House of Eratosthenes

Walking to the grocery store this morning on an excursion Mrs. Freeberg courteously pointed out (after I got back) that I’m going to have to repeat soon, I was thinking about breasts. Wait, I’m a dude. That’s just another way to say I was alive and had brainwave activity.

Breasts My thought about breasts was, actually, how much feminists hate them when they have no reason to. The two favorite examples come to the forefront, DC Comics’ Wonder Woman character and Lara Croft from the Tomb Raider game. I’ve already waxed lyrically about those two icons to excess, but we should start with them nevertheless because they both happen to be in a process of re-work, the video-game superstar last year and the comic book legend in a movie coming up.

Both of these reforms/reboots/whatever-ya-call-em are in the direction of shrinking breasts. For no reason whatsoever, other than: Feminists loathe large breasts on a woman. And feminists loathe large breasts only for the singular solitary reason that men like them.

Now if a feminist reads this and feels the need to retort — which she most certainly would — she’ll reply that I’m forgetting something important and this, as usual, entirely invalidates my point. She’ll time-travel back to the 1960’s and protest that large breasts “reinforce stereotypes” that a woman is no more than her mammary appendages, that she has nothing else to offer, no intellect, no talent, can’t get anything done without a man, is there only for decoration and blah-blah-blah. This is the other reason why we should start off our thinking with Wonder Woman and Lara Croft. There’s a paradox here: These women are not bubble-heads. Wonder Woman is the second most powerful hero in the Justice League. At her inception, she was supposed to capture the absolute pinnacle of what a woman could be, in all aspects. She had a “super power” of being able to win beauty contests. As well as to deflect bullets with her bracelets and all that other stuff. So the super-heroine-beauty was merely an extension of all the things that made her a “wonder,” and the large breasts were merely an extension of that beauty.

Lara Croft is just a bundle of resourcefulness and resilience. At her inception, she was supposed to be a female Indiana Jones. In both cases, the large breasts were a message. Far from being a message of “don’t think too highly of her, she’s just a jiggle-teevee bubblehead” or anything like that, it was more like “Look, I can do all this stuff and I’m a girl!”

I’m old enough to remember when that’s what the feminist message was. Exactly that, nothing more or less.

Speaking of jiggle-teevee: Doesn’t the old Charlie’s Angels show demonstrate how long this has been going on? A new product offering is placed on the media market, seeking to enforce the social messaging that a beautiful woman can be perfectly capable of getting things done. It picks up a following, not because of the social message, but because in order to get that across it has to have one-to-several beautiful women in it, and who doesn’t like to look at beautiful women? And then some “reformer” is somehow allowed into the production meetings, just like the snake slithering into the Garden of Eden, and issues the command: Reduce the breast sizes, because it’s time for the next social message. Charlie’s Angels didn’t make it that far. But it was criticized for being “Jiggle TV” from the very beginning…by whom, I’m not exactly sure, but I suspect it was someone who didn’t actually watch the show too often.

There is value in noticing this, in that it suggests a way we could taxonomize social movements throughout human history. Conservatives ended slavery by way of a powerful message, consisting of “Whatever it is you seek to do and however you seek to do it, is fine, but we’re drawing a line here…” The objection was rooted in Natural Law, and the boundary between right and wrong was, by implication, static and not dynamic.

Progressives can’t get jiggy with that. They can’t follow such a train of thought as far as the “Whatever.” They keep drifting off into this business of, “As long as we’re re-wiring the culture, let’s take care of this thing, over here…” and they are drawn, like moths to a flame, to people’s personal preferences and personal tastes. That’s because they’re always in attack mode. When a conservative decides to support the feminist movement, the justification for doing so is going to be very similar to the justification for that other conservative movement mentioned above, the abolition of slavery. Something like “Women should have the same opportunities a man should have,” or to get more to the point, “It is wrong to deprive a woman of her opportunities.” Again, Natural Law. We might think of the credo as one that asks the question: Is damage being done? Are people engaging in activities that worsen the situation for others?

