Puke-inducing post of the day

I mean, seriously?

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

48 Comments

  1. Posted December 28, 2006 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    ::vomits::
    I think this comment pretty much sums it up:
    “but your thirst for these geeky girls is sheer anthropomorphisation (because, no, I do not consider models human beings, having known some myself)”
    Hmmm, complaining that the girls aren’t “hot” enough (and in the process deciding, apparently, that there is some objective definition of “hot” with which all red-blooded males must certainly agree), calling various women “skanks”, comparisons of the women to foodstuffs.
    Because PICTURES of women and links to their webpages calls for comments like that. Mmmm hmmm.

  2. Posted December 28, 2006 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    There’s something very 2003-ish, yet quasi-eternal, about that list. I propose a Spartacus-like counter-maneuver. Everyone should just link to this picture in their “about” page. A ten hottest list comprised of nothing but Reginald vel Johnsons is just what the doctor ordered.

  3. boobblogging
    Posted December 28, 2006 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Your just mad because your Clinton boob pic didn’t make it.

  4. roymacIII
    Posted December 28, 2006 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    *sigh*

  5. Posted December 28, 2006 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Well Gizmodo is a site run by male geeks. Lots of male geeks have infatuations with women that are out of their league due to various social anxieties, tact and what ever else.
    It’s all in fun. *shrug* They didn’t make them look like they’re a bunch of idiots. So you can’t look good and blog about tech and be noticed for it?

  6. Jessica
    Posted December 28, 2006 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    BoobBlogging–no matter what name you comment under, your IP address stays the same, as I’m sure you know. Just an FYI.

  7. tabitha91
    Posted December 28, 2006 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    sorry maz, but to me, it just feels like the same shit, different day. Sure it’s fine to notice someones attractive, but I pretty tired of the myriad lists of the 10 or 100 most beautiful woman that – fill in the blank. Plus the comments – ugh – don’t even get me started.
    Boobblogging – Is that you Ann? I just saw your new picture posted. Maybe you need to lay off the botox and accept the fact that we are not spring chickens anymore, and stop being jealous – it borders on pathetic.

  8. W. Kiernan
    Posted December 28, 2006 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    This idiocy is all Marc Andreessen’s fault. If everybody were still using Lynx no one would ever pay attention to how female bloggers look.

  9. Posted December 28, 2006 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    I saw that yesterday.. briefly considered dumping it from my blogroll.. but.. but.. gadgets. Without the Giz how will I keep on top of which 25 phones Motorola releases on any given day..?

  10. roymacIII
    Posted December 28, 2006 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Well Gizmodo is a site run by male geeks. Lots of male geeks have infatuations with women that are out of their league due to various social anxieties, tact and what ever else.

    On a personal level, that’s one the things that pisses me off. Sites like that, and stations like G4 go out of their way to alienate women, and reinforce this stereotype of technophiles and geeks as being 1. sexist, and 2. socially awkward losers gawking at women “out of their league.”
    Reality check: It’s almost 2007. Computers and technology are pretty solidly here to stay. They’re not the sole property of basement dwelling bottom-feeders or the kid with the pocket protector. Normal, every day people like you and me are tech-heads now. There are- shock of shocks- women who are interested in that whole “interweb” thing.

    It’s all in fun. *shrug* They didn’t make them look like they’re a bunch of idiots. So you can’t look good and blog about tech and be noticed for it?

    It’s not “fun” to me. It’s insulting. I’m a guy who likes technology and video games. I find it insulting on several levels.
    1. Why does it matter if these women look good or not? They’re not props, they’re human beings. If you want to do a top-ten list about women, why not a top-ten most influential or interesting bloggers?
    2. The comments that readers are making about it… mind blowing.
    Yeah. That kind of bile is “all in fun.”
    3. (again, on the personal level)I’m tired of the stereotype of geeks as socially retarded mouth-breathers, and sites like that do nothing but reinforce the idea that we’re all sitting around drooling over women we’ll never touch, and looking for more material to jerk-off over.

