text:
Behold! The Queen of the Fat-o-sphere and the, uh, Fairy Princess of Plus-Size Modeling have combined powers! Kate interviews the lovely Crystal Renn for Salon. They talk about eating disorders, the treatment of models, and Crystal's new book (cowritten by Marjorie Ingall, who delurked here recently — hi Marjorie!). It's a terrific interview, and I for one am delighted to hear what Crystal Renn has to say, so we can put a voice to that gorgeous face.
100 thoughts on ""The most beautiful girl in the world would be completely picked apart""
What a fantastic person!
It's wonderful to see such confidence.
Also, the cover, could she be any more gorgeous?
I like the idea of variety being the new thin, and think that would be a great lasting paradigm shift…but throwing in the "health!!" at the end, not so much. That's just sending the message that someone who's not healthy can't be beautiful. Maybe it's good to leave "heroin chic" behind, but hopefully variety applies to levels of perceived healthiness, as well.
Just looked at the reviews for the book and was bemused to discover that there was already a concern troll posting about how people might read the book and think it was a big ol' license to catch the fat. And then I was amused because the concern troll was careful to say that Renn is not "mordantly obese." I think I'm mordantly obese–or perhaps just obese and mordant.
It would be appropriate. Thanks, troll!
Great interview – but what else can you expect when two smart women get to talking?
It's a lovely interview and she speaks so much sense – I 'll look out for the book.
It's an interesting nitpick, though, that she still has a bit of a grass-is-greener thing going on about a type of woman – the "pageant girl" – whose body doesn't get judged or criticised so much. I doubt that's true – isn't body judgement precisely what a pageant is?
"The grass is not greener anywhere. It is not grass. it is shit. " – Me.
Mordantly obese? Does that mean that dye is permanently set with us deathfatties?
Actually, I take that back. Obviously the grass is greener in some places than others. I just mean that nobody has the clean, luxuriant kind you can sit down in and have a picnic.
Mordantly Obese: one day our fat will cause us to dye.
hi sweet machine! SO SO SO happy kate actually read the book!! unsurprisingly, that interview is the bit of publicity that has made me the happiest.
forestroad, i promise that crystal is not about hurling the word HEALTH as an afterthought. (as the last word in an interview, sure.) in the book and in conversation, she's very clear that health was her motivation for giving up on straight-size modeling, and health is what drives the way she eats now. she's very articulate about how eating healthily and protecting the the health of the planet are inextricably tied — yup, she's one of those michael pollan fiends.
I've read and heard about similar stories of models becoming anorexic and finding their ways out of it, if they're lucky, for a while now–what, 25 years at least? I'm so sad it's still going on. I do realize Renn's story is different in that she did end up in Vogue.
I'm conflicted; at the same time happy that she's being revered as the beautiful model she is, and frustrated that we yearn (I include myself here) for Corporations to give us one little iota of recognition.
I think it's great to hear Crystal talking about what was best for her in terms of realizing that her body wasn't happy when she lost the 70 pounds. It takes courage to say no to the pressures of society, and to go your own road, particularly in the fashion industry. Her story also counters the fantasy of being thin, thinking that we have to wait to be thin for our dreams to come true. This is a great example of living your true self and achieving your dreams.
Crystal Renn is so beautiful. I had no idea her book was cowritten by someone here!
I swear I'm not trying to be a troll. I'm just wondering if people have read this and what they think of it.
Mordantly Obese: one day our fat will cause us to dye.
Aaaand… Dr Pepper meets keyboard.
Aaaand… Dr Pepper meets keyboard.
You people are mordantly beautiful.
I'm really sorry, Sweet Machine! Threadjacking indeed. Should I post it in the open thread?
mordantly obese
There's a joke in there somewhere about dark colors being slimming, but I'm too brain-fried to find it.
("Mordant"'s primary meaning is "dark" – a dye mordant is something added to make the color dark, a mordant wit is a dark sarcastic wit, etc. Maybe a banner with a black background, and the bloggers dressed as characters from the Addams Family?)
I'm glad to see so many textile science geeks here, that we can be cracking jokes about mordants! :-)
I thought the interview was really good, and Renn sounds like a very sharp woman and a great influence on body image issues.
I was sort of cheered to see that the comments didn't immediately take a turn toward fat hate. But unfortunately they DO have more than a tinge of "she-can't-be-fat-she's-beautiful!" exceptionalism to them. But I guess it would be too much to expect to avoid that stumbling block in the comments of a mainstream blog.
but throwing in the "health!!" at the end, not so much. That's just sending the message that someone who's not healthy can't be beautiful. Maybe it's good to leave "heroin chic" behind, but hopefully variety applies to levels of perceived healthiness, as well.
I think Crystal was using "health" as a way to contrast with bodies that are dieted into starvation, rather than as a qualification for being in fashion. She wasn't saying, "all bodies are OK, as long as they're healthy/abled" she was saying "all bodies are OK, so long as you aren't starving yourself to be a certain way."
"Lettuce with a side of batshit" is the best thing I've read all week.
" there was already a concern troll posting about how people might read the book and think it was a big ol' license to catch the fat. "
Myth #1: "Plus Size" models are overweight. Crystal's BMI is 24.4. This is a perfectly normal, healthy weight according to those who preach the gospel of BMI (I don't).
Myth #2: There is such a thing as a "plus-size" model. I am not sure where a Size 12 is considered Plus-size. I realize this is very different from the typical model, but if I really want to see what clothes might look like on me, I need a much shorter size 18 or 20. Crystal looks like my now-extinct thin fantasy.
To accept the fashion industry's current definition of 'plus size' model only serves to validate the preception that a BMI of 16 or 17 and a size zero or two are the norm, or are something the average woman should try to look like. We should be calling bullshit all over this!
Crystal may be a 'plus-size' model, but she is an average-sized woman,
AmyP, I'm too lazy to look, but are you the same person who commented on the original article saying that Kate wasn't helping women because she was accepting that a size 12 was plus sized, and not ranting and raving about it?
If so, just knock it off.
" there was already a concern troll posting about how people might read the book and think it was a big ol' license to catch the fat. "
So does that mean that we should expect to be ticketed for being fat without a license?
Re: mordantly obese
You know I actually had to look up what that word means as an adjective? I only knew it as the noun that is used to set dye when dying fabrics. Very apt. Now I've had my vocab lesson for the day as well.
I take AmyP's point. Obviously, this blog calls bullshit on stuff like this all the time, but not in this particular post. My 5'6 230 pound mom gets so pissed off by the size 10 (and thinner; I swear some of the swimsuit/lingerie models are a 6) models in her plus size catalogues.
Renn might have had to fight for recognition in the modeling world, but on the street she has thin privilege. As she narrates it, it was the modeling industry and the economic opportunities it offered that first led her to begin dieting. As a young teenager she was a cheerleader who had a positive body image. Now as a "plus size model" who is not plus size in any real-world sense, she peddles clothes that she herself can't wear without significant alteration to women who are, on average, much larger.
Rather than pinning a size 24 dress to Renn (as she mentions in her interview with Kate), why not use a size 24 model?
I'm not against Crystal Renn or her book at all, but I question whether anything that does not outright condemn the modeling industry and their ridiculously limiting definitions of beauty is truly in FA territory, the boundaries of which Shapely Prose has so zealously patrolled (thank you for that–I love that no person can tell me about her "lifestyle change" here). If Renn were rhapsodizing about the Ford Agency's tolerance, defending photo-shopping ("smoothing things out, making the clothes look good"), talking philosophically about the hardhips of being a gorgeous model rather than an "average, everyday girl who's absolutely beautiful" on this blog someone would take a rhetorical bite out of her lovely backside. Saying that photographing Crystal Renn represents new thinking about weight is like saying that photographing Padma Lakshmi's scar represents new thinking about disability.
No, that wasn't me. First time commenting here, or really, anywhere for that matter.
I have been reading Shapely Prose for a long time, and I have a lot of respect for what these women are doing… my comments were not meant to criticize SP at all.
De-lurking for the second time here to ask if the cover of the book is supposed to be a comment on the thin v. fat thing? I didn't see any conversation about that, but if you look at the full length of the cover, the black dress (I guess?) makes a silhouette that is reminiscent of fashion drawings.
Can anyone who read the book shed light on this?
What a great interview; and Renn sounds like a marvelous role model.
Incidentally, the comments on the Jezebel version of this post are so heartbroking. "It's easy for Crystal to say because she looks good but I'm so ugly at the same weight!" Sigh; there's a long way to go.
Thanks for the clarification Sweet Machine. I comment infrequently, but I read daily and have been reading for a while. You all have been on the front lines of all these issues at every turn; I realize that and am grateful for the strong principles expressed here (as well as the concise and witty prose). I've learned a lot from this blog and am so happy that it's out there.
@buttercup – "Mordantly obese? Does that mean that dye is permanently set with us deathfatties?"
I'd like to think it means the sarcasm is.
I didn't take AmyP's or Sarah's comments to mean that you – SM, Fillyjonk, A Sarah, and Kate – should have necessarily pointed out the parts of the article where Crystal Renn says something not 100% pro-FA or 100% sensical in an FA framework.
I felt that AmyP and Sarah were pointing out some of those instances themselves, because like you say, "[it's] good that people bring things up in comments that couldn't be covered in the main post."
When AmyP said we "should be calling bullshit on this," I took that as a "Hey SP community, chime in if you agree" not "The bloggers here should have said this themselves."
But I see how that is open to interpretation. And now I've gone all meta.
I loved reading about Crystal's experiences. I wasn't expecting her to be pro-FA. I look forward to reading her book.
There's a joke in there somewhere about dark colors being slimming, but I'm too brain-fried to find it.
("Mordant"'s primary meaning is "dark" – a dye mordant is something added to make the color dark, a mordant wit is a dark sarcastic wit, etc. Maybe a banner with a black background, and the bloggers dressed as characters from the Addams Family?)
Pedantry ahoy! Actually, "mordant" comes from the Latin "mordere", which means "to bite". A dye mordant helps the colour "bite" into the fabric; mordant wit is biting wit.
