6 ms·

If you take this extreme reductionist viewpoint, "biology"is misandrist and misogynist both. It reduces human relationships to an exchange of genetic material a

If you take this extreme reductionist viewpoint, "biology"is misandrist and misogynist both. It reduces human relationships to an exchange of genetic material and its optimization. The male human may as well be the the male anglerfish and the life of the female is barely more meaningful than that. And, well, no. We live in an industrialized world where we have all the food we could ever need and yet we have fewer children than ever before in history. People make human decisions that are more than their genetics, even when choosing romantic and sexual partners. Why would we take the most socially complex species we're aware of, and then look at one of the most complex social interactions that species engages in, and say "well, but it's really just about making babies"? Another way to put it - I accept these things as true 1) Physical attractiveness is important to most people in picking a partner 2) Physical attractiveness is correlated with fertility 2) Physical attractiveness negatively correlates with age Yet I still argue that a woman's worth, not just to the world but even as a partner, is more than her physical attractiveness. Biologically, a post-menopausal woman is not contributing new humans to the world, but she still can contribute to the world as a whole, contributing happiness and meaning to others, doing all kinds of things that make the world a better place. I would argue that meaning in romantic relationships isn't limited to fertility, either. I don't think is even that controversial a viewpoint, but as a woman, there is certainly a cultural notion that your value IS your attractiveness. If you justify the viewpoint that a woman in her 40s is of no value simply because her fertility is phbbt, that's misogynist. It is a biological reality that men can remain fertile much longer than women. Using that fact to justify a worldview that women in general have less value, especially past a certain age, is misogynist.

jf- 8y ago
> “biology” is misandrist and misogynist both. When we’re anthropomorphising facts and telling them that they’re bad, something has gone wrong. Facts are not social actors, they don’t care if you try to shame them, they’ll still be true. > The male human may as well be the male anglerfish and the life of the female is barely more meaningful than that. I’m honestly not sure what meaning you’re looking for here, or what bearing that has on the conversation. There isn’t any meaning to life other than that which we make for ourselves. > Why would we take the most socially complex species we're aware of, and then look at one of the most complex social interactions that species engages in, and say "well, but it's really just about making babies"? Because that statement is true? Is your argument that we should reject reality in order to tell ourselves pleasing lies about the world? > Yet I still argue that a woman's worth, not just to the world but even as a partner, is more than her physical attractiveness. I agree. There are different kinds of value to be sure. However this is a discussion of sexual attraction and romantic partnership. Someone’s, let’s say, java skills, are not very likely to factor heavily. Nor are they likely to be a replacement for sexual attractiveness if it is absent.
- JimboOmega 8y ago
  > Facts are not social actors, they don’t care if you try to shame them, they’ll still be true. And yet science has a history of creating "facts" that exist to promote a certain worldview with a veneer of impartiality. These "facts" are created by and to be social actors. Racist and misogynist ones in particular. > I’m honestly not sure what meaning you’re looking for here, or what bearing that has on the conversation. There isn’t any meaning to life other than that which we make for ourselves. This is exactly my point; there is more meaning to our mating choices than merely optimizing for making children. We take meaning from, and find happiness in, things that are much more complex than raw physical attractiveness. > Because that statement is true? Is your argument that we should reject reality in order to tell ourselves pleasing lies about the world? It is not; it is absurdly reductionist. We live in a world with as much food as we could ever want, yet we make fewer babies than we ever did before. We live in a world with homosexuality. We make countless choices about our romantic and sexual partners that have nothing to do with their fertility. A lot of our choices have to do with social signaling, for instance; things that genetics alone can't be controlling directly. >I agree. There are different kinds of value to be sure. However this is a discussion of sexual attraction and romantic partnership. Someone’s, let’s say, java skills, are not very likely to factor heavily. Nor are they likely to be a replacement for sexual attractiveness if it is absent. It is a discussion of physical attractiveness, romantic/sexual value, and overall human value. I am arguing for decoupling all three. There is a viewpoint that couples all three, and that viewpoint is not merely wrong; it is toxic and pernicious. It is fundamentally the viewpoint of the incel community. A viewpoint that, at its extreme, motivates people to acts of violence because they believe their lives are worthless as a result of unchangeable physical traits. It is also a view that is clearly held, at least to some degree, by the letter writer in the parent article. It is a drain on humanity. Is it the case that a more attractive person will have more people interested in them sexually? Of course. Almost by definition. However, attractiveness (particularly of the youthful variety) is neither necessary nor sufficient to have positive romantic relationships. Furthermore, positive romantic relationships are neither necessary nor sufficient to having a meaningful, happy life. Ultimately I'm arguing that a 35 year old, 40 year old, whatever-year-old woman's life is not over if she's "still" single. Her dating life isn't over either. Do I expect all men to be attracted to her? Of course not; but some definitely would be, and she still has a lot to offer in that context.

jf- 8y ago

> “biology” is misandrist and misogynist both. When we’re anthropomorphising facts and telling them that they’re bad, something has gone wrong. Facts are not social actors, they don’t care if you try to shame them, they’ll still be true. > The male human may as well be the male anglerfish and the life of the female is barely more meaningful than that. I’m honestly not sure what meaning you’re looking for here, or what bearing that has on the conversation. There isn’t any meaning to life other than that which we make for ourselves. > Why would we take the most socially complex species we're aware of, and then look at one of the most complex social interactions that species engages in, and say "well, but it's really just about making babies"? Because that statement is true? Is your argument that we should reject reality in order to tell ourselves pleasing lies about the world? > Yet I still argue that a woman's worth, not just to the world but even as a partner, is more than her physical attractiveness. I agree. There are different kinds of value to be sure. However this is a discussion of sexual attraction and romantic partnership. Someone’s, let’s say, java skills, are not very likely to factor heavily. Nor are they likely to be a replacement for sexual attractiveness if it is absent.

JimboOmega 8y ago
> Facts are not social actors, they don’t care if you try to shame them, they’ll still be true. And yet science has a history of creating "facts" that exist to promote a certain worldview with a veneer of impartiality. These "facts" are created by and to be social actors. Racist and misogynist ones in particular. > I’m honestly not sure what meaning you’re looking for here, or what bearing that has on the conversation. There isn’t any meaning to life other than that which we make for ourselves. This is exactly my point; there is more meaning to our mating choices than merely optimizing for making children. We take meaning from, and find happiness in, things that are much more complex than raw physical attractiveness. > Because that statement is true? Is your argument that we should reject reality in order to tell ourselves pleasing lies about the world? It is not; it is absurdly reductionist. We live in a world with as much food as we could ever want, yet we make fewer babies than we ever did before. We live in a world with homosexuality. We make countless choices about our romantic and sexual partners that have nothing to do with their fertility. A lot of our choices have to do with social signaling, for instance; things that genetics alone can't be controlling directly. >I agree. There are different kinds of value to be sure. However this is a discussion of sexual attraction and romantic partnership. Someone’s, let’s say, java skills, are not very likely to factor heavily. Nor are they likely to be a replacement for sexual attractiveness if it is absent. It is a discussion of physical attractiveness, romantic/sexual value, and overall human value. I am arguing for decoupling all three. There is a viewpoint that couples all three, and that viewpoint is not merely wrong; it is toxic and pernicious. It is fundamentally the viewpoint of the incel community. A viewpoint that, at its extreme, motivates people to acts of violence because they believe their lives are worthless as a result of unchangeable physical traits. It is also a view that is clearly held, at least to some degree, by the letter writer in the parent article. It is a drain on humanity. Is it the case that a more attractive person will have more people interested in them sexually? Of course. Almost by definition. However, attractiveness (particularly of the youthful variety) is neither necessary nor sufficient to have positive romantic relationships. Furthermore, positive romantic relationships are neither necessary nor sufficient to having a meaningful, happy life. Ultimately I'm arguing that a 35 year old, 40 year old, whatever-year-old woman's life is not over if she's "still" single. Her dating life isn't over either. Do I expect all men to be attracted to her? Of course not; but some definitely would be, and she still has a lot to offer in that context.