Is Lizzie Velasquez as ugly as Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg? If either Mark or Bill were women, men all over the world (and some women) would be falling all over themselves to tell us how ugly they are but since Gates and Zuckerberg are guys, we never mention the fact those guys are damn ugly. We, instead, ignore their appearance because they are rich and will apparently have lots of breeding options with beautiful women because women are that shallow.
Of course there are some women out there who will marry men because the men are rich. But presumably rich men have other qualities too, like intelligence, and they like/love the woman they are marrying, presumably, right? (As Jane Austen says in Pride & Prejudice, "There is so much of gratitude or vanity in almost every attachment... but there are very few of us who have heart enough to be really in love without encouragement". In other words, we fall in love with those who fall in love with us.) But I am more impressed with the women who marry intelligent and kind men who make great companions rather than men who spend all their time chasing money.
When Newt Gingrich was still in the presidential race, I would say he was one truly ugly guy and men were astonished when I'd say something so shallow - yet men are seldom reluctant to mention women's appearance. Double standards much? Lets face it, Gingrich is really ugly and not just his appearance. However his appearance wasn't the subject of conversation, or if it was it was couched in other ways, like he was ugly all the way through, however Michelle Bachmann's was. Bachmann was not presidential material because of her inability to separate church from state so her polices were bad. Nevertheless her policies were seldom mentioned, yet references to her appearance were constant. There was nothing truly repulsive about Bachmanns appearance yet everyone focused their objections on her shoes or her "crazy" eyes (because enough photos were taken of her to find one had to belie something 'terrible' about her).
Its the perpetual comments on women's appearance that bother me, and especially by women. No doubt appearance is first and foremost a statement of a woman's genetic material. The better looking a woman is, the better her genes are likely to be and give the best indication of how good looking her offspring will be; hence the off-springs survival rate increases as their looks improve.
This gives me the impression all men are really doing when choosing a mate is selecting between different genetic material because a woman's purpose remains the same. Women's lives are mapped out for them and there is no choice. They find a partner, pretty much purely on the strength of their appearance, then they give birth. Assuming they survive the birthing process, they then go on to raise their kids. But in the end, women are pretty much interchangeable when it comes to raising kids, we raise children according to society's standards.
When women go around bemoaning another woman's appearance they are going along with this. We are constantly admonished never to judge a book by its cover but whenever we reduce a woman to merely her appearance, we are saying that all a woman is her breeding potential.
Men get to do something with their lives despite their appearance. Each man gets to make choices about his life. They get to do, make and achieve stuff. We see men overcoming obstacles and occupy pretty much every position in society. We keep an open mind about men because we know men can be good and bad and be of benefit or a detriment.
While I am the first to say the most important role in society is being a mother, women have a brain and they can use it. Women have the right choose to have children or not. They are entitled to make the same choices as men.
Of course there are some women out there who will marry men because the men are rich. But presumably rich men have other qualities too, like intelligence, and they like/love the woman they are marrying, presumably, right? (As Jane Austen says in Pride & Prejudice, "There is so much of gratitude or vanity in almost every attachment... but there are very few of us who have heart enough to be really in love without encouragement". In other words, we fall in love with those who fall in love with us.) But I am more impressed with the women who marry intelligent and kind men who make great companions rather than men who spend all their time chasing money.
When Newt Gingrich was still in the presidential race, I would say he was one truly ugly guy and men were astonished when I'd say something so shallow - yet men are seldom reluctant to mention women's appearance. Double standards much? Lets face it, Gingrich is really ugly and not just his appearance. However his appearance wasn't the subject of conversation, or if it was it was couched in other ways, like he was ugly all the way through, however Michelle Bachmann's was. Bachmann was not presidential material because of her inability to separate church from state so her polices were bad. Nevertheless her policies were seldom mentioned, yet references to her appearance were constant. There was nothing truly repulsive about Bachmanns appearance yet everyone focused their objections on her shoes or her "crazy" eyes (because enough photos were taken of her to find one had to belie something 'terrible' about her).
Its the perpetual comments on women's appearance that bother me, and especially by women. No doubt appearance is first and foremost a statement of a woman's genetic material. The better looking a woman is, the better her genes are likely to be and give the best indication of how good looking her offspring will be; hence the off-springs survival rate increases as their looks improve.
This gives me the impression all men are really doing when choosing a mate is selecting between different genetic material because a woman's purpose remains the same. Women's lives are mapped out for them and there is no choice. They find a partner, pretty much purely on the strength of their appearance, then they give birth. Assuming they survive the birthing process, they then go on to raise their kids. But in the end, women are pretty much interchangeable when it comes to raising kids, we raise children according to society's standards.
When women go around bemoaning another woman's appearance they are going along with this. We are constantly admonished never to judge a book by its cover but whenever we reduce a woman to merely her appearance, we are saying that all a woman is her breeding potential.
Men get to do something with their lives despite their appearance. Each man gets to make choices about his life. They get to do, make and achieve stuff. We see men overcoming obstacles and occupy pretty much every position in society. We keep an open mind about men because we know men can be good and bad and be of benefit or a detriment.
While I am the first to say the most important role in society is being a mother, women have a brain and they can use it. Women have the right choose to have children or not. They are entitled to make the same choices as men.
RSS Feed
