hawkwing_lb: (No dumping dead bodies!)
hawkwing_lb ([personal profile] hawkwing_lb) wrote2010-01-28 04:16 pm

it's hard sometimes but pretty much it's alright

I met a friend on the train home last night, and somehow we ended up talking about body image and associated crap. (Our conclusion: society is screwed up, and people who make "Women's Clothes" obviously believe women come only shaped like skinny big-breasted aliens with drainpipe legs, or very, very round.)

But it got me thinking.

I'm 5'8 or 5'9, depending on who's doing the measuring. I weigh between 93 and 95 kilograms - 14 stone, or thereabouts. And thinking about the shape of my body last night - carrying the amount of muscle I do right now, I suspect if I weighed in at under 90kg, I'd be borderline unhealthy. Under 85kg, and I would be downright unhealthy.

The Body Mass Index test thinks I'm obese. (BMI of 31.74) Which is a test that is clearly, and demonstrably, flawed, and yet it is used as an indicator of obesity on a global scale by the WHO.

All the advertising that is directed at women's bodies encourages dieting and weight loss, as opposed to exercise and muscle gain - a far healthier, for those who can sustain an exercise program, option. I gave up trying to buy clothes that fit and flattered in the women's section of shops years ago, even before I started climbing. I have thighs like tree-trunks, thanks to years of first hockey, then running, and when I could find trousers that fit my thighs? The waist freaking gaped. So I started buying men's trousers instead: too much fabric in the crotch is a small price to pay.

These days I have the same problem with shirts. Women's tops and blouses come equipped with this problem at the upper arm and shoulder, you see: when I flex my arm, the seams protest. Apparently women can have breasts but not shoulders, and in the clothes which are capacious enough about the shoulder? Billowing fabric around the midrift is not my idea of fun. So when I need a shirt, I buy in the men's department, and get one loose enough to still button in front.

It makes me quite angry, this.

You see, I climb for two hours at least twice a week. I run at least a mile, sometimes two, about twice a week. Maybe once a week I'll do weightwork for an hour or so. This keeps me healthy and relatively sane. So I have the muscle of an amateur athlete (six to eight hours of dedicated exercise is enough in one week, seriously: I do have other things to do as well) and the bones of my ancestors, who have generally been big, broad-shouldered people as far back as family memory goes.

(I've got my mother's shoulders. Plus some muscle that's all my own.)

Which means finding clothes is a bugger. And don't even get me started on the disjoint between my flesh and frame and the female bodytype that seems to be so popular in the media, and just how poisonous that is even for people who recognise the absurdity inherent within this construct.

[identity profile] hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com 2010-01-28 04:55 pm (UTC)(link)
I find it just a little bit annoying, the state of women's clothes. (And I hear you on the shoes. Especially if one has long broad feet.)

Less annoying than the barrage of social messages and advertising about weight and shape, but still. It is not fun.

[identity profile] jennygadget.livejournal.com 2010-01-28 10:59 pm (UTC)(link)
oh. even just broad feet overall is generally difficult. (although, yes, I can see how long broad feet would be especially trying, in terms of trying to find shoes.) My feet are tiny, but wide. I wear a perfect boys/mens size 4*, but a women's size 6 1/2 wide - and they don't make many women's size 6 1/2 wide. (US sizes) While I being at the smaller end means I can at least find shoes that I fit into, women's shoes always either pinch (unless they have some give to them) or fit badly and tend to slip off.

*size 4 men's - as size 4 boys would technically be toddler shoes - but size 4 men's are worn by boys are found in the boys sections.

[identity profile] hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com 2010-01-28 11:10 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not that wide. I haven't bought a shoe that wasn't for running, climbing or hiking in... bugger, is it really ten years? The last pair of dress shoes I bought were to comply with the uniform code at school, when I was thirteen, and they fit so well they lasted all six years. Haven't bought dress shoes since. Still, if I didn't go for reasonably high-end running shoes - I go to a dedicated sports training place to get mine, and generally try them on their test treadmill - I'd be in trouble.

(I'm fussy about what I wear on my feet. Which means that I average one pair of new shoes a year, because spending a hundred-plus quid on runners is often almost more than the budget can bear. Although I was able to splash out this December and get really nice hiking/walking boots, which was a)fabulous and b)caused the sales people in the outdoor activities shop to look upon me with frustration.) :P

[identity profile] jennygadget.livejournal.com 2010-01-29 03:33 am (UTC)(link)
(it would help if I took the time to read, yes?)

"I'm fussy about what I wear on my feet."

heh. That reminds me of my favorite line from Clueless. :)

"Although I was able to splash out this December and get really nice hiking/walking boots, which was a)fabulous and b)caused the sales people in the outdoor activities shop to look upon me with frustration.) :P"

Sounds much like my trip to Title9 to buy sports bras.