Study: 'Weight-ism' More Widespread Than Racism

Yes, good looks is also a hard-wired preference, since good looks reflect a "symmetry" of features that correlates to better health and therefore healthier babies. Glowing hair is healthy hair; sparkling eyes are healthy eyes; radiant skin relflects health; etc., etc. You proved me correct. Thank you. By the way, who is bosh?

Foofie wrote:



That statement has become widely accepted after several studies have been done to determine what characteristics people find to be most attractive. Proportion has a major role to play, indicating health, strength and the ability to reproduce.

There, in my opinion, is also an element of fear. We don't want to 'look' like that or to have uncontrollable movement, or to be black and treated badly because of our color, or to sweat all the time and look (and be) unhealthy because of the extra weight. Reproduction is definitely risky.

Hah, Mame, we must have posted at nearly the same time.

There are studies that show good proportions, not only the body but also the face, do have a major impact on attracting others. And I'm too lazy to look them up.

You were being logical, but humanity isn't always logical otherwise why would some people look at an obese person in horror as if it might be catching? There certainly seems to be some hardwiring involved.

Notice who's on the soap operas or novellas on Spanish tv. The best looking people I've ever seen. Someone must like gazing at these beautiful people.

Empty is as empty does, Foofie....

That's the second time in recent discussions that I've seen reference to the concept of "symmetry" of features correlating to something positive. It was BS then and it's BS now.

http://www.usaweekend.com/03_issues/030601/030601symmetry.html

bullshit

Re: Bella


You weren't banned for using the word, you were banned just to get us into communication so I could ask you to stop posting something we were pulling over and over and that you might have thought wasn't working. As soon as we got in contact you were unbanned.

What we were pulling happened to use the word "nigger" but it was a very different context than being banned just for using a word. I don't remember it exactly but it was something like a "nigger poem" using it over and over to make a point that wasn't clear to anyone except those who knew you fairly well and it came across as gratuitous and was being removed because it was excessive (I think it was in the title and then over and over in the post) in the use of the epithet.

Using the word in a non-gratuitous context is something I don't think we ever even had a policy for removal on, much less banning. But there was a policy to ban anyone who repeatedly posted something moderators were trying to remove.

Not that any of this matters, but I just want to point out that we don't have any legal problem with that word (or any word that I can think of) per se and there were other reasons the post was being removed and the ban was just temporary flood control.

I saw you reposted an edited version here and remember it better now. I believe the title was "Hey honkey, nigger.." and such and had no other context (another thread had inspired it I think).

In a context like this thread it may or may not have still been fine (policy has been moving towards less and less "pulling" of posts) but we have always treated thread titles a bit differently anyway and prefer not to have epithets or vulgarity in the titles more than in the posts.

Anyway, what I really came here to say is this:

Weight-ism is more widespread than racism, but so is "uglyism" and "smell funnyism" and everyone will discriminate against others on a daily basis to some degree.

What is BOSH is that ..."symmetry blah blah blah correlates to better health and therefore healthier babies." Not necessarily true. Lots of healthy people have sick children, children who die.

People find all sorts of unlikely people "attractive"... people marry other people all the time who aren't 'symmetrical'... look around you. And some of the 'ugliest' people have the nicest looking children. Those studies are what's bosh. The evidence is everywhere.

Yes, we all want someone we find attractive, but like they say, 'to each his own', meaning we all like something different. And I reiterate, good looking people don't necessarily produce good looking children.

So bosh, bash, bosh, bash, bosh!

Humans are not all rational, the irrational drives much of what we do. For most people attractiveness = health subconsciously

JPB and Mame, what are we going to do to get you two to try a little harder to express your true feelings? Come on now, don't be shy.

One note, you both are very attractive women. Could it be that neither of you has ever experienced that dread that many (mostly) women feel whenever they go out in public?

There must be a reason. I won't argue because I haven't taken the trouble to look up valid experiments.

Isn't there also something about pheromones and subconscious attraction? The studies are interesting and I'm sure some take them more seriously than others because it would be so very reassuring to "know the reason," since once the reason is known, a solution or cure might not be far behind.

What about extremely big breasts? My cousin says that wherever she goes, her boobs arrive three minutes before the rest of her. When some men look at her, their eyes almost pop out of their head. Other men see her breasts as something of a deformity. It does seem to get back to proportion.

