DiscussMormonism.com

I've noticed over the past several days that it is extremely common for people to attack a woman's physical looks or sexual desirability.

I don't see this happen against men in the same way. I do see their sexuality questioned, but not their physical looks or sexual desirability. (that can be a different thread)

I have noticed this in threads where we have posted pictures. Threads that were intended to focus on the clothing ended up focusing on the sexual desirability of the woman.

I've also noticed that feminists are regularly attacked for their physical appearance and sexual desirability.

Why is that? Why is it that instead of hearing the message the woman is delivering she is attacked for not conforming to gender norms or not being "pretty" enough?

I think it is because of the screwed up way we value women *generally* in this society. Insulting her looks is the last resort for stupid people who can't formulate a real response to feminism. And I mean really, who the hell is opposed to feminism??? God forbid a woman earn equal pay for equal work.

We oversexualize women and teach our young women that their value is equal to how well they can trend on Twitter based on their outfits.

If this question isn't just rhetorical, then I think a good answer is evolution. Evolutionarily speaking, women compete to attract the strongest, most capable and suitable males, and men compete to present the image to women that they are the most capable of supporting children.

Should there be more thought involved in our interpersonal relations? One would certainly hope so. But the genetic wiring shows through when viewed from the bird's eye point of view. This is one consequence of that.

We are parochial pigs. All of us, independent of gender, have certain triggers that we view as more desirable. It is our ability to look beyond the superficial that differentiates us.

Sethbag wrote:If this question isn't just rhetorical, then I think a good answer is evolution. Evolutionarily speaking, women compete to attract the strongest, most capable and suitable males, and men compete to present the image to women that they are the most capable of supporting children.

Should there be more thought involved in our interpersonal relations? One would certainly hope so. But the genetic wiring shows through when viewed from the bird's eye point of view. This is one consequence of that.

Well, I don't have time to take this knee-jerk caveman reaction apart. Ugh, sloppy arguments from evolution and that crappy "wiring" metaphor again!

I think justme is mostly reacting to Tarski in another thread. She posted a picture of clothes she liked and Tarski though it necessary to tell us his dick couldn't get hard looking at that photo.

That he didn't think twice about making such a creepy remark has more to do with unspoken cultural male privilege than anything biological. And I think the fact that he apparently believes all men agree with him is part of the same cultural continuum.

To be fair, I also read comments elsewhere about remarks a feminist made recently and a great deal of them criticized her looks saying she was ugly and couldn't get a man, or whatever. Not sure what her looks had to do with her opinions, honestly. It's just sad. Sad, sad, sad.

Blixa wrote:

Sethbag wrote:If this question isn't just rhetorical, then I think a good answer is evolution. Evolutionarily speaking, women compete to attract the strongest, most capable and suitable males, and men compete to present the image to women that they are the most capable of supporting children.

Should there be more thought involved in our interpersonal relations? One would certainly hope so. But the genetic wiring shows through when viewed from the bird's eye point of view. This is one consequence of that.

Well, I don't have time to take this knee-jerk caveman reaction apart. Ugh, sloppy arguments from evolution and that crappy "wiring" metaphor again!

I think justme is mostly reacting to Tarski in another thread. She posted a picture of clothes she liked and Tarski though it necessary to tell us his dick couldn't get hard looking at that photo.

That he didn't think twice about making such a creepy remark has more to do with unspoken cultural male privilege than anything biological. And I think the fact that he apparently believes all men agree with him is part of the same cultural continuum.

If you recall, this was also Will Schryver's favorite tactic when it came to insulting women. He very rarely attacked a female poster's actual post substance. Instead, he would comment about her looks or her sexuality (or lack of).

Frankly, I think it has more to do with the abnormal ego that some men possess. I do think that there may be some truth to Seth's evolution assessment, in the fact that society does, unfortunately, accept that type of behavior as a norm in many circumstances.

Blixa wrote:

Sethbag wrote:If this question isn't just rhetorical, then I think a good answer is evolution. Evolutionarily speaking, women compete to attract the strongest, most capable and suitable males, and men compete to present the image to women that they are the most capable of supporting children.

Should there be more thought involved in our interpersonal relations? One would certainly hope so. But the genetic wiring shows through when viewed from the bird's eye point of view. This is one consequence of that.

Well, I don't have time to take this knee-jerk caveman reaction apart. Ugh, sloppy arguments from evolution and that s****y "wiring" metaphor again!

You'll have to excuse me on this. I just finished listening to Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate", and I've kind of got "human nature" vs. "blank slate" on my mind right now. I believe that our minds are a combination of the two principles: a basic genetic design and wiring diagram, complete with a set of instincts that are innate in us due to our particular genes, shaped and molded by our experiences, the cultural context, our peer groups, our own actions and efforts, etc.

So a man can certainly learn to interact with females (or their images) without reverting straight back to "my dick can't get hard looking at her", but that's not to say a certain impulse toward that sort of thinking isn't included in our genetic evolutionary legacy.

Blixa wrote:I think justme is mostly reacting to Tarski in another thread. She posted a picture of clothes she liked and Tarski though it necessary to tell us his dick couldn't get hard looking at that photo.

That he didn't think twice about making such a creepy remark has more to do with unspoken cultural male privilege than anything biological. And I think the fact that he apparently believes all men agree with him is part of the same cultural continuum.

I agree that seems cavemanish to me too. I just think that men, in general, learn not to do this sort of thing, not that the caveman approach is solely learned.

Why does it make a difference? I don't know, except that some people seem to think that if there is a natural predisposition toward something, acknowledging that is akin to excusing them for their behavior, which I am not doing. We are still thinking and volitional beings, as well as creatures of our genes.

Sethbag wrote:You'll have to excuse me on this. I just finished listening to Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate", and I've kind of got "human nature" vs. "blank slate" on my mind right now. I believe that our minds are a combination of the two principles: a basic genetic design and wiring diagram, complete with a set of instincts that are innate in us due to our particular genes, shaped and molded by our experiences, the cultural context, our peer groups, our own actions and efforts, etc.

So a man can certainly learn to interact with females (or their images) without reverting straight back to "my dick can't get hard looking at her", but that's not to say a certain impulse toward that sort of thinking isn't included in our genetic evolutionary legacy.

Blixa wrote:I think justme is mostly reacting to Tarski in another thread. She posted a picture of clothes she liked and Tarski though it necessary to tell us his dick couldn't get hard looking at that photo.

That he didn't think twice about making such a creepy remark has more to do with unspoken cultural male privilege than anything biological. And I think the fact that he apparently believes all men agree with him is part of the same cultural continuum.

I agree that seems cavemanish to me too. I just think that men, in general, learn not to do this sort of thing, not that the caveman approach is solely learned.

Why does it make a difference? I don't know, except that some people seem to think that if there is a natural predisposition toward something, acknowledging that is akin to excusing them for their behavior, which I am not doing. We are still thinking and volitional beings, as well as creatures of our genes.

Ok then. Reading is good.

edited to add: ...er, listening is good.

edited to add again: I still think that the "hard wired" (which you didn't exactly use) metaphor is one of the worst thought-preventing phrases out there...

liz3564 wrote:
If you recall, this was also Will Schryver's favorite tactic when it came to insulting women. He very rarely attacked a female poster's actual post substance. Instead, he would comment about her looks or her sexuality (or lack of).

bcspace did the same in the thread about women wearing pants to church. Instead of engaging the issue substantively, I suppose it is easier for the cognitively challenged to simply grunt something about the shaving habits of the women involved (as if there is an inverse relationship between armpit hirsuteness and righteousness).