Comments for Peggy Lu Who's Just Sayin'!

Comment on Ride Peggy, Ride by Heather

Heather — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:35:16 +0000

When I was a kid, I used to ride my bike all the time! When I moved into my own apartment my bike was my only source of transportation. I lived in a town that was a little ways from the city. In order to get to work I had to take an hour ride to work! But I love my bike, too.

Comment on Crazy Single Girl Life – 2 Wheels Edition by Ride Peggy, Ride | Peggy Lu Who's Just Sayin'!

Ride Peggy, Ride | Peggy Lu Who's Just Sayin'! — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:18:50 +0000

[...] About four and a half years ago, I bought myself a bicycle. It didn’t take very long for me to fall in love with it, and with cycling in general. I loved how I could hop on and glide through the streets of Oakland, getting almost anywhere I needed to go, without much concern for traffic or parking. I didn’t have to worry about being harassed as I waited for the bus. I loved that I could go, go, go without having to worry about refueling. Flying down the bike lane was exciting, and I also felt like I was a part of a special club. In short, it helped me feel independent and free. [...]

Comment on Crazy Single Girl Life – Personal Questions Editions by www.iiitmk.ac.In

www.iiitmk.ac.In — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:29:53 +0000

Have you ever considered publishing an e-book or guest authoring on other sites?
I have a blog based upon on the same ideas you discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information.
I know my audience would appreciate your work. If you’re even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e-mail.

Comment on CSGL [Crazy Single Girl Life] – The Year 2012 by By the Way « Peggy Lu Who's Just Sayin'!

By the Way « Peggy Lu Who's Just Sayin'! — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 06:07:00 +0000

[...] you go back to the beginning of the year, in the blog’s archives, you’ll see that I called this in January. Sort [...]

Comment on In Case You Were Wondering, Facebook… by c-word

c-word — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:24:09 +0000

my apologies – though it has always been speculated, none of the 4 women pictured on top have ever publicly admitted to having an eating disorder. the closest would have been when nicole richie checked into rehab facility for not being able to put on weight in 2006 (she went from approx. 130lbs to 81lbs), but still denied the rumors of having an eating disorder. and keira knightley has stated that annorexia runs in her family, but she does not suffer from it (personally, i really just think she has a tiny frame). however, there have been many celebrities that have admitted to having an eating disorder at one point or another : http://maddieruud.hubpages.com/hub/Celebrities_with_Eating_Disorders_-_List_and_Pics

in the meantime, have you seen this? http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466135-when-did-this-become-hotter-than-this

Comment on In Case You Were Wondering, Facebook… by For Never Was A Story Of More Woe… « stop! talking.

For Never Was A Story Of More Woe… « stop! talking. — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:05:58 +0000

[...] a girlfriend, but you’re making them think they’re sexist! Why is it not okay to post this photo? Why is it not totally emancipatory to post opposing pictures of skinny and beefy gals and rate [...]

Comment on In Case You Were Wondering, Facebook… by peggyluwho

peggyluwho — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 02:58:16 +0000

Please point me to a source where any of them said that they had an eating disorder.

Comment on In Case You Were Wondering, Facebook… by c-word

c-word — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:28:41 +0000

though i understand what you are saying, i have to agree with “your girl friday” for the most part. unfortunately, the features and traits for what is to be considered “beautiful” in a woman are constantly changing and have done so for centuries. for instance, during the renaissance period, a woman who was fair skinned/pale and voluptuous was something to be more desired. however, fast forward to the 1920′s where being flat-chested and skinny was all the craze. in the 50′s/60′s it was back to the more voluptuous figures (as depicted in the bottom row of the graph) and it has flipped back and forth since the 70′s… (however mainly staying towards the skinny side of the spectrum). granted, women don’t have much control over what genetics hands them; but IMHO, i think what this graph is trying to state is the fact that a lot of these women are so small, it looks unhealthy. in addition, a lot of these women have admitted to having eating disorders at one time or another (not to mention the insane cosmetic surgery procedures heidi underwent in one day). unfortunately, i think a lot of the media is to blame – constantly depicting the more “modelesque” figures, instead of showing a myriad of different body types in advertising, movies, tv, etc. as you have posted below. i think the biggest issue is the fact that women will literally kill themselves to be as small as possible; this is not healthy. however, if you are naturally and healthily a small size, that does not mean that you are any less sexy than marilyn monore and her curves and so on. what i believe this graph is trying to say is just the fact that our idea of body image has become so warped within a matter of years. all women are sexy, no matter what their shape and size.

Comment on In Case You Were Wondering, Facebook… by peggyluwho

peggyluwho — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:29:22 +0000

Even if Keira Knightley gave up dieting and doing whatever she’s doing to get those abs, she would still never look like Marilyn Monroe. Conversely, if you have an hourglass shape like Monroe’s, all the diet and exercise in the world are never going to make you look like Keira Knightley. That’s what I meant when I said “largely determined by genetics.” I was referring to their starting points.

Comment on In Case You Were Wondering, Facebook… by Your Girl Friday (@whiterosered)

Your Girl Friday (@whiterosered) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:59:23 +0000

“Our body shape and size is largely determined by genetics, so how is this compare and contrast line-up supposed to make anyone feel better, when all it’s really doing is saying, “If you look more like the women on the top, well then it sucks to be you, because you’re scary!” ”

I agree that comparing women’s bodies and holding some up as “gross” and others as “desireable” is not constructive or intelligent, but I disagree that the women in the top row look the way they do because of genetics and could not change their shape if they wanted to. I think many of us have seen actresses like Keira Knightly and Kirsten Dunst whittle away at their shapes by using extreme body modification behaviours like restrictive dieting and near-constant exercise, at a level that most women don’t have access to. Heidi Montag has been extremely public about going under the knife to change the way she looks. All eight women in the graphic are equally beautiful and deserving of respect, no matter how they modify their bodies, but in the top row, the only influence genetics has had, is making their bodies malleable and extremely responsive to dieting and exercise. I am all for telling women that they can be desireable and worthy even if they don’t want to or can’t conform by dieting and moulding their physique, which is (imo) what this graphic is attempting to do. Unfortunately, it is doing that by shaming women, which is counter-productive and cancels out any good the message might have had.