| A
age
41-50,
writes: I came across an article today and I'm fascinated in general about the latest trend of trying to promote the Average Woman. I put that in caps because I believe it's just a new label for the same problem.http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-26465106I'd say you've all come across the Barbie "controversy" that's become quite popular and the fact she has an impossible figure, a body type that is unattainable. Now I understand people will have strong opinions on whether that's the case or not, personally I think it's scapegoating instead of tackling the real reasons there have been a surge in self-image issues.Little girls don't pick up Barbie and wish they had her figure (it's a sign of bigger issues if they do), they're wondering what she can use as a bandage because Ken fell over and hurt his knee, or they're choosing which clothes will be best for the activity they're going to be doing. The problem as I see it is the very labelling of one body type as "perfect". Which is exactly what the Average Doll does too, apparently "real" women only look the way the Average Doll does. It reinforces the idea that there is only one perfect type, calling it Average doesn't make it a true representation of the shapes and sizes women come in, and by promoting it as such you ignore those that are naturally skinny, or tall women, or women with bigger hips, smaller boobs etc.By their reasoning little girls aren't smart enough to be taught to love the body they have because of Barbie. That seeing Barbie's body is going to create problems of self-image no matter what you teach them. Now that's bollocks but let's assume that was the case.Then how is categorising what a "real" woman should look like into one body type a healthier image to portray? If they stop trying to tell girls there is only one perfect body type maybe they'll see that theirs is perfectly fine as long it's not damaging their health.They're honestly treating young girls like idiots and the cynic in me says the guy who made this doll has suddenly found a market he can exploit to make money but with the exact same "insidious" effect on body issues as he claims to be fighting against. Issues of self-image in young girls has become a big deal and rightly so it's becoming a big problem. You don't solve that by just creating your own new category of women and lumping them all into that, and say that's the perfect one. The real problem is that children are getting the wrong messages and they're also getting the wrong messages from the people who think they're sending the right ones. My wife believes that this kind of categorization is more done out of convenience using a standard mathematical model than with any kind of real examination of what women look like. She thinks it's a step in the right direction in terms of intent but that the execution is poor. We both agree that the focus should be on removing a poisonous concept that there's only one perfect body type and that congratulating people for not being skinny is not having a positive effect at all, as skinny is also a natural body type.Switching the focus from one onto another is not going to remove the underlying issue, and it's a prime example of the disconnect that adults have to children growing up in the Information Age. Everything has changed. What do you guys think?
View related questions:
boobs, money Reply to this Article
Share |
You can add your comments or thoughts to this article A
female
reader, maverick494  +, writes (9 June 2014):
Very interesting. I've been thinking a lot about this myself and maybe this sounds too simple, but maybe it's the fact that we have so much time to think about this that creates the problem. We spend time on the internet, watch TV, go to shopping malls. We get bombarded with advertisements with beautiful people. We have peers that think about the same thing. We have parents who grew up chasing their own beauty standards.
People who live in developed countries but are very poor don't seem to have the same issues when it comes to a healthy physical self image, because they literally can't afford to. For one, they don't have the money, and two, they usually don't have time to occupy themselves with it, because they're working jobs to pay for a better future or at least a sustainable one.
We have a big middle class right now. A struggling middle class, but one that can afford being on the internet for a long time and spend time obsessing about stuff like this. We are also at a point where representing the best version of yourself on the internet is a big thing, especially among the young and impressionable. We also have a culture that revolves around the individual. The problem is there are too many individuals to please universally. Which is when forced things like 'average' barbies gets made, to soothe the ruffled feathers of one group of people, while at the same time aggravating and confusing the others.
A
reader, anonymous, writes (17 March 2014): In a similar, if not same, vein:
http://jezebel.com/cunty-cuntish-cunted-and-cunting-added-to-oxford-engl-1543768870/+morninggloria
...............................
A
female
reader, Marilissa75 +, writes (17 March 2014):
 Thank you for posting this. The whole "Real Women Have Curves" movement was offensive to me because I was always quite thin. I gained weight in my late 30s and so now I do have curves (and get a lot more attention from men) and I enjoy it very much but I think it is, as you say, absurd to promote one body type as being superior or average, etc. This is idiocy. More needs to be done to promote good physical fitness and self esteem as opposed to a specific size.