I'm mordantly obese in that I'm bitingly sarcastic and a big fatass. So huzzah!
AWESOME. This makes me so happy. I <3 Crystal Renn
Incidentally, the comments on the Jezebel version of this post are so heartbroking. "It's easy for Crystal to say because she looks good but I'm so ugly at the same weight!" Sigh; there's a long way to go.
Hrmmm… while I acknowledge that there is a long way to go and many (most) of the people LilahMorgan is referring to are, in fact, bemoaning their own fatness, I'd like to put in a word for de-demonizing (is that even a word that makes sense?) the word ugly. Ugly just means that one's features don't have a certain type of arrangement or shape. Just like fat means fat and not any of the things associated with it. Ugly doesn't mean smelly or stupid or useless or weird or creepy. It's just ugly and it's ok. I know that it's a big part of the 'message' on many FA blogs that one can be fat and beautiful and that's all well and good, but some people are ugly. I am. It used to bug me, now… eh. Not so much.
I understand intellectually that it's good that women with some variation in body size are starting to make inroads (teeny tiny ones, but inroads none the less) into fashion mags, but… well, I just couldn't give a rip. Beauty is a standard. It's a set of features and an arrangement of body parts that people find pleasing. If we extend it to everyone, then it's meaningless except as a synonym for "human". Which is ok I guess, but it's taking a perfectly good word and turning it into nothing.
To me, all this concentration on who is and isn't beautiful is tough to swallow. To me, including Crystal Renn in "beautiful" is sort of like putting back the pre-1998 BMI standards… it would make millions of people "normal" again, but doesn't actually do shit to fix the problem of judging people based on their weight. I suppose I'm happy for the women (maybe millions of them) who could get into the "beautiful club" on the Crystal Renn card, but it's still a club that gets a lot of privilege that is closed to those of us who don't make the cut. I'd far prefer to see the privilege de-coupled from the club than see them extend the velvet rope out around a few extra select women.
But maybe I'm just a bitter mordantly ugly fat chick.
@Cassi–wonderfully put, thanks.
Cassi – that's a really, really interesting comment.
One of the things that's been important for me is Kate's assertion that it's quite okay to not date someone because they're fat. That helped me because it focused me differently – although I haven't quite articulated it to myself before now. I think that focused my view that my own FA is mainly about destroying the stereotypes involved with fat, rather than a creation of an accepted global fat aesthetic – although I think the lack of demonization makes a huge difference, and that which isn't demonized has room to find its own expression of aesthetic, which is not limited to traditional "beauty".
Perceived beauty between people really is, mostly, in chemistry – love does come to all sorts of people, and so does being single. Cultural tropes are often currency of some sort more than they say anything about individuals.
So Fat is Beautiful is not a huge goal for me, so much as fatties being left the hell alone from stereotypical judgment.
Yet, looking at the pics at Adipositivity made a HUGE difference for me, because it made other fat people part of an aesthetic conversation. Still, I very much doubt Adipositivity will (or should) go mainstream; it's necessary, but would be its own barbarism if it should replace the current fashions. If fat did become the new "it" look, it would be oppression of a different feather.
But I suppose my feeling is that there will always be a common aesthetic trope, and I might not ever be part of that. I'm aging out of it pretty quickly, too. And I'm okay with that, so long as Britney Spears is not the standard that Hilary Clinton or Janet Reno are held to – that we are allowed, as women, to be ugly and also great scientists, without our ugliness being constantly yammered about as an accusation against the other parts of ourselves. Or ugly and sexual, or ugly and loved. That ugly be possible, and fat beauty be possible, and beauty of different heights, abilities, and races be possible, and none of it have fuck all to do with how easily we get taken seriously as people.
Cassi, my comment was directed more to the vitriol of the language the commentors were using about themselves and the fact that it meant obviously *they* need to diet; that is not a picture of treating ugly as a neutral characteristic, which I agree is a goal.
Rather than pinning a size 24 dress to Renn (as she mentions in her interview with Kate), why not use a size 24 model?
Which is exactly the thought I had. I think it was living400lbs' blog where she linked to Making It Big and I got to see actual! models! my! size! that I realized what was so wrong with most plus size modeling. Sure the dress looks super great on a size 12, but there's a reason why it's lumpy and misshapen when I put it on, and not as fabulous as advertised.
There can't possibly be a dearth of actually big plus size women out there who want to model for a living, please, let them model!
Ugly doesn't mean smelly or stupid or useless or weird or creepy.
Actually, it does; or, more precisely, it can. A definition:
I've very rarely seen anyone whom I've thought was genuinely, inherently ugly. IMHO, true ugliness – true unsightliness, that is not the result of disfigurement – is as rare as marked beauty.
The terms that are missing in this discussion, that I suspect are more applicable to most, are homely, and plain. And no, we don't become ugly as we age; we simply become old, and look it.
Thank you so much. I've spent a lot of my life being kinda pissed off by the world, but it's been in the past year or two that I've become an out-of-the-closet feminist, with the Humorless and Bitchy parts capitalized. And this is why. I am tired of being judged on how decorative I am. I am tired of having Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin judged on how decorative they are. Women are not Things, they are People. Which is why FA is so important, and is really more than FA.
Hear, hear. This is an awesome way of putting it.
Agreed, it's a totally awesome way of putting it and I wish I'd said it half that well. Fuck all to do with it, indeed.
@LilahMorgan… sorry, I was just taking your quote as a jumping off point, not really so much responding to your actual comment and should have said as much. It was really just the coupling of size and ugliness that caught my eye. The seeming… I don't know the right word… centrality? of trying to get fat women to be seen as beautiful in many (not all, but quite a few) FA discussions grates my cheese. I suppose it's my own version of the "good fattie/bad fattie" divide. I didn't mean to imply YOU were doing it, just that your comment reminded me that it happens a lot.
@Eucritta… heh, yes you're right (on the definition of ugly). I should have been more precise and said that just because a person would be judges aesthetically ugly, doesn't mean that person is smelly or weird or creepy. As for the word "disfigurement", to me it's a lot like the term "overweight"… it implies there's some figure my face was supposed to have and something went wrong. Nothing went wrong. It's just a face. A human face.
I know I'm not saying this well and after this I'll stop threadjacking, but I really appreciate the folks here that have managed to get what I'm trying to say. I doubt that would have happened many other places.
Cassi, by disfigurement, I meant, by disease or injury. I myself am to some extent disfigured, for instance, in that I have both routinely visible surgical scars, and many joints which have been deformed as well as impaired by decades of rheumatoid arthritis. And yes, I do think, in this instance, that something went wrong.
"I am tired of being judged on how decorative I am. I am tired of having Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin judged on how decorative they are. Women are not Things, they are People. Which is why FA is so important, and is really more than FA."
On a less deep topic, I have to say that I love the cover photo. It looks like the success story pictures from diet ads, but instead of a thin person holding up their old fat clothes, she's an average-sized person holding up thin clothes. I would love to see a photographer do a series like this, showing people whose weight gain represents a success story – someone who recovered from a wasting disease, someone who gained weight during a much-wanted pregnancy, someone who has gained weight over time and feels positive about their age, someone whose quality of life is improved by medications that cause weight gain… the possibilities are endless.
I love this interview. I do agree with all the above commenters that it is ridiculous that at a size 12 she is still considered "plus-sized", but it is going to take a very long time for the fashion industry to move out of their ridiculous double-zero mindset, so I appreciate even the baby steps away from that. Crystal's whole experience ties into something that has bothered me since I was about 12 years old, actually. The first time I ever remember reading about sizeism was actually in a doll magazine. It was around the time Robert Tonner had sculpted and released his doll of Emme, and they interviewed her for Dolls: The Collectors Magazine. She talked about her struggles, and one of them that made a big impact on me was her telling about a photographer who called her a "cow" and said he wouldn't shoot with her because she was "disgusting." I remember looking at this beautiful woman and being so, so confused that anyone could say that to her. I also remember being disgusted by the article's mention of news commentators who called the doll "Barbie's Rotund Rival". It sparked my preadolescent feminist, and I remember the bemused reaction many people had when I exposited at length at how stupid, unfair, and totally wrong it was that people couldn't just see the beauty of the woman and the doll and not worry about stupid things like the size of either.
Cassi, I agree with you completely. I often think about it when the plus size models discussion comes up and people say things like "you go girl, girls with curves rule" and things alike. I feel like shifting the beauty paradigm towards curvier women wouldn't do anyone any good, sure it would include women who are now out casted, but it would still cast out others. And Crystal Renn's idea of having different sizes represented, while it's all good, would still not represent much. How about different heights as well? Because looking at their kilometrical legs is still frustrating when you're 5′ 1/2. And the list could go on. My point is, in the words of Lesley at fatshionista that I felt were just perfect, when it comes to the fashion industry I don't want a slice of the cake, I want a different cake altogether. I'm sorry to say this, but as long as being a model is considered something amazing and out of this world to strive for, not much is going to change. Also, I am a cynical person and I believe our society is always going to try to quantify beauty. Crystal gave the examples of the 50's 60's and 80's, but the ancient greeks themselves had perfect mathematical formulas and considered proportions were the keys to true beauty. Curves are slowly becoming more fashionable now, and boob jobs in girls under the age of 18 have increased a lot in the past years. How is that any better? The problem is not the skinny models, the fat models, or the blond models, the problem is the cult of beauty itself. And I don't see any signs of it going anywhere but up sadly.
PS: This is not directed at SP in particular, I love the fact that tis fat recognizes things like "real women have curves" is just as bad as saying that all women should be skinny. And I do really like Crystal Renn, she's stunning and seems to be very smart and likeable, I'm just ranting at the "beauty as an industry" in general.
