Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!midway.uchicago.edu From: lecl@midway.uchicago.edu (elizabeth e. leclair) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Female human aesthetics Summary: thoughtfully counting my grooming products Message-ID: <1990Nov1.160330.5995@midway.uchicago.edu> Date: 1 Nov 90 16:03:30 GMT References: <1990Oct29.185629.3652@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1990Oct31.165944.15223@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1990Nov1.043204.13951@cbnewsd.att.com> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Organization: University of Chicago Lines: 85 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R >In article <1990Oct31.165944.15223@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >> I forgot something, also from Time's new issue "Women:The Road >> Ahead"-- dermatologist Paul Lazar of Northwestern University Medical >> School found that women use 17-21 grooming products every morning. >> That's simply mind-boggling to me. Hmmm. Here's my contribution to the survey: 1. soap 2. shampoo 3. conditioner 4. toothpaste 5. deodorant 6. lip goo (in the winter) I know this is not much of a sample yet, but I bet the mean would be significantly different for those women that Time surveyed and those of us in soc.feminism! P.S.: Don't you love the new Ms. magazine?! No lipstick ads! Elizabeth E. LeClair (lecl@midway.uchicago.edu) (not a spokesperson for) International House (nor) University of Chicago From daemon@ncar.UCAR.EDU Thu Nov 1 13:56:14 1990 Received: from handies.ucar.edu by aerospace.aero.org with SMTP (5.61++/6.0.GT) id AA14745 for nadel; Thu, 1 Nov 90 13:55:40 -0800 Posted-Date: 1 Nov 90 21:04:56 GMT Received-Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 13:55:40 -0800 Received: by ncar.ucar.EDU (5.65/ NCAR Central Post Office 04/10/90) id AA22015; Thu, 1 Nov 90 14:55:35 MST Received: from MCSUN.EU.NET by ncar.ucar.EDU (5.65/ NCAR Central Post Office 04/10/90) id AA22003; Thu, 1 Nov 90 14:55:30 MST Received: by mcsun.EU.net with SMTP; Thu, 1 Nov 90 22:55:09 +0100 Received: from aipna.ed.ac.uk by kestrel.Ukc.AC.UK via Janet (UKC CAMEL FTP) id aa23929; 1 Nov 90 21:50 GMT To: soc-feminism@ukc.ac.uk Path: aipna!cam From: Chris Malcolm Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Female human aesthetics Message-Id: <3416@aipna.ed.ac.uk> Date: 1 Nov 90 21:04:56 GMT References: <1990Oct29.185629.3652@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Reply-To: Chris Malcolm Organization: Dept of AI, Edinburgh University, UK. Lines: 35 Status: R In article <1990Oct29.185629.3652@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >More important, we need to attack the double >standard which judges women much more by appearance than men. I think two things are conflated here. The first is sexual attractiveness, the biological purpose of which is to attract one to the most appropriate mate of the opposite sex for the purpose of breeding. Of course in our modern industrial civilisation we have outgrown the environemnt of evolutionary adaptedness which formed the genetic basis for these impulses, but it seems reasonable to suggest that evolution would work slightly differently on men and women in this respect, producing in men a preference for young healthy women (i.e. the usual visible concomitants), and in women a preference for succesful men (i.e. the usual visible concomitants). But what so many women complain about is not this kind of sexual judgement, but that this kind of sexual judgement is used as a basis for other judgements, e.g. job competence. The relationship is not always direct, either -- for example, there is a definite tendency among both men and women to adjust judgement of women's intelligence by a factor inversely related to the size of breasts. i.e., to suppose that women with big tits are (on average) more stupid. Once the sexual judgement is separated from other judgements, is it really true that men are less affected by judgements of their worth based on irrelevant physical parameters? It is, for example, well established that an important selection criterion in promotion up the management ladder is sheer physical bulk. And why are all these men torturing themselves for hours a day and risking drug damage to acquire huge muscles? Why do so many bald men wear toupees? -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.aipna 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK