grad school, politics, knitting and other meanderings. And not enough time for any of it.

 

 

: : email knit wit : : knitmemoretime@gmail.com

: : previous posts : :
getting my head shrunk?
trick or treat
I'm back.
(I would walk 500 miles)*
short trip to Minneapolis
the healing hands of autumn?*
I kid the president*
indulging
this weekend
tripping over myself


: : archives : :
05.2004 06.2004 07.2004 08.2004 09.2004 10.2004 11.2004 12.2004 01.2005 02.2005 03.2005 04.2005 05.2005 06.2005 07.2005 08.2005 09.2005 10.2005 11.2005

: : daily reads: :
and she knits too
bighappyfunhouse
birdfarm
bookish wendy
feminist blogs
feministe
fidgety budgie
get yourself some boring
the half-assed gourmet
the imposter syndrome
indigirl
j autumn
journal to a muse
kp's ramblings
mad teach
magic eraser
the maryann show
media girl
not your ordinary
the other side of the ocean
professor dork
satan's laundromat
sir edwin pegasus
the third attempt
to live and drive in LA
views from a broad
the wrong side of the bed

 

Progressive Women's Blog Ring
Join | List | Previous | Next |

knit me more time...
Friday, November 04, 2005
what kind of crap is this?

This article from BBC is exactly the kind of "science" that makes my blood boil. The "scientists" have found that men prefer "pretty" women who have higher levels of hormones as they in better evolutionary shape to have children: "In evolutionary terms, it makes sense for men to favour feminine fertile women - those that did would have had more babies." Ugh. Just ugh. This must be from the onion, right? Nope. Image hosted by Photobucket.com First of all, their sample is a serious joke. 59 photos of women, and 30 volunteers deciding whether or not these women are "pretty." How they can make any sweeping universal claims about the preferences of men for "pretty" women with that small, volunteer sample (not random and they use the word universal to describe all men's preference for pretty women) is beyond me. They also do not consider the known fact that beauty standards not historically static nor the same among all cultures, races and ethnicities. What might be considered attractive right now by some volunteers in Liverpool was not considered attractive by others years ago. For example, women in Victorian England painted their faces chalky white, which was considered very pretty. While it certainly isn't a sign of health, having a pale face was attractive and woman poisoned themselves with lead-based powders to achieve beauty. That is just one example of many of how measures of attractiveness change over time. And what about this photo they include? It is digitally altered to show what a "pretty" woman would look like (with higher hormone levels). The one on the right, I guess, that is what they consider a less-then attractive women, with lower levels of estrogen. First of all, the woman on the left is frightening- she looks like a plastic doll, or some kind of genetic hybrid person. I find the woman on the left much more attractive- she has more character and it doesn't freak me out to look at her. Jo agrees with me. There is my sample. See how subjective it all is? Or maybe their "logic" would be that it is that b/c I am gay and not looking for an evolutionarily fit woman to have a baby with? Oh my god- someone should study that! I'll leave you with this gem of a quote- "Women are effectively advertising their general fertility with their faces."

posted by knit wit | 11/04/2005 08:13:00 AM

This page is powered by Blogger.
Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com