Low-rise jeans and racism

Community
#1

“Low-rise jeans may be worn to display more skin at the waist, torso, and hips. Accordingly, they are sometimes worn in combination with shorter crop tops, giving a glimpse of skin between the jeans and the top, or (more commonly in the summer or in warmer countries) showing their entire midriff including the belly button. but [color=red]the style is also dieing out among caucasian women do to the fact that african american, caribbean and hispanic women generally have narrower flatter stomachs and look better in brazilian lowrise jeans, many caucasian women have wide ripcages and some ecessive belly fat[/color] and love haddles.”

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowrise_jeans

Do I misunderstand something, or this is what they call “racism”?
Of course, Wiki is opened for editing by users, but normally it doesn’t have such a crap.
Firstly, being fat or thin doesn’t depend on the race, you can see examples of all body types everywhere.
Secondly, this style actually is getting more and more popular among women of all races - including Caucasians.
Thirdly, “look better” is a difficult thing to explain, however, I will be tolerant and not make a discussion on this, as this kind of discussion will be by default offensive.
Forthly, I only added colour to underline the necessary part, all the rest is taken from Wiki as is. The one who wrote is either unattentive or just illiterate.
I’ll shut up now. I’m too upset. :cry:

#2

Yeah, racism.

I’ve removed it. Better?

#3

Yay, thank you!
Much better. Looks like a normal Wiki stuff now.
hugs-hugs-hugs

#4

I’m not convinced it amounts to racism. Stupid and inaccurate ? Almost certainly, but racist ? Debatable.

It all comes down to whether there is a reputable body of research that concludes that:

a) Caucasian women have reduced their purchases in the low-rider fashion. (This could be identified by some straight-forward marketing research).

b) African American, Caribbean and Hispanic women generally have narrower flatter stomachs than their Caucasian counterparts. (possible, but unlikely)

c) the social context in which Caucasian women generally find themselves and whether the typical fixation on young/skinny is a factor in their self-image. Therefore, there may be cultural reasons for self-selection away from low-rider fashion. (In a Western setting, fashion is patently obsessed with young/skinny. Just look at any fashion magazine - how many models (typically Caucasian) do you see who are in any way representative of normal body types ?)

d) Caucasian women are more likely to have wide rib cages, and that this is considered by their typical social context to be incongruous with the low-rider fashion. (The first part is unlikely, be the second is something the fashion industry may have an impact on)

e) Caucasian women are statistically more likely to have “some excessive belly fat and love handles”. (This could be a factor of income, and in America it can demonstrated that Caucasians are statistically more likely to earn more income)

In a nutshell, the basic thesis boils down to: Caucasians aren’t into it 'cos they are culturally attuned against it, they don’t see themselves as being culturally valued by participating in this fashion context.

Isn’t that like saying “Black women are less likely to suffer from anorexia nervosa” ? There is research that supports this notion, but it is a bit ropey.

To assume something is racist because it involves identifying differences between races may not always be accurate. And I think that this is one of those cases.

While the original wiki entry could be entirely motivated by a racist agenda, it is also possible that it could be a totally stupid analysis by someone who is very ignorant, or has a some research from which they extrapolate wildly.

#5

I agree with most of what you wrote, but[quote=“Mike Curtis”]e) Caucasian women are statistically more likely to have “some excessive belly fat and love handles”. (This could be a factor of income, and in America it can demonstrated that Caucasians are statistically more likely to earn more income)[/quote]

Low income people are the most likely to be over weight. Cheap and nasty fast food.
Wealthy people tend to have a nutritionist, gym membership, personal trainer, etc. And can afford good food.

historically I’m sure this was different, but not today.

#6

[quote=“Dr Varteron”] Low income people are the most likely to be over weight. Cheap and nasty fast food.
Wealthy people tend to have a nutritionist, gym membership, personal trainer, etc. And can afford good food.

historically I’m sure this was different, but not today.[/quote]

In fact, historically could be the same thing. People can get fat because they eat when they have food, fearing there will be no another opportunity in the recent future, and also trying to get in as much as possible to make reserve for the case of hunger coming. And they eat all the food that can go bad just to not let it be wasted. Plus living like that they get a habit to eat whenever opportunite appears, and it’s difficult then to get rid of this habit.

I think it could arise from historical situation, sounds very possible to me.

#7

[quote=“Aiwe”]In fact, historically could be the same thing. People can get fat because they eat when they have food, fearing there will be no another opportunity in the recent future, and also trying to get in as much as possible to make reserve for the case of hunger coming. And they eat all the food that can go bad just to not let it be wasted. Plus living like that they get a habit to eat whenever opportunite appears, and it’s difficult then to get rid of this habit.

I think it could arise from historical situation, sounds very possible to me.[/quote]

Actually, it didn’t quite work like that…

Historically, to be fat meant that you were wealthy enough to extravagantly on a regular basis. It also usually meant you were wealthy enough to eat fatty meats on a regular basis which was not the case for much of the population. If you were a poor farmer in the middle ages in Europe you had exactly as many animals as you needed for working the farm and you could only justify eating meat during the winter when other food supplies (such as grains ) were in shorter supply.

There were, admittedly, periods of extravagant eating in the Calendar of Celebrations such as the period right before Lent where you ate up the last of your winter stocks before they went off, but they were usually followed by periods of relatively low food.

Summers meant plentiful food but also lots of hard work - no one got fat. And winter, well, you counted yourself damn lucky if you had enough to eat.

In modern days, the food that’s cheapest and most available is high in fat - like McDonalds and other companies of the same ilk - which was definitely not the case in history. Historically, if you were poor, you were lucky if you didn’t starve.

#8

I don’t know about racism and history, but just looking around the shops at the mall at the moment tells me that the main reason caucasian women are “moving away” from lowriding pants and high riding tops is because that’s what fashion is doing. The tops are getting longer again and jeans are higher waisted and tighter than they’ve been in a while.

Fashion is circular. Waistlines (for example) can only drop so far (the 20’s, the 60’s, the 2000’s) and then they start to rise again because otherwise your pants fall off.

#9

I’ll just clarify right now, in case there were any misunderstanding, my post was a very general overview of England and European peasantry eating habits in the generic past.

#10

[quote=“theotherphoenix”]Fashion is circular. Waistlines (for example) can only drop so far (the 20’s, the 60’s, the 2000’s) and then they start to rise again because otherwise your pants fall off.[/quote]Well, yeah, lately the fashion seems to be for high-waisted, Empire-line dresses and tops that make half the young women I see look pregnant. Eh well, if they like the look, who am I to argue.