#also the fact that he is a symbol of male feminism makes this particular condition esp relevant to him as he wouldnt be weirdly masculine

[merrysithmas]

tw eating disorder

jtk headcanon that after tarsus jim struggles with an eating disorder resulting from his guilt over food/where it comes from/its sustainability/survivor's guilt.

[bluewatsons]

Deborah L. Rhode, Appearance as a Feminist Issue, 69 SMU L. Rev. 697 (2016)

In 1929, in A Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf maintained that every woman needed to consider “what is your relation to the ever-changing and turning world of gloves and shoes . . . .” Since then, that world has grown ever more complicated. In today’s universe of escalating opportunities for cosmetic enhancement, the issues surrounding beauty have posed increasingly complex challenges. For some women, our cultural preoccupation with appearance is a source of wasted effort and expense, a threat to physical and psychological well-being, and a trigger for workplace discrimination. For other women, the pursuit of beauty is a source of pleasure and agency, and a showcase for cultural identity. The question for the women’s movement is whether it is possible to find some common ground, and to develop a concept of beauty that is a source of pleasure rather than shame, and that enhances, rather than dictates self-worth.

I. Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Debates

Contemporary challenges to appearance-related practices have long- standing roots. During America’s first two centuries, “respectable” women did not “rouge,” a practice associated with prostitutes.3 Women might ingest chalk, vinegar, or even arsenic to achieve a fair complexion, or kiss rosy crepe paper to redden their lips, but any detectable use of paints or powders put their reputations at risk.4 Beauty and virtue were intertwined, and reliance on cosmetics was thought corrosive to a “chaste soul” and a sign of moral depravity.5 Some black women’s leaders similarly condemned anyone who wanted to whiten her skin: “Why does she wish to improve her appearance? Why not improve her real self?”6 On hair, many leaders echoed the advice of Marcus Garvey: “Don’t remove the kinks from your hair! Remove them from your brain!”7

Market forces, however, kept putting temptation within ever-easier reach, and by the early twentieth century much of the stigma surrounding cosmetics had eroded.8 They became seen as a form of self-expression and an emblem of emancipation, as well as a means of moving up in the marriage market.9 According to Zelda Fitzgerald, “paint and powder” were a way for women to “choose their destinies—to be successful competitors in the great game of life.”10 By the early twentieth century, suffragists advocated lip rouge as a symbol of women’s rights and incorporated its use in public rallies.11

Although some activists in this “first wave” of feminism also attempted to link dress reform with other feminist causes, their initial campaigns had little success. In 1851, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Amelia Bloomer launched their crusade against corsets and crinolines by wearing shortened skirts over Turkish-styled pantaloons, a style quickly labeled “bloomers.”12 A few other suffragists joined the effort, but soon dropped out after journalists viciously caricatured the costume and spectators jeered and stoned women who wore them.13 However, many doctors, educators, editors of women’s magazines, and authors of advice manuals supported at least some reform, and “sensible dress” apart from bloomers gradually emerged.14 The increasing popularity of the bicycle and other forms of physical exercise, as well as women’s entry into the paid labor market, ultimately reinforced the demand for functional fashions.15

In the 1960s, the emergence of a “second wave” of feminism brought a more fundamental and sustained challenge to the beauty industry. In 1968, protestors at the Miss America pageant announced a boycott of all products related to the competition, and unceremoniously deposited bras, girdles, curlers, false eyelashes, and women’s magazines into a “Freedom Trash Can.”16 Although no undergarments were burned, the label “bra burner” stuck as an all-purpose pejorative to characterize “radical” feminists.17 Among that group were authors of a statement accompanying the protest, which explained, “Women in our society are forced daily to compete for male approval, enslaved by ludicrous beauty standards that we ourselves are conditioned to take seriously.”18 Building on the premise that the “personal is political,” activists shed a range of conventions along with their undergarments. Unshaved legs and unadorned faces became a symbol of “liberation.”19

The public reception was not unlike the response to early dress reformers. Feminists were seen as “dowdy,” “frumpy” “moralizers,” who hated men because they could not attract them.20 Because radicals gained disproportionate media attention, the early feminist movement, in general, and its critique of beauty in particular, was often dismissed even by those who accepted most of its other egalitarian principles.21 In The Sceptical Feminist, Janet Radcliffe Richards voiced a common concern: “The image of the movement comes from the individuals in it; if large numbers of them are unattractive the movement as a whole is bound to be so too.”22

Over the last quarter century, as the feminist movement has grown increasingly fragmented, different subcultures have differed sharply on matters of appearance. Since the late 1960s, fat activists have sought to challenge discrimination on the basis of weight and to make tolerance for all body sizes a social priority.23 Beginning in the 1990s, a group of young activists, self-labeled as “third-wave feminists,” focused on interlocking categories of oppression and ways of encouraging sexual agency.24 For some of these women, that has involved reclaiming conventional emblems of femininity—sexualized clothing and stiletto heels. For others, such as those in punk rock subcultures, it has meant rejecting traditional images of femininity and asserting deviant styles—green hair or shaved heads.25 And for aging second-wave feminists, the challenge has been finding ways to reconcile their personal attachment to femininity with their political commitments.

II. Critiques of Prevailing Beauty Practices

Despite their other differences, many contemporary feminists have raised shared concerns about current norms of appearance. The most obvious is cost. In her widely publicized account, The Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf noted that women’s absorption with appearance “leeches money and leisure and confidence.”26 Because women are held to unattainable ideals, their task is boundless. Almost all areas of the female body are in need of something. The result is to focus women’s attention on self-improvement rather than social action.

The costs of our cultural preoccupation with appearance are considerable. The global investment in grooming totals over US $100 billion, and Americans alone spend over US $40 billion a year on diets.27 Much of that investment falls short of its intended effects or is induced by mislead- ing claims. The weight loss industry is a case in point. Ninety-five percent of dieters regain their majority of their weight within one to five years.28 Yet in the fact-free fantasy land of diet marketers, miracle products abound. Claims that the Federal Trade Commission has targeted include topical gels, patches, and dietary supplements that “eliminate fat deposits” and cause “rapid weight loss” without “diets or exercise.”29 Consumers squander millions of dollars on such products because most Americans assume that manufacturers could not make these claims with- out a factual basis.30 Yet resource limitations have prevented state and federal regulatory agencies from keeping up with the barrage of mislead- ing advertisements regarding diet and cosmetic products.31

