[osiris]

I never saw what Popeye and Brutus saw in her. She must be a real special womyn that you need to get to know.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Olive Oyl is a womyn.

Real womyn have curves. Tell Wimpy to give that bitch one of his cheese burgers.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

To be fair, I think you may have missed the memo on that one. "Ladies" has been frowned on for a good 20 years.

I need someone to elaborate on this. I've never heard of this.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I need someone to elaborate on this. I've never heard of this.

Yeah, I missed that one too.

I have a tendency to say, "Yes, ma'am," to females of every age. Where does that fall?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

But we buy into chivalry, so we're not really buying into equality in the first place.

I don't buy it all, some of it is too antiquated for modern society. Where the rubber meets the road (for example, beyond salutations and the most rudimentary of social interactions), my expectations are the same for everyone, regardless of gender. for example, I fixed the door opening issue by holding the door open for everyone, not just women. If I get to the door first I'm opening it for you, whether you like it or not.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Easy for a wealthy white male to say.

Makes no difference, it was the same when I was a poor Latino.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Yeah, I missed that one too.

I have a tendency to say, "Yes, ma'am," to females of every age. Where does that fall?

Oh, in today's Progressive, gender-studied First World, it's terribly sexist.

[andi*pandi]

On that one, I don't think so.

For example, I fixed the door opening issue by holding the door open for everyone, not just women. If I get to the door first I'm opening it for you, whether you like it or not.

It's just nice courtesy we all can do for each other.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Yeah, I missed that one too.

I have a tendency to say, "Yes, ma'am," to females of every age. Where does that fall?

As mentioned, it could be regional. If it's used by someone who's not my grandpa, and we're getting to the point where those are dead people, "ladies" means "ladies".

This may have something to do with it:




I've never gotten in trouble for "yes ma'am", though it throws people. "Yessir" doesn't. I say "yessir" in about a 10:1 ratio to "yes ma'am". When I've used "yessir" with the wrong gender, that gets a frown.

I long for the Star Trek future where "Mr. Savvik" is okay, and no one cares I'm wearing a skirt.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by subego 

As mentioned, it could be regional. If it's used by someone who's not my grandpa, and we're getting to the point where those are dead people, "ladies" means "ladies".

There's definitely a regional element to it, as it doesn't throw anyone off here except for the occasional woman between 30-50 who says, "I'm not that old," to which I reply, "Oh, I say it to every female." After that, absolutely zero of them have a problem with it.

When I travel to the northern states, the habit stays with me, and often results in a quizzical eyebrow raise. They usually give me a pass when they hear the accent though.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

As for Trump, his looks have been made fun of for years & we've never heard him complain about it. People dont notice when men are judged by looks because men dont care as much if they're judged by looks. Maybe they do it to womym because they know it will be taken more offensively. People love to push buttons.

Gays, who have to attract other men, are often regarded as a group, to be hyper-obsessed with appearance.

Lesbians, who have to attract other women, are often regarded as a group, to be the least obsessed with appearance.

Why do you think that is? Could it be related to how different genders view how appearance relates to sexual attractiveness differently?

[el chupacabra]

… .

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Lets not forget the primary factor in womyn being judged by looks - other womyn. It's not men pressuring women to spend $7,000 on purse to look good. It's not men judging womyn by how fashionable/expensive their shoes or functionless waist belt are. Many of the very things feminists fight against are things other women enjoy being a part of. There's no shortage of women putting all their heart & labor into being a sex symbol in society.

I'm confused here.

When men as a group are accused of judging women by looks, they're talking about a woman's face and body.

Who's judging purses and belts is a legit discussion, but doesn't speak to the primary factor in women being judged by faces and bodies.

I'd argue this is men. It's an advantageous reproductive strategy for us, so we got hardwired to do it.


(Sorry... I was writing this while you responded to my other post. I'm not ignoring it. )

[el chupacabra]

… .

[subego]

You're not accounting for the single most important difference when it comes to the biology of how men and women choose suitable mates.

To reproduce, a male needs to invest a grand total of about 30 seconds. A woman needs to invest at least 9 months, more like 15 years.

For someone who needs to make a 15 year investment in reproduction, choosing a mate based on looks provides almost zero reproductive advantage. What provides reproductive advantage in this scenario is stability. This is the factor most important for survival of their offspring, and evolution has responded by selecting for women look for this trait.

