Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hendrix 
I'm not sure that I'm following you here.
the original argument from thewho isn't good enough to just be dropped out there as a statement of fact. the implied premise of control of "them" over "women" is just as valid as the reverse argument where women control the fashion industry. Both of which are just as valid as a flux of control, or no control of one over the other at all.
since no evidence is presented in the original argument i felt it was sufficient to be very casual in presenting an equal, or more plausible, set of explanations. hence the alternates. at the same time i have to head off the OMG YOUR SAYING RAPE IS OK bullshit by pointing out that fallacious (or less valid) arguments can still have valid/true conclusions. (that because it may be in our genes that we behave so; it isn't necessarily OK that people are forced to behave in a particular way.) kingjulian has a much better way of saying that last part;
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KingJulien
Evolutionary biology can be used as an explanation for a lot of things, but rarely, if ever, as a justification.
i should have just said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hendrix
Are you saying that the standard that people are gravitating towards is changing as well?.
i do personally like the idea that there is no us and them but just a we. a single community that constantly negotiates specifics. in this case what general form and shape constitutes femininity. if this where the best model for how it, i'll call it the fashion industry, works then yes the standards, and even the rules for how the system goes about constructing those standards are constantly shifting. however i can supply no good argument for why this is a better idea then alternatives nor do i have the energy to go about disproving it.
