3 ms·
The reason they are "obsessed over", or taken into account as someone else may put it, although I'll give you that any kind of social/cultural identity tends to
by cassepipe 5y ago
The reason they are "obsessed over", or taken into account as someone else may put it, although I'll give you that any kind of social/cultural identity tends to lead to some form of obsession in some people's minds, is because they are deemed significant for locally dependent social/historical/political reasons which I am sure I don't need to give you examples of but will anyway : colonialism, slavery, genocides... You name it
Whereas discrimination exist based of height, weight, and facial symmetry, because they are a little less based on cultural factors, they tend to cross group boundaries and not allow for culture wars because of its more evenly distributed nature.
The interesting thing is that the fact that you took the time to write a comment about them and that they are becoming a social issue is because the culture spheres tend to be bigger and more intertwined with globalization. People who share the same issues can find eachother and aggregate across cultural identities. The incel "movement" is a product of the world wide web, I don't think it would have been possible in another era.
On another hand, I don't think we need to establish hierarchies between discriminations. Although discriminations share a lot of their logic, they also often respond to their own logic. I am all in favor to put in place more mechanisms to avoid it, like any kind of anonymization, but I don't they are an argument against what's already put in place against more socially recognized ones.
- ajwfew 5y agoAttractiveness is not at all evenly distributed among races. Neither is height or weight. And "attractiveness" is still massively influenced by cultural perceptions.
- cassepipe 5y ago1. My point was inside any group, there is a certain distribution of attractiveness relative to the attractiveness "standard" of that group. And that somehow, a certain level of (culturally defined) attractiveness is somehow not enough to constitute a group (or used to be not enough at least) Or maybe is that because attractiveness is relative enough at the individual level so that it is hard for an individual to be systematically identified by others ? Or is it because to self-identify as unattractive/attractive tends to have a negative social costs in social relationships ? I must admit I don't know. I am just throwing hypotheses now. Of course, now there is a form of more or less globalized standard of attractiveness that is more influenced by group that have the more power but that also has to open itself, the more globalized it becomes. But that globalized standard also challenges locally defined attractiveness. I take this is what you mean when you say that "attractiveness is not evenly distributes among races". (Instagram seems to be the symbol of that struggle for cultural dominance in the realm of attractiveness standards as it is massively used as a tool to capitalize on one's own attractiveness.) 2.Which is why I wrote "a little less" because I did not want to digress too much.
- ajwfew 5y ago
- ajwfew 5y ago