Did I seriously just write " I love the fact that tis fat"?? I meant "I love the fact that this site…" I'm sorry, it's really late, I should get some sleep, I'm clearly out of it.
i'm going to bed too!
fwiw, crystal's weight ranges from 165 to 175 or thereabouts (she doesn't tend to weigh herself, but she can guess from how her clothes fit). depending on where she is in her range, she's either just clinging to "normal weight" or just barely "overweight," according to the BMI crap. no argument from me that it's loony to categorize size 12 as plus size.
michelle: there are two covers! we couldn't come to a consensus about one! so the publisher did what they call a "split run." it's funny hearing some people say "she looks fatter" in one image or the other. (there's no consensus on WHICH she looks fatter in, btw.)
@Eucritta, I understand and if you choose the word to describe yourself that's fine. Same as I'm fine with women who choose the word overweight for themselves. But to me they're the same. See, I'm also fat "by disease or injury" (actually, in my case it's a combination of both with a dash of genetics thrown in) it doesn't change my point. These things happened. This is the body an older, arthritic, depressed, on meds, weight lifting, bike riding Cassi has… it's not overweight just because it was once (before those things happened) at a lower weight. It just is. Same with my face… some of it I was born with, some of it came through various life events (some good, some not so good). It's not disfigured. It's exactly what a face should look like for a me that's been through what I've been through. Does that make any sense?
Oh and in case any of this comes across as whiny. I'm generally pretty happy. I'm happily partnered (have been for decades) and have a good job.
Grrr… my mouse decided to post that without my consent!
My final point was just that the push to be included in beautiful bothers me because it's NOT necessary for happiness (as Arwen so eloquently pointed out) and I worry that the effort itself causes more unhappiness than it will ever bring to the few that it might do something for.
Now I really am shutting up ;)
Re: ugly/pretty…
I agree that it's a huge problem that women are evaluated first on their decorative qualities, second (or third or more) on their brains, hearts, intrinsic human value, contribution to the world, etc.
I don't think (on this site anyway) there'd be much disagreement with the assertion that our culture is way too visual, superficial, and unaccepting of variety (in appearances, sexuality, and any number of other areas).
But I wanted to chime in on the 'ugly/pretty' discussion. In my experience, when I first meet someone, I do notice their appearance, but as I get to know a person, my perception of him/her physically is hugely influenced by his/her personality and our relationship. My friends always look 'beautiful' to me (because, as trite as this sounds, I am seeing them partly from the inside out). That's why models have never done much for me– I can see the symmetry in these 'beautiful people,' but there's no pull because I don't know them, and my sense of attraction is strongly tied to personality.
I can see the point in wanting to devalue 'beauty' as a goal or ideal of all women, because there are certainly more important things, but on the other hand, I don't think there's anyone I've gotten to know who didn't have something beautiful about them. A beautiful smile, a lovely laugh, a certain gracefulness or warmth… I know that sounds hokey, but I'd suggest looking for different kinds of beauty in other human beings (all of them). Ugly is as ugly does and all that.
@Eucritta, I understand and if you choose the word to describe yourself that's fine.
I doubt you meant this to be patronizing but … I don't need your permission to think of myself any way I please. Just sayin'.
And yes, I do think I understand what you mean – and I disagree. On the one hand, yes, what I am like now could be considered my 'normal' – but on the other, I *am* physically and neurologically impaired, I *am* disabled, I *am* to some extent deformed by disease processes, and I *am* disfigured by surgical scars.
I think, as I struggle to answer this, that to some extent my problem with perceiving all this as 'normal' seems to me … uncomfortably close to denial, to looking the other way, an erasure of my limitations, pain, and daily struggle to function, and on a larger scale … like pulling a rug over these parts of the spectrum.
TinaMarie, Volcanista, I'm with you. I've always been that way, finding that my friends and my family and the people I'm closest to are all, in some fashion, 'beautiful'. Beauty and Ugly are not absolutes, and we don't have much business trying to set down some unremovable standard, and what's beautiful to one person may be 'meh' to another… errrgh, you guys have said it much better.
Just like how "fat" carries all this baggage of "bad horrible awful repugnant person", so do all other non-visually-appealing things. Our culture is so obsessed with youth and the image of health (not actual health) that anything not fitting within that, be it big bodies or crooked noses and teeth or visible disabilities is looked at as a MORAL failing, in a sense. All human beings are worthy of love and respect, regardless of looks and health and whatever the heck else. I'm sure we can get behind that? :)
Beauty is everywhere. This life is full of so much beauty, so many things that are wonderful and pleasing, and it's rare for us to stop and step outside of convention and actually realize it. My friends are beautiful. My city is beautiful. You people, all of you, you're beautiful! GROUP HUG, EVERYONE!
@ AmyP, good. I didn't have a big problem with your comment on here, but there was one similiar to it on the original post that made me so angry that I wanted to whip babies.
@AmyP yeah, I go back and forth on sizing. other people have pointed out here that the blog has done awesome stuff in the past, though I will admit I'm kinda up in the air about it never being a good idea to say "you're not fat" I recognize that society will tell a woman you're fat if you wear a size 8, and I do recognize the damage of that. but I think part of fighting that, and truly reclaiming fat as a neutral adjective, is recognizing where it doesn't apply-fighting the overuse. Same with plus size. I can't really see why modeling stuff that doesn't come in your size(I know she hasn't necessarily done this. it's more hypothetical). but who gets to tell a model "you're plus sized" and "sorry, you're not?" I don't have the right, and I'm not sure who else should.
This has got me thinking. Are the concepts of "beauty" and "health" intrinsically tied? If not, should they be?
There are plenty of examples of mainstream society idolising the unhealthy. Too-thin models and heroin chic is just the 'thin' end of the wedge. I find it creepy rather than beautiful but there are plenty of fashion editors who disagree.
What about plastic surgery? Women mutilating their bodies and pumping them full of plastic is not healthy – and to me it's not beautiful either.
For me, I think the two are linked. I find beauty both in my own idiosyncratic preferences for certain arrangements of facial features but also in health. When people talk about beauty coming from within, they are usually talking about personality, but another way of looking at it is about the inner life of your body and mind taking expression on the outside. Of course, both health and beauty are a continuum.
Please note, I'm not talking about weight. I do believe that women of different sizes can be beautiful, just as I believe that women of different sizes can be healthy.
Also, I am not making a moral judgment about beauty, just about my own notions of it. The fat acceptance movement has reclaimed the word "fat" and says it's not a moral judgment to describe people as fat. So saying people are beautiful or not isn't either.
Re: ugly, it feels a little like we're falling into the "but YOU're not fat" trap with this as well.
Abe Lincoln was an ugly guy. I can say that without feeling like I've fallen into any trap or diminished him in any way. It's kind of like saying he was tall. There's a "so what?" factor there. On the other hand, I try to put that descriptor to a woman–any woman–and it makes me feel like a jerk. As if I've just pulled out the knives. I think that says something about where I *still* think my own value and women's value in general lies, and it makes me sad and angry.
Well, but Starling, ugly is a lot more subjective than fat. There might be debate about where on the spectrum fat begins (and perceptions will be different for different body types), but at some level there's going to be a near-consensus of "fat" or "not." I really don't think that exists for ugliness/beauty – hell, since it's less loaded, look at clothes. I don't think you can find a garment in this world that some people won't champion as gorgeous and other people as ugly. Or physical surroundings – some people love cities, some people think they're miserable and hideous; some people love the desert, other people think it's barren, destitute, and ugly, etc. And I think we all generally accept that.
But then we're taught that there's this objective standard of beauty for people and we're being touchy-feely or poliically correct if we suggest otherwise, which seems bizarre to me. (And I don't necessarily look at a picture of Abe Lincoln and think "ugly" either, though I'll admit I've never really thought about it.)
Abe Lincoln: HAWT OR NOT?
Cracks me up.
I think that the only "subjective" measure of "beauty" I've seen are the symmetry (measured by percentage) and skin studies, where people below a certain symmetry level or above a certain skin clarity level start experiencing more universal societal labels of ugly, including recoil and staring, regardless of their cultural setting. Abe Lincoln would certainly fall on the "beautiful" side of those studies.
And even the truly "ugly" by those standards are people to whom we can acclimate and become attracted to based on who they are. (Anyone see District Nine?) Because beauty really, on an individual level, IS in the eye of the beholder. I agree with Lilah. Our mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun.
But, I think it's also important to acknowledge that some people will be closer to an accepted cultural ideal, and that will make a difference in their lives. If you're 80, you're dealing with the cultural weight of beauty differently than if you're 20. If you're paraplegic, you're dealing with a different set of challenges interacting with beauty culture. An Asian friend of mine has to fend off "exotic" "petite" and "submissive" tropes in the culture of Asian beauty and considered eyelid surgery; racism is a big part of her dialogue with beauty culture.
So ugly really isn't a universal or of any relationship relevance between people. And ugly can mean "not beautiful" vs the standard, or it can mean "not attractive", and those are also different things. Alan Rickman is sexy to me and my husband just doesn't see it. *cough*.
But I think it's also important to realize that how society compares us to the ideal is affecting our experience.
Beauty is one of many factors.
I meant objective, yeah. Yeah.
Physical beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. But it falls within certain perimeters, usually, depending on the culture you're raised in.
This guy? http://www.bittysoda.com/photos/hipsterlincoln.jpg Not ugly to me. Not conventionally handsome, not a pretty-boy, but a very interesting-looking man.
LilahMorgan: Yeah, I see what you mean–it is subjective. I agree that beauty does tend to be in the eye of the beholder, to an extent we simply don't realize because we don't live in other people's minds. Yet there is a real distinction between beautiful and ugly, wherever our own personal standards start and stop.
I'm coming at this conversation from a bit of an angle–I realized the other day that I don't generally look at men and think about their attractiveness, unless I'm looking for someone to date. There are occasionally the ones who smite the eye with extraordinary beauty, but it's generally not a part of my "reading" of the people I see. On the other hand, I do tend to register the beauty of women. Is it innate competitiveness? A poisonous effect of a culture in that objectifies women? In any case, it really disturbed me to realize that I was doing it. So at the moment, I'm feeling very anti-physical-judgments altogether.
