<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lily White vs. Golden Brown</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.blondelibrarian.net/archives/2004/09/lily-white-vs-golden-brown/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.blondelibrarian.net/archives/2004/09/lily-white-vs-golden-brown/</link>
	<description>It's all about me and my pretty hair!</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: CT</title>
		<link>http://blog.blondelibrarian.net/archives/2004/09/lily-white-vs-golden-brown/#comment-138</link>
		<dc:creator>CT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.blondelibrarian.net/archives/2004/09/lily-white-vs-golden-brown/#comment-138</guid>
		<description>Bingo! Class distinction underlies what's defined as attractive and what's not. The other example:

The Botticelli ideal of plump women was in vogue during a time when having several extra pounds was a sign that you were (very) well-fed -- i.e., rich enough to be well-fed. In the 20th century, the spread of cheap starchy-based diets among lower-income populations meant that the poor tended to become overweight, because they can't afford to eat right. In reaction, more affluent consumers could affort to indulge in leaner meats and low-cal foods; you literally had to be able to afford being able to starve yourself. Thin became in.

Upshot: The media's not to blame for the ideal of beauty it presents. It's only reflecting societal memes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bingo! Class distinction underlies what&#8217;s defined as attractive and what&#8217;s not. The other example:</p>
<p>The Botticelli ideal of plump women was in vogue during a time when having several extra pounds was a sign that you were (very) well-fed &#8212; i.e., rich enough to be well-fed. In the 20th century, the spread of cheap starchy-based diets among lower-income populations meant that the poor tended to become overweight, because they can&#8217;t afford to eat right. In reaction, more affluent consumers could affort to indulge in leaner meats and low-cal foods; you literally had to be able to afford being able to starve yourself. Thin became in.</p>
<p>Upshot: The media&#8217;s not to blame for the ideal of beauty it presents. It&#8217;s only reflecting societal memes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Population Statistic</title>
		<link>http://blog.blondelibrarian.net/archives/2004/09/lily-white-vs-golden-brown/#comment-139</link>
		<dc:creator>Population Statistic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.blondelibrarian.net/archives/2004/09/lily-white-vs-golden-brown/#comment-139</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;IDEAL BEAUTY: IT'S SOCIETAL, STUPID&lt;/strong&gt;

I was reading blondelibrarian's struggles with her lily-white skin, and how she would fare better had she been born a century or two ago. She nails it perfectly by noting that certain physical traits are deemed attractive based upon societal and class...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>IDEAL BEAUTY: IT&#8217;S SOCIETAL, STUPID</strong></p>
<p>I was reading blondelibrarian&#8217;s struggles with her lily-white skin, and how she would fare better had she been born a century or two ago. She nails it perfectly by noting that certain physical traits are deemed attractive based upon societal and class&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
