(Humor and Satire) Political correctness is unsexy - it's biology

There is nothing wrong with having personal expectations and preferences in terms of how you find attractive. But its when people start stating things as facts and rules for how people in general should act in society that it becomes a problem, people should have the freedom to live how they like without the fear of being treated any differently because its 'against the norm'.

__________________

Yah, I see your point, I should say some mammals. But many bird and fish species the male is much more prettier.

I honestly think men are naturally the more attractive animals in the human species. I think men are naturally more prettier and they have to do the whole courtship display rituals, too. They do say that males in other species are naturally prettier and I think it's true in the case of humans, too. I'm not saying this because I'm gay -- I honestly believe it's the truth. I just think that's how nature is. I think that's why makeup is a woman's thing -- I think makeup is there to make women more beautiful and appealing to men. Men don't need makeup. Men can go out and look sexy without it.

No thanks.

They should. I absolutely wouldn't mind living in a world where that's all there is.

I agree that the idea that society should 'dictate' what roles, professions, etc that people should be in is outdated.

On the flip side though I'm just saying that there are some biological things at work here that people should be aware of. For example people like Presidents and CEOs do actually learn about things such as body language, etc in detail because they need to be socially persuasive - and these are skills which are helpful to others in the real world too. However the average person really has no clue about this (other than what they just learned through mirroring others) or even any clue that 'you can learn it'.

Difference between "expectations" - as in society expecting 'women to stay in the kitchen', and awareness of behavioral preferences that exist in biology (e.x. behavioral slants exist in both sexes in every species). Since the sexes have different brain structures there are certain ways in which they drift naturally, and different needs (ex. men need a healthy testosterone level to be their healthiest). The main difference I'd say which is effective in the real world is interaction style; as far though as societies dictating certain careers for men/women like it used to, I agree that this is rather collectivist and not good.

Don't totally agree with that - there's a reason women would find this:



More attractive than this:



As long as a guy doesn't look like Boy George or something then putting effort into his appearance is definitely better because it shows more 'status' and confidence, than a guy who looks like a total slob - if a guy doesn't look like he even cares about his appearance or body, then a woman can't expect him to take care of her.

Same reason that showing up at a job interview in cutoff shorts and a beer stained Family Guy T-shirt would be a bad idea - how's an employer going to expect someone to manage their job if they look like they're too lazy even to spend 5 minutes dressing?

There was actually a period in 16-17th century Europe where men outdressed the average woman, but it didn't catch on.

I think that back in the day men dressing 'flamboyantly' was more important because it showed wealth or status; nowadays I think it's fallen out of favor because men show status more with possessions such as cars and money, or with developing their physique.

I think this is the same reason that the male is the more 'beautiful' in lots of other animals; it's his way of 'impressing' the woman - I think peacocks are one of the best examples of this difference.

Well people don't just 'dress and act in certain ways' for no reason - it's actually all a communication style, and even things such as certain body language has biological effects (ex. strong body language raises testosterone for example). People shouldn't do things "just to please society", but they should understand what the things and their effects actually are, and what the reason for doing them is. Because a lot of these things aren't socially conditioned, they have a biological route.

If rodent's extreme however is that if a guy doesn't look like a caveman, that he must be a closet homosexual then that's pretty adolescent though - and that doesn't seem to fly in the real world. As long as a guy doesn't look like he just got back from a gay pride rally, then taking care of his looks is definitely a benefit, not only in social situations but careers as well.

Fun fact: this phrase has yet to appear in any of my 40,000 posts.

That is fun. It doesn't need to be in them, though.

40,000 posts? Whew! That's too many.

An important distinction: masculinity and femininity are words that describe behavioral tendencies and traits. They are not sexist concepts. What would be sexist is the expectation that all people of a given gender hew closely to these tendencies and/or chastising them for failing to do so. But there's nothing wrong with them as descriptive terms. They correlate pretty strongly to testosterone levels and, as a general rule, the traits associated with either seem to do a good job of counterbalancing the pitfalls of the other.

I'm amazed at how often this myth gets repeated despite it being science denial nearly on par with denying evolution altogether.

The biological and behavioral differences (in all species) are pretty basic science and very well established - what you're saying is just a myth it's tantamount to saying that tigers, chimpanzees, etc are only 'wild' because of some social conditioning, and that if they were raised around people from birth they'd be just as docile as a housecat - but this is known to be untrue due to the way their genetics developed.

The only part of what you're saying with a grain of truth to it is that societies have tried to 'force' people into certain roles- nevertheless behavioral differences exist due to genetics, independent from any social conditioning (much like the difference between a tiger and a housecat)- even at as young as 8 months old, many of these differences are apparent.

oh dear, vomit disaster thread!

can't believe i actually read the whole thing. Then again, maybe the thread is profound. Some Africans believe in a trickster deity called Bumba. Apparently Bumba was lonely and sick for millions of years, then one day Bumba felt so horribly awful that he vomited, and out came the sun and stars and planets and life!



maybe 90sAce's thread is keeping the tradition alive!