Bonnie: I notice that how handsome I find Abraham Lincoln has a lot to do with which era his facial hair is living in. The more 19th c, it is, the more it takes me a while to adjust my eyes to see his features.
Which is to say, Lincoln's looks are mediated by his era, when it comes to aesthetic responses. Or, Abraham Lincoln's facial hair was a size 8… or 16, by today's standards.
I generally find him appealing, though, it's just a matter of what kind of appealing.
Bonnie–I love that photo. Lincoln's never struck me as anything but Lincoln, but his contemporaries thought him super-hideous. His face is too much a part of our cultural conditioning to really look at objectively, I think. He's interesting to me because he spent a lot of the first two years of the Civil War engaged in his own battles with General George McClellan, who eventually ran against him in 1864. McClellan was considered a really handsome man (which, I must say, I don't see either), and had a celebrity/rock star dynamic with a lot of the North. So yeah, just ignore me, I'm having a history-dweeb moment.
I wonder if, to an extent, our assessments of Lincoln's appearance are influenced by the extent to which the surviving photos … reveal the asymmetry of his face, and drooping, meandering left eye. I think it was these, in combination with his gauntness, awkwardness, and ravaged skin, that led his contemporaries to perceive him as physically ugly.
"This has got me thinking. Are the concepts of "beauty" and "health" intrinsically tied? If not, should they be?"
They're deeply *culturally* tied, aided by our society's selective exploitation of certain 'intrinsic' psychodynamic processes. Sander Gilman has written at length on the topic; see his texts 'Picturing Health and Illness' and 'Difference and Pathology'.
Here's a thought: is it appropriate in the context of this discussion to distinguish between pretiness and beauty? I tend to think of the former as fairly socially controlled and the latter as having some deeper meanings, at least ideally. But maybe that's a meaningless distinction.
Mordantly Obese: one day our fat will cause us to dye.
wow, I am still laughing at that. out loud. luckily no one else is home.
@Eucritta… I'm can see that I did sound patronizing and I truly do apologize. To clarify, to me (and I stress that "to me" part, because this is such a techy subject for so many of us) the "true ugliness – true unsightliness, that is not the result of disfigurement" comment sounded patronizing too, which is why I reacted as I did. For me, it bordered, as another poster pointed out, on the "but you're not fat!" type response. You seemed to be responding to my comment on my own looks and society's take on them, so, while again trying to honor (not bestow, just honor) your right to use the term, I will say that I am not DIS-figured, just figured. Just as I am not OVER-weight, just a weight.
As for your comment on denial… yeah, I think I can see what you mean. I don't agree (at least not for myself), but I can see it. I've always assumed the opposite. To normalize what I could have been had certain things not "gone wrong" both before and after I was born is a denial of who I am now. To you (I think I hear you say) that to normalize where you are, would be to deny what has happened to you. Two different takes on two different (though perhaps similar) situations. I have a lot to learn from your view. Perhaps I am in denial, cloaked as acceptance. I don't think so, but I'm open to the possibility.
I do want to say that despite disagreeing and perhaps not expressing all my points well, I deeply deeply value what everyone in this thread is saying. It's helping me question, clarify and modify my own initial responses to the subject and I sincerely appreciate every single comment here.
"I would love to see a photographer do a series like this, showing people whose weight gain represents a success story – someone who recovered from a wasting disease, someone who gained weight during a much-wanted pregnancy, someone who has gained weight over time and feels positive about their age, someone whose quality of life is improved by medications that cause weight gain… the possibilities are endless."
I LOVE this idea! Since I have many friends who have gained weight as a result of their recovery from an eating disorder or from some other mental illness/disorder-as a side effect of taking life saving medicines-I think that if these pictures were done with the people's own success story, then it would really help millions of people realize just how far they really have come. I am just so tired of hearing people say in my support groups stuff like, "It's really great that I'm no longer depressed and want to kill myself anymore, but my body is so disgusting now…" It just makes me want to scream every time and is in fact, one of the reasons why I've left one of my groups. I just keep on hearing people have the idea that all of their hard work was not really worth it, since they did gain weight. I want to so desperately convince them that that is complete bullshit, but that would require superhuman powers and ultimately it is my own recovery that is the most important…
"I would love to see a photographer do a series like this, showing people whose weight gain represents a success story – someone who recovered from a wasting disease, someone who gained weight during a much-wanted pregnancy, someone who has gained weight over time and feels positive about their age, someone whose quality of life is improved by medications that cause weight gain… the possibilities are endless."
Well, it's not success stories after weight gain, but Leonard Nimoy's Full Body Project has some amazing photographs of women who are all shapes and sizes. And the fat women he photographed aren't just the traditional hourglass "curvy" girls, but actual fat women with folds, wrinkles and everything. And they are awesome. The photographs are awesome. Here's a link:
Like we needed another reason to love this guy.
Here's another link about the project where he talks about the women and why he wanted to photograph them. Sorry about the double post, but my laptop went rogue on me before I could finish:
Thanks for the info, @MeToo.
Wow, there have been so many great points raised by a lot of people. Hahaha, talk about the sweet, sweet blog comments of my dreams! 8D
@Cassi: Word. I really agree with the points you made, especially about how attempting to de-emphasize physical beauty in one's own psyche can be liberating, and is perhaps more important than expanding the standards of beauty. In any case, I feel like you make the case for it really articulately. I feel like what you said should be a blog post.
@Eucritta: I think you raised some really good points. I think how we perceive the origins of our bodies' defining characteristics affects how (and whether) we internalize them as parts of our identity. This got me thinking about a thought experiment that I wanted people's takes on:
First scenario, someone has the genes that code for a birth defect that would affect how beautiful they are perceived, both by themselves and by society. For arguments' sake, assume that the defect is only cosmetic, with no other health implications.
Second scenario, someone is cosmetically disfigured in an accident, or as the result of a degenerative disease.
Third scenario, someone has a cosmetic birth defect as a result of a medication zer mother took during pregnancy.
In which of these scenarios do you folks think it's worthwhile to attempt to convince oneself to regard the defect as part of zer identity? Cassi seems to believe that traits acquired later in life should be regarded as part of one's identity.
Eucritta, do you think, if the trait is due to genetics, would you be more likely to consider it as part of one's essential identity (i.e. something one should accept and celebrate, as opposed to categorize it as pathological).
To me, the third case presents the hardest challenge to me to the attempts to convince oneself that one is beautiful. Was the physique that ze would possess if zer mother hadn't taken the medication during pregnancy zer true self that zer was disrupted from, or is the acquired trait just as valid as the lack of the trait?
Cassi, I feel like your stance on the issue raises an interesting question in the last scenario. If the physique with the trait is to be considered as authentic as the potential one without it, then is there any reason for the mother to avoid taking the medication to avoid the cosmetic change?
While there is some truth to the notion that expanding the standards of beauty in one direction will likely exclude some other people that were included before, I think there's something to be said for trying to influence the standards of beauty towards ones that include more people's bodies (i.e. perhaps, from a utilitarian perspective, encouraging the celebration of larger people will include more people than are excluded by the change).
Still, when it comes to one's concept of one's own attractiveness, I feel like the most important thing is to de-emphasize the importance of beauty to the extent that one can in one's own mind (rather than convince oneself that one is beautiful). I'd rather try to question the notion of the importance of viewing myself as attractive as necessary for my self-worth rather than try to convince myself that I'm attractive.
I think that, for some people, they feel that, even taking societal pressures into account, they legitimately feel that they're not attractive to themselves, and that they should focus on how that's not a big deal in zer own self-esteem. Of course, the way society treats people based on their attractiveness still has implications for attaining one's goals.
While I think it's fine that some people consider themselves unattractive, and that that's not necessarily something that is that important to change, a point was made here by either sweetmachine or fillyjonk that maybe the most important thing is to convince zerself that zer is not ugly. I think that's a good point, because, while someone may legitimately find themselves ugly, often classifying oneself as ugly is used as a scapegoat for other causes of unhappiness in one's life, and as a justification for feelings of self-loathing.
Here's one thing that I was thinking about as a response to this, and I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on it–skeptical ugliness. Basically, if someone feels like zer most comfortable with viewing themselves as somewhat unattractive, that's fine. But ze should strive to be skeptical of the notion that zeself is repulsively ugly, because that view may change, may be due to societal influences, or actually due to other sources of stress in zer life.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling, and I apologize if I come across as awkward or incoherent sometimes–I'm tired and trying to get these thoughts down while they're on my mind.. There have been so many great issues raised in this thread, I feel like there could be a lot "unpacked" from this discussion. And even when I don't agree with people on some of their points, I feel like I'd share more in my views in these matters than the vast majority of the population, so I try to keep that in mind.
to me (and I stress that "to me" part, because this is such a techy subject for so many of us) the "true ugliness – true unsightliness, that is not the result of disfigurement" comment sounded patronizing too, which is why I reacted as I did.
I apologize. It wasn't my intent, and I'm sorry.
Thank you. Clearly this is one that people have strong feelings on and I know I'm very sensitive on it. I really do appreciate your view point. It's been enlightening.
Jamie – That's right! I wish there were more people like him and I can't believe I wasn't able to see him at Dragon Con this year! He came, I went, but I did not conquer! lol
Jamie- Thanks for posting the links to the Full Body Project. I didn't know Leonard Nimoy did photography! I took a brief peek at the first link and the photos look beautiful. I'll have to go back and visit again when I have more time.
@Cassi – I've been rolling your comment around some more. Do and your partner define you as attractive/sexy/beautiful in the context of your relationship? I am wondering where "ugly" lives for you – interested in how radically you've unhooked this.
('This' being the beauty myth from your relationships and life path…)
@BlueSphere52 … I'm afraid I'm not up to 'thought experiments,' it's all too close to the bone for that … but there's a fair bit on these issues in disability lit … might try as a start the 'image/identity' archives from Ragged Edge Magazine: http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/imageidentity/
I'm pretty offended by the fact that she was told that 98 lbs was fat! As someone who struggles still with disordered eating (whoo, anorexia), I can't imagine what it would be like to be at such a low weight and still be told it isn't good enough. It's one thing if you tell yourself that, but to hear it from someone else has to be 100x more devastating.