Our preoccupation with appearance also carries health risks, including eating disorders, yo-yo dieting, and cosmetic surgery.32 From a health perspective, the current obsession with thinness is misdirected; it compromises reproductive and work capacity, and predicts higher rates of sickness.33 Except at extreme levels, weight is less important than fitness in preventing disease and prolonging life.34 Concerns about appearance are also linked to depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem.35 Even fashion footwear carries a cost; high heels are a major contributor to serious back and foot problems.36 Hillary Clinton learned that fact the hard way. One Christmas season during the Clinton presidency, after standing for hours in receiving lines at holiday parties, she became bedridden with back pain.37 A specialist concluded that she “shouldn’t wear high heels again.” “Never?” Clinton asked. “Well, yes, never,” he responded, and added, “With all due respect, ma’am, why would you want to?”38

Another cost of our cultural preoccupation with appearance is discrimination. Appearance skews judgments about competence. Resumes and essays get less favorable evaluations when they are thought to belong to less attractive individuals.39 Overweight individuals are seen as having less effective work habits and ability to get along with others.40 Less attractive teachers get less favorable course evaluations from students,41 and less attractive students receive lower ratings in intelligence from teachers.42 A meta-analysis that aggregated findings of over a hundred studies found that although less attractive individuals are perceived as less competent, the actual correlation between physical appearance and intellectual competence is “virtually zero.”43 Although the relative importance of appearance varies by occupation, less attractive individuals are generally less likely to be hired and promoted and earn lower salaries.44 Penalties are apparent even in professions like lawyer and college professor, where appearance bears no demonstrable relationship to job performance.45 About 60 percent of overweight women report experiences of employment discrimination.46 Such discrimination on the basis of appearance carries both individual and social costs. It undermines self- esteem, diminishes job aspirations, and compromises efficiency and equity.47

The overemphasis of attractiveness diminishes women’s credibility and diverts attention from their capabilities and accomplishments. In the long run, these are more stable sources of self-esteem and social power than appearance. The devaluation and sexualization of women based on appearance is particularly apparent for women in leadership positions. On Condoleezza Rice’s first day as national security adviser, the New York Times ran a profile discussing her dress size (6), taste in shoes (comfortable pumps), and hemline preferences (modest).48 After becoming secretary of state, her appearance in high boots when visiting troops in Germany inspired portrayals as a dominatrix in political cartoons and comedy routines.49

Kamala Harris, California’s Attorney General, received front page coverage when President Barack Obama described her as “by far, the best-looking attorney general in the country.”50 As first lady and then as a political candidate, Hillary Clinton faced a barrage of criticism as frumpy, fat, and “bottom heavy.”51 As secretary of state, when a man at a town hall meeting in Kyrgyzstan asked her which designers she wore, an exasperated Clinton responded, “Would you ever ask a man that question?”52 Shortly after Marissa Mayer was appointed CEO of Yahoo, a Forbes article described her as “attractive, well coifed, and poised under pressure,” and described her reputation as the “hottest CEO ever,” and one of the “sexiest geek girls” of Silicone Valley.53 Although Supreme Court Justices are not known for being eye candy, no male nominee to the Court has attracted comments like those directed at Elena Kagan; to talk show host Michael Savage, she looked “as if she belongs in a kosher deli.”54 I got a personal glimpse into the phenomenon just described after publicizing my book, The Beauty Bias. It was surprising how many men took time to send me comments like “You ugly cunt,” or “Let’s take up a collection to buy the professor a burka and improve the aesthetics at Stanford.”55

One other cost of discrimination on the basis of appearance is the exacerbation of economic and racial inequality. Appearance both reflects and reinforces class privilege. Prevailing beauty standards disadvantage individuals who lack the time and money to invest in attractiveness. Fashion, makeup, health clubs, weight loss products, and cosmetic procedures all come at a cost. Discrimination based on weight is particularly problematic from a class standpoint. Low-income and minority individuals have disproportionate rates of obesity, and as one expert puts it, there is some evidence that “poverty is fattening,” and “much stronger evidence that fatness is impoverishing.”56 Many poor people live in nutritional deserts—areas with no readily accessible grocery stores that sell fresh fruits and vegetables.57 These areas also tend to lack public recreational facilities and schools with adequate physical education programs.58 The bias that overweight individuals confront compromises their educational, employment, and earning opportunities. Although images of beauty are growing somewhat more diverse, they still reflect the legacy of racial privilege. Light skin, straightened hair, and Anglo-American features carry an economic and social advantage.59 Those who look less “white” have lower incomes and occupational status after controlling for other factors.

Discrimination on the basis of appearance also compounds gender inequality by reinforcing a double standard and a double bind for women. They face greater pressures than men to be attractive and greater penalties for falling short; as a consequence, their self-worth is more dependent on looks.60 Overweight women are judged more harshly than overweight men and are more susceptible to eating disorders and related psychological and physical dysfunctions.61 About ninety percent of cosmetic surgery patients are female, with all the financial costs and physical risks that such procedures pose.62 Yet even as the culture expects women to conform, they often face ridicule for their efforts. A case in point was the comment from a Boston Herald columnist about the appearance of a prominent politician: “There seemed to be something humiliating, sad, desperate and embarrassing about [Katherine] Harris yesterday, a woman of a certain age trying too hard to hang on.”63 The “certain age” was forty- three.64 But neither should women “let themselves go,” nor look as if they were trying too hard not to.65 Beauty must seem natural—even, or especially, when it can only be accomplished through considerable unnatural effort.

Feminists are in a particularly problematic situation. Those who defy conventional standards are ridiculed as homely harpies; those who com- ply are dismissed as hypocrites. Jane Fonda’s decision to have breast im- plants and other surgical procedures seemed to “contradict everything she advocates” concerning health and fitness.66 When confronted by the contradiction, Fonda responded, “I never asked to be a role model. . . . I don’t pretend to be different from any other woman. I’m subject to the same foibles and pressures.”67 Most disturbing of all is the toll that these criticisms take on individuals’ own self-esteem. Many women who recognize beauty norms as oppressive feel humiliated by the inability to escape them. They are ashamed for feeling ashamed. Writing about her resort to electrolysis to eliminate unsightly facial hair, Wendy Chapkis confesses: “I am a feminist. How humiliated I then feel. I am a woman. How ugly I have been made to feel. I have failed on both counts.”68 Eve Ensler, in The Good Body, recounts her own struggles with self-deprecating irony: “What I can’t believe is that someone like me, a radical feminist for nearly thirty years, could spend this much time thinking about my stomach. It has become my tormentor, my distractor: it’s my most serious committed relationship.”69