Isn't that also what architecture is all about?

Of course we like looking at beautiful people. Just like beautiful ANYTHING.

But the point is not whether beautiful is, well, beautiful. It's whether people who are less than the socitial standard of beauty are somehow less worthy of respect.

No, you mistake my position, Diane. It isn't that I don't understand the dread that people face when they feel they are being judged by others on superficial criteria (looks, weight, social status, etc.,) it's that I understand it all too well. What I refer to as BS is the sentiment that it's innate and that "we can't help it".

From the article hawkeye posted


I'm not saying people don't do this and that advertisers don't perpetuate it, but that there comes a point when not speaking out against it and forcing those who perpetuate it to look at themselves in the mirror as the superior beings they pretend to be only gives it additional merit. Silence is acceptance and I will no longer remain silent against the "isms".

Parents who snicker, shudder, or mock in front of their children teach those children to judge. "Popular" people who ridicule others teach those who want to be popular to ridicule. Advertisers who hold Barbie-types up as a role model teach the masses that they don't quite cut it when it comes to passing the test. I'm sick of it... all of it. I don't accept that it's innate. It's taught and easily learned. We mimic our teachers (parents, peers, leaders, etc.,) and if those teachers take a closer look at the lessons they teach then perceptions can change.



You said it in your excellent post earlier in this thread. Those who hold others up to ridicule need to look at themselves in the mirror. They also need to pay close attention to the lessons they are teaching. You (probably correctly) say that it's mostly women who live in dread of being judged whenever they go out in public. My hypothesis is that it stems from daughters hearing ridicule of others and themselves from their mothers.

I will continue to speak out against biases and unjust treatment of others by those who consider it normal simply because it's commonplace. I've begun pointing it out here and will continue to do so. If that puts me on a social island then so be it.

The comments about who is or is not "good looking," "attractive," or has "symmetrical features" are pure hogwash. What passes for good looks, what is considered attractive varies widely from one cultural milieu to another, and within a cultural milieu over time, which is why i posted the comment about "fat" women being thought attractive in the middle ages of European history. Throughout most of human history, it was uncommon for children to survive infancy, it was uncommon for adolescents to survive childhood, and it was uncommon for adults to survive adolescence. People who reached "adulthood" (and that definition has been flexible over time, as well) were a distinct minority, for whom the pressures of reproduction dictated a quick mating. In many "primitive" societies (a value judgment which is essentially arrogant), young men and women (people we might in our culture consider to still be children) have been encouraged to mate outside of a rigid structure of pair-bonding (call it marriage, or whatever you like) because it was a significant means of determining who was reproductively successful, and was therefore a strategic consideration of the perpetuation of the clan or tribe. On that basis, mere physical appearance takes a back seat to fecundity.

As cultures become more elaborate, usually because populations dramatically increase and are successfully supported by new sophistication in gathering or hunting techniques, the acquisition of new ranges for gathering and hunting, or the adoption of or improvement of agricultural and animal husbandry techniques, so the mating considerations become more elaborate--but the prime consideration remains fecundity. Multiple wives for powerful men very likely originated with a notion that the leader, the "chief" was the best specimen in the clan or tribe, whether that equated to hunting skills, sophistication of agronomic knowledge or military prowess--and therefore seemed to indicate the wisdom of promoting the reproduction of that valued leader. Of course, in more brutal terms, a man with martial prowess might simply be taking more women, and ignoring or challenging objections to his practice. Extra "wives" can also be acquired as a result of warfare.