...............................
A
female
reader, Welshie123  +, writes (11 March 2014):
I agree there will always be a lot of importance placed on beauty, it's in our biology, & I agree it is the extremist measures being made the norm are a big part of the problem, but I think the thing that drives people to take such extreme measures is when they feel how they look defines who they are. I also think the reason people get to that point is because they lack a real, grounded sense of self esteem.
I also know what you mean about the feminists 'shaming' & therefore stifling pride in the way people look. I think when it comes to this issue the feminists have it completely wrong, they're intentions are good, but the way they're going about it is counter-productive.
The only thing you mentioned that I don't agree entirely on is the portion of blame the older generations take, the girl you mention has a very compelling point, which is heavily influenced by her own experience BUT her experience isn't everyone's experience. For instance, the women in my life when I was growing up were very confident, I don't think my mum, or any of my aunts or Nan's had ever even been on a diet. My mum rarely even wears any makeup. Not because she doesn't care, but because she is happy with how she looks. However, I, myself have had cosmetic surgery, been on numerous diets & was rarely happy with my appearance, so whilst I think the older generation should get a small portion of the blame they are not as influential as, for instance, the media, in my opinion.
I'm intrigued to know what in YOUR opinion crosses the line between looking after oneself to setting a bad example for the younger generations?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (11 March 2014): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionSome good points there. Cindy to be honest both male and female genitalia are used as derogatory terms. I think people just need to stop giving words so much significance in a gendered sense when language is contextual.
I mean it kind of makes it seem women are nitpicking when they jump on the 'pussy' thing. I mean to 'cock-up' is royally mess something up, 'cock' is also a slang term for penis, you don't really see men complaining that the two may be equated or that makes men oppressed because of that. Language changes meanings all the time.
Some good points there too Welshie123. The thing is though I don't think it's necessarily the importance we give beauty that's the issue, we always have given it that importance and frankly I don't see how that'll ever change. I mean women used to wear corsets that not only knocked them unconscious but actually killed lots of women, lead based foundation is another.
I think the issue is that we've normalised harmful behaviours to attain that beauty and a lot of that has to do with advertising, but also agency, and without doubt the bad habits of the older generation. Women especially are made to feel far less than adequate if they don't have a certain product that will make them more "beautiful".
Advertisers really have abused the fact that women find appearance so important to sell all kinds of amazingly unnecessary rubbish like fake tan which contains chemicals that can cause cancer and infertility, butt pads which can ruin your back and posture, chicken fillets, spanx that change your entire hip shape but also cut off blood flow and lead to deep vein thrombosis, food poisoning bacteria to numb your face, fat freezing which can cause massive burns, tan beds which cause cancer, cosmetic surgery which can deform and kill a person etc. I mean what kind of message does it send out to young girls and a lot of boys nowadays too, that attaining beauty is worth those risks? I mean is it any wonder that young people have such problems with eating disorders when the older generation are doing pretty dangerous no-carb diets, getting life altering gastric bands, or fasting two days a week, or taking laxatives, diet pills or whatever the latest unhealthy, quick fix fad is?
As Cindy stated earlier there are certain things about people's faces that make them more beautiful to more people, there are some set things that denote beauty and it's not just driven by culture or society, some of it is biological and genetic. But we've created a situation where it's deemed okay to go to ridiculous and dangerous lengths to be like that when we're not all built that way. I'll never understand for example how a beautiful Irish woman with a porcelain complexion can be so convinced that pasting a disgusting, harmful brown goop all over their body makes them have a "healthy glow" because to me it just comes from crappy advertising and women are just not that stupid as to fall for advertising so completely.
You made a very good point about being proud of your body being a bit of a sin these days. I think a lot of that has to do with feminism and the whole "shaming" thing. I mean I understand the intent is to stop abusing people by shaming them for being fat or other such appearance "defect". But what it's actually done has created attitudes that even being proud of having a body you've worked for is also seen as indirectly shaming others and people take offence.