Responses to these critiques have proceeded on multiple levels. Some women stress agency. Cosmetic surgery patients often describe their deci- sion as “the independent choice of a liberated woman” and deny that they are pressured by others.70 In one widely circulated Playboy article, Jan Breslauer, a former Yale feminist theory professor, further insisted that having a “boob job” expressed feminist principles—”a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body.”71 It “made me focus on how far I’ve come. . . . I have arrived at a point where I can go out and buy myself a new pair of headlights if I want. . . . [I]f somebody asks if they’re [mine, I can] tell them, ‘Yes, I bought them myself.’”72

At the same time, many patients have acknowledged ridicule, humiliation, and shame as driving their decisions. One female patient described a common experience: “I wish I could have said, ‘To hell with it, I am going to love my body the way it is’. . . but I had tried to do that for fifteen years and it didn’t work.”73 Hillary Clinton, who has had a number of minor makeovers, captured similarly common views when she told Elle magazine, “Cosmetic surgery may be just as important for someone’s state of mind and well-being as any other kind of surgery.”74

So too, studies of women’s use of makeup, salons, and spas find considerable satisfaction with such purchases. Cosmetics make many individuals feel more “credible” and “professional.”75 Time spent shopping or in spas and salons provides pleasure and opportunities for female bonding. It can also seem like an occupational necessity. One study of women in Congress between ages forty-six and seventy-four found that over ninety percent had no visible grey hair.76 The reasons for tinting are not unlike those that motivate users of Botox. As Susan Brownmiller observed three decades ago, the facelift is “a logical extension of every night cream, moisturizer, pore cleanser and facial masque that has gone before it.”77

Yet as Carolyn Heilbrun argued in a celebrated essay, “Coming of Age,” makeup or hair tints are a form of temporary “camouflage” that can be shed at will.78 Surgery reflects a riskier attempt to alter the body, and the efforts are often only “briefly if at all effective. Worse, they increase the fear of age. . . . [O]ne should encourage youth, not try to be it.”79 Freedom in midlife can only come in understanding that “who I am is what I do” not how I look.80 Eve Ensler makes the same point about diets and other appearance-related regimes: “LOVE YOUR BODY. STOP FIXING IT.”81

While women remain divided over cosmetic practices, they also often share discomfort about the culture that produces them. Appearance is an opportunity for self-expression and self-determination, but many women recognize that their options are far too “limited by circumstances which are not of their making.”82 In one study of makeup in the workplace, virtually all the participants believed that they had a choice about whether to use cosmetics.83 But many also believed that women who de- cline to wear makeup “do not appear to be (1) healthy, (2) heterosexual, or (3) credible.”84 So, too, even women who are satisfied with their deci- sion to have cosmetic surgery are often highly critical of the culture that had led them to take that step. Such surgery is “a symptom of an unjust social order in which women [have] to go to extremes” just to look acceptable.85 To Katha Pollitt:

[W]hat is most of this starving and carving about but accepting that woman is basically just a body . . . with a rather short shelf life? You can postpone the expiration date if you “work” at it . . . or you “have work done,” as if the body were some sort of perpetual construction site. But basically you are suffering a lot to please people . . . and disguising that fact from yourself with a lot of twaddle about self- improvement and self-esteem.86

Not all women are, of course, under such illusions. Many also recognize that in the long run, their efforts to conform to conventional ideals carry “heavy costs for them and for all women.”87 But this seems like the price for success in the short run, which requires “making do with a culture that they believe judges and rewards them for their looks.”88 As one feminist noted, “I am a midlifer in today’s world and I don’t think I have time to reeducate society for the greater good.”89 “Plastic surgery,” she acknowledged, “is a bit of a sellout, but I don’t think it means I have to skewer myself on the feminist spike. . . . The personal may be political, but the personal is also personal. . . . I know that aging naturally is the more honorable way to go but I’m not there to be honorable to my gender. I’ve done quite a lot of that in my life.”90 Jan Breslauer defends her implants along similar lines. Sexism is “not going to change any time soon. Here’s the choice: You can rail at an imperfect world or go get yourself a great pair of bazongas.” As long as “women are judged by their jugs . . . it’s sometimes better to acknowledge that the injustice exists and get on with your life.”91

Such comments point up the discomfiting dilemma that many feminists face between personal interests and political commitments. Even leaders of the women’s movement who try to set the right example frequently fail to achieve the inner peace that their politics demand. As a matter of principle, Susan Brownmiller stopped shaving her legs, but years later she “had yet to accept the unaesthetic results.”92 Patricia Williams makes a similar confession about her attachment to “power point” footwear— shoes with spindle heels and narrow toes that are unsuitable for actual walking.93 Such ambivalence is scarcely surprising, given the deep-seated cultural forces and market pressures that underpin appearance ideals.

So where does that leave us? “Has feminism failed women?” Karen Lehman wonders.94 “Have women failed feminism? Or has society failed them both?”95 Perhaps more to the point, are those helpful ways of framing the question? Is a better way forward to avoid looking back and to get beyond blame? Can we criticize appearance-related practices without criticizing the women who find them necessary?

Underlying this question are deeper, more vexed issues of false consciousness, female agency, and the “authentic” self. Much of the early work on appearance by contemporary feminists underscored the need to link the personal with the political.96 From this perspective, a “choice” to engage in practices that objectified women or imposed undue costs seemed irreconcilable with feminist principles. When women experienced themselves as autonomous agents, making pleasurable decisions, that was simply evidence of the power of repressive ideologies.97 The only answer was to raise women’s consciousness and to demand that they value their authentic unreconstructed selves.98 They should accept their bodies as they “really” are, and please themselves, not others, with the way that they look.99

By contrast, most contemporary feminist theorists, influenced by postmodern perspectives, see no universal, uncontested standpoint from which consciousness can be declared “false” or identities considered “authentic.”100 Yet they also emphasize the link between the personal and political.101 Choices are never wholly “free” or solely “personal.”102 Cultural practices inevitably shape individuals’ preferences, and their individual responses in turn help sustain or alter those practices. According to critics such as Susan Bordo, that entails viewing the body as a site not simply for self-expression but also for political struggle.103

