Playing percentages

[mrissa]

This article talks about a worldwide study of women's views of their own appearance. The part of the survey they pull out for the lead is that only 2% of women from ten different sample countries consider themselves beautiful. I'm not sure that's wrong, though: "beautiful" is a superlative, and not everyone can be superlative. How many women think they're "brilliant," as opposed to "smart" or "bright"? How many women think they're "hilarious," not just "funny" or "witty"? And -- I think this would be the most interesting -- what percentage of other women do they think are beautiful? I think it's most likely that some of the people answering that affirmatively are ranking themselves in the top 25%, some in the top 10%, some in the top .5%, and some that they have good features that they like all right (which could be who knows what percent).

Also, what do men think of all this? If you asked thousands of men to rate their own attractiveness, would similar numbers of them agree to do it in the first place? What would they say? And what percentage of men do they (and we) estimate actually are -- I hate "handsome," it's a Ken-doll word -- extremely attractive?

Anybody want to have a go at answering any of that?

The part that bothers me is not the superlative. It's that only 5% consider themselves pretty (and that'd be a hand up here; I have gotten to the point in my life where I can say that and not flinch) and 9% consider themselves attractive. "Attractive" is a low standard, people. Everybody in women's magazine fluff pieces is at least "attractive." I can see where "I am beautiful!" would be a hard proclamation to make. But "attractive" sounds positively Scandosotan in its restraint. "Attractive" is what your friends tell people they're trying to set you up with, if they don't want to say "has the face of an elderly woodchuck." And we've got only 16% of women "worldwide" (ten countries, not the same thing) ascribing to themselves at least woodchuck standards of attractiveness? That's pathetic.

And it says 63% strongly that "women today are expected to be more attractive than their mother's generation." And if they're my age, they're smoking crack. I mean, seriously. It was socially acceptable for us to go to class in high school and college wearing pajama pants. Ask anybody my mom's age how kosher that was. Ask them, when they were 16 or 20, whether they would have felt comfortable wearing low-rise pants and cropped tops if it meant they were showing the world visible fat rolls. Go ahead, I dare you.

I know that there's a contingent out there that goes with the "every woman is beautiful" theory, and I just don't buy it. I think that the word loses its meaning at that point. I used to make the rash claim that I could find an attractive feature in anybody, until scottjames found a counterexample in our immediate social circle at the time (an individual I liked all right, and of my preferred sex), and I sat there going, "Err...umm...well, he's got nice -- well, no, not really, his eyes are kind of weird-looking. But his hands are...uh, okay, kind of grub-like. Oh dear. Ummm...." I would still maintain that most people have an immediately obvious attractive feature or two. But I don't think that's the same thing as beauty. Is it?

Comments

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I've heard that before, women saying that they see far more attractive women than attractive men. I disagree pretty thoroughly. It could be that Minneapolis has more attractive men per capita than most cities (well, let's go with yes on that one, but I recognize that as a personal quirk or more likely a sum of personal quirks), but I doubt it, because I still saw more attractive men than women in the Bay Area.

Is it because I'm personally attracted to men and only recognize female attractiveness at more of a remove? Maybe. But I think it's a matter of what one values in appearance. I would reverse the "women tend to at least glance at a mirror before they go out, while a lot of men self-evidently don't" and say "women tend to get froofy and fussy, while a lot of men self-evidently don't."

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

I think we're probably attracted to quite different types, but I wasn't talking about women who appear to have spent hours in front of the mirror. I thinking more that women are more likely to wear clothes which are flattering to their individual body types, and so have a wardrobe of clothes which suit them, in colors which go well with their natural coloring. My clothes are all comfortable and most of them are casual, but they were also selected to look good on me. I'd just rather wear something that's comfortable and attractive than comfortable and unattractive (on me, in my personal opinion) and so, for instance, prefer form-fitting jeans to baggy sweatpants.

Men seem to less often wear clothes which suit them, and seem much more likely than women to be wearing larger versions of the same clothes their mothers picked for them in sixth grade, not to mention unflattering glasses and haircuts which are probably also hold-overs from sixth grade.

I think there's a large middle ground between "metrosexual" and "does not take appearance beyond "not actively offputting" into consideration when making decisions about clothing, grooming, etc." And I think that's what women usually mean when they say they see more attractive women than attractive men.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I think most men are not taught how to pick colors for themselves in the first place. And a lot of women are taught false rules ("you can't wear green"), but they're at least given a starting point and a method for figuring it out.

