It isn’t arbitrary. The markers of beauty signify health and reproductive ability. It may be irrelevant with regard to ability to write a self-pitying tome, but that’s relevance not arbitrariness.
Reminds me of a Kurt Vonnegut story, The Handicapper General. The tells a tale of how the govt handicaps individuals so that everyone is more or less the same intelligence, looks about the same, etc. Read it the short story. Proof that no whack idea can’t be taken seriously.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t…claim discrimination?
Reading the article, one of the foundations of her complaints is how many women’s shoes are impractical for walking. The professional women that I know do not attempt to wear strapless high-heels for business – if at all. If a woman isn’t able to select decent footwear for herself, I am supposed to trust her with my case?
Obviously Miss Rhode is a Creationist since she is so unfamiliar with the works of Darwin. And while I feel for her lack of self-esteem I can’t see that as a reason to make the rest of the world so painfully aware of it.
“The markers of beauty signify health and reproductive ability”
Really? Then why are there so many good-looking well-dressed gay men?
What is it about Sandra Bullock or Kim Catrall that marks them as healthier and more able to reprodcue than say Queen Victoria? Why do you think it is that the former attractive women have not reproduced while Queen Victoria, not known as a world class beauty, was more than successful at this?
As to “killer shoes” I may mean that in a different way than the author. I don’t think I am a misogynist, but oh baby, those pumps make me crazy!
Coincindently, yesterday I was speaking of shoes with a young women weaing what might be described as ‘bondgae’ shoes, studded black leather straps, platform soled and high-heeled. She liked how they looked herself and liked how she looked in them – that is why she bought them I was told.
Being as I like “killer shoes” she is not the first woman I have spoken to about this issue. I have to say, I complain more about my sensible oxford shod feet than these women do about theirs. Just as I do, they like “killer shoes”.
On the overall subject, we can remember that many women were accused of witchcraft based on nothing more than their appearance. Talk about unfair.
““The markers of beauty signify health and reproductive ability”
Really? Then why are there so many good-looking well-dressed gay men?”
Well dressed isn’t a marker of good health. I MAY be a wealth display, but says nothing about the nutritional state of the individual. That’s why dumpy guys, who happen to be rich, manage to score objectively (physically) more attractive mates than they would otherwise. It’s the resources (money) that they bring to the table – they’ll be good providers for the wee little ones.
Shiny hair, clear skin, etc on the other hand ARE markers for good nutrition. Back many years ago, there was a show / series on PBS – Desmond Morris (? spelling) “The Human Animal” where he looked at how people interacted with people. The above noted features, as well as others, are universal signs of beauty (that is, good nutrition, which translates into good breeding stock) in humans, regardless of race / culture.
But hey, some fem type wants to overturn millions of years of evolution with a law. Typical lawyer – they think all it takes is “so let it be written, so let it be done” and ignore the real world.
12 Comments
It isn’t arbitrary. The markers of beauty signify health and reproductive ability. It may be irrelevant with regard to ability to write a self-pitying tome, but that’s relevance not arbitrariness.
Niqab anyone?
Reminds me of a Kurt Vonnegut story, The Handicapper General. The tells a tale of how the govt handicaps individuals so that everyone is more or less the same intelligence, looks about the same, etc. Read it the short story. Proof that no whack idea can’t be taken seriously.
I had a law school class from Rhode. This is far from her dumbest idea.
Doug, the name of that short story was Harrison Bergeron. Considering his left wing politics, it is amazing that he actually wrote such a story.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t…claim discrimination?
Reading the article, one of the foundations of her complaints is how many women’s shoes are impractical for walking. The professional women that I know do not attempt to wear strapless high-heels for business – if at all. If a woman isn’t able to select decent footwear for herself, I am supposed to trust her with my case?
Obviously Miss Rhode is a Creationist since she is so unfamiliar with the works of Darwin. And while I feel for her lack of self-esteem I can’t see that as a reason to make the rest of the world so painfully aware of it.
“The markers of beauty signify health and reproductive ability”
Really? Then why are there so many good-looking well-dressed gay men?
What is it about Sandra Bullock or Kim Catrall that marks them as healthier and more able to reprodcue than say Queen Victoria? Why do you think it is that the former attractive women have not reproduced while Queen Victoria, not known as a world class beauty, was more than successful at this?
The precept of the article is certainly old news.
As to “killer shoes” I may mean that in a different way than the author. I don’t think I am a misogynist, but oh baby, those pumps make me crazy!
Coincindently, yesterday I was speaking of shoes with a young women weaing what might be described as ‘bondgae’ shoes, studded black leather straps, platform soled and high-heeled. She liked how they looked herself and liked how she looked in them – that is why she bought them I was told.
Being as I like “killer shoes” she is not the first woman I have spoken to about this issue. I have to say, I complain more about my sensible oxford shod feet than these women do about theirs. Just as I do, they like “killer shoes”.
On the overall subject, we can remember that many women were accused of witchcraft based on nothing more than their appearance. Talk about unfair.
So how does one explain:
Janet Reno
Elena Kagan
Janet Napolitano
etc.?
Bumper:
As Steve Sailer quips, a good liberal believes in evolution, but that it stopped on a dime 50,000 years ago.
“arbitrary discrimination based on appearance” – so can I sue all those women who wouldn’t go out with me over the years?
Frank –
““The markers of beauty signify health and reproductive ability”
Really? Then why are there so many good-looking well-dressed gay men?”
Well dressed isn’t a marker of good health. I MAY be a wealth display, but says nothing about the nutritional state of the individual. That’s why dumpy guys, who happen to be rich, manage to score objectively (physically) more attractive mates than they would otherwise. It’s the resources (money) that they bring to the table – they’ll be good providers for the wee little ones.
Shiny hair, clear skin, etc on the other hand ARE markers for good nutrition. Back many years ago, there was a show / series on PBS – Desmond Morris (? spelling) “The Human Animal” where he looked at how people interacted with people. The above noted features, as well as others, are universal signs of beauty (that is, good nutrition, which translates into good breeding stock) in humans, regardless of race / culture.
But hey, some fem type wants to overturn millions of years of evolution with a law. Typical lawyer – they think all it takes is “so let it be written, so let it be done” and ignore the real world.