Arwen, my husband definitely considers me "attractive" in that I attracted him, but he is notoriously non-visual. It's a standing joke in our circle to ask him (when he's being really dense on something) "and just what color IS Marty's hair?" Marty was his PhD adviser and they worked closely for many many years. The man had hair like Einstein's… on steroids. Shocking white, curly, a foot long and utterly wild. It wasn't hair, it was a tornado that touched down.
His answer?
"Uh… brown???"
Over the course of our years together I gained and lost over 100 pounds. He never once noticed and if you try to tell him it's so, he'll think you need psychological help. If we watch a TV show that has more than one blond or brunette character he'll say, "wait, wasn't he just kissing her? Why is he trying to kill her?" They don't have to look at all alike… he only has so many categories for looks and after that, if he doesn't know you, it's all a wash. He's the perfect person for me.
This all touches on a point that several people made about attractiveness vs beauty. And seeing beauty in people you know vs first (physical) impressions. I'm pretty clear that attractiveness isn't the same as beauty. As Kate has pointed out here many times, what is attractive to one person might not do it for another, but when I think of beauty, I tend to be referring to the Greek symmetry sort of beauty. Beauty that tends to be fairly universal in it's appeal (and it really is astounding how a symmetrical face will be seen as beautiful by people from around the globe). I'm also distinguishing physical beauty from that which we see in people we know. Volcanista made a point many posts back about defining beauty in relation to ugliness… but to me, the idea of beauty as separate from ugliness (or even plainness) is more about the person, seeing their humanity and that is something that, while deeply important in every day life, is useless in a magazine photo spread (which is where this whole thing started).
@BlueSphere52, I'm mulling your scenarios… not sure I'll be able to answer you really. I think you've pricked quite a whole in my "I don't give a damn about looks" persona, because I would probably go to great lengths to save someone from having to live life ugly. It's not how I think the world SHOULD work, but it's how it does. Hell… as much as I'm trying like hell to embrace FA, I'd probably go to great lengths to stop a person from having to go through life fat (especially if it were my child we're talking about)… not because I think fat is bad, but because I know that the world doesn't agree. Not sure where that leaves me, but here I am.
duh… hole, not "whole"
@Eucritta: Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I didn't really want a case-by-case discussion of the scenarios. The scenarios I guess just gave me a way of setting up a contrast between your proposal and Cassi's to explain how I feel about the subject.
I agree with Eucritta about being able to choose aspects of your identity as pathological or abnormal can be beneficial. Specifically, I feel that it can be useful to categorize traits as such if you feel that technology is likely to give the person a choice as to whether or not to possess the trait in the near future.
@Cassi: I agree with the distinction you draw between physical beauty and other forms of beauty. I do believe that, as we get to know people, we find they have personality traits whose contemplation results in a sensation similar to that when one views physical beauty. I also agree that negative personality traits can make someone less beautiful, or even revulsive, in a physical sense. However, I would argue that it is still meaningful to separate them, and that people do (e.g. in discussions of models that are accompanied by photographs). Perhaps it may be helpful to view this physical beauty as the beauty that is evident upon meeting someone for the first time, before you get to know zim.
–Cassi, the more I read of your views, the more I feel like we have pretty fundamentally similar views on this issue. I, too, would like to see if there are ways to reduce suffering due to ugliness. I guess that's the big problem I have with the focus of on the beauty of everyone: believing that everyone is physically beautiful has problematic implications for some of the other beliefs that are important to me, and I think that ascribing to that view would lead to some cognitive dissonance for me. For example, it would seem that, if all people were equally physically beautiful (in the absence of societal bias), it would be ethical for a mother to take a medication that induces significant asymmetry in the fetus, so long as it doesn't have any non-cosmetic implications. I don't believe that this would be ethical, so I think that physical beauty does have some fairly universal, biologically ingrained characteristics.
I want to focus on de-emphasizing the effects that beauty has on one's own self-image and to maximize the ability of all people, regardless of how beautiful they are, to realize their full potential. And, in this regard, I'm optimistic. I think technological innovation is giving fat people, ugly people, and other oppressed peoples more opportunities to follow their dreams and reach their full potential.
Comments are closed.


text:
Wind River has announced a new software package for building Android-based automotive computing systems. The framework consists of several components, including a custom home screen interface that is tailored for cars, an FM radio control implementation, and support for interacting with docked iOS devices.
The new package is part of Wind River's Android "solution accelerator" lineup. Wind River is an embedded systems company that is owned by Intel. As some readers might recall, we first reported on Wind River's Android enhancements in January when the group released a module for adding overlapping windows to Google's mobile operating system.
The new Android automotive package is aimed at enabling "in-vehicle infotainment" (IVI) experiences, which means supporting front-seat navigation and back-seat entertainment. Intel has been interested in that market for a long time, but its previous efforts in the space were largely focused on Moblin and MeeGo. It was one of the few areas where MeeGo seemed to be gaining meaningful industry traction.
Android's relative flexibility and sophisticated navigation software make it seem like it has the potential to be a good choice for car manufacturers when the IVI concept finally starts to see serious adoption. Wind River's software supplies a few of the missing pieces that the automotive industry will need in order to bring Android to the front seat.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Related Resource
Emerging Science: Stem Cell Models for Environmental HealthSpecial Product
On June 3–4, 2010, the National Research Council's Standing Committee on the Use of Emerging Science for Environmental Health Decisions held a public workshop to further understanding of the utility of stem cell models in evaluating the environmental stressors that affect human health. This brief document summarizes the perspectives offered over the course of the workshop.
Click here for more from the Standing Committee on Emerging Science for Environmental Health Decisions.


text:
American cosplayer Sophia Lancaster strips down and then suits up to bring to us the humanoid form of Alexstrasza the Life-Binder, one of the five great dragons in the World of Warcraft!
Alexstrasza the Life-Binder, Aspect of the red dragonflight, is the guardian of all life in the world of Azeroth. She was one of five great dragons chosen by the titans to be empowered with a portion of the Pantheon's power and rule over her flight while they watched over Azeroth and its inhabitants. The titans also appointed her queen of all dragons.
As of the Cataclysm, the Dragonqueen has taken action in assembling the Dragon Aspects and their flights, renowned shaman Thrall, and many heroes of Azeroth to collect the Dragon Soul from the distant, malignant past. Its potent and effectual power is used to bring an end to the corrupted Dragon Aspect, Deathwing, and his black dragonflight, saving Azeroth from utter desolation.
For someone of her power, the Dragonqueen is surprisingly compassionate. While Ysera has always favored the dreaming races and the students of Cenarius, Alexstrasza and her flight are known for avoiding killing if at all possible (as they are the defenders of life). Alexstrasza loves all living creatures and protects them, and only those who menace the dragonflights or the world face her wrath. Alexstrasza is supremely confident in her strength and righteousness. She does not seek out combat, but destroys only to punish or renew. In battle, she observes her foes carefully before striking at those she believes are the most deserving of her wrath. Enemies who flee when their leaders are defeated are generally allowed to escape, having learned a lesson they will not soon forget.
She prefers peace and solitude, although she will defend her lands with all her power against any who threaten them without due cause. She often uses her shapechange power to appear as a creature of nature, in order to see what encroaching mortals will do before revealing her presence. Alexstrasza is devoted to all forests, and to a lesser extent all other types of green and fertile growing things. She considers all natural woodlands her home, and she need fear no beast within such lands. Although many of Azeroth's natural creatures revere the Great Red Leviathan, she is not a goddess and does not pretend to be otherwise. Alexstrasza is rarely venerated by any particular group, although some elven communities pay her homage. Druids of the wild in particular appreciate her serene presence, considering her second in importance only to Ysera.


text:
MatthiasRat (real name Charles Matthias, born September 6, 1976) is a rat furry who lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. A writer and musician, Matthias has made much of his creative output available on his website.
Matthias is a major contributor to the Metamor Keep story setting. Much of his work falls into the transformation fandom as well. He was one of the earlier members of the Transformation Story Archive, and has written in the settings of Barken, TX, Winds of Change, The Blind Pig, and Paradise. He does not dabble in the world of transgenderism too much, but, when he does, he has an unusually high amount of female-to-male characters compared to most writers.
In addition to his own writing, Matthias helps run the Writing Track at Anthrocon, and hosts a yearly Rodent's Panel at the convention. Charles invites his closest friends to stay at his house if they cannot afford hotels on their own. His goal is to promote good furry fiction that does not become porn.
In 2004, Matthias' story Never Again a Man won the Ursa Major Award for Best Anthropomorphic Novel.
Matthias' musical skills are in piano performance and composition. He prefers to work in a classical style and has made many works which he has uploaded to YouTube.
Personal information[edit]
Matthias is a Christian fur and posts on the Furrs Fur Christ forums. He is married to his wife, Kimberly, and together they have adopted a little girl by the name of Angie. Charles remains proud of his daughter and many drawings of the two together can be seen on Fur Affinity.
External links[edit]
|This stub about a person could be expanded.


text:
I had a nutty afternoon, decided on having an IK+ fight with no timer and well, just a big endless brawl lol.
Here is the steem patch for Auto #25.
- No player KO points.
- No timer.
- Score still works I think.
- Just fun for scrapping, you will miss the bombs and ball sections though.
- Apply at title screen (IK+).
- It does defeat the purpose of the game of course.


text:
Hello to all TA inhibitors. Hope everyone is having a great 2012 so far.
Late last month I posted a blog about me thinking about leaving a church group I was attending for almost a year. Well, I've left. I haven't ditched anyone's friendship since I still enjoy their company very much. I've told a few people whom I were close to in the church group about my departure. Some of the things they've said to me are things I'm very curious in learning about. One of my friends stated the following: Atheists have no foundation of morality, but since many of them are moral, that is just God working through them. Another one of my friends stated the following: Since Atheists are morally anarchic, I am not a true Atheist, but a Christian in denial (I guess?) about the Truth of God.
