Killing Us Softly part 2 of 4

“feminism is about … supplanting feminist values.” Way to sound like a moron (again). So feminism is about superseding feminist values? lol
“I have a deeper connection to truth and honesty, not acceptance amongst groups of feminist demogogues and intellectual frauds. ”
are you saying that the scientific consensus on the question is somehow based on demagoguery and fraud? that seems unlikely to me. or maybe there’s a feminist conspiracy in academia? lol.
you’re a bigot, just admit it already.

I’m not going to explain why you’re wrong about anthropology or biology. Nothing you’ve written about science makes sense.

What do you do for a living? I work at a University doing science studies. Doesn’t make me right, but you should know that I’m not bothering with amateur hour psuedo science here. You can go read the relevant stuff on your own.

I’m getting bored with this.

What’s especially puzzling is that you seem to be equating individualism with consumer culture. Or something. Feminists are irritated because mass media presents a very narrow view of beauty in the media (which is the opposite of individualism), and you complain that they are conformist.

I have a deeper connection to truth and honesty, not acceptance amongst groups of feminist demogogues and intellectual frauds. Feminism itself is much like the church of the 21st century in the vein that it demands absolute piety, it is an entirely self-appointed body that interludes in the academic sphere, adopts fundamentalism, requires censorship to enforce and harbours collectivized contempt of the individual. Your move, Mr. Jones.

Just as silkworm is more appealing when weighed against moss, fat women are more appealing than women with vultures swarming around their heads. Anthrolopogy is the organization of human beings formed by a multitude of choices. Feminism is about eliminating those choices and supplanting feminist values.

Social scientists and anthropologists pretty much agree with everything this lady is saying about why we are attracted to certain body types.

You might say “well they are all biased by the feminst blahblahblah,” and that is your right. But since you aren’t really a qualified member of those communities of scientists, your opinion doesn’t really hold much weight. Academia (despite what you may believe) is very competitive. Put up or shut up. Go get a PhD and disprove all this stuff.

@professorfoxtrot

Do you know anything about comparative anthropology? In some parts of the world, very fat women are though to be the hottest. Research has shown that an apple, rather than a pear, body shape correlates to slightly higher fertility. Evolution does not recognize “good breeding” as a motivation for sex.

lol no. men aren’t leaving poorer countries because they can’t afford to first of all. and they have families there, and there are limits on immigration. it’s not like all of the men in developing states are suddenly going to go to the first world in some sort of mass exodus. what i was saying is culturally-specific anyway, it does not apply on a global scale. moron.

I should have clarified why men weren’t leaving their countries to elevate their status by marrying women in first world countries. The answer draws on the obvious conclusion that it is women, not men who marry for the purpose of increasing their social status. Men mate for sexual attraction and no matter how much spin feminists use to make lazy, unkempt fat people sexy, there will fall flat on their faces. Fat people typically marry other fat people and there’s nothing wrong with that.

mmm i think you’re oversimplifying a bit. just because people have sex more often in developing states (and i’d be curious to see their methodology – i’m skeptical) that doesn’t disprove what i said. what you said doesn’t invalidate what i said. what does frequency of having sex have to do with whether relationships are meant to elevate social status? and ‘several studies’ doesn’t mean anything anyway. does the balance of the evidence point to this trend? or just a few bits and pieces of it?

The red herring in this argument is that you claim I believe that birth rates are sole evidence of higher sex rates. There are several studies that document that fact that sex is more prevalent and practiced at younger ages in developing countries FYI. If women are marrying men for money and financial security men can`t very well be having sex for the sake of elevating their social status. Talk about a catch-22 in your logic!

uhhuh. except that what i’ve already referred to is the accepted consensus in the relevant field of study. you’re welcome to disagree, that doesn’t make you right.
love, relationship, and attraction are about more than hormonal secretions. don’t be so stupidly reductionist.
noone knows whether low-income nations have more sex than high-income nations. that’d be difficult to study. sure, they have higher birth rates, but they have less access to contraceptives. so what? seriously fuzzy logic bud.

