contrario said:
ShooterTX said:
contrario said:
ShooterTX said:
contrario said:
Wokeism is a real thing, but can someone explain to me how this is woke? And if this is woke, what is so bad about it? The girl isn't attractive to me, but if this is woke, this type of "wokeness" isn't what bothers me. The type of "wokeness" I disagree with is the type that tries to silence those that disagree with those that are woke. Ironically, this thread comes off as people trying to silence others that they disagree with.
And yes, take a shot for every time I said "woke".
This is "woke" because there is only 1 reason that SI puts this person on the cover... to try and protect themselves from cancel culture. This cover won't sell on it's own, but some might buy it for "virtue signaling" points.
It is "woke" because it is capitulation to the woke crowd.
I don't want to silence anyone, but the fact that I do not find her attractive is enough for people to say that I should be silenced and my opinions are "toxic". If someone wants to buy the magazine and find this attractive... fine. I really don't care. But I'm not going to give into pressure, and start lying by saying that this is the new standard of "beauty". This is a totally manufactured standard of beauty.... and it isn't actually what the average man finds as attractive.
The cover is basically a forced lie.
No one is asking you to do anything. If you don't like the cover, don't buy the magazine. Other than that, you are just an old man yelling at a cloud. Take a deep breath and repeat to yourself "everything will be ok, the picture of a fat lady isn't going to hurt me."
Seriously, for as much as we hear about boomers talking about snowflakes and safe spaces, this entire thread wreaks of old men needing a safe space because of a picture of an overweight woman.
you asked why it's "woke".
I gave you the answer.
Now you are making silly comments that have nothing to do with anything in the response or the post.
Obviously... you are on board with the woke/cancel culture. Good luck with that.
I'm not on board with the woke culture or the boomer culture. I'm in the middle. I realize the woke crowd takes some things to the extreme and the boomer crowd take other things to the other extreme.
In this particular instance, SI is promoting the idea that you don't have to be an anorexic twig in order to be beautiful. I don't personally think the girl on the cover is beautiful, but the message they are really pushing is that a woman doesn't need to have self-image issues and put her life in danger just to meet a societal perception of what is pretty. I don't see anything woke about that.
I knew many girls when I was in college that were anorexic and bulimic because they had major self-image issues and some were even hospitalized because of it. I don't think trying to tell people they are beautiful just the way they are is a bad message to push. I certainly push that message with my daughters. Yes, everyone needs to be healthy, but the extreme we were in for much of the 20th century caused many women to have self-image issues and depression.
So again, if it isn't your cup of tea, I don't blame you. Don't buy the magazine. But promoting good mental health as a jump start to promoting good physical health is not a bad thing in my book.
This may shock you, but I agree with much of the sentiment you describe here. I think the anorexic models of the past are very unhealthy for many reasons, and have never found that to be attractive anyway.
I am glad that SI has stopped doing that, and I wish they would focus more on health and athleticism.
One of my problems with this cover is that this gal is overweight enough to be in serious Type 2 danger... she has probably already been diagnosed as such. Most women of her size are also at high risk for heart disease, high blood pressure, and other medical issues. She is not grossly obese, but she is too heavy to be considered healthy.
I don't think we can cure one type of unhealthy model, but focusing on another type of unhealthy model.
Another really humorous part is that for it's entire existence, the SI swimsuit issue has been selling lust.... and even though they are making this change, they are still trying to sell lust. I seriously doubt that there are many men in America who are going to lust over that image. I'm no fan of lust, and I would be happy if the swimsuit issue just went away all together, as it really has nothing to do with a sports magazine. But it is almost comical that anyone thinks this image on the cover is going to be as big a lustful draw as the covers they used in the 80s or 90s. They have basically gone from using soft porn to "please say this is attractive... we know it's not, but please say it anyway".
ShooterTX