This is why women as a group don't judge men by appearance as much as they judge themselves: men's appearance isn't really responsible in determining their suitability as a mate, while on the other hand, their own appearance is almost wholly responsible for determining suitability (edit: from a biological standpoint).

You're basically saying "you see how these people who sell products are always insulting their competition and never insulting the clients?"

Why does this construction surprise you to the point you would seek other explanations? That it shows the sellers are all screwed up, while the buyers sit above it all.

Let's take something pertinent to stability, money.

Do men shit talk each other about money? Looking down on those who don't "have enough" or slinging arrows at those who have "too much"?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Do men shit talk each other about money? Looking down on those who don't "have enough" or slinging arrows at those who have "too much"?

Sure.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[subego]

It'll take me forever to address everything at once, so I'm breaking it up into (what I hope are) it's naturally divided pieces.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The 30 sec investment physical is why males arent as picky about looks as females. If his female dies he could potentially have 10 more impregnated. So for him it's a numbers game. Which explains why males have a such a strong lebido. The stong lebido is often confused with the notion that female appearance is most important. Males will mate with just about anything thats fertile.

Allow me to present an alternate hypothesis.

Men are hugely picky about the appearance of who they mate with, but due to the strength of their libido, are willing to settle.

Have you ever gone to the fridge a half dozen times in a row, looking for something to eat? This is exactly the same mechanism. Each time you go back to the fridge, due to the strength of your hunger, you're widening your definition of what makes for suitable food.

When you finally get a slice of bread with ketchup on it, you're polite enough not to call it "****ing nasty" to its face, but you're thinking it, and when a steak comes along you have the "it's not you, it's me" talk.

So you'll mate with this sad sandwich, if and only if there isn't a better option available, and you certainly don't go around behaving like it's your preference, lest it start getting ideas.


Tl;dr

Don't stick it in the sandwich.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The same studies you mentioned about women choosing stability usually also point out how women like to have sex with "the bad boy" and marry the "sensitive stable nice guy" as they say. In other words the survivlal advantage was in mating with the tribal leaders to attain strongest genetics for your cubs while at the same time getting the strongest healthiest males to protect you. Then if you were smart, you'd marry/trick a 'stable' nice guy into to raising 'his kids'.

Until the fairly recent development of civilization, what gave someone the ability to bring stability was aggression. The stable mates were the ones who could kick other people's asses.

From a biological standpoint, being a bad boy is attractive. You're indicating you're someone successful at telling the entire world they can go **** off.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[subego]

Aggression wasn't the perfect term. What I'm trying to describe is better summed up with "the collection of traits which indicate you are dominant".

Telling society to **** off is an assertion of dominance.

More importantly however, with the exception of indicators of health which overlap physical attractiveness, where have you demonstrated women are selecting for it?

Certainly not in the above example. Here are the valuable traits you mentioned.

Intelligence
Strength
Health
Social behavior
Sensitivity
Stability

Physical attractiveness isn't on there. At best you can make a tenuous link to health, but then you're in a chicken and egg situation. Are women selecting for physical attractiveness, or are they selecting for health, which due to the desire to select for it has influenced what is considered physically attractive?

To contrast, men will stick it in the sandwich, but make it abundantly clear what they want is a steak.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[subego]

I'm not trying to be profound. It's a direct challenge to your argument.

Women want someone who is strong, intelligent, and powerful for genetics, and they want the sensitive caretaker to provide. None of these traits are based on physical attractiveness.

Men pretty much want the hottest woman they can get their hands on. All other selections are secondary.

If a man is given the choice of a mate who's ugly and rich, and one who's attractive and poor, which do they select? I can call the results of this experiment with a 90% hit rate.

The reverse? Woman deciding between an ugly rich man, and poor attractive one? Much harder to call accurately, no?

Describe what this mechanism is other than men selecting based on appearance and women selecting for other traits.

[subego]

How often do you see unattractive men with attractive mates?

How often do you see attractive men with unattractive mates?

To me, there's a pretty obvious disparity in the size of these two groups.