Yet to many activists, such theoretical formulations offer too little guidance on personal choices that have political implications. As Katha Pollitt notes, the failure to take a stance on practices that subordinate women as a group leads all too easily to a “you go, girl” approach, in which “[a]nything is feminist as long as you ‘choose’ it.”104 It has now become “unsisterly, patronizing, infantilizing and sexist to question another woman’s decision. . . . There’s no social context and no place to stand and resist; there’s just a menu of individual options and preferences.”105 An Onion parody makes a similar point.106 Under the title “Women Now Empowered by Everything a Woman Does,” a fictional woman’s studies professor explains that “[f]ortunately for the less impressive among us, a new strain of feminism has emerged,” in which almost all activities—shopping for shoes, or gaining weight—are “championed as proud, bold assertions of independence.”107 Another fictional feminist in the parody says, “Only by lauding every single thing a woman does . . . can you truly go, girls.”108 It was “so much simpler,” Pollitt observes, when feminism could just “tell women to use their famous agency to pull up their socks and say Screw you.”109

IV. Beyond the Impasse

“What do women want?” Freud famously asked, as if the preferences of half the world’s population could be captured in some universal standard.110 When it comes to appearance, what women want is not always the same or always compatible. Many women who opt for cosmetic enhancement feel well-served by the result.111 But the cost is to reinforce standards that make it harder for other women to resist.112

Yet whatever their disagreements on these issues, most individuals appear to share certain core values. Appearance should be a source of plea- sure, not of shame. Individuals should be able to make decisions about whether to enhance their attractiveness without being judged politically incorrect or professionally unacceptable. Our ideals of appearance should reflect diversity across race, ethnicity, age, and body size. In this ideal world, the importance of appearance would not be overstated. Nor would it spill over to employment and educational contexts in which judgments should be based on competence, not cosmetics. Women would not be held to higher standards than men. Neither would their self-esteem be tied to attractiveness, rather than accomplishment. In order for appearance to be a source of enjoyment rather than anxiety, it cannot dictate women’s self-worth.

So how do we get from here to there? There are no easy answers, but refocusing the feminist critique is an obvious place to start. It has not helped feminists’ political agenda or public image to denounce widely accepted beauty practices and women who won’t get with the program.113 Greater tolerance is in order, along with recognition that women are not all similarly situated in their capacity for resistance. Those who write about women’s issues need to recognize that not everyone has the luxury of being able to say “screw you” to the cosmetics industry. In my job as a law professor, no one cares whether I use mascara. For television’s legal commentators, such as Greta Van Susteren, the circumstances are far different, and the condemnation she received for her surgical makeover seemed misdirected.114 Why center criticism on her choice rather than on the preferences of viewers and network executives that made the choice seem necessary? Focusing attention on personal decisions rather than collective practices asks too much of individuals and too little of society.115

To that end, we need a broad range of initiatives. Individuals should educate themselves and others about the risks of cosmetic practices and offer more support for women who resist them. Schools and workplaces should do more to discourage discrimination based on appearance. The media needs to offer more diverse and natural images of beauty, and to avoid promoting fraudulent appearance-related advertisements. The law should prohibit appearance discrimination and more effectively regulate the marketing of beauty products.116 When a leader such as Donald Trump demeans the appearance of his rivals, critics, and even women of who accused him of sexual abuse, the public should make its outrage felt.117

Feminists claim to speak from the experience of women. But that experience counsels tolerance for the different ways that appearance is perceived by different women under different constraints. Fat is a Feminist Issue, declared the title of Susie Orbach’s widely circulated critique.118 So are implants, Botox, stilettos, and a host of other appearance-related concerns. Women need better ways of talking to, rather than past each other, on these issues, which continue to shape their opportunities and identities.

Footnotes

Original publication available at Deborah L. Rhode, Appearance as a Feminist Issue, in BODY AESTHETICS 81 (Sherri Irvin ed., Oxford Univ. Press, 2016). The editorial assistance of Eun Sze is gratefully acknowledged.

Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own and Three Guineas 117 (Oxford University Press 2015).

Kathy Peiss, Hope in a Jar: The Making of America’s Beauty Culture 53 (1998).

Id. at 15, 17; Karen Kozlowski, Read My Lips: A Cultural History of Lipstick 18 (1998).

Peiss, supra note 3, at 57.

Id. at 207.

Ayana D. Byrd & Lori L. Tharps, Hair Story: Untangling the Roots of Black hair in America 38 (2001).

Peiss, supra note 3, at 54.

Id. at 59.

Zelda Fitzgerald, The Collected Writings of Zelda Fitzgerald 416 (Matthew J. Bruccoli ed., 1997).

Sarah E. Schaffer, Reading Our Lips: The History of Lipstick Regulation in Western Seats of Power, 62 FOOD & DRUG L.J. 165, 176 (2007).

Susan Brownmiller, FEMININITY 88-89 (1984).

Id. at 89.

Lois Banner, American Beauty 98-99, 147-50 (1983). 15. Id. at 150.

People & Events: The 1968 Protest, PBS.org: Miss America, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/peopleevents/e_feminists.html [https://perma.cc/8HHC-5BP4].

Id.

Brownmiller, supra note 12, at 24-25.

Betty Luther Hillman, “The Clothes I Wear Help Me to Know My Own Power”: The Politics of Gender Presentation in the Era of Women’s Liberation, 34 FRONTIERS: J. WOMEN STUD. 155, 158 (2013).

Id. at 160-62.

Janet Radcliffe Richards, The Sceptical Feminist: A Philosophical Enquiry 282 (1994).

Id. at 283.

Dan Fletcher, The Fat-Acceptance Movement, TIME (July 31, 2009), http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913858,00.html [https://perma.cc/TPA6-4B76].

Leslie Heywood & Jennifer Drake, Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism (1997); see also Jennifer Baumgardner & Amy Richards, Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future (2000).

 Lauraine Leblanc, Pretty in Punk: Girls’ Gender Resistance in a Boys’ Subculture 13, 219 (1999).

Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are Used Against Women 53 (1991).

Alex Kuczynski, Beauty Junkies: Inside Our $15 Billion Obsession with Cosmetic Surgery 7 (2006); Gina Kolata, Health and Money Issues Arise Over Who Pays for Weight Loss, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 30, 2004, at C4.

Francine Grodstein et al., Three Year Follow-up of Participants in a Commercial weight Loss Program: Can you Keep it off?, 156 ARCHIVE INTERNAL MED. 1302, 1305 (1996).

Deborah L. Rhode, The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law 33-34 (2010).

Widespread Ignorance of Regulation and Labeling of Vitamins, Minerals, and Food Supplements, According to a National Harris Interactive Survey, Harris Interactive Health Care News (December 23, 2002), http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/widespread-ignorance-of-regulation-and-labeling-of-vitamins-minerals-and-food-supplements-according-to-a-national-harris-interactive-survey-77244857.html.