We've created a society that is sensitive to everything and finds ways to make positives reflect on others in a personal and wholly negative way. I mean if you ask any doctors who deal with obesity related illness or type 2 diabetes, they're no longer allowed to use the terms obese, or overweight anymore, they have to use code words and medical jargon so as not to offend. I understand that the word "fat" can be offensive, it started out that way, but now even implying a person is overweight is a huge no-no in a medical context. Which has led to a culture now of thin shaming, it's perfectly acceptable to shame thin people and abuse them for being too "skinny", and feminists are the first to do it by claiming thin people are perpetuating the myth that being that way is good.
You're right about the whole courtship thing, of course both sexes find appearance importance in that regard. But it's only one part of the package these days, and for that I have to give feminism the credit. More equality means we're on a far more equal footing and other attributes have become just as, if not more important than looks alone, because women have a lot more to offer than just their family connections or beauty. The only problem from my experience is that it now takes longer to choose and find a life long partner, maybe would have always been the case if the older structures of marriage and not being able to divorce etc. didn't exist. But I find people really don't seem to know what they want in a partner and it takes them a lot longer to find out. Hence the negative population growth in developed countries, and higher average age for people to marry and settle down.
I think there's a lot of things that contribute to it, and I still stand by my view that the Average Doll sends out the wrong message instead of dealing with any of the core issues.
I do think that student was right too. For the record she has great role models in her mother and father, is an A student, and a born leader who is involved in a lot activism, feminism being her main focus. I think she's right that the older generation of women have raised young girls to have very bad habits. Her mother is very polite, attentive and caring, but she like a lot of middle-aged women has issues with weight, growing old and she does stupid shit to try and combat that, if she's willing to do a diet like the atkins which can cause all sorts of health problems and doesn't actually solve anything, then she sets a bad example of the costs her daughter should be willing to pay to attain the unnecessary. There's no such thing as growing old gracefully anymore, people would rather risk death than have to face having wrinkles or a slow metabolism. I think that has a greater effect on the young female psyche than any other source, and it's a case where even though her mother does try and promote a healthy image in her daughter, the example she sets is completely contradictory.
...............................
A
female
reader, Welshie123 +, writes (11 March 2014):
In the uk, all genitalia (female & male) are used as derogatory terms, so I don't think that would necessarily attribute to the problem, though I do like the notion of use of slang terms for genitalia in a positive format.
For me I don't think the new doll will make a massive impact, infact it could very well have the opposite effect for people who don't have 'the average' body. This has clearly been executed with financial viability as a top priority, otherwise, like you said, it would be much more beneficial to bring out a range of different shapes and sizes.
For me the issue as a whole is like an onion- has many many layers to it. At the core of the problem is the lack of a positive self image and self esteem that occurs in a lot of us & a lack of knowledge of how to gain real confidence and self-worth. I think we put too much of a high importance on what other people think & we've seem to have acquired a selective memory, as we tend to only remember the negative comments made, no matter how many positive comments there have been.
I think some kind of 'mental health' lessons should be implemented in schools as the mental equivalent of 'pe' teaching positive self image etc.
I think another attribute is that, for whatever reason, when someone feels good about themselves, people around them feel the need to shot them down. It's almost a bad thing to be proud of your body nowadays in the uk.
Another attribute is in my mind the changing dynamics between the 2 sexes, has left a feeling of uncertainty in roles and what we should be aspiring to.
Another attribute is for me, the reason so much importance is placed on women's appearance in particular is the traditional courtship process, men can use charm and wit to win a woman over as they're doing the chasing, but women are traditionally 'picked', so the biggest tool at their disposal is looks.
And then we also have the media; magazines, films, adverts, music videos, photoshopped pictures of celebrities etc.
I think cosmetic surgery also has a role to play, as if we couldn't change the things we don't like about ourselves, would we be more inclined to accept them the way they are?
...............................
A
female
reader, CindyCares  +, writes (11 March 2014):
 This is neither here nor there, but I always found curious how the idea of associating negative meanings to the female sexual organs seem to be an Anglosaxon hang up.
In English, being a " pussy " is not a good thing, when you call someone a " cunt ", that's bad , an insult, isn't it ?...
In my language , the slang word for vagina is a 4 letter word which is used as a compliment, to describe something that's awesome , excellent, outstanding.:). " What a ( slang for vagina ) idea ! What a ( slang for vagina ) Ferrari car !