How often do women who become really successful trade-in their original mate? How often do men do this?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Hard to call? Not really. I'm not ugly (especially when I clean up), despite some opinions here to the contrary, but seldom get second glances from beautiful women. When they find out my financial bracket? Without hubris, I can say it would be difficult to shoo them away with a flamethrower. I don't fool around, it's deceitful and simply too much work, but when I'm away from home I get 3+ calls per day wondering where I am, what I'm doing, and whom I'm with, despite the fact I've not given them any reason to believe anything untoward is going on. Why? Because when we go out somewhere and women know what I am, I end up with lots phone numbers in my pockets (if not outright cornered and propositioned), whether they're single or married it often makes no difference. I personally don't find it very flattering.

[andi*pandi]

not sure that is a good comparison though. Those women aren't looking for a stable mate, they are looking for expensive don't-tell-my-wife-or-the-media gifts, negative attention, or whatnot.

For both men and women, there isn't enough steak to go around.

There is also the steak, that isn't really steak, for various reasons.

[subego]

Damn vegans!

[osiris]

And those sneaky Lyrans.

[ort888]

Apple catches heat for Photoshopping smile on woman's face - Sep. 9, 2015

The headline on CNN reads... APPLE BLASTED FOR SEXISM

This is some real SJW bullshit right here. I mean, first of all, it was adobe... second of all, I mean, I can sort of understand why this might be something that might get a snide comment... but at the same time, come on. Really? With all the crap going on in the world today, this is what is getting on the front page of CNN.com?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Apple catches heat for Photoshopping smile on woman's face - Sep. 9, 2015

The headline on CNN reads... APPLE BLASTED FOR SEXISM

This is some real SJW bullshit right here. I mean, first of all, it was adobe... second of all, I mean, I can sort of understand why this might be something that might get a snide comment... but at the same time, come on. Really? With all the crap going on in the world today, this is what is getting on the front page of CNN.com?

Tip of the iceberg; to a great many people everything is sexist, and they will bend over backwards to point it all out.

[subego]

@El Chup,

Here's what's baffling be.

As a guy, my personal experience with female appearance is I am unconsciously and involuntarily motivated to be utterly hyper critical of it. It's built into my lizard brain.

I haven't discussed this with tons of guys, but the ones I have describe the same phenomenon, and there are examples of it manifesting all over the place.

I take it this isn't your experience?

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

not sure that is a good comparison though. Those women aren't looking for a stable mate, they are looking for expensive don't-tell-my-wife-or-the-media gifts, negative attention, or whatnot.

For both men and women, there isn't enough steak to go around.

There is also the steak, that isn't really steak, for various reasons.

My money examples have fallen flat. What I'm trying to describe is the seeming disparity between how men and women define what makes a good steak.

For males, as I mention in the post above, we are pretty much involuntarily hyper critical of female appearance. I'd venture my brain is trying to sell me on biological value of having multiple partners, so it built a mechanism wherein I'm always supposed to be dissatisfied on some level.

Females, and believe me, I'd so much prefer to hear your commentary on them as opposed to mine, seem to lack, well... all of that.

As a group, females don't seem involuntarily obsessed with male appearance, and seem to be far less driven to seek multiple partners. It's not like appearance is unimportant, but women don't seem to have the same monkey on their back about it.

To be clear, just like any biological motivation, you can tell it to take a walk. The pair-bonding part of my brain is more advanced, and can override it, but that actually takes effort. The appeal of pair-bonding is in a higher part of my brain. I have to think about it. It doesn't just happen, like the hyper criticism of appearance does.

[residentEvil]

just throwing in another observation; and it might apply to some other points here...or it may not. talking just in sports circles here now:

in K-12, sports teams are referred to as, for example, boys basketball and girls basketball (lets not tangent yet to when there is no girls team, they can try out/play for the boys team). schedules, lockers, etc all put boys or girls in front of whatever is.

in college, sports teams are referred to as, for example again, mens basketball and womens basketball. but yet, lady or ladies is often the women's team nickname/mascot. (lady vols comes to mind quickly).

moving into pro sports, there is a mix of women/lady referring to the team. LPGA = ladies profession golf association. WNBA = womens national basketball association.

so early on, it seems to be a term, used for both sexes, based on age ranges. i guess in high school you are a boy or a girl, but soon as you leave those doors are men and women. and then later, it is whatever acronym makes sense for marketing. most sports then drop the men title, but all the female sports get a variant of lady or women.

