`
None of what you said changes the fact that taste is subjective.
‘almost universal’ doesn’t = objectively true.
I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that what has been considered ‘attractive’ has varied quite a bit throughout the course of history. Attractiveness and what informs it is a pretty complex issue. `
Of course, things change all the time. I am the last person who would think that what the Bible, your Founding Fathers, or your constitution say are true for all the times. Five million years ago men were probably attracted to big swollen vaginas like the ones we see today in the chimps. So what?
Like atheism, there are far, far more feminists than you know. Not every feminist is shouting from the rooftops, some are quietly working to make things better.
Why do men make attractiveness the bottom line for women, when men are never treated this way?
Attractiveness is subjective. If I lined up 100 women (or men), I have no doubt that you and I would have NO agreement on the 10 most attractive. And, what does your subjective assessment of attractiveness have to do with feminism? Nothing.
It’s probably the other way around, that unattractive women and/or lesbians are likely to become hardcore feminists.
If a straight woman is very ugly, then she is out of luck in regards to sex, and by extension, men and children. Some of the values of feminism will seem attractive, and necessary to her. Lesbians don’t need to have anything to do with men, so their whole existence revolves around feminism in some form or another.
It’s probably the other way around, that unattractive women and/or lesbians are likely to become hardcore feminists.
If a straight woman is very ugly, then she is out of luck in regards to sex, and by extension, men and children. Some of the values of feminism will seem attractive, and necessary to her. Lesbians don’t need to have anything to do with men, so their whole existence revolves around feminism in some form or another.
No, more like you justdon’t notice the beautiful feminists, and carry around a stereotype in your mind. A doctor I once worked with 30 years ago asked me why there were so many ugly black women. After I picked my jaw up off the ground, I countered that there were just as many ugly white women(he was white), but he just didn’t ‘see’ them. He was unfortunate to disagree with me, and I spent the next year pointing out every homely white woman walking by until he cried ‘uncle’.
I counter that you look at the ‘other’ attributes of beautiful women and forget/overlook that they are also feminists.
It’s probably the other way around, that unattractive women and/or lesbians are likely to become hardcore feminists.
If a straight woman is very ugly, then she is out of luck in regards to sex, and by extension, men and children. Some of the values of feminism will seem attractive, and necessary to her. Lesbians don’t need to have anything to do with men, so their whole existence revolves around feminism in some form or another.
No, more like you justdon’t notice the beautiful feminists, and carry around a stereotype in your mind. A doctor I once worked with 30 years ago asked me why there were so many ugly black women. After I picked my jaw up off the ground, I countered that there were just as many ugly white women(he was white), but he just didn’t ‘see’ them. He was unfortunate to disagree with me, and I spent the next year pointing out every homely white woman walking by until he cried ‘uncle’.
I counter that you look at the ‘other’ attributes of beautiful women and forget/overlook that they are also feminists.
Not really, I didn’t say there are no attractive feminists, but the most extreme feminists are overwhelmingly physically unattractive to men; Andrea Dworkin and Susan Sontag are two examples that come to mind. My thesis is that their radicalism is a result of that un - attractiveness and/or lesbianism.
Naomi Klein is an example of a good looking feminist, but she is not a radical feminist.
`
None of what you said changes the fact that taste is subjective.
‘almost universal’ doesn’t = objectively true.
I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that what has been considered ‘attractive’ has varied quite a bit throughout the course of history. Attractiveness and what informs it is a pretty complex issue. `
It’s well established by biology that there are certain physical features that are considered attractive across the board.
Facial symmetry, and physical fitness are two examples.
If I lined up 100 women (or men), I have no doubt that you and I would have NO agreement on the 10 most attractive.
Maybe. You could be a mutant with a weird taste. I, OTOH, have to able to understand what my client means by an attractive or “not too atractive” model when I hire one. If I didn’t know what makes people tick, or if there wasn’t some nearly universal preference in taste among the public, I couldn’t do my job.
It’s probably the other way around, that unattractive women and/or lesbians are likely to become hardcore feminists.
If a straight woman is very ugly, then she is out of luck in regards to sex, and by extension, men and children. Some of the values of feminism will seem attractive, and necessary to her. Lesbians don’t need to have anything to do with men, so their whole existence revolves around feminism in some form or another.
Who defines attractive? One person’s view of attractive is another person’s view of unattractive.
If I lined up 100 women (or men), I have no doubt that you and I would have NO agreement on the 10 most attractive.
Maybe. You could be a mutant with a weird taste. I, OTOH, have to able to understand what my client means by an attractive or “not too atractive” model when I hire one. If I didn’t know what makes people tick, or if there wasn’t some nearly universal preference in taste among the public, I couldn’t do my job.
The thing is, you don’t know what makes all people tick.
If I lined up 100 women (or men), I have no doubt that you and I would have NO agreement on the 10 most attractive.
Maybe. You could be a mutant with a weird taste. I, OTOH, have to able to understand what my client means by an attractive or “not too atractive” model when I hire one. If I didn’t know what makes people tick, or if there wasn’t some nearly universal preference in taste among the public, I couldn’t do my job.
Perhaps it means that you understand your clients (a specific group). But what would your clients want in certain parts of Africa and Asia?
Personally I find it elegant. Like swans.
`
‘Radical’ anythings tend to be seen as ‘unattractive’ by many/most.
The Unabomber…..marc lepine (the Canadian loonie who murdered 12 female engineering students because he found them ‘threatening’)......Timothy McVeigh…........Valerie Solanas…...
which still leaves the question: did they become ‘radical’ because they were unattractive, or vice versa?