Such a conservative finds himself or herself compelled to hop off the feminist bandwagon in short order, as it lurches left, into attack mode. Attack this-or-that-corporation for having too many male executives; presume there must be some “discrimination” going on, solely on the basis of outcome, disregarding the very real possibility that a lack of female bosses is simply indicative of a low number of females who want the job. Attack this-or-that industry. Attack this-or-that pastime, this-or-that sport, this-or-that family restaurant franchise.

Attack beautiful, sumptuous female breasts. Lefties are always in attack mode, they place an impractically weighty emphasis on symbols and symbolism. They are dedicated to destroying things, while pretending to be building something great and grand, that they can never quite define.

Gal Gadot, who will be playing Wonder Woman in the upcoming movie, engaged in some very regrettable comments, albeit technically correct ones, about how Wonder Woman’s breasts should not be — ahem — a big deal or anything. She missed the point. Wonder Woman is not about big breasts, but she is about women accomplishing amazing things while being women, and womanly. The message relies on the presentation of womanly attributes, that’s why the big breasts and the big hair and the skirt and the running-style were all there in the first place; it’s all about doing man-sized things in a womanly way.

Since before World War II, superheroes have been an effective way of getting that message across. Among mugging victims, or motorists trapped in cars that are about to teeter off cliffs — who in his right mind is going to say a stupid thing like “Gosh darn it, I wanted Zorro to save me, not this magic-lasso bimbo”? These are great messages for all of us, kids in particular. Help others, when you can. Accept the help, when it’s there. Be the best and the greatest you can be, no matter who or what you are.

Now, with progressive feminists involved, we’re never quite done reforming the female physique. Everything has to be more “realistic,” which means hair short, breasts diminutive, midsection soft and chubby, legs belying a lifestyle built around a henpecked hubby bringing princess things while she sits on the couch.

Feminism, regrettably, has come to be about attacking…femininity. It’s a very sad thing. And it shows you what “attack mode 24×7” really buys you, in the long run. It leads to self-destruction.

I think your comment about Lefties always being in attack mode, and being preoccupied with symbols/symbolism, is very accurate. I think that is (one of) the reasons they despise the Catholic church: that is a pretty symbol-heavy institution, and it itself is a symbol to many of its followers. They hate the symbolism so much they hate right on past that “love thy neighbor” stuff.
- IcelandSpar | 02/02/2014 @ 18:37
In the Catholic Church’s case, there’s more going on that just hating the symbolism. The Church isn’t merely symbolic; it is sacramental. As such, there are two things going on that symbolism alone can’t accomplish – and that frustrate an adherence to symbols over substance.

1. A sacrament is a visible sign of invisible grace. The Left loves symbols, and the emptier the better, because then they can pin those symbols to their lapels like so many merit badges without actually doing anything they symbolize. Example: they play up the forgiveness of Christ, and downplay the reason why such forgiveness is offered to mankind: because we desperately need it, having bollixed our situation so completely. When it comes to preaching actual repentance and getting people to Confession and such – and especially when it comes to proper preparation for the reception of the Eucharist on Sunday – then the Church is mean and old-fashioned and full of hang-ups, maaaaan, and needs to appeal to people today, probably by ordaining women and singing lots of dreadful folk music instead of actual hymns.

The Catholic Church, however, is a tough place to try to get away with that. Undermine the sacrament and you undermine the grace, and whether the Left likes it or not, that tends to empty the pews. (What’s the fun of bossing around people when there’s nobody left to be bossed?) Sacraments are about the reality behind the symbol, and are thus fundamentally incompatible with a worldview that seeks the appearance even at the expense of reality. That kind of makes #2 a huge irony for them…

2. A sacrament is what it symbolizes. Catholics believe, for example, that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus. By the words of consecration the priest isn’t just symbolizing or commemorating Christ’s sacrifice, but making it present to us. In effect, through the grace of God (who is eternal and thus not bound by time and space) we are present at the One True Sacrifice, sitting among the apostles at the Last Supper.