There's a few things in these statements that interest me: (1) moral foundation(s) of Atheism; (2) Christian concept of free will; (3) any/all logical fallacies that may be at work here.
Looking for some tips on how to go about tackling these issues. If anyone could help me in any way, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for reading,
- Branden
Views: 561
Rich Hugunine said:
Christians can logically claim the "moral" ground to do anything they pretty much want to do
Sadly, in the UK, this seems to be very common, and it's why I am suspicious when I meet a Christian. I am glad to say that I have also seen Christians sincerely ask "what would Jesus do?" with great integrity.
Branden, regarding atheism and its moral basis, I have been doing some work on this problem over Christmas. (also, all my life.) Specifically, an "objective morality". I intended to post this on the discussion I was involved in then - "Atheists cannot be moral" - but it's gone! Oh well.
I thought the best thing is to present a "finished", "complete" version of the theory. As it turned out, this was very useful in making me develop the ideas. So, here it is - 4 pages of 12-point Times New Roman in .pdf.
I am sincerely looking for thoughts and comments. Please pick it to pieces.
Here are the web sites I looked at in the course of doing the work:
I've had a look at what you've written and it makes sense. My comment, and it's an observation not a criticism of what you have written would be that we already have a secular moral code don't we? It's called "the law". Speaking from a UK perspective, it does not require you to be religious - it may have Judeo-Christian roots, but affirmation of the truth of evidence can be confirmed without recourse to the bible. It's the product of a democracy so it's moral basis is "most people agree that the basic principles are right", not "some god said we have to do it".
Hey Simon,
Sorry about that, the "atheists cannot be moral" thread was deleted by ... urs truly. Reading your link now ...
- kk
Hey Simon,
Here's my first pass on your doc:
We need to present a theory which makes sense to people
This is a big deal, especially for deconversion, which is my angle on this. I've developed one based on the 4 Fs of biology and it is similar to the Singer view, but I don't think it is very "portable" in the sense that it can be easily adopted by people. For one thing, it denies morality and says that it is a myth. Then it concludes that all we can hope for are laws that, interestingly, can only be treated as objective amongst human beings (you mention this restriction later). So, as for a "true" moral system in which objective value is derived, I flunked.
But I should expand on this. I was looking for an objective basis for assessing "value", the "oughts". That is how I operationally defined "morality" when I started. What I found was that you can't really have a truly objective basis for this, only one that is objective with respect to human beings.
And yea, as you said, I tried to then isolate constructs that met two criteria simultaneously:
1.) things that are "facts" we can be confident are common to all human beings (and are thus objective with respect to all human beings)
2.) things that are "facts" that we can be confident all human beings place a positive value upon.
By doing this, I solve the value from fact dilemma because I've isolated facts that are simultaneously "values" that all human beings view as such. So, value is "derived" by identity.
And these facts/values are the 4 Fs of Biology, which biologists have expanded upon for us:
1.) Allowing for/guaranteeing and enabling all the ways one might want to mate or simulate the act through sexual relations, regardless of kind, scope, extent or type (qualified against 4 in fl). A natural person cannot be made to suffer an infringement of their human sexuality, regardless of kind.
2.) Allowing for/guaranteeing and promoting one's capacity to be a "financially productive" (this phrase has a specific statutory meaning in fl) entity. A natural person cannot be made to suffer an infringement of their capacity for livelihood, regardless of kind.
3.) Allowing for/guaranteeing space, sovereignty of abode, and a viable guarantee of housing for all with no homelessness. A natural person cannot be made to suffer an infringement of their right to be secure in shelter whose space they control, regardless of kind.
4.) Supporting/guaranteeing individual safety and the personal boundaries that speak to it; even if to some degree if by perception only (to be expounded upon). A natural person cannot be made to suffer an infringement of their general safety and reasonable sense thereof, regardless of kind. Numerous human rights come out of this – see Article 7.
This all sounded great until I realized that, because the objectivity of this is limited human beings, it isn't really the objective morals I was thinking of. I posted on my blog about this here.
Hi all,
A friend of mine read my latest ongoing project, On the Means and Methods of Mass Deconversion, and had some constructive comments that served to advance my thinking on this subject a bit more.
The subject is morality – and whether atheists can be moral. I've posted here before on that topic. And in that post I discussed the views of Sam Harris on this matter; suggesting that he had equated "value" and "fact" incorrectly. Well, my friend, GR, challenged me on that claim, so I've put together a more complete description of the Harris talk given at Oxford last year and have decided to
decided to post it here. It will appear in Version 0.7 (the next version) of the project I linked to above.
from On the Means and Methods of Mass Deconversion:
" … A friend of mine had considerable difficulty accepting this fact. These statements were made by Harris at a talk he held with Dawkins at Oxford in 2011. The video was released on youtube and I will reference the run times here.
My friend stated that, "i didn't see at any point where he said that facts and values are one in the same."
But it is there. At 7:14 Sam Harris: "… It is thought that there are two quantities in this world, there are facts on the one hand and there are values on the other. And it is imagined that these two are discrete entities that can't be understood in monistic terms and it is imagined that science can't say anything about value …"
At 10:10 Sam Harris: "I am going to argue that this split between facts and values is an illusion. And my claim is that values are a certain kind of fact …"
No, they are not.
If you are objecting because this is not exactly the same thing as "one in the same" then I think you are nitpicking and not seeing the point. The point is that he is using this statement "values are a certain kind of fact" to bridge those concepts, which is precisely what Hume was saying you cannot do; that is, you cannot derive an ought from an is. So, this statement of Harris' is fallacious. Values are not fact … at all. He either does not understand the difference or is being dishonest.
At 11:25 he does use this "worst possible misery" argument, but I've also disproved that (infra).
So, between these two statements, first about values and facts and then about misery, he never is able to form a basis for deriving value, which is my point, and which is the presenting challenge.
My friend commented, "values can be facts but not all facts are values".
I don't know what he meant by that and I disagree. Values are not facts … period. These are two completely different concepts. By definition, a value is subjective and a fact is objective, for starters.
I found myself wondering if he understood that the term "value" here is not being used in the numeric sense. It sounded like he didn't. He then went on:
"… though facts can lead to values."
which then led me to think that he just doesn't understand the difference between these two terms. Facts cannot "lead to values" … that is the whole point Hume was making.
Therefore, what he and Harris are doing, if this is really their position, is novel. They are actually arguing that Hume's claim about not being able to derive value from fact is just not true; without providing any reason for why it is not true.
But it gets worse. Harris apparently doesn't seem to understand that the semantics of "ought" and "is" are just a language substitution for "value" and "fact" because; at one point in the video he discusses value and fact, then later discusses "ought" and "is" as if these are two completely different discussions. And when he does get to the "ought" and "is" discussion he fumbles again. At 16:15 he says, "I happen to think that this is a trick of language … that … this notion of "ought", falls very much into Vickensteins notion of philosophy as a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language …"
Well, I agree, I think it is a trick of language, but not for the same reasons that Harris thinks.
And now we get to the punch line. GR then asked what I thought of Peter Singer's view of atheistic morality. I'm no expert on this guy but I think he reached the same conclusion that I did; that "morality" can only be defined in terms of what nature built us for – although we don't agree entirely on exactly how nature built us. And that really isn't "morality" in my mind. It is e
system of ethics upon which we can derive the boundaries by which we all agree to live by, which is all we really need. And those boundaries are the basis of law, which never had anything to do with "morals", trust me.
So, I guess GR hadn't gotten to the end of that section I was writing because he didn't realize that, at the end of the day, I don't believe "morality" is a valid construct to start with. "Morality" is just one more tool, another public myth, in the toolbox of the religious masters for rendering populations subservient, docile and malleable, imo.
Since even theists cannot claim an objective morality (see my explanation in the linked project above) and since you cannot derive value from fact except by the inherent nature of human beings itself, "morality" is a fiction created by religion. So, GR, there is your answer. No, atheists cannot be moral. In fact, no one can because "morality" is a myth to start with.
This I explained in more detail in a comment:
... So, I thought I would clarify what I mean by Singer's "morality" and how I see that term. What I am saying, which is clearer if you read my entire treatment of this subject, is that we can derive a system, call it "morals" if you like, that is objective within human society, that is, strictly amongst human beings. And that is all that matters for us. And *that* is what I call "ethics" in the sense that it only prescribes a pragmatic way that human beings can live together and cooperate, without placing any "value" on those pragmatic boundaries, and satisfy the things that all human beings biologically (and objectively) value. And those boundaries are what we call "law".
So, as a member of this hypothetical society, I do not need to place any "value" on a particular more, I only need to understand that all human beings are guaranteed to value that particular more because of their biological makeup. If, and I stress if, we can find such mores, we have a system of law we can use that is not "moral" in the sense that we place no premium on it identifying "value". But it is a system of agreeable rule of law nonetheless.
So, why is this not morality?
Well, given all this,
I can say that all humans will value x, but I cannot say that x is generally valuable.
This renders my entire system one of pragmatism, something I can use to come up with rules and laws that are rational, but not "moral". My conclusion is that "morality" is therefore, a myth, just like the "gods" that are supposed have access to it.
The values we choose must obviously be of the most general kind – otherwise they will not be
universal to the species and therefore, technically, will not have the ultimate authority we are
looking for.
This was my strategy as well, which led me to those biological "values" universal in the homo sapiens.
In fact, that's where most previous attempts fall down in my opinion – they try and prescribe too
much high-level detail, and high-level detail varies too much in validity to qualify for the authority
of universality. Also – they're so dull. Nobody's going to read and remember all those wordy
pompous sentences and complicated concepts. Therefore, nice effort, but they're fucking useless.
This is a rare insight. Most people don't appreciate this but you are exactly right. We have to have something that the Machiavellian can actually make use of.
Who needs a theory of objective morality? Who cares?
We need one because:
• atheism looks silly without one and loses authority
• very occasionally, a person will lose his or her entire moral compass, and it turns out to be
very difficult to function without one. The most common instance o
someone de-converts from religion.
