The November 2009 issue of the journal Cosmopolitan included an article on what male humans immediately select for in potential mates.
why feminists hate evolutionary theory
-
How many overt references to science/evolution/sexual selection can you find?
Comments- Comments (3)
- Trackbacks (0)
- rss
- Leave a comment
-
This exemplifies what I struggle with as a feminist and a through and through proponent of evolutionary explanations for behavior, because they can so easily be perverted by the likes of the wonderful Cosmo. When you take the science out of evolutionary claims, they become pithy statements like the ones above that can be construed as sexist and aren’t necessarily helpful:
“Guys associate a radient complexion with good mental health…That bronzer? Totally worth it!” Ok, so health is desirable. Agreed. I just think the jump to “you need makeup” doesn’t make any scientific sense, which is what their claim here seems to be.
Also, to beat a dead horse of mine–population norms don’t necessarily correlate to individual preferences…they CAN, but it is disingenuous to suggest they always do.Thoughts?
-
Avery, I completely agree with you, especially about population norms. They simply signify where the peak of the bell curve is. With regards to populations defined by sex, race, etc, people either get uncomfortable with these norms or they apply them too readily. In either case, they forget that generalizations like these can’t be applied to any one individual.
-
It would be fun to look at photographs of the top 100 most famous female feminists…just to see how frequent makeup us is. Maybe there are certain types of makeup that strive for youth versus those that do not. Might be entertaining.
No Trackbacks yet