"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "kilikini" > wrote :
> >
> > Wow, for once a man with taste! I'm not overweight, but I'm not a
stick,
> > either. Even my husband says he likes a woman with FLESH on her. I'm
> > 5'7"
> > and weigh (variably) between 150 - 155. Heck, I'm 40 years old and I'm
> > happy with that. Why do women up-to 6 feet tall feel they need to weigh
> > 100
> > pounds? Um, that's not normal.
>
> On the other hand, naturally slender women (not boney, just slim-hipped,
> small breasted, naturally streamlined) should not feel they need to have
> breast and ass implants to be sexy. I felt that pressure in my 20s, but
> learned
> to accept myself as I am later in life.
>
>

Another good point, cyber.

kili

cybercat > wrote:
>On the other hand, naturally slender women (not boney, just slim-hipped,
>small breasted, naturally streamlined) should not feel they need to have
>breast and ass implants to be sexy. I felt that pressure in my 20s, but
>learned
>to accept myself as I am later in life.

In your 20s, you were competing with a lot of slim,
healthy, busty babes.

In your 40s you will be the only skinny girl left, and
all the more attractive by comparison.

So it's not just appreciation that changed. It's the
competition and your position in it.

--Blair

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote
>> And ANS wanted it that way. As a child, she said she wanted to become
>> famous so she could make her parents look at her all the time.
>
> Hmm, I had never heard that.
>

It was not on the news. That came from people that knew her personally in
school.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:39:06 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>"-L." wrote:
>>
>> Couldn't have said it better myself. AN's best friend was on TV today
>> and said she thinks Anna simply died of a broken heart. She was still
>> devastated by Danny's death and wasn't coping well, at all. While
>> Anna Nicole wasn't a role model by any means, she was one of the first
>> contemporary plus-sized models and sex-symbol, and that's no small
>> accomplishment in this world where Kate Moss is held up as a standard
>> of beauty.
>
>
>First of all...... plus size??????????/ Only her chest. She did get
>chunky for a while.... really chunky, but she lost that and back that
>lucious figure.
>
>Second.... Kate Moss..... let's not get into that thing about women being
>forced into starvation to fit men's images if the perfect body. That is a
>distorted female image.

It's not an either or. It doesn't do any good to counter one
stereotype with the flip side of it. If I had to come down on one side
of the coin, I'd probably come down on your side, but it's not that
simple. The men who drool over thin women in hip-hugger jeans are just
as real as the women who treat fashion magazines like bibles. And it's
both men and women who run the fashion industry.

Yes, it's annoying when women blame men for women's standards of
beauty; it's always annoying when women try to hold women blameless
for things that both sexes have a hand in, in some way or another.

FWIW, I don't think this *is* a world where Kate Moss is held up as a
standard of beauty. She's a fashion model and we know that some
fashion models are unusually thin. But if we look at the people who
are generally considered beautiful, most of them aren't close to as
thin as her.

A friend told me once that someone had said about Kate Moss: "I'd
rather feed her than f*ck her."

Laurie

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:22:07 -0600, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-02-10, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> forced into starvation to fit men's images if the perfect body. That is a
>> distorted female image. On behalf of the men of the world I want to plead
>> to women. If you want to have a body to appeal to men, don't starve
>> yourselves to look like Kate Moss. Aim for something like Anna Nicole was
>> packing.
>
>Agreed, Dave. All these skeletor chicks are downright repulsive and
>are an image women have imposed upon themselves.

I don't know anyone of either sex who finds scrawny bodies attractive.

> Granted, it's with
>the coercion of the stupid fashion industry that parades out skeletors
>on the runway and generates billboard/magazine ads by the score.
>Someone should prosecute The Gap for child abuse with those perverse
>ads. But you people continue to go to Lindsey Lohan movies and buy
>mags and tabloids with the cadaver pack on the cover. Bottom line:
>you buy it, they'll sell it.

Yeah, but those mags and tablois are usually mocking Lohan and her ilk
for their thinness.

People don't buy magazines with scrawny people on the covers because
they think those people are beautiful. They buy the magazines because
they like to read the dirt.

Laurie

cyberSQUAT wrote:

> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote
> > And ANS wanted it that way. As a child, she said she wanted to become
> > famous so she could make her parents look at her all the time.
>
> Hmm, I had never heard that.
>
> >Thee is a lot to the story that goes back to her parent's divorce.
> It was my understanding that she never knew her father.
>
> Ob food: fried up two lovely plump eggs and just before I turned them to
> over-easy perfection, discovered we had no bread for toast!
>
> What could I do but whip up a big fat fluffy corn cake and have it beside
> them with butter and maple syrup?
> It was one of those cornbread mixes in the packet. Mmm.
>


Here's a funny little bit I found on the internet, it's good for a grin.
Maybe you could pass it along to -L's husband? :

"It's Black History Month...

My name be Eboneesha, an African-American girl who just got an award for
being the best speler in class. I got 57% on the speling test and 30 points
for being black, 10 points for not bringing drugs into class, 10 points for
not bringing guns into class, and 10 points for not getting pregnut during
the cemester. It hard to beat a score of 120%. The white dude who sit next
to me is McGee from the Bronx. He got a 94% on the test but no extra points
on account of he have the same skin color as the opressirs of 150 years
ago.Granny ax me to thank all Dimocrafts and Liberels for suporting
afermative action. You showing the way to true equality. I gwine begittin in
medical skool nex an mabe I be yo doktor.

Yo fren,
Eboneesha"

</>

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> cyberSQUAT wrote:
>
>> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote
>> > And ANS wanted it that way. As a child, she said she wanted to become
>> > famous so she could make her parents look at her all the time.
>>
>> Hmm, I had never heard that.
>>
>> >Thee is a lot to the story that goes back to her parent's divorce.
>> It was my understanding that she never knew her father.
>>
>> Ob food: fried up two lovely plump eggs and just before I turned them to
>> over-easy perfection, discovered we had no bread for toast!
>>
>> What could I do but whip up a big fat fluffy corn cake and have it beside
>> them with butter and maple syrup?
>> It was one of those cornbread mixes in the packet. Mmm.
>>
>
>
> Here's a funny little bit I found on the internet, it's good for a grin.
> Maybe you could pass it along to -L's husband? :
>
> "It's Black History Month...
>
> My name be Eboneesha, an African-American girl who just got an award for
> being the best speler in class. I got 57% on the speling test and 30
> points
> for being black, 10 points for not bringing drugs into class, 10 points
> for
> not bringing guns into class, and 10 points for not getting pregnut during
> the cemester. It hard to beat a score of 120%. The white dude who sit next
> to me is McGee from the Bronx. He got a 94% on the test but no extra
> points
> on account of he have the same skin color as the opressirs of 150 years
> ago.Granny ax me to thank all Dimocrafts and Liberels for suporting
> afermative action. You showing the way to true equality. I gwine begittin
> in
> medical skool nex an mabe I be yo doktor.
>
> Yo fren,
> Eboneesha"
>
> </>

Very nice. We already know you're a racist, you saggy-assed,
halitosis-scented
waste of corroded flesh.

Why would it bother me? I'm black and beautiful, baby. As for L's husband,
well ...
I know you simple-minded, tiny-dicked white boys are tormented by the image
of the Big Black Dick, but, really, that's your private torment. And good
luck
with that, boy. I mean that sincerely.

cybercat wrote:

> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > cyberSQUAT wrote:
> >
> >> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote
> >> > And ANS wanted it that way. As a child, she said she wanted to
become
> >> > famous so she could make her parents look at her all the time.
> >>
> >> Hmm, I had never heard that.
> >>
> >> >Thee is a lot to the story that goes back to her parent's divorce.
> >> It was my understanding that she never knew her father.
> >>
> >> Ob food: fried up two lovely plump eggs and just before I turned them
to
> >> over-easy perfection, discovered we had no bread for toast!
> >>
> >> What could I do but whip up a big fat fluffy corn cake and have it
beside
> >> them with butter and maple syrup?
> >> It was one of those cornbread mixes in the packet. Mmm.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Here's a funny little bit I found on the internet, it's good for a grin.
> > Maybe you could pass it along to -L's husband? :
> >
> > "It's Black History Month...
> >
> > My name be Eboneesha, an African-American girl who just got an award for
> > being the best speler in class. I got 57% on the speling test and 30
> > points
> > for being black, 10 points for not bringing drugs into class, 10 points
> > for
> > not bringing guns into class, and 10 points for not getting pregnut
during
> > the cemester. It hard to beat a score of 120%. The white dude who sit
next
> > to me is McGee from the Bronx. He got a 94% on the test but no extra
> > points
> > on account of he have the same skin color as the opressirs of 150 years
> > ago.Granny ax me to thank all Dimocrafts and Liberels for suporting
> > afermative action. You showing the way to true equality. I gwine
begittin
> > in
> > medical skool nex an mabe I be yo doktor.
> >
> > Yo fren,
> > Eboneesha"
> >
> > </>
>
> Very nice. We already know you're a racist, you saggy-assed,
> halitosis-scented
> waste of corroded flesh.
>
> Why would it bother me? I'm black and beautiful, baby. As for L's husband,
> well ...
> I know you simple-minded, tiny-dicked white boys are tormented by the
image
> of the Big Black Dick, but, really, that's your private torment. And good
> luck
> with that, boy. I mean that sincerely.


You should have given your good luck "charms" to -L's BIL, since he's now
taking a dirt nap...

:-)

--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote

>> Very nice. We already know you're a racist, you saggy-assed,
>> halitosis-scented
>> waste of corroded flesh.
>>
>> Why would it bother me? I'm black and beautiful, baby. As for L's
>> husband,
>> well ...
>> I know you simple-minded, tiny-dicked white boys are tormented by the
> image
>> of the Big Black Dick, but, really, that's your private torment. And good
>> luck
>> with that, boy. I mean that sincerely.
>
>
> You should have given your good luck "charms" to -L's BIL, since he's now
> taking a dirt nap...
>
> :-)
>

Good luck charms? No idea what you're talking about.

Yes, L's brother-in-law died. It speaks volumes of you that
you choose to gloat about it. I am sure his children and his wife
appreciate it.

You're just looking better every day, canker boy. Keep up the
good work. It's all going in a lovely little Gregory Morrow [sic]
Memorial Book, to be passed out to your family whenever your
black bitterness or one of your STDs does you in.

Take care now!

Dave Smith wrote:
> "-L." wrote:
> >
> > Couldn't have said it better myself. AN's best friend was on TV today
> > and said she thinks Anna simply died of a broken heart. She was still
> > devastated by Danny's death and wasn't coping well, at all. While
> > Anna Nicole wasn't a role model by any means, she was one of the first
> > contemporary plus-sized models and sex-symbol, and that's no small
> > accomplishment in this world where Kate Moss is held up as a standard
> > of beauty.
>
>
> First of all...... plus size??????????/ Only her chest. She did get
> chunky for a while.... really chunky, but she lost that and back that
> lucious figure.

She was a plus-sized runway model. Plus-sized in the fashion industry
is anything size 14 and over.

>
> Second.... Kate Moss..... let's not get into that thing about women being
> forced into starvation to fit men's images if the perfect body.

Did I say anything about that? No.

> That is a
> distorted female image. On behalf of the men of the world I want to plead
> to women. If you want to have a body to appeal to men, don't starve
> yourselves to look like Kate Moss. Aim for something like Anna Nicole was
> packing.

What I did say was the Kate Mosses are being held up as the standard
of beauty in society. This is true. Look at every model,
entertainer, celebrity, actress, etc. and most of them are unnaturally
thin. This is the message about beauty that is sent to sent to young
girls and women every day.

-L.

"-L." wrote:
>
> What I did say was the Kate Mosses are being held up as the standard
> of beauty in society. This is true. Look at every model,
> entertainer, celebrity, actress, etc. and most of them are unnaturally
> thin. This is the message about beauty that is sent to sent to young
> girls and women every day.

How many are truly "unnaturally thin" vs. just thinner than the rapidly
increasing average? It's not unreasonable to try to eliminate the truly
unhealthy anorexic models, but it also runs the risk of a slippery slope
to a witch hunt against the ones who are perfectly healthy and simply
have better genetics and / or more discipline in watching their diet and
exercise under the misguided aim of improving the self esteem of
unhealthy 200# teenagers. The obesity epidemic needs to be addressed,
not masked by an attempt to make fat more accepted.

Pete C.

On 2007-02-11, Pete C. > wrote:


> unhealthy 200# teenagers. The obesity epidemic needs to be addressed,
> not masked by an attempt to make fat more accepted.

Only countries with too much food view being overweight as unhealthy.

nb

"-L." wrote:
>
> >
> > Second.... Kate Moss..... let's not get into that thing about women being
> > forced into starvation to fit men's images if the perfect body.
>
> Did I say anything about that? No.

You didn't but I have heard similar comments too often. The female fashion
industry is run by women and by men who want to designs clothing for them,
not to have children with them.

>
> > That is a
> > distorted female image. On behalf of the men of the world I want to plead
> > to women. If you want to have a body to appeal to men, don't starve
> > yourselves to look like Kate Moss. Aim for something like Anna Nicole was
> > packing.
>
> What I did say was the Kate Mosses are being held up as the standard
> of beauty in society. This is true. Look at every model,
> entertainer, celebrity, actress, etc. and most of them are unnaturally
> thin. This is the message about beauty that is sent to sent to young
> girls and women every day.

Who holds her up to that? The fashion industry. Most of us look at her
wonder about her health.

"Dave Smith" > wrote

> You didn't but I have heard similar comments too often. The female fashion
> industry is run by women and by men who want to designs clothing for them,
> not to have children with them.

During this brouhaha about the models being so scary skinny
designers were bitching that their clothing looked better the
thinner the model. Hello, I could design for a wooden hanger.
If you can't design for the human body, get into another line
of work.

>> What I did say was the Kate Mosses are being held up as the standard
>> of beauty in society.

How that happened, I can only wonder. I fail to see the
attraction, and she looks like she has her teeth sharpened to
a point.

At any rate, if models were living on lettuce and water two
decades ago, what the heck do they get to eat now? I hope
they at least take supplements, including calcium.

I imagine Christie Brinkley would be overweight in today's
model world.

nancy

On 2007-02-11, Nancy Young > wrote:

> I imagine Christie Brinkley would be overweight in today's
> model world.

It's pretty grim. The whole phenomena has also gripped the fine arts.
Ballerinas suffering long term health problems trying to remain slim
and having to be educated in how to control their weight while still
getting enough fat intake and proper nutrition to not become calcium
cripples by their early 30s. Even the famous "fat lady" can longer be
relied on to sing. There are none! It's insane.

I recall when Lindsay Lohan matured into a particularly buxom young
lass and then suddenly shrank to hideous skeletor proportions almost
overnight. The thing that struck me most was the reponse of herself
and her similarly afflicted celebrity peers. They all said
essentially the same thing, that "Everyone says I look so much
better". I remember thinking, "Better than what? Road kill?".