  11. Posted December 28, 2006 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    I would have had a lot more respect for the list if (a) it was ten instead of a “top ten,” and (b) the comments weren’t so offensive. Really, to me, the comments were much worse than the blog entry itself.
    That said, I’ll take “These are the ten most beautiful bloggers in [X] field…” over “These sluts love to [insert graphic description of random sexual act here]…” or “These are the ten least beautiful…” any day of the week. Maybe it’s because I’m male and have the luxury of feeling this way, but it’s the active misogyny in media that bothers me much more than the “hu-hu, she’s hot, Beavis” school of adolescent male sexism.
    Cheers,
    TH

  12. whatsername
    Posted December 29, 2006 at 1:12 am | Permalink

    Guys like discussing hot chicks, nothing new about that imo. *shrug* Definitely saw some annoying comments on there, but some good ones too!

  13. hendmik
    Posted December 29, 2006 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    I dunno what was more shallow: the men creating the list or the Uncle Tom women in some of the blogs (not all of them). I read through a couple and found this gem:
    “For the past 22 years, I’ve always been torn between two things – vanity and intellect.
    I could focus on the fun part of life – being pretty, being vapid; or I could be dull but, well, smarter.”
    So, if you want to have fun in life, you have to act and dress like a Bratz doll. I don’t think she’s lying about the not-so-smart thing.

  14. Posted December 29, 2006 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Okay, what’s the big deal? So a couple geeks posted a Top 10 of people they are most attracted to. What good is beauty if we can’t admire it? And seriously, Jessica, what if you would have made the list? Then how would you feel?
    I think that this is a good thing. Here you have some geeks who are getting props for more than just being geeks. I mean, sure, they made their name blogging, but there’s more to people than just one talent or trait, and I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with recognizing talented people for being beautiful as well–if they are, that is…
    Besides, Jessica Cutler is a skank anyway…

  15. Posted December 29, 2006 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    “Besides, Jessica Cutler is a skank anyway…”
    Please tell me you were being ironic…

  16. Posted December 29, 2006 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Sad.
    If the women on that list find it offensive, maybe they should consider suing for copyright violation/expropriation of their likenesses and images.
    As for me, I will stick with my non-blogger “babe”, who is caring for two in diapers including one with the croup as I type.

  17. Posted December 30, 2006 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    Eh, whatever. I enjoy scoping out hot guys, but I like to do it (for the most part) in REAL LIFE. These guys need to leave their computer once in a while…this is kind of sad.
    As for appreciating the beauty of geeks, that’s all fine and good but these girls all look exactly the same??! What about the hot geeks who don’t conform to the “blown-dry-straight-long-hair-natural-makeup” school of beauty?
    I’m totally rebelling with big 80s hair and heavy eye makeup for the new year. :)

  18. Posted December 30, 2006 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know about you, Jane, but I adhere to the “If it takes you more than 30 seconds to choose clothes and get dressed, it’s taking too long” school of thought.
    Jane, when people say, “Appreciating the beauty of geeks,” that’s exactly what they mean: appreciating the fact that some geeks conform to the mainstream’s meticulously rigid beauty standards, and promoting them over other geeks.

  19. Posted December 30, 2006 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    I think Jane’s point is that there are lots of kinds of “beautiful.” Sure, people who conform with modern standards are beautiful — but so are people who create their own kind of beauty. The problem is when we only emphasize one sort of beauty, over the others. Personally I find it interesting that long, straight hair is somehow considered “beautiful.” I have long, stick-straight hair and it’s boring as hell. I’ve paid mucho bucks to make it curly, and even then, it sadly only lasts a few hours with a whole bottle of hairspray and dozens of pins :( I don’t get what’s so great about straight hair. I sure wish I could trade mine in!
    As for taking only 30 seconds to pick out and put on clothes, I certainly hope you’re not factoring the requisite daily shower in that time. I would MUCH prefer to spend a day in a room with someone who spent more than 30 seconds in the shower ;)

  20. Posted December 30, 2006 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    I think the straight hair thing has everything to do with whiteness. Straight hair, pointy nose, angular face, round eyes: All marks of caucasian ancestry.
    Our cultural beauty standards are based very much around race and class, the idea being to set apart a genetically and culturally preferred class of Beautiful People. When pale skin meant you didn’t have to do outdoor chores, it was prized; when it meant you didn’t have time to tan on the Riviera, it was seen as unattractive, but skin that’s “too” dark is still held in low favor in this culture unless it comes with the other ethnic features, such as straight hair.
    No person symbolizes “objective” beauty standards better than Paris Hilton: Blond, tanned, skinny, delicate-looking, and representing the lifestyle of pampered leisure that all of our cultural beauty standards are subconsciously based around. I don’t find that attractive, but that’s partly because I’ve been conditioned around women who don’t look anything like that. That’s probably the solution to all of this: Less time spent drooling over media, more time spent interacting with flesh and blood people. Unfortunately, this societal problem is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
    Cheers,
    TH