Not that this was enough to make Italy a feminist country, of course . But I always found comforting the fact that at least the language would signal how a vagina, and owning one, is something enviable and admirable :)
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (11 March 2014): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionNo, it's still slang, there's nothing polite about calling someone a coward as it is and it's not really polite enough to be used formally, obviously given its multiple meanings. But in casual terms it's a softer word than coward because it means 'a bit weak' too.
I guess saying "where I'm from" was misleading, it's very much contextual and of course it's not one to be used with the older generation.
...............................
A
female
reader, Tisha-1 +, writes (11 March 2014):
 So where you are from, if you call someone 'pussy' they know you really think they are a coward but are too polite to say that word 'coward'?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (11 March 2014): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionIt's a softer term for coward where I'm from, people are more likely offended by the word coward here. The same way we use the words 'shite' and 'feck' to say things but softer or the way Americans often substitute religious words with 'gosh', 'geez' etc. We have lots of terms for coward actually, scaredy-cat, shitty-balls, chicken shit, dry-shite, shitty-arse etc. Pussy is universal though which is why it was used.
...............................
A
female
reader, Tisha-1 +, writes (11 March 2014):
So when you call someone a 'pussy' you are saying they are a coward?
Why not just use the word 'coward'?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (11 March 2014): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionYeah, or how a woman's vagina became equated with a cat in the first place. Slang directed at women is very nature based for some reason, all plants and animals. Melons, beaver, bitch etc. Comes from religious doctrine that women are supposedly more primal than men, more animalistic.
Apparently it comes from calling guys 'pussy-whipped' for not doing something because their partner won't allow it, that's been shortened to just 'whipped' now and being a pussy is just being a coward, not actually calling a person a vagina just evolved from being "pussy-whipped". Personally I prefer the idea that it denotes cats are cowardly, because the idea a vagina can be makes no sense.
It's strange how language evolves, especially pejoratives. 'Gay' is a prime example. From happy/joyful to a pejorative for homosexuality, to an accepted term for a homosexual, to an adjective meaning bad.
I think it's good that language evolves that way. It's a form of breaking taboos and diluting its oppressive nature. I hear more guys called bitch, slut etc. nowadays than women. I also hear women call each other those things in a friendly manner that dilutes their negative significance.
...............................
A
female
reader, Tisha-1 +, writes (11 March 2014):
Isn't it interesting how a term that refers to a woman's vagina also is commonly used to denote weakness or cowardliness?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (11 March 2014): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionNeither, the slang term denoting weakness or cowardly.
Apparently it bears more weight than I thought though, where I'm from it's a very light word used to say someone is being weak or cowardly without causing offence. "Stop being a pussy" seems to upset some people though so I'll have to be more careful with it.
I cleared it up with that girl in messages, she wanted to know what I meant, turns out there was more detail to her story and my labelling her that was completely unwarranted and she was actually not being weak.
...............................
A
female
reader, Tisha-1 +, writes (11 March 2014):
I'm sure she's a lovely woman with a great future.
If she feels the need to blame older women for this because she had some really crappy role models then I'm sorry that she and they didn't have the best life.
Hey, did I read that you called a young woman a "pussy" because she was struggling with telling a guy she didn't fancy him?
Do you mean 'pussy' as in a cat, or are you using a slang term for the vagina?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 March 2014): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionHey Tisha, yeah it was not labelled as "perfect" in the article but is being portrayed as "real" and "average", which in turn is being promoted heavily as the new perfection by feminists and campaigners.
"Finally someone has been brave enough to show what a woman really looks like." Said the supposed body image expert.
It's still the promotion of one body type, and even worse it actually is putting the focus on the body whereas Barbie doesn't. Which is something one of the class feminists highlighted today. She said adults are creating too much of a focus on the body as an object by highlighting this issue in such a constricted way instead of tackling the core issues of why young girls feel so compelled to compete. She seems to think there's too much focus on physical representation and not enough on changing the attitudes and psyche of young women who are so ready to adopt such extremes in self-image.
She talked about the latest trends of the thigh gap and one I hadn't heard of the Bikini bridge.