Who is really responsible for this insanity? I'm sorry, but it's not
us guys. A cursory glance at any girly zine reveals guys still prefer
a Ms that doesn't look like a connect-the-dots puzzle. Who do these
boneyard escapees on the runway really appeal to? I sure isn't me.
I've yet to see a single sexually attractive female on the few fashion
newsclips I've seen. I suspect it's the work soley of the makers and
shakers of the arts and fashion industry. That closed little world of
questionable A&E movers and media moguls who have created some sort of
bizarre fantasy world of their own. They live in a sheltered closed
society that also just happens to have the power to broadcast their
distorted vision to the rest of society. Worse, society pays
attention even if that vision has no basis in reality. It's scary.

nb

notbob wrote:
>
> >
> I recall when Lindsay Lohan matured into a particularly buxom young
> lass and then suddenly shrank to hideous skeletor proportions almost
> overnight. The thing that struck me most was the reponse of herself
> and her similarly afflicted celebrity peers. They all said
> essentially the same thing, that "Everyone says I look so much
> better". I remember thinking, "Better than what? Road kill?".

The really sad thing is that having an eating disorder has become a status
symbol. It beats cutting oneself to get attention.

notbob wrote:
>
> On 2007-02-11, Pete C. > wrote:
>
> > unhealthy 200# teenagers. The obesity epidemic needs to be addressed,
> > not masked by an attempt to make fat more accepted.
>
> Only countries with too much food view being overweight as unhealthy.
>
> nb

Bull shit! Any country that has progressed past witch doctors knows
being overweight is unhealthy.

Pete C.wrote:

> notbob wrote:
> >
> > On 2007-02-11, Pete C. > wrote:
> >
> > > unhealthy 200# teenagers. The obesity epidemic needs to be addressed,
> > > not masked by an attempt to make fat more accepted.
> >
> > Only countries with too much food view being overweight as unhealthy.
> >
> > nb
>
> Bull shit! Any country that has progressed past witch doctors knows
> being overweight is unhealthy.


notbob is correct...in a Third World country having an overweight child (or
being overweight yourself) is often considered a sign of prosperity, wealth,
well - being...

In fact it wasn't so long ago that this was true even in the US, if you
remember a little thing called the "Depression". Malnutrition was rampant,
so much so that a hefty percentage of WWII draftees were rejected because of
poor health caused by nutritional deficiencies, e.g scurvy, rickets,
pellagra, a host of other conditions - or even for simply being underweight
(look at WPA photos from the era, e.g. Walker Evan's pix of sharecroppers,
etc. All the poor are rail - thin.). This was a real problem at that time
in the UK, too. In fact strict rationing in the UK during the war actually
helped to *improve* the general health because the rationing program was
designed along strict scientific and nutritional guidelines, rations were
designed to nutritionally maximise the number of calories consumed.

60 - 70 odd years ago prosperous people were often portrayed as overweight,
it was a common caricature in popular culture. And caricatures stem from
real life...

The phenomonen of poor or even middle - class folk being overweight is a
very recent one...has nothing to do with "witch doctor".

--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow" wrote

? This was a real problem at that time
> in the UK, too. In fact strict rationing in the UK during the war
> actually
> helped to *improve* the general health because the rationing program was
> designed along strict scientific and nutritional guidelines, rations were
> designed to nutritionally maximise the number of calories consumed.
>
I was a teenager when WWII broke out in the UK and remember rationing well.
My mother used to spend much of her day lining up at the various shops,
trying to get the rations (and often unsuccessfully). It's hard now to
believe what we were allowed - and I question your statement about the
guidelines, since often food was unavailable. Here's the list of rations,
which continued for years after the war ended:
The things still rationed in 1948, three years after the war, we
Bacon and Ham 2 oz. (57 gm) per person a fortnight
Cheese 1½ oz. (43 gm) a week
Butter/margarine 7 oz. (198 gm) a week
Cooking fats 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
Meat 1s. (5p) worth a week
Sugar 8 oz. (227 gm) a week
Tea 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
Chocolates and sweets 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
Eggs No fixed ration: 1 egg for each ration book when available
Liquid milk 3 pints a week
Preserves 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
Points-rationed Foods 4 points per week


Bread, soap, bananas, and potatoes were also rationed during this period. In
1951 people could still buy only 10d. (4p) worth of meat each week.

Two new commodities were rationed after the war. Bread was rationed from
1946 to 1948 and potatoes for a year from 1947. The points system ended in
1950.


Rationing continued in this country for 14 years until 1954, when meat was
finally derationed.



Dora

In article <cF%zh.3028$7s2.390@trndny07>, "limey" >
wrote:
>"Gregory Morrow" wrote
>? This was a real problem at that time in the UK, too.
>> In fact strict rationing in the UK during the war actually
>> helped to *improve* the general health because the rationing program was
>> designed along strict scientific and nutritional guidelines, rations were
>> designed to nutritionally maximise the number of calories consumed.
>>
>I was a teenager when WWII broke out in the UK and remember rationing well.
>My mother used to spend much of her day lining up at the various shops,
>trying to get the rations (and often unsuccessfully). It's hard now to
>believe what we were allowed - and I question your statement about the
>guidelines, since often food was unavailable. Here's the list of rations,
>which continued for years after the war ended:
>The things still rationed in 1948, three years after the war, we
> Bacon and Ham 2 oz. (57 gm) per person a fortnight
> Cheese 1½ oz. (43 gm) a week
> Butter/margarine 7 oz. (198 gm) a week
> Cooking fats 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
> Meat 1s. (5p) worth a week
> Sugar 8 oz. (227 gm) a week
> Tea 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
> Chocolates and sweets 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
> Eggs No fixed ration: 1 egg for each ration book when available
> Liquid milk 3 pints a week
> Preserves 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
> Points-rationed Foods 4 points per week
>
>Bread, soap, bananas, and potatoes were also rationed during this period. In
>1951 people could still buy only 10d. (4p) worth of meat each week.
>
>Two new commodities were rationed after the war. Bread was rationed from
>1946 to 1948 and potatoes for a year from 1947. The points system ended in
>1950.
>
>Rationing continued in this country for 14 years until 1954, when meat was
>finally derationed.

G'day Dora,

Where did people get the idea it's only young geeks who use "the
Internet" and computers generally? ;-) But moving on...

Your mention of the butter allowance intrigued me. At boarding school
here in Oz in the 50s we were allowed 4 oz of butter per table of ten
per meal -- pre-cut into 10 *very* unequal portions in the kitchen,
hence the need for a strict rotation of choice from meal to meal. :-)
Working from that 0.4 oz/head/meal to 8.4 oz/week it seems even we
internees did rather better than your 7 oz/week. :-)

Of course Australia obviously fared much better than Pommieland in
WWII from the food POV and I seem to recall food parcels commonly
being sent from here to relatives over there -- including tales of
gratitude expressed for "that lovely spice". (Grandpa's ashes.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

"Phred" > wrote

> here in Oz in the 50s we were allowed 4 oz of butter per table of ten
> per meal -- pre-cut into 10 *very* unequal portions in the kitchen,
> hence the need for a strict rotation of choice from meal to meal. :-)

The trick is that the person who cuts the butter gets last
pick of the slices. You will never see more even pats.

nancy

"Phred" wrote

>"limey" wrote:
>>>
>>I was a teenager when WWII broke out in the UK and remember rationing
>>well.
>>My mother used to spend much of her day lining up at the various shops,
>>trying to get the rations (and often unsuccessfully). It's hard now to
>>believe what we were allowed - and I question your statement about the
>>guidelines, since often food was unavailable. Here's the list of rations,
>>which continued for years after the war ended:
>>The things still rationed in 1948, three years after the war, we
>> Bacon and Ham 2 oz. (57 gm) per person a fortnight
>> Cheese 1½ oz. (43 gm) a week
>> Butter/margarine 7 oz. (198 gm) a week
>> Cooking fats 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
>> Meat 1s. (5p) worth a week
>> Sugar 8 oz. (227 gm) a week
>> Tea 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
>> Chocolates and sweets 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
>> Eggs No fixed ration: 1 egg for each ration book when available
>> Liquid milk 3 pints a week
>> Preserves 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
>> Points-rationed Foods 4 points per week
>
> G'day Dora,
>
> Where did people get the idea it's only young geeks who use "the
> Internet" and computers generally? ;-)

Heck, I'm on my second time around!!

But moving on...
>
> Your mention of the butter allowance intrigued me. At boarding school
> here in Oz in the 50s we were allowed 4 oz of butter per table of ten
> per meal -- pre-cut into 10 *very* unequal portions in the kitchen,
> hence the need for a strict rotation of choice from meal to meal. :-)
> Working from that 0.4 oz/head/meal to 8.4 oz/week it seems even we
> internees did rather better than your 7 oz/week. :-)

I'm amazed - were things in short supply in Oz during the Fifties?
>
> Of course Australia obviously fared much better than Pommieland in
> WWII from the food POV and I seem to recall food parcels commonly
> being sent from here to relatives over there -- including tales of
> gratitude expressed for "that lovely spice". (Grandpa's ashes.

Oh, dear.
>
> Cheers, Phred.

G'day, Phred!! I'm glad to hear you weren't as restricted as we were. It
wasn't fun. Actually, during the war itself I seem to remember that the fat
ration was only 5 ounces - one ounce of butter, two of that ghastly
margarine, and two of cooking fat.

The thing I remember the most was "one egg per person, per week:" I stood
in line for my mother to get our week's ration of three - in front of me was
a young woman who held out her "week's ration" of one egg - which had a
green, about fully-developed chick, and asked for a replacement.
The grocer said, "you've had your ration."

Yes, everyone was pretty skinny, I recall,
but perhaps all the better for it. I wouldn't want to go back to those
days to find out, though! So long ago, yet we still remember.

Dora

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:36:53 GMT, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>The obesity epidemic needs to be addressed,
>not masked by an attempt to make fat more accepted.

LOL. Don't you know obesity is a handicap?

Lou

limey wrote:

> "Phred" wrote
>
> >"limey" wrote:
> >>>
> >>I was a teenager when WWII broke out in the UK and remember rationing
> >>well.
> >>My mother used to spend much of her day lining up at the various shops,
> >>trying to get the rations (and often unsuccessfully). It's hard now to
> >>believe what we were allowed - and I question your statement about the
> >>guidelines, since often food was unavailable. Here's the list of
rations,
> >>which continued for years after the war ended:
> >>The things still rationed in 1948, three years after the war, we
> >> Bacon and Ham 2 oz. (57 gm) per person a fortnight
> >> Cheese 1½ oz. (43 gm) a week
> >> Butter/margarine 7 oz. (198 gm) a week
> >> Cooking fats 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
> >> Meat 1s. (5p) worth a week
> >> Sugar 8 oz. (227 gm) a week
> >> Tea 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
> >> Chocolates and sweets 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
> >> Eggs No fixed ration: 1 egg for each ration book when available
> >> Liquid milk 3 pints a week
> >> Preserves 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
> >> Points-rationed Foods 4 points per week
> >
> > G'day Dora,
> >
> > Where did people get the idea it's only young geeks who use "the
> > Internet" and computers generally? ;-)
>
> Heck, I'm on my second time around!!
>
> But moving on...
> >
> > Your mention of the butter allowance intrigued me. At boarding school
> > here in Oz in the 50s we were allowed 4 oz of butter per table of ten
> > per meal -- pre-cut into 10 *very* unequal portions in the kitchen,
> > hence the need for a strict rotation of choice from meal to meal. :-)
> > Working from that 0.4 oz/head/meal to 8.4 oz/week it seems even we
> > internees did rather better than your 7 oz/week. :-)
>
> I'm amazed - were things in short supply in Oz during the Fifties?
> >
> > Of course Australia obviously fared much better than Pommieland in
> > WWII from the food POV and I seem to recall food parcels commonly
> > being sent from here to relatives over there -- including tales of
> > gratitude expressed for "that lovely spice". (Grandpa's ashes.
>
> Oh, dear.
> >
> > Cheers, Phred.
>
> G'day, Phred!! I'm glad to hear you weren't as restricted as we were. It
> wasn't fun. Actually, during the war itself I seem to remember that the
fat
> ration was only 5 ounces - one ounce of butter, two of that ghastly
> margarine, and two of cooking fat.
>
> The thing I remember the most was "one egg per person, per week:" I
stood
> in line for my mother to get our week's ration of three - in front of me
was
> a young woman who held out her "week's ration" of one egg - which had a
> green, about fully-developed chick, and asked for a replacement.
> The grocer said, "you've had your ration."
>
> Yes, everyone was pretty skinny, I recall,
> but perhaps all the better for it. I wouldn't want to go back to those
> days to find out, though! So long ago, yet we still remember.
>


Was there very much of an active black market for food, etc.? Here in the
states you could get just about anything if you had the money (most everyone
did, the war put a lot of money into everyone's pockets) and the proper
"connexions"...

On the surface we were portrayed as virtuous and patriotic, but in reality
things were rather different...

--
Best
Greg

Phred wrote:

> In article <cF%zh.3028$7s2.390@trndny07>, "limey" >
> wrote:
> >"Gregory Morrow" wrote
> >? This was a real problem at that time in the UK, too.
> >> In fact strict rationing in the UK during the war actually
> >> helped to *improve* the general health because the rationing program
was
> >> designed along strict scientific and nutritional guidelines, rations
were
> >> designed to nutritionally maximise the number of calories consumed.
> >>
> >I was a teenager when WWII broke out in the UK and remember rationing
well.
> >My mother used to spend much of her day lining up at the various shops,
> >trying to get the rations (and often unsuccessfully). It's hard now to
> >believe what we were allowed - and I question your statement about the
> >guidelines, since often food was unavailable. Here's the list of
rations,
> >which continued for years after the war ended:
> >The things still rationed in 1948, three years after the war, we
> > Bacon and Ham 2 oz. (57 gm) per person a fortnight
> > Cheese 1½ oz. (43 gm) a week
> > Butter/margarine 7 oz. (198 gm) a week
> > Cooking fats 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
> > Meat 1s. (5p) worth a week
> > Sugar 8 oz. (227 gm) a week
> > Tea 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
> > Chocolates and sweets 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
> > Eggs No fixed ration: 1 egg for each ration book when available
> > Liquid milk 3 pints a week
> > Preserves 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
> > Points-rationed Foods 4 points per week
> >
> >Bread, soap, bananas, and potatoes were also rationed during this period.
In
> >1951 people could still buy only 10d. (4p) worth of meat each week.
> >
> >Two new commodities were rationed after the war. Bread was rationed from
> >1946 to 1948 and potatoes for a year from 1947. The points system ended
in
> >1950.
> >
> >Rationing continued in this country for 14 years until 1954, when meat
was
> >finally derationed.
>
> G'day Dora,
>
> Where did people get the idea it's only young geeks who use "the
> Internet" and computers generally? ;-) But moving on...
>
> Your mention of the butter allowance intrigued me. At boarding school
> here in Oz in the 50s we were allowed 4 oz of butter per table of ten
> per meal -- pre-cut into 10 *very* unequal portions in the kitchen,
> hence the need for a strict rotation of choice from meal to meal. :-)
> Working from that 0.4 oz/head/meal to 8.4 oz/week it seems even we
> internees did rather better than your 7 oz/week. :-)
>
> Of course Australia obviously fared much better than Pommieland in
> WWII from the food POV and I seem to recall food parcels commonly
> being sent from here to relatives over there -- including tales of
> gratitude expressed for "that lovely spice". (Grandpa's ashes.
>


IIRC from my reading one of the reasons that food was still rationed for so
long in the UK was that Britain made a big effort to export foodstuffs
abroad to earn much - needed "hard currency" as Britain was so broke from
the war. AFAIK this was true for other UK industries, e.g. motor, etc...

IIRC Sterling currency controls were so strict that it wasn't until the mid
50's or so that ordinary Britons were allowed to travel abroad for frivolous
things like holidays. Until then Britons were severely limited in the
amount of sterling they could carry overseas, convert into other currencies,
etc....

--
Best
Greg

Grandma's Wartime Kitchen: World War II and the Way We Cooked by
Joanne Lamb Hayes is a very interesting and fun read about rationing
in the United States. For anyone who likes to read children's
literature, the Moffat family books by Eleanor Estes are just lovely
and they reference food rationing in the U.S. The family grew a
victory garden and mixed yellow food coloring into the margarine. The
victory garden chapter (I think it is in the Rufus M. book) is so
sweet.

Tara

OT: I had the pleasure and privilege of hearing a storyteller tell
from memory the "library lady" chapter from Rufus M. She also taught
an easy story to retell and teach to elementary age children. I teach
it to my kids each year and I hope they teach it on from there.

In article >, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>"Phred" > wrote
>
>> here in Oz in the 50s we were allowed 4 oz of butter per table of ten
>> per meal -- pre-cut into 10 *very* unequal portions in the kitchen,
>> hence the need for a strict rotation of choice from meal to meal. :-)
>
>The trick is that the person who cuts the butter gets last
>pick of the slices. You will never see more even pats.

I like it! :-) However, in our case at boarding school the kitchen
"maids" did the duty before the stuff got put on the table; and I
imagine they thought it terribly funny to cut it as unevenly as
possible and still end up with exactly 10 pieces for the students to
squabble over.

And in answer to a comment Dora made: No, our "butter rationing" had
more to do with the pecuniary attitude of the C-of-E, which fine
institution ran the place in the days before "Anglican" and
eucamenism. :-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

In article t>,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>Phred wrote:
>> In article <cF%zh.3028$7s2.390@trndny07>, "limey" >
>> wrote from Pommieland:
[snip]
>> >The things still rationed in 1948, three years after the war, we
[snipped list]
>> >In 1951 people could still buy only 10d. (4p) worth of meat each week.
>> >Two new commodities were rationed after the war. Bread was rationed from
>> >1946 to 1948 and potatoes for a year from 1947. The points system ended
>> >in 1950.
>> >
>> >Rationing continued in this country for 14 years until 1954, when meat
>> >was finally derationed.
[More snipping]
>> Of course Australia obviously fared much better than Pommieland in
>> WWII from the food POV and I seem to recall food parcels commonly
>> being sent from here to relatives over there [...]
>
>IIRC from my reading one of the reasons that food was still rationed for so
>long in the UK was that Britain made a big effort to export foodstuffs
>abroad to earn much - needed "hard currency" as Britain was so broke from
>the war. AFAIK this was true for other UK industries, e.g. motor, etc...
>
>IIRC Sterling currency controls were so strict that it wasn't until the mid
>50's or so that ordinary Britons were allowed to travel abroad for frivolous
>things like holidays. Until then Britons were severely limited in the
>amount of sterling they could carry overseas, convert into other currencies,
>etc....

Australians were also limited in the amount of cash they could take
out of the country and had to get a clearance from the Tax Office
before they could leave the place anyway. But that didn't stop the
girls flocking off to see the "Mother Country" for a Grand Tour of
a year or two through the 50s at least. (Don't know if many "did
Europe" as well in those days though.)

It was so common it was a bit of a joke in the small country town
where I grew up. Both sexes typically left school at 14, after the
"scholarship" exam at the end of primary school -- only the cities had
State high schools, so secondary education meant boarding school for
about half the population in Queensland. Girls then went into
clerical work in banks, govt departments, and general businesses; boys
went laboring or took up a five year apprenticeship.

Then, in their late teens, the girls flocked off to the UK for a
couple of years, leaving the boys at work at home. On their return
they looked up former boyfriends, got married, and started a family.
The boys thus never got the opportunity to see foreign places and were
lucky to leave town at all before death did them separate.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

In article <9UkAh.3262$5M1.1294@trndny01>, "limey"
> wrote:
>"Phred" wrote
> >"limey" wrote:
>>>>
>>>I was a teenager when WWII broke out in the UK and remember rationing
>>>well.
>>>My mother used to spend much of her day lining up at the various shops,
>>>trying to get the rations (and often unsuccessfully). It's hard now to
>>>believe what we were allowed - and I question your statement about the
>>>guidelines, since often food was unavailable. Here's the list of rations,
>>>which continued for years after the war ended:
>>>The things still rationed in 1948, three years after the war, we
>>> Bacon and Ham 2 oz. (57 gm) per person a fortnight
>>> Cheese 1½ oz. (43 gm) a week
>>> Butter/margarine 7 oz. (198 gm) a week
>>> Cooking fats 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
>>> Meat 1s. (5p) worth a week
>>> Sugar 8 oz. (227 gm) a week
>>> Tea 2 oz. (57 gm) a week
>>> Chocolates and sweets 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
>>> Eggs No fixed ration: 1 egg for each ration book when available
>>> Liquid milk 3 pints a week
>>> Preserves 4 oz. (113 gm) a week
>>> Points-rationed Foods 4 points per week
>>
>> G'day Dora,
>>
>> Where did people get the idea it's only young geeks who use "the
>> Internet" and computers generally? ;-)
>
>Heck, I'm on my second time around!!
>
> But moving on...
>>
>> Your mention of the butter allowance intrigued me. At boarding school
>> here in Oz in the 50s we were allowed 4 oz of butter per table of ten
>> per meal -- pre-cut into 10 *very* unequal portions in the kitchen,
>> hence the need for a strict rotation of choice from meal to meal. :-)
>> Working from that 0.4 oz/head/meal to 8.4 oz/week it seems even we
>> internees did rather better than your 7 oz/week. :-)
>
>I'm amazed - were things in short supply in Oz during the Fifties?

[No, I've misled you there somehow. See previous response tonight.]

>> Of course Australia obviously fared much better than Pommieland in
>> WWII from the food POV and I seem to recall food parcels commonly
>> being sent from here to relatives over there -- including tales of
>> gratitude expressed for "that lovely spice". (Grandpa's ashes.
>
>Oh, dear.

:-)

>G'day, Phred!! I'm glad to hear you weren't as restricted as we were. It
>wasn't fun. Actually, during the war itself I seem to remember that the fat
>ration was only 5 ounces - one ounce of butter, two of that ghastly
>margarine, and two of cooking fat.

"Ghastly margarine"? Here in Oz when I was a kid we had "table
margarine" and another ("cooking margarine" IIRC). Even as a teenager
in the 50s, our table margarine was almost indistinguishable from real
butter. The only diagnostic I can recall was that when you took a
thin vertical slice of the chilled product, the margarine tended to
crack ever so slightly horizontally whereas butter didn't.

My father used to tell of the time when he was growing up in Nambour
in SE Qld (this would have been pre-First World War) and a block of
margarine took out first prize for butter in the dairy exhibit at the
annual agricultural show. Even better than the famous Fine Cotton
affair here in Oz some years ago! :-) [That was a racing ring-in.]

At some stage, margarine became an engineered product very unlike
butter by being given its ability to spread easily while cold. (Just
bloody grease really, and made from the cheapest oil source available
at any given time -- mostly palm oil I suspect, as far as we are
concerned here.)

We also had "peanut butter" when I was a child, but the dairy industry
got itself organised politically and banned the term -- hence "paste".

>The thing I remember the most was "one egg per person, per week:" I stood
>in line for my mother to get our week's ration of three - in front of me was
>a young woman who held out her "week's ration" of one egg - which had a
>green, about fully-developed chick, and asked for a replacement.
>The grocer said, "you've had your ration."
>
>Yes, everyone was pretty skinny, I recall,

Several years ago my old primary school celebrated its centenary
(that's pretty old here in the deep north of the deep south -- not
like your Pommie antiquarian establihments . They put out a
booklet, naturally, including photos of various prep classes over the
years. My year looked like the bunch of impoverished (but happy
urchins that we were -- a ragtag assembly of skinny kids in bare feet
and hand-me-down clothes in the mid 40s.

I must say I don't know why we were all so skinny. Good god, we
always had dessert with dinner even! (Dinner = steak + 3 veg, with
occasional variation such as roasts, stews, shepherd's pie, chook, and
fish when we managed to catch some.)

>but perhaps all the better for it. I wouldn't want to go back to those
>days to find out, though! So long ago, yet we still remember.

At least we could have a decent bonfire and *crackers* to celebrate
Guy Fawkes day when I was a kid. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> IIRC from my reading one of the reasons that food was still rationed for
> so
> long in the UK was that Britain made a big effort to export foodstuffs
> abroad to earn much - needed "hard currency" as Britain was so broke from
> the war. AFAIK this was true for other UK industries, e.g. motor, etc...

I would be amazed if Great Britain exported foodstuffs abroad to earn "hard
currency". Remember, at that time the population was about 40 million on
a comparatively small island, with 7 or 8 million or so concentrated in and
around London. Before the war, a great deal of food had to be imported -
butter, eggs, etc., from Denmark, beef from Argentina, lamb from New
Zealand, peaches and other warm-weather fruits from Mediterranean countries,
Jaffa oranges from Africa, etc. Spanish men would come from home and tour
our neighbourhood, selling their sweet onions. Naturally, all that stopped.
I'm not sure what we could have exported in the way of food. I do remember
that there was an enormous industrial push on to export hard goods. The
feeling was that the once-respected "Made in England" stamp on goods would
insure market demand and give us a quicker chance of recovery. It wasn't
that easy.

You asked about the "black market". I don't recall that it was active but
perhaps it went on to some extent (I don't know where they would have found
the food?). Some things weren't rationed - e.g., rabbit. I don't remember
about fish, but then all able-bodied men were in the various services and
the women certainly weren't up to tackling fishing in the unforgiving North
Sea. Also, many people had gardens, or "allotments", and raised
vegetables. Dad had chickens and could get feed for them. It was usual
for him to swap coveted eggs for coveted vegetables; e.g., onions, which
were hard to get. People learned to be ingenious that way - survival does
that!


> IIRC Sterling currency controls were so strict that it wasn't until the
> mid
> 50's or so that ordinary Britons were allowed to travel abroad for
> frivolous
> things like holidays. Until then Britons were severely limited in the
> amount of sterling they could carry overseas, convert into other
> currencies,
> etc....
>

Yes, there was a freeze on taking money out of the country. My parents
finally joined me in the US in the Fifties and had to wait several years to
have their funds from savings and the sale of our house transferred here.

Dora