But you don’t have to go that far. Baptism is only water and words, yet God has chosen by these means to convey rebirth into the faith. The symbol becomes reality. Confession even omits the water, but at the end we are really absolved. It is His grace that changes us in each case, but He does so through means we can see and understand – we are not solely spirit but also matter, and He meets us where we are. So when we receive any sacrament we are in touch with reality; if we are merely thinking symbolically, then we are missing something that He meant for us to have.

This isn’t to say that grace requires a sacrament, because He is not bound by our need. This isn’t some formula or contract, where we do X Y Z and it obliges Him to make with the grace. But the sacraments are offered to us on this understanding – they convey real grace and become that which they represent, to our benefit. It is a serious matter for a Catholic.

You could see where the Squishy Marshmallow types might find this a hassle. Perhaps it’s easier to go after video game characters, who after all can’t argue on their own behalf. So they can cast a walking wiffle bat as Wonder Woman if they like, and then complain when the movie isn’t a success that “men hate strong female characters.” (And I say this even though, for all anyone knows, Ms. Gadot might be very good in the role. I’d have asked Jennifer Lawrence, who not only would look the part but also more than surpass the required acting standard.) They can insist that Lara Croft be redrawn. (They probably shouldn’t be told this, but her impressive bustline was, IIRC, a programming error. She wasn’t meant to be quite so endowed.) They do the same thing about Power Girl’s costume, and probably whinge about Starfire, and so on. They miss even the point they may have ever had – they’re the ones obsessing over the lady’s looks and missing their considerable skills in other areas. Diana of Themyscira is the ambassador to the entire planet from her people, for pity’s sake.
- nightfly | 02/03/2014 @ 00:02
One man’s trash is another man’s treasure . I don’t like giant boobs . looks disproportionate and out of balance to me . Human variety is such a wonderful thing . I’d give the hollywood/barbie look a 5 out of 10.
- kermitt | 02/03/2014 @ 00:24
I would agree that when they start to get balloonish and cartoonish, the sex appeal dissipates.

But the point is, if you’re making a video game model or a comic book sketching, or something else involving artistic license, and the fact that the character is a female is a central point you’re trying to get across to the reader/viewer, the boobs should be average size at the very least. Besides longer hair, they represent the most prominent visual attribute involved in being a female.

One should expect such drawn boobs to be big enough to be noticed. I would go so far as to say it’s unreasonable to expect anything different, for any reason, involving social messaging or anything else.
- mkfreeberg | 02/03/2014 @ 08:04
She’ll time-travel back to the 1960′s and protest that large breasts “reinforce stereotypes”

Bingo. Liberal positions “work” if we assume that conditions are exactly the same as when those positions were first thought up. Their thoughts on labor — laws and organization — are valuable if we assume President Cleveland is about to send the troops into Homestead. Their thinking on social class hasn’t progressed much from Marx. Even their newest crusades — trannies and so forth — are just minor tweaks on the “queer liberation” of the late 60s. If they’ve had a truly original idea since Dewey, I haven’t heard of it.

Meanwhile, as Nightfly points out, they have no idea what to do with the old ideas either. They want a “progressive” version of the Catholic Church, but don’t realize (or perhaps just don’t care) that this destroys it. Which I guess makes sense — if they were capable of evaluating the consequences of their ideas, they wouldn’t be liberals in the first place.
- Severian | 02/03/2014 @ 10:11
As a naturally large-breasted woman, I’m frequently annoyed by the attitude problems of feminists, whose perception of me seems to be exactly the same as that of the oafish boys at my high school: she’s got big boobs, therefore she’s easy and brainless. Contrary to what both groups assume, I didn’t deliberately inflate my chest for anyone else’s benefit, nor am I therefore worthy of anyone’s automatic disdain. Aren’t we supposed to be more than our bodies? I’ll believe your talk when very curvy feminine women aren’t openly sneered at by catty, jealous feministas.
- Soozcat | 02/07/2014 @ 22:12
[…] House Of Eratosthenes discusses breasts. […]
- Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove | 02/09/2014 @ 07:13

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

BreastsSunday, February 2nd, 2014

Breasts
Sunday, February 2nd, 2014