There are some researchers who claim that Naomi Campbell is the world's most beautiful woman scientifically. And there is a respected, liberal newspaper that reports the research. I am sure that the Independent has better stories to tell, considering it is owned neither by Rupert Murdoch nor by Larry Flynt.
Beauty is subjective. The researchers would have probably thought of the Platonic 'form' of beauty, the absolute criteria of beauty to which everything can be compared. Well, this 'standard' of beauty is based on winners of a beauty competition (the article doesn't even mention which country, it is possible that it is a Polish one, considering that the research was conducted by the University of Gdansk). It is so obvious that the concept of beauty depends on culture and is shaped by culture; no matter if you agree with postmodernism or not, we all know that Peruvians or Samoans have different standards of beauty from the Polish or Americans. And it goes without saying that every individual has different views on beauty.
If the research were only flawed and useless I could have just ignored it, but this kind of research on beauty promotes ugly ideas, such as that beauty only stems from physical appearance. 'Beauty' is a deep concept, and it is certainly not something that can be measured by number; the beautiful mind, not pretty face, sexy legs or 19.5% calf girth to height percentage, is the real beauty. I don't think anyone is beautiful unless s/he has a beautiful soul. The ideology behind this research reduces real, living human beings to numbers, things, objects.
This research isn't only targeting women, so it may not be explicitly sexist, but the comment of the leading researcher's "Attractiveness of a woman's body is one of the most important factors in mate selection" is outrageous and outright misogynistic. This poisonous view that women's virtue is attractiveness, and 'unattractive' (from men's point of view, only based on physical appearances) women are not as worth as 'attractive' women, sickens me to the core of my heart. Placing utmost values on physical attractiveness is objectification (it is same for men too, objectification of both women and men is hardly better than objectification of women, but objectification of women is more serious because it is entrenched in the society).
I am annoyed, saddened and exasperated to see that this sort of nonsense is coming out from the academia, which ought to be the beacon of society to guide the public to the path of wisdom and justice, not the servant of the beauty industry. The holy grail of the fashion and beauty industries? Measuring a person's (especially a women's) worth and beauty only by BMI or waist-to-chest-ration is holy? It is nothing more than inane, it is ugly, and nothing less than unholy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I totally agree-and how are people getting "research funding" for this?
One hilarious scientific argument I read once claimed that blonde hair evolved by genetic preference (preferred in women, by men, as the article worded it, and not as a general preference), and therefore that is why blonde hair (on women!) today retains some of that sex appeal. (It likened the blonde hair to the way a bird might choose another bird with fancy plumage).
I thought it was an interesting argument and hey, maybe sex selection was a factor, I don't know. What was silly was the lack of other possible explanations, and the way the theory was explained in sexist and one-sided language, then related to hot babes today. Thanks, scientific community.
Thanks Rainbow Girl, 'Who is funding' question is important, as you say. The bizarre thing about it is that no (English) paper except the Independent has reported it. As I can't read Polish I don't know more about this research and its background, than what the Independent article tells me. I have no idea at all why the Independent, usually a liberal and decent paper, reported such a nonsense.
Linking of blonde hair of women to sex appeal is totally a social construct, actually blonde hair didn't really survive the genetic competition well, considering less than 1.8% of the world population has one. It is about the same as the proportion of intersex people (1.7%).
I have a trust in scientific method to determine the truth, but science is done by scientists, and they are not free from social construction; some of them may even be misogynists. We have to examine the effects of social construction when we read scientific researches that have societal implications.
"Attractiveness of a woman's body is one of the most important factors in mate selection"
LL, sorry to say I agree with this. Attractiveness in any species serves one purpose only, to advertise that a person is healthy and will bear strong healthy children. By no means would I ever suggest that anyone should go into a relationship based on physical attractiveness alone but attractiveness is one of the fundamental deciding factors (if not THE factor) in choosing a 'mate' (as the article puts it) from a genetic perspective.
Rainbow Girl I don't know what 'scientific' paper or serial you happened to be reading but thats hillarious. Do they perhaps think that Scandinavians 'need' to be sexier and hence 40-50% of them are blonde? Besides I always thought the consensus amongst men was that brunettes were thought to be more attractive? I blame psuedo science carried out by the mass media for this...
P.S. LL I look forward to hearing your views on the National/Labour deal and the proposition that some animals be given 'human' rights.
Well, it's about what "mate selection" means; if you define "mate" from a "generic perspective" biologically it may be a factor, but if so , humans don't select a "mate"; we select a "partner". So talking about genetical "mate selection" in a human context is meaningless, as you agree physical attractiveness shouldn't be a main factor in entering a relationship.
It is because we humans value something more than physical attractiveness. Women shouldn't be child-bearing machines for men. As you say the sole purpose of attractiveness is to advertise that a person is healthy and will bear strong healthy children, if attractiveness means a lot to men, it means the utmost value of women for men is her child-bearing ability. It's called objectification or disregard to her dignity as a person.
As I wrote attractiveness is relative and it is a cultural construct as well, so we can't say there are clear criteria for attractiveness that is agreed by all genetic human beings as species, homo sapiens. So it casts a doubt on the "genetic" origin of the concept of attractiveness...
I didn't think the comment was actually posted, would have replied sooner.
"...It's called objectification or disregard to her dignity as a person."
Of course, we shouldn't objectify anyone be they male or female.
"...So it casts a doubt on the "genetic" origin of the concept of attractiveness..."
You're right there is a cultural aspect to attractiveness, I tend to believe this is the result of an ingrained ideal or preference (some African tribes with overweight men or different skin tones in some cultures), such a preference is usually because that is an indicator of socially status; only the wealthy can afford to be fat (not true in the west these days!) or those with darker skin are labourers.
Looking at the individual preferences, apparantly this is genetic. What we sub-conciously do is try to neutralise our own 'imperfections' (large nose etc) by having children who has the opposite 'imperfection', potentially resulting in a 'normal'
child. I believe it was on one of the many docos by Lord Robert Winston, probably not the best source but certainly more reliable than some.
Post a Comment