those not so endowed. The issue is women competing with women for men's attention. Men are not judged as much by their appearance, but more by their achievements than are women, once again in competition with each other for women.

What is also relevant and as commentators point out that these women are not just expected to excel in their sport but also present an expected level of beauty, and the same does not apply to male athletes. However women athletes are not required to perform to the same level as male athletes, and are still able to be recognized with ultimate awards despite the fact they are protected because they are women and have their own event. If men were to be subject to the same pressures about their appearance as women are, something that runs deep in the makeup of both men and women, would we also require that women are treated equally to men in terms of athletic and sports ability. Once again this is unlikely to ever happen, as while it would offer gender equity in terms of events the social impact of disenfranchising women from this sort of protection would not be tolerated.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 49022.html

From the article:
"Most notably, she broke down in tears during her appearance on ITV show I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here! in 2013 as she compared her physical appearance to that of glamour model contestant Amy Willerton( scroll down to watch the video)."
People who voluntarily take part in shows like that [and compare themselves to "glamour models" (whatever that might mean)] have issues unrelated to what the OP discusses.

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

tuco wrote:Well, if it works for them ..

Indeed, but really I was just providing a potted version of what this thread is likely to devolve into to save us all a lot of time.....

Now we can all go to the end of the thread in double quick time and just say repeatedly; no, it really isn't like that.

Or, in threads like these, you could choose to ignore Scot Dutchy's posts, like the rest of us do, turn away from the strawman arguments, drop the wounded persecution act, and instead join in with the adult conversation, which you might come to realise contains nothing like the distorted caricature of everyone else's position that you keep trying to reinforce to yourself.

Er... no, not quite, PR. You should try reading a few of the OP's historic posts, then you'd get a feeling for what I'm rabbiting on about.

It certainly isn't what you are thinking, so you can put the insults away for another day.

And what on earth does Scott have to do with it?

Edit to add:

I think you must have stopped reading before you got to the bit where I said

Doubtdispelled wrote:Now we can all go to the end of the thread in double quick time and just say repeatedly; no, it really isn't like that.

If someone wants to get a nose job, let them. It's not valid for anyone to criticise their motives just because they are female.


It probably won't let her swim faster but if she wants to increase her TV appearances and sponsorship deals then physical beauty can only help in exactly the same way that david beckham earned more from sponsorship than peter beardsley. where's all the outrage at wayne rooney for getting hair implants, instead of being the poster boy for baldness? Won't someone think of the pressure he must have been put under by twitter or whatever, obviously he couldn't really have wanted them and so on

Rebecca's surgeon has done a great job there, good for her.

ED209 wrote:It probably won't let her swim faster but if she wants to increase her TV appearances and sponsorship deals then physical beauty can only help in exactly the same way that david beckham earned more from sponsorship than peter beardsley.

The photo shoot at which the new nose was paraded happened to be the one for Virgin Media.

Baldness is sewn up



Balding is sewn up - why the long face?

tuco wrote:Check this out:

Women in the Public Eye: Cleavage or Classy? Pick One. - http://www.gamespot.com/profile/tempert ... /26023035/

This is what she talks about:

And this is the response from Meg Turney:

To be honest I'm just saddened she's wearing an Altair costume to review AC3, I mean, that's just so 2007.

Anyway, to most of the other stuff in this thread I say "oh dear" and "it would be nice if everyone was nice".

Rebecca's problems obviously go a lot deeper than just being in the public eye and receiving shitty comments about her appearance, as Regi already said.

It says in the article that even at school she said she wasn't noticed by boys and had a pretty low self esteem, it said she knew she wasn't pretty. The woman needed some serious help with her self esteem back then, that'd have gone some way at least to helping her cope with the inevitable comments she's going to receive now she is in the public eye. And no one seems to be immune from it, as others have said, even blokes. You need to be able to develop a pretty thick skin if you're in the public eye, it's shit but it's just the way it is. The way to beat it is for people like her to have a "Fuck You!" attitude.

As for the nose job? Good for her, I hope it helps improve her self esteem even a little, I think I'd have done the same if I were her even if I wasn't famous.

Edit for clarity

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

tuco wrote:Well, if it works for them ..

Indeed, but really I was just providing a potted version of what this thread is likely to devolve into to save us all a lot of time.....

Now we can all go to the end of the thread in double quick time and just say repeatedly; no, it really isn't like that.

Or, in threads like these, you could choose to ignore Scot Dutchy's posts, like the rest of us do, turn away from the strawman arguments, drop the wounded persecution act, and instead join in with the adult conversation, which you might come to realise contains nothing like the distorted caricature of everyone else's position that you keep trying to reinforce to yourself.

Er... no, not quite, PR. You should try reading a few of the OP's historic posts, then you'd get a feeling for what I'm rabbiting on about.

It certainly isn't what you are thinking, so you can put the insults away for another day.

And what on earth does Scott have to do with it?

That's what I'm wondering. Scot doesn't behave like the OP of this thread at all.

tuco wrote:Who is the source of the pressures mentioned? Twitter?

If men were to be subject to the same pressures about their appearance as women are, something that runs deep in the makeup of both men and women, would we also require that women are treated equally to men in terms of athletic and sports ability.

If .. who would put such pressure on them? Women on twitter?

Anyway, I feel I am missing the point here, can you elaborate more?

As noted in the various articles, the specific athlete said she had been pressured from various sources. Why do you aks?

Doubtdispelled wrote:

tuco wrote:Anyway, I feel I am missing the point here, can you elaborate more?

Women are parasitical creatures who prey on men and compete with other women in the matter of appearance to help them gain the attention of CEO's in order to make themselves appear very important and so that they can benefit from the wealth created by the hard work of the men without having to lift a finger themselves.

Men's appearance doesn't matter because the only thing about men that matters to the women they wish to attract is how powerful they are and how much money they can make for their women folk to go and spend on fripperies and things to make themselves even more beautiful.

M'kay?

I am sure there is a logical fallacy that describes how you are trying to derail any rational discussion of this, however I am sure you already know what you are doing.

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

tuco wrote:Well, if it works for them ..

Indeed, but really I was just providing a potted version of what this thread is likely to devolve into to save us all a lot of time.....

Now we can all go to the end of the thread in double quick time and just say repeatedly; no, it really isn't like that.

Or, in threads like these, you could choose to ignore Scot Dutchy's posts, like the rest of us do, turn away from the strawman arguments, drop the wounded persecution act, and instead join in with the adult conversation, which you might come to realise contains nothing like the distorted caricature of everyone else's position that you keep trying to reinforce to yourself.

Thanks, I could not have put it better myself.