Interestingly the bikini bridge was completely made up by guys on 4chan for the laugh to see if women would fall for it and they did, hook, line and sinker. Now she's a die hard feminist, the type that really likes to focus on the role women had in history in our classes and is always fascinated when we discuss women's issues in Ireland, so I was expecting her to blame men for everything which she usually does, because in historical terms it can have merit.
I didn't expect at all from her but she truly believes that women are the cause of their own downfall on issues of body image and adult women are the ones that are creating these issues for young girls and men have zero to do with it.
She said she read some articles about the bikini bridge thing and they all blame men, the "patriarchy" for making that happen because men were the originators of the trend.
She finds that insulting that people would think young girls are so emotionally weak to men that they'd do everything just because of men. When one lad said women only want to look good for men she ridiculed him by making the point that he'd probably never heard or cared about the thigh gap or bikini thing until today and probably still doesn't care.
She blames older women and the fact that even as adults they just can't seem to be happy with the body they have either so how can young girls ever feel confident about theirs. She's 16 and she said it's not topless women in magazines, or stick thin models, or even a stupid doll they stopped playing with before they even had a sense of self and their bodies, that have the greatest impact; it's their mothers, aunts, adult older sisters who constantly try fad diets, who are getting boob jobs, who are getting face-lifts, who are constantly struggling to compete to remain young and beautiful that are the greatest source of body image issues. because as she said it is mothers that young girls idolise, it's the real women in their life that they look up to and try and compare themselves to, so they're just trying to emulate them.
She said the greatest tragedy for modern teenage girls is that the women who are supposed to be their guides in life blame a doll, blame celebrity culture, blame men, blame topless women in magazines instead of looking in the mirror and seeing that it's actually them that is the real problem.
That it's the older generation of women who are to blame. She said watching her mother struggle with weight issues and constantly falling for the latest fad diet and only really seeming to have any sort of contentment while on one of those diets had a huge impact on how she viewed her own body. She said teen girls, and all of them agreed with her, are sick of being portrayed as being too stupid to realise that what they see in magazines is not realistic. They know that, but then they see older women ignore that and try to emulate that so they feel compelled to too.
She said if young girls actually paid attention to, or were as influenced by men and boys as much as the media and older women think they are then young girls would have no body issues because men don't really care, they just love women, which of course all the boys were on vocal agreement with. But when they see their mothers so depressed with their weight that they need to go get a gastric band, that's when they really start question if their body is good enough too. She said she'd always felt her mother's body was fine, she was healthy, a little bit of extra weight but always grew up thinking her mother was beautiful. So for her own mother to put such a negative significance on a body her daughter originally thought was fine, made the daughter question whether she was right to be happy with her figure, made her question whether she really did know what "fine" was in terms of body.
She said the Average Doll is the very embodiment of what is wrong with how older women approach the issue of younger girls having issues with self-esteem. They focus the blame on something else instead of wanting to see where the real problem lies and she thinks that's because older women don't want to feel bad for having that kind of effect.
She said when she eventually has kids, she's going to understand that the example she creates for them is what will define their self-image, so she'll ignore magazine portrayal of women, she won't use botox, she won't cry about her weight or struggle with fad diets, she won't get a boob job, she won't moan about the objectification of women in magazines, she'll show them through her own positive self-image that it's okay to be who you are. She said most importantly of all she won't teach her kids to compare themselves to others or by competing, by living a way in which she is not doing that.
She said things will only change once women stop looking for something to blame and realise that they're both the source of the problem and its only solution. It's not an object, it's their attitude to that object and it's rubbing off on younger girls. She said focusing on external objects to apportion blame is robbing many young girls of their health and future, because the older generation of women refuse to take the blame for what is their fault.
So yeah I was a bit blown away. I mean I'm used to being surprised by the intellect and depth of thought teenagers are capable of, but that was a level beyond.
...............................
A
female
reader, Tisha-1 +, writes (10 March 2014):
I couldn't find in the article where the artist labeled one particular type as "perfect."What I read in the link provided was this statement by the artist: "What if fashion dolls were made using standard human body proportions? This is the question I asked myself after comparing fashion dolls to typical body proportions,"I think the artist has asked an interesting question and is doing a brilliant job of getting funding for the project. As for your experiment in having the boys in your class stand up to demonstrate that they have different body shapes and types, but don't put as much significance on a perfect body, it's a nice thought. It really is. Where is the page 3 boy? Oh, wait, he doesn't exist because he doesn't sell newspapers, or shampoo or condoms.