Jodie Sopher, Weight-Loss Advertising too Good to be True: Are Manufacturers or the Media to Blame? 22 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 933, 941-43, 963 (2005); Michael Specter, Miracle in a Bottle: Dietary supplements are unregulated, some are unsafe—and Americans can’t get enough of them, THE NEW YORKER, Feb. 2, 2004, at 68.

Paul Campos, The Obesity Myth: Why America’s Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Your Health 32, 225, 234 (2004); Glenn A. Gaesser, Big Fat Lies: The Truth About Your Weight and Your Health 34, 155-6 (2004).

Patricia R. Owen & Erika Laurel-Seller, Weight and Shape Ideals: Thin Is Dangerously In, 30 J. APPLIED PSYCHOL. 979, 980 (2000).

CAMPOS, supra note 32, at 34-35; LAURA FRASER, LOSING IT: AMERICA’S OBSES- SION WITH WEIGHT AND THE INDUSTRY THAT FEEDS ON IT 253-54 (1997); Tara Parker-Pope, Better to be fat and fit than skinny and unfit, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 19, 2008, at F5.

Thomas Pruzinsky, Psychopathology of Body Experience: Expanded Perspectives, in Body Images: Development, Deviance, and Change 183 (Thomas F. Cash & Thomas Pruzinsky eds.,1990); Rebecca M. Puh and Kelly D. Brownell, Confronting and Coping with Weight Stigma: An Investigation of Overweight and Obese Adults, 14 OBESITY 1802, 1802-03 (2006).

Marc Linder, Smart Women, Stupid Shoes, and Cynical Employers: The Unlawfulness and Adverse Health Consequences of Sexually Discriminatory Workplace Footwear Requirements for Female Employees, 22 J. CORP. L. 295, 296, 306-307, 309 (1997); Alyssa B. Dufour et al., Foot Pain: Is Current or Past Shoewear a Factor? 61 ARTHRITIS CARE RES. 1352, 1356-57 (2009).

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Living History 490 (2004).

Id. at 491.

Mohammed Y. Quereshi & Janet P. Kay, Physical Attractiveness, Age, and Sex as Determinants of Reactions to Resumes, 14 SOC. BEHAV. & PERSONALITY 103, 107 (1986); David Landy & Harold Sigall, Beauty is Talent: Task Evaluation as a Function of the Performer’s Physical Attractiveness, 29 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 299, 302, 304 (1974).

Sondra Solovay, Tipping the Scales of Justice: Fighting Weight-Based Discrimination 101-05 (2000); Janna Fikkan & Esther Rothblum, Weight Bias in Employment, in Weight Bias: Nature, Consequences, and Remedies 15, 16-17 (Kelly D. Brownell et al. eds., 2005).

Daniel S. Hamermesh, Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People are More Successful, 80-81 (2011); Daniel S. Hamermesh & Amy Parker, Beauty in the Classroom: Instructors’ Pulchritude and Putative Pedagogical Productivity, 24 ECON. EDUC. REV. 369, 375 (2005).

Vicki Ritts et al., Expectations, Impressions, and Judgments of Physically Attractive Students: A Review, 62 Rev. Educ. Res. 413, 422 (1992).

Linda A. Jackson et al., Physical Attractiveness and Intellectual Competence: A Meta-Analytic Review, 58 SOC. PSYCHOL. Q. 108, 115 (1995).

Hamermesh, supra note 41, at 81; Megumi Hosoda et al., The Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Job-Related Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies, 56 PERSONNEL PSYCHOL. 431, 457-58 (2003); Markus M. Mobius & Tanya S. Rosenblat, Why Beauty Matters, 96 AM. ECON. REV. 222, 223 (2006).

Jeff E. Biddle & Daniel S. Hamermesh, Beauty, Productivity, and Discrimination: Lawyer’s Looks and Lucre, 16 J. LAB. ECON. 172, 197 (1998); Hamermesh, supra note 41, at 78-79.

Solovay, supra note 40, at 103.

Id. at 104.

Fiona Morgan, No Way to Treat a Lady: Was the New York Times Profile of Codoleezza Rice Sexist or Just Silly?, Salon (Dec. 19, 2000), http://www.salon.com/2000/12/19/rice_5/ [https://perma.cc/LJJ4-H3AY].

Deborah F. Atwater, African American Women’s Rhetoric: The Search for Dignity, Personhood, and Honor 3-4 (2010).

Joe Garofoli, Obama Apologizes to California’s Harris, SF GATE, Apr. 5, 2013, http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Obama-apologizes-to-California-s-Harris-4413842.php [https://perma.cc/2HYY-Z99W].

Deborah L. Rhode, Speaking of Sex: The Denial of Gender Inequality 60 (1997); From the Women’s Desk—Why Does Larry King Think Hillary Clinton’s Hair, Legs, Smile and Figure Are ‘News’?, FAIR (June 14, 1999), http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/from-the-womens-desk-why-does-larry-king-think-hillary-clintons-hair-legs-smile-and-figure-are-quotnewsquot/ [https://perma.cc/2UT9-8WM6].

Jonathan Alter, Hillary Clinton: Woman of the World, VANITY FAIR, June 2011, at 201.

Meghan Casserly, Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer is the ‘Hottest CEO Ever.’ And it’s Great For Business, FORBES (July 17, 2012), http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/07/17/yahoo-marissa-mayer-hottest-ceo-ever-great-for-business/#106f456751c7.

Deborah L. Rhode, Why Elena Kagan’s Looks Matter, The Daily Beast, June 26, 2010, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/26/elena-kagans-looks-and-why-they-matter.html [https://perma.cc/BJ6G-FEAT].

Michael Savage, Comments during Savage Nation, the savage nation (Apr. 9, 2010)

Paul Ernsberger, Does Social Class Explain the Connection Between Weight and Health?, in The Fat Studies Reader 26, 32 (Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solovay eds., 2009).

Elizabeth A. Baker et al., The Role of Race and Poverty in Access to Foods that Enable Individuals to Adhere to Dietary Guidelines, 3 Preventing Chronic Disease 7 (2006).

Jeffrey Kluger, How America’s Children Packed on the Pounds, TIME, Jun. 12, 2008, at 66, 69; Penny Gordon-Larsen et. al., Inequality in the Built Environment Underlies Key Health Disparities in Physical Activity and Obesity, Pediatrics, 2006, at 417, 421.

April E. Fallon, Culture in the Mirror: Sociocultural Determinants of Body Image, in Body Images, at 97-98; Imani Perry, Buying White Beauty, 12 CARDOZO J.L. GENDER 579, 587-88, 590, 606 (2006).

Fallon, supra note 59, at 80-81.