Nice. That is why I'm into this.
My conclusion is that, since:
I can say that all humans will value x, but I cannot say that x is generally valuable.
We need a way to package this fact to the public that is simple and clear, and not a put off. I don't know if that is possible.
- kk
Thanks very much for giving it your full and frank attention Kir! I'll get stuck into all that right now.
Hi Kir,
just to respond to the first part of your reply.
# So, as for a "true" moral system in which objective value is derived, I flunked.
If you call it a "true" moral system in which objectve value is derived, I think that you are confusing a property which belongs to the "dead" part of the universe (scientific measurability) with a value judgement, moral "truth", which is a property belonging to the living world on planet Earth - and is, in fact, vague anyway. Just what do we mean by moral truth? We need to clarify and spell it out closely if we are to get anywhere. To use "moral truth" in a philosophical argument doesn't work because the phrase doesn't carry any solid meaning.
I think it would be more correct to say "a valid form of objectivity" rather than "a true morality". This allows for multiple species of objectivity which are different from each other, although equally invincible in authority, and equally clear-cut, within their own particular contexts.
# So, as for a "true" moral system in which objective value is derived, I flunked.
Objective value doesn't exist, Kir. Except for numbers (...?). A number is a factual object which is also a value. Otherwise, value is something that living beings, most notably human beings, give to objective reality. Nothing else that we know about is able to ascribe "value" to "facts". Only living beings on planet Earth are able to do this - that we know about at the present time. The "dead" part of the universe, which is what we see everywhere else apart from the living world on planet Earth, does not have any kind of brain or feelings or consciousness and is not alive. You need those things if you are to ascribe value to objective reality.
Morality is a value system. That's why an objective morality can only apply to and originate from living creatures. Within the rules of being a living creature, I contend that the morality I have given is objective according to all the necessary rules, at least within the realm of human beings: its foundations are themselves objective facts and reasonable clearly-stated assumptions; in practice, within its applicable domain, it is "true everywhere", it has invincible authority, and it is clear-cut. Things do change a little when it comes to our dealings with other species, but most if not all of the original morality can still be said to apply in some form to the way in which we treat animals and the ecosystem.
# I was looking for an objective basis for assessing "value", the "oughts".
But I define a "value" as something which a human being "feels", and "ought" is something which a human being "does".
So value and ought are two different things: motive and behaviour.
# I solve the value from fact dilemma because I've isolated facts that are simultaneously "values" that all human beings view as such. So, value is "derived" by identity.
You've isolated four facts which are fundamentally common to probably all human beings. Perhaps it is true that some of the values we ascribe to those universal facts are able to achieve the attribute of moral objectivity. If we are to look for this, then again we need to spell out and justify exactly how we think objectivity is achieved in this case. It is just not true in my opinion to say that these four facts are simultaneously "values" - because facts are not values, period. To say that is vague and mixed-up.
Kir -
# the semantics of "ought" and "is" are just a language substitution for "value" and "fact"
Given a situation existing in objective reality, ... IS ... FACT
is "ought" what we ought to FEEL about it, or ... VALUE
is "ought" what we ought to DO about it? ... OUGHT


text:
Mythic Entertainment
Dungeon Keeper F2P "ridiculous" and not "quite right", says Molyneux
Dungeon Keeper creator Peter Molyneux has offered some characteristically gentle criticism of the new free-to-play mobile version of the sim, which has taken a critical drubbing, to put it mildly.
Mythic Entertainment headlines
Mythic defends Dungeon Keeper mobile edition
Though there has been plenty of furor over EA's free-to-play mobile adaptation of Dungeon Keeper this week developer EA Mythic is downplaying all that controversy, with Jeff Skalski telling TabTimes that they made the game how it is "so the classic franchise would be accessible to as many people as possible."
Warhammer Online has officially shuttered
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning, which launched in 2008, is no more. The EA Mythic-developed MMO closed its doors overnight, forever ending its ambitions of true realm-vs-realm warfare and other delightful concepts imported from former project Dark Age of Camelot but sadly wasted on a generation whose brains pointed due WoW. The dream has died; […]
Warhammer Online free to all account holders pre-closure
Warhammer Online has closed account creation but dropped its subscription fees for the few weeks remaining before its final closure.
Ultima Forever: Quest for the Avatar now available on iOS
Ultima Forever: Quest for the Avatar is out now on iOS. Taking place place 20 years after the original Quest of the Avatar, the free-to-play title developed by EA Mobile and Mythic Entertainment finds the Avatar defending Britannia while aiding Lady British. A launch video is below, and the game is in the works for […]
Warhammer: Wrath of Heroes to close March 29th
Warhammer: Wrath of Heroes developer Mythic Entertainment will shutter its free-to-play PvP game on March 29th.
Warhammer Online players to be compensated for weekend downtime
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning had a "difficult" weekend, a post on the BioWare Social Newtwork reports, with lag spikes and zone crashes. It took Mythic's team until Sunday to find the root cause, and severs had to be taken offline. Once Mythic has figured out who was affected by the downtime, which was unfortunately […]
Ultima Online issues two week rollback on Atlantic server
Bad news for Ultima Online players today, as Mythic Entertainment has rolled back the Atlantic server. All progress and acquisitions since Dec 5, 2012 7:00 am EST have been lost in the process, but no explanation has been offered beyond due to a mention of corruption in the announcement post. Affected players have been offered […]
Warhammer Online update reconciles disparate RvR currencies
In a powerful blow for sanity, Mythic has released a patch for Warhammer Online which combines the heretofore disparate realm versus realm rewards into a single currency. A dedicated vendor has been provided so players can turn their hard-earned War Crests into useful items, namely experience and influence modifiers. More details can be found in […]
BioWare Mythic changes its name to Mythic
BioWare Mythic has announced it shall henceforth be known as just Mythic.
Age of Reckoning players get 50% gold, XP bonus in Wrath of Heroes
If you have an active Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning account, you're entitled to a sweet bonus in spin-off Wrath of Heroes.
Warhammer Online servers closing, transfers offered
EA is tightening Warhammer Online's plus-one-against-ogres belt, with one European and two North American servers facing shutdown.
Warhammer Online teases new features
The other MMORPG is kicking 2011 off with a bang by promising a year-long swag of mysterious new features and content for Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning.
Dark Age of Camelot to be managed by Mythic in Europe
EA has revealed that it is -once again – the overlord of Dark Age of Camelot in Europe, after being run by GOA for the last few years. Matter of fact – Mythic Entertainment will be taking over the Arthurian MMO.
Mythic - "There are no plans to change the studio names," says EA
The director of public relations at Electronic Arts has stated that despite the restructuring going on at the company, Mythic will retain its identity. "There are no plans to change the studio names," Tammy Schachter told Gamasutra. "The Mythic team is working on ongoing live support for Warhammer Online, Dark Age of Camelot and Ultima […]
Mark Jacobs leaves Mythic, Muzyka takes on new EA MMO/RPG group
Warhammer Online developer Mythic's confirmed that well-known studio head Mark Jacobs has left his role. EA has formed a new MMO and RPG division, to be headed by BioWare boss Ray Muzyka. BioWare's other co-founder, Greg Zeschuk, will become Group Creative Officer of the new division. "We thank Mark for his contributions at Mythic and […]
Mythic offering incentives for gamers returning to Warhammer Online
Mythic is asking gamers to return to Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning, despite recently closing down 43 of its game servers. North America and Asia Pacific gamers who re-activate their accounts will receive an "Emperor's welcome," complete with all the rested experience they've accumulated while absent, a special quest chain with in-game rewards, and ten […]
WAR's Land of the Dead detailed
In an interview with EG yesterday, Warhammer Online's executive producer Jeff Hickman and creative director Paul Barnett spoke at length about the forthcoming Land of the Dead zone in Warhammer Online. Part of the Call to Arms live expansion, LotD will feature loads of stuff to do and various ways to get booty. It'll be […]
"We don't want to be The Monkees," says WAR creative director
Warhammer Online creative director Paul Barnett has told Gametrailers in a video interview that WoW is like The Beatles, "and if you try and be like the Beatles, you'll and end up like The Monkees. We don't want to be The Monkees," he said. "We're Led Zeppelin." Quite. More down below. By Mike Bowden
Mythic Entertainment latest
Dungeon Keeper F2P "ridiculous" and not "quite right", says Molyneux
Warhammer Online players to be compensated for weekend downtime
Age of Reckoning players get 50% gold, XP bonus in Wrath of Heroes
Mythic – "There are no plans to change the studio names," says EA
Mark Jacobs leaves Mythic, Muzyka takes on new EA MMO/RPG group
Mythic offering incentives for gamers returning to Warhammer Online
"We don't want to be The Monkees," says WAR creative director


text:
Whether you're an established green business or just getting started, the Austin Green Business Leaders program can help you protect the environment, save money, and make Austin a more livable place.
Businesses that excel in the program are formally recognized as Silver, Gold, or Platinum Green Business Leaders—which can give you a competitive edge with customers. To learn more about the program, check out 7 Reasons to Join Austin Green Business Leaders. Interested in joining? Click on the Become a Green Business Leader button below to get started.
Currently, the program has 247 members from 10 different categories of businesses, representing over 42,000 employees and over 19 million square feet of green office space!
2019 Green Cup Champions | Platinum Member: CLEAResult
Get There from Here
Towards a Best Managed City
Connect With Us


text:
Sippin' With J&S
Is our once a month tasting that comes as a surprise!
For only $10 we welcome you to join us every 1st Wednesday of the month to venture into wine and beer! Sippin' on a varitey of options as J&S provide information on each product and give you a 10% discount on any featured item!
Our tasting is to show you new wines/beers we bring in along with our favorites.
Only $10/Per Person
We want to hear from you! Whats your favorites? Tag on photos from the tasting for a feature on our page!
Loading Map....


text:
New signing??Georginio Wijnaldum scored his second goal in as many games, while fellow Dutchman Siem de Jong – injured for most of last season – also found the net in a testimonial match for Blades stalwart Chris Morgan.