...............................
A
female
reader, CindyCares +, writes (9 March 2014):
I agree- sort of. I am not quite sure..
I read the article about the Average Doll and it prompted such an eye roll that I was afraid I had permanently damaged my eyesight.
Barbie is - like ANY object which stays for another object or concept - a sign, a symbol. It conveys an idea, an essence. It does not want and does not need to be " realistic ". The average 6 y.o. girl is smart enough to not be surprised or disappointed when she sees that the real bears in the zoo do not wear a hat and a tie like Yogi, or boots like Paddington, and are nowhere as cute, sweet and cuddly as her teddy bear. In the same way, she does not think that women look, or should look, literally like Barbie, so the whole discourse about "proportions " is pointless.
It's true though that Barbie is supposed to be a " cool ", " it " girl- so the message is that presumably being lean,long legged and with a flowing mane of blonde hair is a very good thing, and too bad for who hasn't got that. Well, that's since a few decades the prevalent, or one of the prevalent, canon of beauty in our society, before and beyond and independently from Barbie. Now, you tell me , how do you prevent a society from having esthetic canons and deciding that some traits are more desirable and appreciable than others. They did it and do it anytime anywhere .
A few random examples.
Having white teeth is a sign of beauty in Western world ( and a moral imperative in USA ) . Not so in many African or Amazonian tribal societies where people BLACKEN artificially their teeth .
Read Najib Mafowz's novels ( nobody knows him, but the guy even won a Nobel for literature and he is brilliant ). He describes at length the ideal of beauty in Egypt in the first quarter of 20th century, and it s FAT ideal. But not just plump , FAT . With big wiggly belly rolls and huuuge asses.
Read " Villette " by Charlotte Bronte and see the not too veiled contempt with which the English heroin describes the rosy-cheecked, fleshy ,sensual, HEALTHY beauties of the Belgian town where she lives. In her eyes of 19th century English upper middle class lady, it's clear that her ideal of beauty is ghost pale, undernourished skinny, sloopy shouldered, and with a touch of TBC, maybe, - more refined.
What I mean is, of course we could market and propose all sorts of dolls in all sizes and shapes, because as IATHY says that's how women come in nature, in all different colours , size and shapes. But I think young girls know and see that, all they have got to do to get that is a walk in the streets or a visit to the local mall.
So, should we promote the idea that everybody is beautiful the same or pretty the same ? in other words that there is really no such thing as physical beauty because there's no physical trait which is more desirable to have than another ?...
Uhm. I don't know if it's possible, and I don't know if it's true. Apparently, regardless of fads and trends and social dictates, there are certain proportions ,hues, skin textures that are inherently more appealing to our eyes. They have done an experiment with 7 and 8 months babies and apparently these fixed their gazes several seconds longer on pictures of women with regular features and " classic " beauty, than on women with irregular or unusual features, which we'd call " ugly " . That must mean something I guess, and how do we get around that ?
That people like beautiful, but not everybody is beautiful , whatever we choose to make this word mean ?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (7 March 2014): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionI actually spoke to a couple of my classes about it today. Not surprisingly they agree. Even the class feminists felt it was just as unhealthy to reinforce the image of one body type being "real", the only ones who actually thought it was a positive message were the ones with that exact body type. I didn't even tell them what I thought about it, just asked their opinions and the same points were brought up.
I asked all the boys to stand up as a means to demonstrate that even they have all different shapes and sizes, but they don't put as profound a significance on it then asked them to do a bit of research into the various versions of "beauty" in history and whether women always put more importance into it than men, if so then how can we stop it being so harmful in the Information Age?
It'll be interesting to see what they come up with but some were very quick to say things like instagram had a lot to answer for because they allow girls to edit their own pictures into unrealistic representations of themselves. I have to say I was surprised by that point, especially that there was an immediate unanimous consensus amongst both genders that was the case. That it's not an external influence but the ability to project a hyper real version of themselves online that is making body issues more profound because they feel they can't live up to the image in real life. "I wish I looked like the me I've created online in real life" seems to be a pretty big deal.
...............................
|