Solovay, supra note 40, at 105; Fikkan & Rothblum, supra note 40, at 16-18; Kate Sablosky, Probative “Weight”: Rethinking Evidentiary Standards in Title VII Sex Discrimination Cases, 30 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 325, 330-334 (2006).

Quick Facts: Highlights of the ASAPS 2012 Statistics on Cosmetic Surgery, AM. SOC’Y AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY (2012), http://www.surgery.org/sites/default/files/2012-quickfacts.pdf [https://perma.cc/K87A-XL4H].

63. Caryl Rivers, Mockery of Katherine Harris Shows Double Standard, WOMEN’S ENEWS, (Nov. 29, 2000), http://womensenews.org/2000/11/mockery-katherine-harris-shows-double-standard/ [https://perma.cc/J8TM-UYQF].

Id.

See Katha Pollitt, Learning to Drive: And Other Life Stories 187-207 (2007); Wendy Chapkis, Beauty Secrets: Women and the Politics of Appearance 2 (1999).

Myra Dinnerstein & Rose Weitz, Jane Fonda, Barbara Bush, and Other Aging Bodies: Femininity and the Limits of Resistance, in FEMINIST ISSUES, Fall 1994, at 3, 13.

Id.

Chapkis, supra note 65, at 2.

Eve Ensler, The Good Body 5-6 (2005).

Decca Aitkenhead, Most british women now expect to have cosmetic surgery in their lifetime. How did the ultimate feminist taboo just become another lifestyle choice?, THE GUARDIAN (Sept. 13, 2005), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/14/gender.deccaaitkenhead [https://perma.cc/3DB9-6R9D].

Jan Breslauer, Stacked Like Me, PLAYBOY, Jul. 1997, at 64, 66-67.

Id.

Debra L. Gimlin, Body Work; Beauty and Self-Image in American Culture 100 (2002).

Deborah L. Rhode, The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law 78 (2010).

Kirsten Dellinger & Christine L. Williams, Makeup at Work: Negotiating Appearance Rules in the Workplace, 11 GENDER & SOC’Y 151, 165-66 (1997).

Anne Kreamer, The War Over Going Gray, Time (Aug. 31, 2007), http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1658058,00.html [https://perma.cc/BU5Q-GUTZ].

Brownmiller, supra note 12, at 167.

Carolyn G. Heilbrun, Coming of Age, N. Y. WOMAN, Feb., 1991, at 56, 58.

Id.

Id.

Ensler, supra note 69, at xv.

Kathy Davis, Reshaping the Female Body: The Dilemma of Cosmetic Surgery 170 (1994).

Dellinger & Williams, supra note 75, at 156.

Id.

Davis, supra note 82, at 162.

Pollitt, supra note 65, at 202.

Gimlin, supra note 73, at 107.

Id.

Katharine Viner, The New Plastic Feminism, THE GUARDIAN, Jul. 21, 1997, at T4.

Id.

Breslauer, supra note 71, at 66.

Brownmiller, supra note 12, at 156.

Patricia J. Williams, Have Pantsuit, Will Travel, THE NATION (Aug. 27, 2008), https://www.thenation.com/article/have-pantsuit-will-travel/ [https://perma.cc/A6UL- 4QYQ].

Lehman, supra note 74, at 9.

Id.

See Hillman, supra note 19, at 158-59. 97. See id. at 161.

See id. at 161-162.

See id.

Susan Bordo, Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body 38, 40-41 (1993).

Id. at 17.

Id. a 20, 27.

Id. at 16.

Pollitt, supra note 65, at 192.

Id.

Women Now Empowered by Everything a Woman Does, THE ONION (Feb. 19, 2003), http://www.theonion.com/article/women-now-empowered-by-everything-a-woman-does-1398 [https://perma.cc/WV3E-G3GY].

Id.

Id.

Pollitt, supra note 65, at 204.

Noam Shpancer, What Do Women Really Want?, PSYCHOL. TODAY (Aug. 22, 2013), https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201308/what-do-women-really-want [https://perma.cc/5T5V-9FM7].

See, e.g., Breslauer, supra note 71, at 64, 66-67.

See Aitkenhead, supra note 53.

See, e.g., Brownmiller, supra note 12, at 160-62.

Lisa De Moraes, Greta? Is That You? Analyst Moves from CNN to, Uh, Fox,  WASH. POST, Feb. 2, 2002, at C1; Kim Ode, The Heart Has Reasons: It’s Easy to Understand Why Van Susteren Chose the Eye Tuck: It May Even Be Tempting, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Feb. 12, 2002, at E12.

Lynn S. Chancer, Reconcilable Differences: Confronting Beauty, Pornography, and the Future of Feminism 96 (1998).

Rhode, supra note 29, at 154.

Trump asked about Carly Fiorina, “Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?” Nicholas Kristoff, Clinton, Trump, and Sexism, N. Y. TIMES Jan. 24, 2016 (quoting Trump). For Trump’s demeaning comments about his accusers, see Donald Trump Mocks Accusers, Calls Them Unattractive and Liars, Fortune, Oct. 15, 2016, http://fortune.com/ 2016/10/15/donald-trump.

See generally Susie Orbach, Fat is a Feminist Issue: The Anti-Diet Guide for Women (1997).

[gracemulhollandstudio]

Notes/Quotes Taken From Texts/Bibliography Building

Women satisfaction with cosmetic brands: The role of dissatisfaction and hedonic brand benefits 

Vanessa Apaolaza-Ibáñez, Patrick Hartmann, Sandra Diehl and Ralf Terlutter University of the Basque Country, Spain. 

Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Austria. 

Accepted 24 September, 2010 

“Research suggests that the exposure to pictures of good-looking and even slightly above-average looking females lowers the self-image of exposed women and increases dissatisfaction with their own appearance.”

“ This study analyses the effect of perceived instrumental/utilitarian and hedonic/emotional brand benefits on women’s satisfaction with cosmetic brands, focusing on relief from dissatisfaction with one’s self-image as one of four identified emotional brand experiences.”

So for context, what we see in the media can be of immense harm to one's view of themselves, which in fold brings out belittling ideas about your appearance.

“This research reveals that one of the mechanisms through which cosmetics advertising works is by lowering women’s self perception in the first place and then delivering relief from this negative feeling as an emotional benefit through the brand. However, from an ethical point of view, such a strategy is questionable, especially given the problems of eating disorders and body dysmorphia.”

“In particular, consumers are continuously exposed to imagery of highly attractive females who advertise cosmetic brands. For consumers this may lead to significant behavioural implications”

“Judgments based on physical appearance are considered powerful forces in contemporary consumer culture.“

“Also, multiple studies link personal appearance to positive reactions from others such as friendship preference (Byrne et al., 1968; Perrin, 1921) and romantic attraction.” 