i can ignore ALL that, and just say it's all tradition and schools and companies aren't going to go around changing names all over the place. but what irks me, is the sports announcers (both men and women do it), referring to the female athletes as ladies. always. never referred to as just athletes. never just their name. ladies ladies ladies. i hate the sound of it, i hate it more when a male announcer says it. it always comes off condescending or demeaning (and i'm sure it isn't meant that way, i hope).

now i will not follow my own advice, and go with just a small tangent here. i find when someone says "...the lady tennis player Jill did so and so..." (is there a tennis player names Jill? hahaha, just an example) almost as bad as saying "...the black football player Bill did so and so...".

both need to stop. just say Jill or Bill, the person watching knows you are talking about tennis and she is a woman; as much as the same person watching knows you are talking about football and he his black. both piss me off. and many times, i will actually stop watching, or mute, because of these announcers/commentators.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

not sure that is a good comparison though. Those women aren't looking for a stable mate, they are looking for expensive don't-tell-my-wife-or-the-media gifts, negative attention, or whatnot.

Oh, they're looking for mates, most of them, or to trade-up on their current mate, how stable that would be is left up to speculation. However, I firmly believe in the old axiom: if they'll leave their partner for you, given an opportunity, they'll absolutely leave you for someone else. It's biological imperative, find the best provider who gives their offspring the greatest chance for social success.

[The Final Dakar]

For subego: OK Cupid stats

[subego]

There's a chicken and egg thing here, too...

People can be selecting for youth, which happens to overlap and influence what we consider beauty.

Likewise, selecting for youth has obvious biological advantages for a male. Baby factory has a longer lease. Selecting for beauty seems not as apparently useful.

[subego]

Though I posit it has an important use, otherwise it wouldn't have made it into such pervasive, low level code of the male brain.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's a chicken and egg thing here, too...

People can be selecting for youth, which happens to overlap and influence what we consider beauty.

Likewise, selecting for youth has obvious biological advantages for a male. Baby factory has a longer lease. Selecting for beauty seems not as apparently useful.

It's in the title: Age of x that look best


i.e., attractiveness, beauty

The real question is do men equate youth with attractiveness because of its possible inferences on the fertility, healthiness, or longevity

[subego]

That's what I'm saying.

If people are selecting for age, what looks best will be youth.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's what I'm saying.

If people are selecting for age, what looks best will be youth.

You mean if people are selecting for looks, youth wins. But not to women.

[subego]

I'm saying what defines beauty is based on what people are designed to select for.

Since men (IMO) are designed to select for youth, youth is beauty.

Since women aren't designed to select for youth (again, IMO), youth isn't nearly as much of a component to how they define beauty.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm saying what defines beauty is based on what people are designed to select for.

Since men (IMO) are designed to select for youth, youth is beauty.

Since women aren't designed to select for youth (again, IMO), youth isn't nearly as much of a component to how they define beauty.

This is turning into semantics hell, so I'll pile on.

Men aren't designed to select for youth, they're designed to select for the mate best suited for procreating and raising offspring. Which skews towards the young.

Woman looking for the best possible mate don't factor in youth but what they can provide. Its interesting that when they're young in skews slightly older til it hits a sweet spot, then skews younger again. I wouldn't be surprised if this correlated with RL male job-fitness/achievement somehow.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Men aren't designed to select for youth, they're designed to select for the mate best suited for procreating and raising offspring. Which skews towards the young.

I could be wrong, but I don't think our programming works on that abstract a level. We select for easily identifiable, discrete traits, like youth and compassion.

The bundle of individual traits men select for adds up to someone who fits the profile of procreating and raising offspring.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Apple catches heat for Photoshopping smile on woman's face - Sep. 9, 2015

The headline on CNN reads... APPLE BLASTED FOR SEXISM

This is some real SJW bullshit right here. I mean, first of all, it was adobe... second of all, I mean, I can sort of understand why this might be something that might get a snide comment... but at the same time, come on. Really? With all the crap going on in the world today, this is what is getting on the front page of CNN.com?