@pazomblez I couldn’t disagree more with the last comment. While it may be true for women’s attitudes toward men at least when searching for providers, it does not work the other way around. If you look to the harder sciences like neurochemistry you would understand that homonal secretion is not triggered by how much income someone makes. If this were true, why do low-income nations have more sex than high-income nations?

lol, do you have any evidence to show this? my view is backed by the sociological and anthropological evidence on the topic. look at any first year soc or anthro text and you’ll find confirmation of what i said. what beauty is in a given culture is constructed as are most other aspects of aesthetics.
what IS common to all cultures is that men are attracted to whatever body type indicates higher social status (in a given culture) whether that’s plump or really skinny.

@pazomblez Beauty and sexual attraction somehow biologivall programmed? It is! If you believe that there aren’t logical and biological reasons for desire leading to mating selection and that beauty is doled out based on equity then perhaps it is more complex then you understand it to be. There is also a significant correlation between men who find feminists sexually unattractive which is explains the unnecessary hostility towards men and women’s choices which they interpret oppression.

it’s more complex than you’re making it out to be. advertisers reflect attitudes as well as affecting them as i said before. in other words, they aren’t the only ones who contribute to the social construction of beauty, but they do make a significant contribution to the perpetuation of these constructs.
as for beauty somehow being biologically programmed, that is untrue, as cross-cultural studies show. definitions of beauty are not innate, they’re constructs, like much of the rest of culture.

@pazomblez I don’t think it really constructs them as much as caters to them. Imagine if advertisers tried their hardest to convince people that fat unkempt women were sexy. It would be an absolute failure because as cruel a reality it is, you can’t change innate biological drives that seek good breeding. This offends feminists who seek personal elevation through parity thus by claiming that every woman is beautiful render its definition absolutely meaninglss.

this isn’t a conspiracy theory… she’s saying that advertisers have influence on how people treat women (and men). in other words, advertising plays a role in constructing cultural ideals of beauty and of gender relations. not that they are the only determiners, but they affect social attitudes as much as they reflect them. that isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s actually pretty logical.
look up social constructivism and you might understand it better. she is taking a constructivist approach here.

@pazomblez The main problem with feminists is that they want power but they don’t seem to know where it comes from. They believe men have a hold on power because they’ve worked together to oppress women into having no power which couldn’t be further from the truth. Power comes from an individual and isn’t spontenously generated systemically. Power is created by hard-work often contributed by men who have had to provide for their families only to be spit on by feminists for it.

@pazomblez this woman is a complete wackjob who doesn’t seem to understand that all advertisers always play to people’s ideals (youthful, beautiful, thin) etc. as though she believes she’s actually unveiled a mass conspiracy against women. Advertisers look for what people need and then try to fill that need by associating it with their product. People who actually believe they are victims of advertisers and claim they need to appeal to mediocrity have personal self-esteem issues.

silencing is a key part of objectification and the first step towards abuse and domination, both at an interpersonal level and a systemic level.

she’s referring to somatotype. more specificially ectomorphic or (maybe sometimes) mesomorphic.

this is true but it doesn’t invalidate her point. patriarchy is bad for everyone except those in power (and you could make a case it’s bad for them too, but I digress). it doesn’t just hurt women, it hurts men too. everyone gets objectified; women perhaps more so than men, but in the end everyone loses.

It is the same but from a different perspective. Now if we do onto porn.. then the roles change and women become heavily subordinate. But in pop culture men are sexualized just as much as women.

You’re asking me if the Jonas Brothers are portrayed as weak? Is that a trick question?
Men are increasingly being sexualized just as women are. The different is in what gender specific molds society wishes to create. To be more specific we don’t know who we truly are. We have been engineered (socially) into certain roles and those roles change as the times change. Men are sexualized nearly as often as women these days.