  21. Posted December 30, 2006 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    As for taking only 30 seconds to pick out and put on clothes, I certainly hope you’re not factoring the requisite daily shower in that time.
    Oh, hell no. In the shower I make up for the time I save by not giving much thought to clothes.
    No person symbolizes “objective” beauty standards better than Paris Hilton: Blond, tanned, skinny, delicate-looking, and representing the lifestyle of pampered leisure that all of our cultural beauty standards are subconsciously based around.
    There’s always a disconnect between the conventional standard and what the people consider attractice. The mainstream Western standard for men is roughly how The Governor looks, or at least how he looked in the 80s. In the real world, I saw a study a few years ago that says most women don’t even find that physique attractive, and that Jude Law was more attractive to real people than Sylvester Stallone.
    This effect is probably more pronounced when it comes to male attractiveness due to the male domination of the media, but there’s still a very stark difference between men as a whole and the men who pick models. For example, men who pick models tend to have an alpha male mentality, which could account for a discrepancy between the BMI men find attractive in women and the BMI the media finds attractive in women.

  22. Posted December 30, 2006 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    “The mainstream Western standard for men is roughly how The Governor looks, or at least how he looked in the 80s.”
    The Governator? Maybe in the 80s the way he looked in the 80s was the standard for male attractiveness, but I really don’t think this is the case today. Women’s mags, when they feature men on the cover at all (rare), generally tend to favor someone like a David Beckham or a Michael Vartan.
    And, frankly, as a red-blooded het gal, I can’t say I find any major grounds for disagreement with their taste. More non-white beauties would be appreciated, but that’s not to malign the attractive men they do (occasionally) feature.
    Or do you have something other than mags in mind when you talk about the “standard” of male attractiveness?

  23. Posted December 30, 2006 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    I’ve been excluded from some social groups because I don’t look like I came out of a Gap ad, and everyone else in the group does. I have no doubt whatsoever that I’d have an easier life if I were more of the David Beckham and Michael Vartan mold; the studies that have been done on the subject confirm this.
    “Objective” standards of beauty are definitely a problem for both men and women, but women have it far worse because men aren’t expected to ground their self-worth in their physical attractiveness. So I don’t really take looksism as seriously when it affects men.
    The important thing to remember is that conventional beauty exists to exclude, not to include. A tiny number of people are considered beautiful so that the vast majority of people can be considered not beautiful. If more than one kind of beauty were respected, then people would more obviously differ in their personal judgments of beauty, which would be more likely to involve deeper context, and there’d be no point to these “top ten” lists.
    Cheers,
    TH

  24. Posted December 30, 2006 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    Or do you have something other than mags in mind when you talk about the “standard” of male attractiveness?

    I’m thinking mostly of the connotation of phrases like “real man” and the emphasis on sports and physical strength. A muscular man radiates power; one with a BMI of 21 radiates weakness.

    “Objective” standards of beauty are definitely a problem for both men and women, but women have it far worse because men aren’t expected to ground their self-worth in their physical attractiveness. So I don’t really take looksism as seriously when it affects men.

    Oh, I agree, mostly. Part of male self-worth is about physical attractiveness, but to a large degree it’s not about looking good to women but about being a “real man.” Stereotypically, if a woman finds a socially approved man physically unattractive, there must be something wrong with her taste.
    It also goes to men who find socially approved women unattractive, but in a different and lesser way. Men are allowed to have different tastes in approved women – for example, to disagree over whether Drew Barrymore is more attractive than Lindsay Lohan. They’re only ignored if their taste diverges from the mainstream one systematically.