But the Premier League visitors – without reported Crystal Palace target Fabricio Coloccini in their defence – were pegged back either side of the break by Marc McNulty and Kieron Freeman.
The Magpies have now shipped eight goals in four pre-season games and manager Steve McClaren will hope to swiftly finalise a deal for Anderlecht defender Chancel Mbemba, who has passed a medical but is awaiting a visa.
McClaren's men had hit the bar – Papiss Cisse so close to finishing off a slick passing move – with just two minutes gone but they took until the 40th to find a way through, Wijnaldum stroking into an empty net after George Long had dived at Cisse's feet.
The Blades might have gone in level had McNulty done better when one-on-one with Tim Krul but when a similar chance followed soon after the restart, the Scottish striker tucked the ball under the Dutchman with little fuss (48).
Nigel Adkins' side went close through a Che Adams free-kick and a Matt Done header – cleared off the line by Steven Taylor – but fell behind again 11 minutes from time when De Jong, left free at the far post, connected with a Jack Colback corner.
Adkins has yet to lose a game in pre-season since replacing Nigel Clough last month and Freeman restored parity with a stunning strike from range in the 87th minute.
Morgan, who has spent 12 years with the Blades as player, coach and caretaker boss, came on in the closing stages to a warm reception from both sets of fans.
He was handed the chance to complete a comeback win as the clock ticked down but could only fire a late free-kick into the Newcastle wall.


text:
When they move from Chicago to a smaller, safer town, Yolonda is scornful of her new school, and her brother Andrew is having trouble learning to read. All he likes to do is play the harmonica given to him by his father to teethe on. Yolonda knows that's the way he "talks", and she's convinced that Andrew has a true musical gift.
Yolonda, big and strong for her age, determines to prove that her younger brother is a true musical genius.
Call Number:
JF Fenner


text:
|Lynn Liccardo
Somerville's Lynn Liccardo: All the Dope about Soaps.
By Doug Holder
Lynn Liccardo is a woman who is never at a loss for words. This New Jersey native, and resident of the Winter Hill section of Somerville, talks passionately of something many of us have not thought deeply about, namely Soap Operas.
Liccardo has written extensively for the now defunct Soap Opera Weekly, and her blog on the Red Room website. Her blog was selected as one of the 10 best for soap opera fans. Her essay The Ironic and Convoluted Relationship between Daytime and Primetime Soap Operas was published in Transformation for a New Media Era (University Press of Mississipi-2010). She has a new e- book out through the Red Room titled: As The World Stops Turning which deals with her favorite soap: As the World Turns.
I asked this doyenne of soap operas if they are worthy of scholarly exegesis. Liccardo opined: "Soap Operas have been part of our culture for 80 years... Popular culture permeates every aspect of life—not always for the better. But it has a very important impact. And soap operas are very much Pop Culture—so it does have an impact and makes a statement about society."
Liccardo has more ambitions around her work with soap operas. She is planning to gather words and images of the late Irna Philips, the creator of soap operas. She plans a film documentary, as well as a book about Philips titled: As Irna's World Turned: The Life and Legacy of Irna Phillips.
Liccardo is also an accomplished playwright. She has had her plays performed at the Boston Playwright's Theatre, and other venues. Her one act play Settling In was performed at Somerville Community Access TV, and her other plays have been performed as far away as Los Angeles.
I asked her if a critic compared her plays to a soap opera would she be insulted. The answer of course was NO. Liccardo said her plays are small. They usually consist of a conversation between two people. Soaps according to Liccardo, at their best, are conversations between two people. She smiled: "I hope the best I see in soaps operas the audience sees in my plays.
excerpt from as the world stopped turning...
However, thinking back over what the students had seen over the preceding month, I could find but one example of "naturalistic acting quietly project(ing) deep emotions" - a tiny scene with Lucinda (Elizabeth Hubbard), Bob (Don Hastings) and Kim (Kathryn Hays). The scene was really nothing - no plot - just a brief mention of Bob's recent stay in the hospital and a reference to Bob and Lucinda's visit during her first breast cancer occurrence in 2005. Sam had that video, and included scenes from a second, related episode.
In the second episode, Lucinda's granddaughter, Faith, is brushing her grandmother's hair and asks why Lucinda's hair is coming out in the brush. There are so many ways that scene could have been written and played. The "soapiest" would have been for Lucinda to have a total emotional meltdown in front of Faith, followed by the requisite, and heart-rending, explanation and apology between grandmother and granddaughter.
But that's not how it happened. Not even close. The drama of that scene was all in Elizabeth Hubbard's face as Lucinda struggled mightily not to let Faith see the pain and terror she was feeling, willing herself not to let go of her emotions until her granddaughter was safely out of the room. It was a powerful moment, and as the students watched, all I could hear was their breathing, punctuated by the occasional sniffle. Nothing illustrates the sorry state of daytime soap opera these days more than the fact that one must be of a certain age to remember when these kinds of moments were not so few and far between.
For more info go to: http://redroom.com/member/lynn-liccardo/bio


text:
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Home Cookin'
I like my own cooking.
This revelation came to me one Friday afternoon when hubby asked me, "Do you want to go out to eat tonight?"
I thought about it for three or four seconds and said, "Nah. I'll make something." It had nothing to do with the fact that it would require me to shower, fix my hair, put makeup on, and wear something besides nylon workout pants and a t-shirt.
Two of my favorite restaurants are Max & Erma's and the Hofbrauhaus. I've never been disappointed at either place. It's been a different story at some other restaurants.
I'm not going to officially name any of the bad places, even though I should--as a warning to unsuspecting consumers. It all started a couple of months ago when we went to one chain that serves burgers, sandwiches, and might just have a bird in their name. It was the absolute worst meal I've ever had. I should have known we were in for a bad experience as soon as we walked into the place. The entrance area was packed. Misbehaving little monsters were running rampant while their oblivious parents chatted. The hostess said there'd be a ten minute wait. We were finally seated a good half hour later.
It got worse. We were seated about six inches away from a family with four children under the age of ten. This wouldn't ordinarily be a problem, but the little girl in a high chair seated closest to us was a true demon child. I almost suggested we go somewhere else, but we'd already waited so long, I figured we should stick it out. Bad decision.
After another long wait, our waitress finally showed up and we ordered a couple of beers. Just when I was wondering if she was brewing the beer herself, she came back. Hubby and I ordered fish sandwiches. While we waited, said demon child kept throwing things onto our table. Every once in awhile her mother would say she was sorry, but didn't do anything to correct demon child. Okay, maybe she said, "Honey, don't do that." She should have picked up her precious one and given her a good swat on the backside. Maybe she was afraid the kid's head would start spinning or something. It wouldn't have surprised me.
Believe it or not, there's more. When our food finally arrived I bit into my fish sandwich. IT WAS STILL FROZEN. As in ice particles underneath that crispy fried batter. I took my fork and poked at it. Yep. FROZEN. While hubby ate his unfrozen sandwich, I waited for our server to come back. Ate a few french fries. Waited some more. No server. I finally flagged down a passing waiter after he served another table and told him. He took the sandwich and brought me a basket of fries. When he finally brought a new sandwich, I couldn't eat it. Just the thought of frozen fish turned my stomach. All this time, our waitress was nowhere to be found.
I'll cut to the chase. When it was time to pay, we handed our waitress (who had finally come back) our credit card. Another wait. The credit card machine was broken. She asked if we could pay cash. Um. No. She came back with a manager who stated she'd try to run it the old-fashioned way. Another wait. Finally, the manager said the meal was on the house because she couldn't figure out how to run the card. So, we got a free meal, not because it sucked, but because their credit card machine didn't work. Needless to say, I'll never go there again.
And that's not the only bad meal I've had lately. We went to another chain and I had a hard time picking something because there were too many weird ingredients in things. No, I don't want cranberries, pecans, and who knows what else in my salad. No, I don't want the chicken dipped in Caesar dressing, breaded, fried, and topped with cheese. I want an ordinary grilled chicken salad. Hold the fries. It's not that hard. Sheesh.
I got the message. I'm cookin' at home.
Next time we go out I might have to stick with beer and dessert.
They're my two favorite food groups anyway.
5 comments:
I like my own cooking, too, Joyce. It's amazing how annoying going out to eat can be.
Joyce, I hear you. But don't give up. Just stop going to the stupid chains.
My husband and I are having an early Valentine's/anniversary dinner together, at a fish market. This particular one has a demo kitchen, and they have couples' cooking lessons, as well as serving lunches. Periodically they have a wine pairing tastings dinner, like this one: six courses with two choices each, paired with a different wine. Good thing we live less than two miles away!
The chef worked at our local five-star restaurant before the economy forced it to close a few years ago, so I expect a lovely meal.
Ever since I went to Europe for the first time 10 years ago I found that I much prefer individually prepared food to mass-produced food. Just like at home!
- Wilfred Bereswill said...
Joyce, it sounds like your night at Red Robin (Okay, I'm not afraid to call them by name) was a tough night for all. Except the demon child. But Joyce, fish at a burger joint?? :)
It's funny, we rarely go to that chain because it's not convenient to our location, but when I have, I've never been disappointed. My BAD place is O'Charleys. I had a similar experience once at an O'Charleys and I won't go back.
- Joyce Tremel said...
And when you make your own food, Gina, you know exactly what's in it. No surprises.
Karen, that sounds like fun. I haven't heard of any places like that around here. I'm going to look for one!
Will, I went to this same RR (yes, you guessed right) once before with my sisters. That meal was edible, but didn't impress me at all. Maybe other RRs are better. I don't know. After the experience hubby and I had there, I filled out the complaint form on their website and never heard a word. You'd think they'd at least apologize.
My favorite chain is Max & Erma's. I've been there dozens of times and never had a bad meal. I love their Santa Fe salad.
Joyce, even if you can't find a place like our fish market, surely there are local restaurants that offer home-style cooking?
And then you have the added comfort of knowing you've supported a locally owned business.