“The individual is increasingly seen as responsible - not just for his/her behaviour - but also for the appearance and workings of his or her body. Consequently, to experience this connection and enjoy social favour, many individuals look for ways to improve their appearance and adhere to popular notions of beauty.”

 “In today’s society women are made to feel increasingly responsible for their body and physical appearance” 

“In addition, numerous advertisements present standards of beauty that most women cannot attain with the effect that most women develop feelings of dissatisfaction with their own physical appearance.”

“However, from an ethical point of view, such a strategy of lowering self images is questionable, especially given the problems of eating disorders and body dysmorphia.”

 “Researchers suggest advertising media may adversely impact women's body image, which can lead to unhealthy behaviour as women and girls strive for the ultra-thin body idealized by the media.”

“Although, Unilever’s brand is promoting their products with a message of “real beauty” by encouraging women and girls to celebrate themselves as they are, the “real beauty” ads still need to sell women on the idea that they need these products to become even better. In other words, they are still saying women have to use these products to be beautiful.” 

A Conceptual Model of Factors Contributing to the Development of Muscle Dysmorphia 

FREDERICK G. GRIEVE Western Kentucky University, 

Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA

“Muscle dysmorphia is a recently described subcategory of Body Dysmorphic Disorder.”

This sub category of body dysmorphia is very interesting to me because I did not know men would suffer through this.

“It is most prevalent in males and has a number of cognitive, behavioral, socioenviornmental, emotional, and psychological factors that influence its expression.”

“For years, the focus of body image studies has been on women; however, it appears that men are becoming more and more concerned with body appearance.”

“The disorder affects mostly men, particularly those who engage in weight lifting or bodybuilding”

“Muscle dysmorphia is a collection of attitudes and behaviors that are characteristic of an extreme desire to gain body mass.”

“Attitudes include a dislike of one's current body shape and a strong desire to change it through increased muscle mass, and behaviors include excessive weight lifting, eating large quantities of high-protein foods, use of weight gain supplements, and use of anabolic steroids.”

I find it very interesting how this issue is like the complete opposite to what it body dysmorphia is for most women. Most women have the desire to be slimmer but in this case for muscle dysmorphia these men want to gain more and more muscle.

“Individuals with MD are preoccupied with the fact that they do not perceive themselves to be lean and muscular enough, even though they are often more muscular than average people.”

“Individuals give up important social, occupational, or recreational activities due to the desire to maintain a strict workout - schedule; avoid situations in which their bodies are exposed to others”

Where as in the quote above the affects of this disorder are similar in a way with the people who suffer with it both try avoid social outings/situations as they do not feel comfortable with the way they look or the way others may perceive how they look.

“A key component to the development of eating disorders is a distortion of how the woman views her body (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Usually this is a distortion of size. Women with AN believe that they are larger than their actual appearance. The development of MD depends on a similar distortion of body size. However, in this case, the distortion is that . men believe they are smaller than what they appear.”

“In the model, body distortion is influenced by and, in return, influences, body dissatisfaction. It is the conjunction of these two variables that brings about the symptoms of MD.”

“The muscular ideal is conveyed to the population via a number of social influences, including family members, peers, schools, atWetics, and health care professionals, and mass media.”

Men also feel this pressure from the media to look a certain way

“Therefore, the potential is there for men to be as influenced by muscular body shapes as females are by thin body shapes.”

“While historically men have been perceived to be immune from social influences that endorse a certain body type, it appears that this is changing.”

One of the set texts:

Powers and Dangers: Body Fluids 

Volatile Bodies: Towards a Corporeal Feminism P192-198

Elizabeth Grosz

“Relying heavily on Mary Douglas's innovative text Purity and Danger, Kristeva asks about the conditions under which the clean and proper body, the obedient, law-abiding, social body, emerges, the cost of its emergence, which she designates by the term abjection, and the functions that demarcating a clean and prop'~ body for the social subject have in the transmission and production of specific body types”

“What interests me here about Kristeva's work is the way in which this notion of abjection links the lived experience of the body, the ~ocial and culturally specific meanings of the body, the cultural investment in selectively marking the body, the privileging of some parts and functions while resolutely minimizing or leaving un- or underrepresented other parts and functions. It is the consequence of a culture effectively intervening into the constitution of the value of the body.”

“Douglas makes explicit here the notion that the body can and does function to represent, to symbolize, social and collective fantasies and obsessions: its orifices and surfaces can represent the sites of cultural marginality, places of social entry and exit, regions of confrontation or compromise.”

“In this sense, they betray a certain irreducible materiality; they assert the priority of the body over subjectivity; they demonstrate the limits of subjectivity in the body, the irreducible specificity of particular bodies.”

“Phenomenology is generally displaced in favor of externalization, medicalization, solidification.”

“Man sees that his "function" is to create, and own, at a (temporal and spatial) distance, and thus to extend bodily interests beyond the male body's skin through its proprietorial role, its "extended corporeality" in the mother whom he has impregnated and the child thereby produced, making them his products, possessions, responsibilities.”

Putting roles to gender/bodies etc

[pressography-blog1]

Finance: ‘Fearless Female’ right here to live?

New Post has been published on https://pressography.org/finance-fearless-female-right-here-to-live/

Finance: ‘Fearless Female’ right here to live?

Fighting for permanence. Letitia James, Public Advise for The big apple, wishes the ‘Fearless Woman” to be a permanent symbol on Wall Avenue. The statue, which Country Street debuted on Global Ladies’ Day remaining week, has a month-lengthy permit. James wants the city to preserve the statue as an “image of feminism and equality,” My Each day Information pronounced. Sadly, permanence will difficulty “Fearless Female” to Avenue harassment, like the incident over the weekend concerning a man making crude gestures around the statue. Men like that, Jenni Miller wrote for NY Magazine, are “why we want feminism.”

Harsh punishment. A take a look at launched Monday determined that Women financial advisers are much less in all likelihood than Men to engage in misconduct, however, are punished extra harshly after any court cases of wrongdoing, Fortune pronounced. The report singled out Wells Fargo, where Girls were 25 percent much more likely to have a “process separation” following misconduct than their male opposite numbers.

Girl forums. Comerica Bank is increasing its Women’s Enterprise Symposium to San Francisco, Dallas, and Houston. The forum allows Ladies Commercial enterprise owners and entrepreneurs to share their experiences and perspectives, as well as networking possibilities. Actresses Geena Davis and Leeza Gibbons will be keynote speakers at the occasions.