  25. Posted December 31, 2006 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    “I’m thinking mostly of the connotation of phrases like “real man” and the emphasis on sports and physical strength. A muscular man radiates power; one with a BMI of 21 radiates weakness.”
    Ahhh, I see. But I don’t think this is an “attractiveness” thing then, so much as a basic gender role thing. There are tons of big ugly manly men out there. Being a manly man isn’t about being PHYSICALLY attractive, it’s about being, erm, uh, manly enough.
    I disagree that there’s pressure on women to find “manly men” attractive, at least physically. There’s certainly pressure to want to be small/weak/protected, but this tends to play out WAY more in eating disorders, than in disapproval of a particular sort of man. Indeed, the group from which women find the most disapproval of their choices in mates comes from their male family members. When a woman decides she likes a certain man, her girlfriends will almost certainly be quick to reassure her of the quality of her pick. It’s her father and brother who will pick the guy apart.
    I also think the Drew Barrymore/Lindsay Lohan example is skewed. Both of those women are conventionally attractive — light skin, petite features, fun, easygoing personalities. If a guy dared to venture that he found, say, Oprah physically attractive, I imagine he’d be ridiculed pretty harshly.

  26. Posted December 31, 2006 at 2:11 am | Permalink

    I also think the Drew Barrymore/Lindsay Lohan example is skewed. Both of those women are conventionally attractive — light skin, petite features, fun, easygoing personalities.
    That’s my exact point. Conventionally, Lindsay Lohan is a bit more attractive, on account of her lower BMI. But Drew Barrymore isn’t Rosie O’Donnell, so she is on the approved side of the cut.
    If you want a better analogy, people can get away with saying Berkeley or Amherst is better than Harvard but not with saying SUNY Stony Brook is better than Harvard. In this case it’s based on an objective standard of quality, but the social reactions are about the same.

  27. donna darko
    Posted December 31, 2006 at 3:36 am | Permalink

    I think it’s the opposite. There seem to be women who like the athletic, frat boy type and others who like the sensitive, artistic type. Whereas there is less leeway for conventional attractivenesss in women. They must be thin and feminine.

  28. donna darko
    Posted December 31, 2006 at 3:39 am | Permalink

    Look at men.com’s 100 hottest women. All are thin and feminine.

  29. Jane Minty
    Posted December 31, 2006 at 4:34 am | Permalink

    I don’t know about you, Jane, but I adhere to the “If it takes you more than 30 seconds to choose clothes and get dressed, it’s taking too long” school of thought.
    Jane, when people say, “Appreciating the beauty of geeks,” that’s exactly what they mean: appreciating the fact that some geeks conform to the mainstream’s meticulously rigid beauty standards, and promoting them over other geeks.
    The so-called “natural look” takes some time to pull off, especially if you’re about to be photographed. Regardless, I approach all creative endeavors the same way; why not do the same in choosing an outfit and makeup? I’d hope no one thought less of me for doing so. And what’s wrong with taking some extra time to look stunning for a night out??
    As far as appreciating the beauty of geeks, I guess I’m just nostalgic for the days in which geeks were known for idolizing women of the anime, goth, rockabilly, etc. genres. It’s not an issue of “hot vs not hot,” but I’m assuming the pool of guys who consider themselves “geeks” has grown to include every average Joe (because chicks dig geeks), hence the strict diet of ambiguously white-asian, Abercrombie girls.

  30. jane
    Posted December 31, 2006 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Why so touchy? On the offensive scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the most offensive), this is like a 2. I say we start a list of the top 10 hottest male bloggers, and write about them like they’re objects. Anyone with me?

  31. Posted December 31, 2006 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    “”Objective” standards of beauty are definitely a problem for both men and women, but women have it far worse because men aren’t expected to ground their self-worth in their physical attractiveness. So I don’t really take looksism as seriously when it affects men.”
    I think it goes both ways. Women who have won the genetic lottery have it easier this way.

  32. Posted December 31, 2006 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    “I think it goes both ways. Women who have won the genetic lottery have it easier this way.”
    Eh, I have to disagree, Michael. I won a reasonably decent amount in the genetic lottery (white, 5’7″, slender, trim waist, straight hair, good skin, angular features, etc.) and believe it or not, this doesn’t make my life easier. In fact, in a lot of ways it often makes it pretty hard. On more than one occasion in my profession (law) I’ve gotten a keen sense that my physical attractiveness and youth are keeping people from taking me seriously. As someone who worked her ass off and took three years out of her adult life (not to mention tens of thousands upon tens of thousands upon tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of dollars spent on my education), I most definitely DON’T want people to think of me as “pretty.” And yet they do, every damn time. And it’s fucking annoying.

