NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/women/20190

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-23 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky soc.women:20190 alt.feminism:4895 soc.men:19839
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Path: sparky!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!biesel
From: [e-mail] (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
References: <[e-mail]>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:50:11 GMT
Lines: 66

[e-mail] (susan larsen) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>
>>>...[]... The way I see it,
>>>it is much easier for a person to develop and change their personality
>>>than it is for them to change their looks (which they are basically born
>>>with).
>>
>>Ah! This, I think, gets to the heart of the matter. Personality is under
>>our immediate control, and looks aren't, or at least so Muffy believes.
>>
>>---deletia---
>>
>>Looks, by contrast, require merely an investment in cosmetics and plastic
>>surgery, something that would appear, to me at least, to require much less
>>time and willpower than to change one's personality significantly.

>I've been thinking about why women get so riled about supermodel or
>super-woman type images and came up with this thought:

>It isn't so much an issue of looks over personality as much as an
>issue of looks versus actions.

...[ ]...

>Many women are "at the top" because of who they are, not what they've done.
>Women who are supermodels, for instance, must be a certain height, weight,
>have a certain fat distribution, a particular look, cooperative hair, etc.
>Although some of these attributes are subject to limited personal control,
>the bulk of these qualifications are genetic, a happenstance of birth.

>Few of the top slots occupied by men are filled because of who they are.
>These slots are filled mostly by men who have done something, succeeded
>at business or sports, fame in their field of endeavor.  Some of these
>guys may have an edge because of birth, a Kennedy for instance, and
>a few may have parlayed good looks into success, like Tom Selleck.
>But the impression here at the bottom is that a top niche can be
>owned by a man who does something and does it well.


This is certainly a common contention, and one that looks superficially
correct. However, the underlying assumption is still: it is easier to
change what you do - and by implication, the kind of person you are -
than to significantly change your appearance. A further assumption:
personal accomplishment somehow reflects character, effort, and other
factors for which we are accustomed to taking personal credit. Looks
on the other hand are pure luck and hence not fair.

This neglects the fact that what makes people successful is not
necessarily anything they have any more control over than their appearance.
Why, for example, should drive, energy, and intelligence be something
each of us can muster on his or her own - creation ab inito, so to
speak - while physical attributes are supposedly under no such control?

It is true that men tend to value women for their beauty, while men are
more commonly valued for their accomplishments or wealth. This tends to
channel the efforts of the sexes into different activities. But this is
only unfair if one sex has more control over what it takes to succeed
under these criteria than the other, something that I doubt. There are
only so many supermodels, and only so many superscientists. Try as we might,
the rest of us don't quite measure up to those standards.

Regards,
       H. Biesel