Banking with a twist. Scotiabank’s downtown Toronto workplace is considered one of three of the business enterprise’s “virtual factories,” geared up with ping pong tables, a bowling alley, and a bar. Digiday mentioned the surroundings, even though unconventional, is part of Scotiabank’s strategy to preserving employees happy and efficient.

Finance, Credit, Investments – Comparatively cheap Classes

Medical works within the theories of price range and Credit, in step with the specification of the studies object, are characterized to be many-sided and many-leveled.

The definition of the totality of the Low in cost members of the family shaped within the technique of formation, distribution, and utilization of finances, as cash resources are widely unfolded. For example, in “the general principle of finances” there are two definitions of price range:

1) “…budget replicate Reasonable family members, the formation of the funds of money assets, inside the process of distribution and redistribution of countrywide receipts in line with the distribution and usage”. This definition is given enormously to the situations of Capitalism when cash-commodity members of the family advantage conventional individual;

2) “price range constitute the formation of centralized ad decentralized money assets, Cost-effective relations extraordinarily with the distribution and utilization, which serve for the success of the Country features and responsibilities and also provision of the conditions of the widened further production”. This definition is introduced without displaying the surroundings of its motion. We share in part such clarification of budget and suppose expedient to make some specification.

First, finances triumph over the bounds of distribution and redistribution service of the countrywide income, though it’s far a primary basis of budget. additionally, formation and utilization of the depreciation fund which is the part of the monetary area, belongs not to the distribution and redistribution of the national earnings (of newly fashioned fee in the course of 12 months), however to the distribution of already evolved value.

This cutting-edge first seems to be part of the cost of predominant business finances, later it’s miles moved to the price charge of a geared up product (that is to the value too) and after its cognizance, and it is set the despair fund. Its supply is taken into consideration before hand as a despairing kind within the consistence of the ready products fee charge.

2d, the principal goal of the price range is a whole lot wider than “success of the State functions and obligations and provision of situations for the widened similarly production”. price range exists on the State degree and also at the manufactures and branches’ level too, and in such situations, whilst the most part of the manufactures are not Kingdom.

V. M. Rodionova has an exclusive role about this challenge: “real formation of the financial resources begins on the degree of distribution, whilst the cost is found out and concrete Reasonable forms of the found out value are separated from the consistence of the profit”. V. M. Rodionova makes an accent of finances, as dispensing relations, while D. S. Moliakov underlines business foundation of the budget. though both of them supply pretty substantiate dialogue of budget, as a machine of formation, distribution and usage of the finances of money assets, that comes out of the subsequent definition of the finances: “monetary cash family members, which paperwork within the method of distribution and redistribution of the partial fee of the country-wide wealth and total social product, is associated with the subjects of the economic system and formation and usage of the Country cash earning and financial savings inside the widened similarly production, in the cloth stimulation of the employees for satisfaction of the society social and other requests”.

If refuse the proposition “socialistic” in the definition of price range, we may also say, that it still keeps fact. We meet with such conventional definitions of price range, without an adjective “socialistic”, in the modern Reasonably-priced literature. We may additionally give such an elucidation: “finances represent coins sources of manufacturing and utilization, also cash family members seemed inside the process of dispensing values of formed Within your means product and country wide wealth for formation and similarly production of the cash earning and financial savings of the Good value subjects and State, rewarding of the employees and pleasure of the social requests”. on this elucidation of finances like D. S. Moliakov and V. M. Rodionov’s definitions, following the conventional inheritance, we meet with the widening of the financial basis. They problem “distribution and redistribution of the price of created Affordable product, also the partial distribution of the value of country wide wealth”. This contemporary may be very real, extraordinarily to the technique of privatization and the transition to privateness and is periodically used in exercise in different countries, As an example, Notable Britain and France.

“budget – are cash resources, monetary assets, their creation and motion, distribution and redistribution, utilization, also Within your means members of the family, which are conditioned by enter calculations between the Low-cost subjects, the motion of coins sources, money circulate and utilization”. “budget are the gadget of Low-cost members of the family, which are linked to firm creation, distribution, and utilization of financial resources”.

We meet with simply innovational definitions of price range in Z. Frame and R. Merton’s basis manuals. “Finance – it’s far the science about how the humans lead spending `the deficit coins assets and earning within the particular time period. The financial decisions are characterised by way of the expenses and earning which might be 1) separated in time, and a pair of) commonly, it’s far not possible to take them into account in advance neither by means of folks who get choices nor another person” . “monetary theory includes numbers of the conceptions… Which learns systematically the subjects of distribution of the cash sources quite to the time aspect; it also considers quantitative models, with the assist of which the estimation, putting into exercise and realization of the alternative variations of each financial decisions take vicinity” .

These primary conceptions and quantitative fashions are used at each degree of getting economic selections, but in the modern day definition of finances, we meet with the subsequent doctrine of the economic basis: major characteristic of the price range is the delight of the human beings’s requests; the topics of Comparatively cheap activities of any type (firms, additionally State organs of every level) are directed toward satisfying this basic function.

For the dreams of our monograph, it’s miles critical to evaluate 9aaf3f374c58e8c9dcdd1ebf10256fa5 definitions approximately budget, Credit and funding, to decide how and what sort of it is possible to combine the finances, investments and Credit score into the one total component.

some researcher factor that Credit is the consisting part of budget, if it’s far mentioned from the location of essence and category. The other, more numerous group proves, that a cheap category of Credit score exists parallel to the Good value class of budget, via which it underlines impossibility of the Credit score’s existence inside the consistency of budget.

N. Okay. Kuchukova underlined the independence of the category of Credit score and notes that it’s far simplest its “feature function the grew to become movement of the price, which is not associated with transmission of the mortgage opportunities collectively with the owners’ rights”.

N. D. Barkovski replies that functioning of cash created a cheap foundation for apportioning price range and Credit score as an impartial class and gave upward thrust to the Credit and financial members of the family. He observed the Gnoseological roots of technological know-how in cash and Credit, as the technological know-how approximately finances has Commercial enterprise with the studies of such Cost-effective members of the family, which lean upon cash drift and Credit.

Let’s discuss the most unfold definitions of Credit. in the present day publications Credit appeared to be “luckier”, then price range. As an example, we meet with the subsequent definition of Credit within the finance-Competitively priced dictionary: “Credit is the mortgage in the form of coins and commodity with the situations of returning, generally, by way of paying percent. Credit score represents a shape of motion of the loan capital and expresses Least expensive family members among the creditor and borrower”.