For those of us who live in the less densely populated areas of the country it's quite normal to not see this as that big of a deal. But for those women who live in major urban areas ... which happens to be were most major media outlets are based ... street harassment is a daily reality for a lot of them. Situations that can range from them being annoyed all the way to being fearful for their personal safety. So given that context I can understand why it's an issue for some women when they are constantly being asked to "smile" by strange men on the streets. And for some women to see a man representing an overwhelmingly male corporation in an industry renowned for its lack of gender diversity "fix" a woman's appearance in Photoshop solely for his own personal benefit ....

I'm not quite happy with the model's smile, I'd like her to have a liiittle bit more of a smile, so let's fix that.

... is just yet another a reminder of how they are constantly being demanded to "fix" their appearance on the streets for the consumption of strange men. Again ... being a male who doesn't live in a major urban area ... a year or so ago I would have been fairly dismissive of this as well. But one of the great things about social media platforms like Twitter is that it allows you to easily interact with people from all walks of life. Suffice it say that engaging in conversations with women who live in those environments and actually listening to them describe their personal experiences with street harassment was quite illuminating. So was the media reaction overblown? Perhaps. But personally I wouldn't be so quick to label it "SJW bullshit" either. At a minimum it was a pretty tone-deaf thing to do in the context of all the scrutiny the tech industry is under with respect to diversity issues nowadays.

OAW

[andi*pandi]

Saw it in the keynote and didn't think anything of it, so I was surprised to see the link above. It's not like they made her boobs bigger or any of the other photoshop atrocities that happen on a daily basis for advertising or movie posters. Just a tweak of a rather mona lisa smile. Could have been a male model and done the same. (I was annoyed by how easy they made the edit look, in this oh-too-perfect situation, when I myself find myself more often having to do something complex. Never as easy as the demo!</rant>)

I can see how this might be a trigger for some who've been asked to smile by creepy strangers, but it's a reach to blame a company for being tone-deaf, I think. Again, so many more egregious and purposeful attacks exist.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[OAW]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I can see how this might be a trigger for some who've been asked to smile by creepy strangers, but it's a reach to blame a company for being tone-deaf, I think. Again, so many more egregious and purposeful attacks exist.

I'm not really disagreeing per se. I think it was indeed very innocuous in its intent. My main point is that given the criticisms that the tech industry is undergoing with respect to gender diversity ... which, for the record, a lot of which I think are unfair on the same grounds that I think a lot of the racial diversity criticisms are unfair ... if there were more female voices at the table that just might have provided an opportunity to give the organization reason for pause. I put this on the level of those cringe worthy tampon commercials where it's pretty obvious no women were on the advertising team. Or those commercials where the company is attempting to reach the African-American demographic but it's quite clear the spots were written by white prople based upon how they think ordinary, everyday black people talk as a result of media representations created by other white people. Definitely not "egregious and purposeful attacks" I agree. But noteworthy in their "insensitivity and/or ignorance" nonetheless IMO.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Saw it in the keynote and didn't think anything of it, so I was surprised to see the link above.

Because there's nothing to think of it, it's simply more social justice idiocy, people looking for ways to stand out and get attention.

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm definitely not hyper-critical of women's appearance. I don't really consider myself critical at all. I have my preferences and limits, but I don't criticise anyone for falling outside them.

Men certainly appear to be horribly shallow. A question that in no way helps this idea is "What type of women do you go for?"
I would answer this with something like "I like smart women with a dry sense of humour;" and then prattle on for a while in more detail. For some reason we continue to allow most men to get away with simply picking a hair colour.

While many men act hyper critical of womens appearance, the women they take home are rarely equivalent to the supermodels they find fault with;

Women have a reputation for looking past looks and going for personality, but a lot of this seems to be based on the notion that very attractive men always hold out for very attractive women, but the reverse is less true. This isn't terribly fair because while attractiveness is more influenced by factors beyond looks, power and particularly wealth are no less shallow traits to select for. I'd suggest wealth explains an awful lot of the inequalities in physical attractiveness in these couples that are being referred to.

Men are called shallow because they often behave very foolishly in the pursuit of a woman if they think they have a good chance. Women criticise this inability to control ourselves but when they get horny, they don't have to work hard at all to find a willing partner. On the other hand if they are horny and are chasing a man they find very very attractive, their behaviour is every bit as pathetic as ours. So the truth is that they are no better at controlling their urges, they just don't have to control them as much/often.

Basically we are all shallow.