  33. Posted December 31, 2006 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    I agree that having the right looks can have disadvantages too. One can probably not separate the fact that womens attractiveness is currently mostly based on looks and the fact that women are reduced to looks.

  34. donna darko
    Posted December 31, 2006 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    I say we start a list of the top 10 hottest male bloggers
    That sounds like fun.
    Objective standards of beauty are definitely a problem for both men and women, but women have it far worse because men aren’t expected to ground their self-worth in their physical attractiveness. So I don’t really take lookism as seriously when it affects men.
    I think it goes both ways. Women who have won the genetic lottery have it easier this way.
    You missed the point, Michael. Men who are pretty but nothing else don’t get anywhere in the world whereas women’s value is in their looks.

  35. jane
    Posted January 1, 2007 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    I nominate ABC news correspondent/blogger Jake Tapper. *swoons*

  36. donna darko
    Posted January 1, 2007 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Pictorial: Top 10 Blogger Babes of 2006
    Would it be Pictorial: Top 10 Blogger Dudes of 2006? That sounds unattractive.
    I nominate ABC news correspondent/blogger Jake Tapper. *swoons*
    In that case, CNN anchor/blogger Anderson Cooper.

  37. Posted January 1, 2007 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    I think guys can be called “babes” too — in fact, it would be fun to call it “babes” and weird out people who simply assumed that “babes” meant women. Hehehe.

  38. donna darko
    Posted January 2, 2007 at 1:58 am | Permalink

    More blogger babes of the male variety! S’il te plait.

  39. Posted January 2, 2007 at 2:49 am | Permalink

    Isn’t Ezra cute?

  40. donna darko
    Posted January 2, 2007 at 3:06 am | Permalink

    Good answer.

  41. Posted January 2, 2007 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    As long as I don’t have to put my picture up. :)
    And why isn’t Ariana Huffington on the list? Beauty and brains (and a gorgeous accent)!

  42. Posted January 2, 2007 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    Forgot one thing:
    About the “objective beauty” thing that TH brought up, I did a report on the subject last year in calculus (seriously). It turns out that the faces most people consider very attractive (male and female) have proportions that relate to phi, the golden ratio. George Clooney (whom all my female, and some male, friends swoon over) and Angelina Jolie/Marilyn Monroe are almost “perfect” and, surprise, they are considered beautiful faces. It goes back in history too. Nefertiti, Michaelangelo’s David, Da Vinci’s St. John, etc. all match.
    Sorry for the ramble, I am just really interested in this sort of thing, and it seemed sort of relevant.

  43. Posted January 2, 2007 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Bearcat, I’ve heard about this sort of thing before, as well — but it seems to me it raises more questions than it provides answers. It’s no big mystery or suprise that people find Angelina Jolie and George Clooney attractive — I think a better question is why. Surely when you ask an adult which face he or she finds most pleasing, you’re not correcting for cultural bias. I think the question that hasn’t been answered is, are they inherently attractive, or are they attractive because we spend so much time believing they’re attractive?

  44. sojourner
    Posted January 2, 2007 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    Bearcat,
    All those faces are Caucasian (or Caucasoid in the case of Nefertiti). Black and East Asian faces don’t match those proportions. Just because from the time of Michelangelo and before him we’ve been fed this kind of image and we’ve absorbed it doesn’t make it objective.

  45. donna darko
    Posted January 2, 2007 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    How does that explain that Aishwarya Rai, the Bollywood queen, is the most beautiful woman in the world? Type in most beautiful woman in the world and that’s what you get.

  46. donna darko
    Posted January 2, 2007 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    It could be because “50% of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. The Caucasoid racial element dominates in Northwest Indians and higher caste Indians.”

  47. donna darko
    Posted January 4, 2007 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    I guess objectifying all the wonderful male bloggers out there isn’t cool. *Sigh*

  48. Posted January 4, 2007 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    I just used those examples because they were the ones my classmates mentioned most often. The rule applies to all cultures and races.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

213 queries. 0.664 seconds