But harems lead to other problems, not the least of which is the challenge of the "old bull" by "young bulls." The Osmanli Turks solved this problem by the brutal but effective practice of a new Sultan having all of his brothers strangled. Younger sons of powerful men were always dead weight on the hands of the dynasty, but if all was going well, their existence was inevitable. Henry VIII was not the eldest son of Henry VII, and George III was not the eldest son of George II. Given the incidence of infant, child and adolescent mortality, it was good policy to have lots of children, banking on the odds of the survival of a few to assure the continuation of the dynasty. Once, however, any son of a powerful man reached his majority, and seemed healthy and able, and especially if that son were now producing his own children, then the other sons not only become extraneous, they become a large potential problem. Petr Alexeivitch was not the eldest son of Alexei Mikhailovitch, he was not even the second son of Alexei Mikhalovitch--and he was not the son of Alexei's first wife. When his eldest half-brother died, the family of his father's first wife, Maria Miloslavskaya, expected that her next son would become the Tsar. The oldest son, Feodor, had been so sickly (although mentally sharp), that it was said of him that he ruled Russia while flat on his back. He lasted just less than six years. When he died, the Miloslavskys thought that the next son Ivan would become Tsar, but the aristocracy had different ideas, because Ivan, though only slightly more healthy than Feodor had been, was far less robust mentally, and lived in a dream world of religious ceremony. So they chose Petr (then 10 years of age) to be Tsar.

This meant, however, that a new faction, that of Petr's mother, Nataliya Narishkina, rose to prominence in the affairs of the Kremlin. So the Miloslavskys plotted their return to power, and with Sophia, sister of Feodor and Ivan, and half-sister of Petr, as figurehead, they engineered an attack on the Kremlin and the slaughter of the leading figures of the Narishkin faction. Thereafter, Ivan V and Petr reigned as "co-Tsars," while Sophia, too strong-willed and intelligent, ruled as regent, and actually ruled, rather than as figure head for ambitious Miloslavskys.

One might argue that this is not to the point. But it is very much to the point. Looks mean nothing in comparison to reproductive success. The sons of Maria Miloslavskaya were not reproductive successes--they both were not physically robust, and Ivan was not very well equipped upstairs, either. The son of Nataliya Narishkina, Petr, was both physically robust and mentally very well endowed, as Russia was to learn to its sorrow. He went on to become the man known to history as Peter the Great.

As with monarchy and aristocracy, so with the middle classes--looks may stir lust, but the name of the game in dynastic terms is reproductive success. Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, who married George III, was about as plain as a board fence, and had all the social grace and wit of a fish wife. She was not George's first choice, and her mother-in-law reacted with horror and never treated her decently a day in her life. Nevertheless, George did the honorable thing, and treated her decently, and apparently never fooled around on her. Between them, they produced 15 children, 13 of whom lived to adulthood--a stunning rate of success for the times (for any time up to about a century ago). By all that mattered in dynastic terms, George had hit the big jackpot when he married Charlotte.

By contrast, one of her predecessors, Catherine of Braganza, who was married to King Charles II, was a true beauty, a rare beauty, who happened not to produce a single live birth for Charles. Charles also did the honorable thing, more or less. He played around on her like nobody's business--i'd need another page to list all of his bastards and what happened to them. But he stood by her when she was publicly attacked (people in monarchies get alarmed when King and Queen are not spitting out healthy little princes), and when anti-catholic riots broke out (she was Portuguese), and refused any suggestion that the marriage be annulled so that he could get a fecund wife (it was not only not uncommon, it was a commonplace that royalty or aristocracy could get an annulment on the basis of the failure to produce healthy children). The result happened to have been a brief disaster for England, when he was succeeded by his extremely hard-headed and very Catholic brother, James. But he only lasted three years, before he was replaced by his daughter Mary, and his son-in-law William of Orange, who also happened to be his nephew, the son of his sister Mary. (Near consanguinity was also a feature of dynastic marriages.)

When you get right down to it, these issues have only become significant in very recent times. For most women throughout most of history, the two most significant traits have been a strong back and wide hips; forget anyone's notion of "attractive" or standards of "beauty." Among the middle classes, as among the aristocracy, many, usually most, marriages were arranged, and if you didn't like he or she whom you had drawn in the matrimonial lottery, that was just too goddamned bad.

You just make this **** up, don't ya, Foofie?

Thank you, Set... I was actually making two points:

1. What is attractive to one is not necessarily attractive to another.

2. Attractive or healthy parents do not necessarily product attractive or healthy offspring, and this was the main thrust (which seems to have been completely missed) of my post.

I wasn't talking about what we find attractive... I was taking issue with his statement that healthier people produce healthy offspring.

I didn't think I was that garbled in my speech.

Nor have i suggested that you were--i was responding directly to the idiocy which Foofie has been posting.

No, I know. You seem to be the only person who got what I was saying.

No, I got it, Mame. I responded speaking only for myself knowing you would do the same.