Have you shopped for male clothing much? When I started, I was appalled at how little variety there is. I don't think that accounts for all the difference in cut and color, but it certainly is a factor. Especially for large men: large women don't have a lot of choices, but there are a few stores that cater to them and are making a concerted effort to provide reasonably fashionable colors and styles. Every large men's shop I've been in has specialized in Construction Orange, as though a XXXXXL needs to look larger.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

My color rule, developed when I had to wear a pale yellow bridesmaid froofy dress, is to hold it up to your face. If you look like you're about to vomit, that color is not right for you.

You know, I never have shopped for male clothing. That explains a lot, actually. Especially the orange.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yes, the "hold it up to your face" rule is good, although vomiting is not the only bad option. For me, unflattering colors often make me look like I'm about to pass out. Since I have an actual tendency to pass out, this is nerve-wracking for my loved ones. So I don't wear a lot of, say, pale grey.

I swear to you, half of the clothes in the big & tall male shops I've been in looked like they should come with a beeping thing for backing up. And cuts vary so much less! I found for myself, for example, a plum-colored sueded polyester shirt with interesting cuff buttons and a deeply notched neckline. It doesn't look like anything else I've seen in the stores, but it fits in with what's fashionable this season. And most women's stores have at least a few garments like that, clothes that are distinctive without being weird. In men's departments, I have never seen an equivalent level of distinctiveness. You have seasonal variation, but it's pretty darned limited. If it's a season when people have decided that band collars are the new thing, that is the variation in men's clothing you will be able to buy, and if you don't look good in a band collar, you will be able to buy a "plain" button-down collar or a polo shirt or a T-shirt. Period.

I'm not sure where the causality goes here: whether fewer men are taught to shop aggressively for personally flattering styles, so the stores have no percentage in putting them out there; whether men are socially discouraged from deviating from a much narrower clothing norm than women are; what the deal is. But shopping for my mom means a million and one bad options, whereas shopping for my dad means approximately a dozen per season. "Isn't that the sweater I already didn't buy him in the other store?" Yes. Yes it is.

[scottjames.livejournal.com]

Big/Tall stores are, in fact, terrible, terrible places. First of all, nobody is excited to have to go to such a store. And then you're stuck with Hawaiian shirts (which are more likely to make said person look like an actual Hawaiian island) or hideous, hideous colors (Construction Worker Orange being a prime example).

Right now I'm sort of borderline, regular/Big & Tall stores (which sucks--it means it's difficult to find clothes either place). But I will actively refuse to go to B/T stores unless it's a dire emergency.

And much less variety than woman's clothing. Whether it's the cause of the effect of what men wear, I'm not entirely sure.

And whoever thinks that men should wear pink ought to get drug out into the street and pummeled about the head and neck.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Strike "men" in that last paragraph and replace with "humans." We hates pink. We hates it forever, precious.

[scottjames.livejournal.com]

Not all women hate pink, though.

I'm not arguing in favor of pink for anybody, mind you. I'm just saying that a fair number of women wear pink.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

What you said was "whoever thinks men should wear pink," not "whoever thinks men do/will." And I maintain that a vast, vast majority of women shouldn't wear pink, either.

[blzblack.livejournal.com]

But the truth is that--as one homosexual once put it to me--men dress for men, and women for women. Men think women go overboard on stuff that doesn't much for us anyway.

Some of us will dress well on certain occasions, but if you want the subgroup of neat & tidy--who may be nice and natural or full of themselves or anal--you'll have to go metrosexual.

Trent

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

Do only metrosexuals wear jeans and non-hideous, not-too-baggy T-shirts? Because that's the sort of thing I was thinking of.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I totally disagree, Trent. Neat and tidy encompasses several other groups. markgritter, for example, would make a damn poor metrosexual (and hurray for that), but is also generally dressed neatly and tidily. (As for being neat and tidy, we will not discuss his filing system for now, but I don't think that's a gender thing.)

[scottjames.livejournal.com]

I think I fall in the "middle range", between metrosexual and not dressing well at all... right?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yes, should you need a testimonial that you can dress yourself, I am here. And the metrosexual thing is just not on the table for discussion in your case. Possibly not in the same room as the table.

[scottjames.livejournal.com]

Whew.