3 ms·

> For women the core of their power anthropologically lies with beauty Physical attractiveness is a social asset, and it's a more useful asset for a woman beca

> For women the core of their power anthropologically lies with beauty Physical attractiveness is a social asset, and it's a more useful asset for a woman because men are affected by how women look more than the other way around - that's all fair enough ... but "the core of their power anthropologically lies with beauty" is a bizarre framing.

threethirtytwo 6mo ago
[flagged]
- Mezzie 6mo ago
  What I find interesting about comments like this is how revelatory they are of the worldview of the people writing them. It's always interesting to see which facts about the primal human experience are left out when this kind of thing is discussed. For example, I'm betting you're a male who likes women who's between the age of 20 and 45 and likely doesn't have children (I'm pretty sure on male between 20 and 45, but children could go either way). Consider the assumptions present in: "Of course this also begs the question of what happens to a woman when she gets old and ugly? Where does she get her power from? She gets it from her man." The assumption there being the only reason a man would protect a woman is because she's pretty and she's having sex with them, likely because the sexual relationship is the main way you're looking at women at this point in your life. Even if we assume women can only derive power from male proximity in nature, there's an obvious alternative answer to where she would derive power from: Her sons and grandsons. If she lives through her childbearing years, a woman in nature is far more likely to live to old age than her male mate: She has better resistance to famine, a better immune system, and if we assume the rigid gender role evo-psych of men = hunters and women = gatherers, she also engages in far less physically risky activities. Even if 'her man' is alive, the odds of him being crippled or simply unable to protect her from younger, fitter men are high. A 35 year old son or 18 year old grandson is far more valuable for protection, and far more stable: a man is always her son/grandson, whereas if we're assuming the red pillish evo-psych is true, 'her man' probably has wandering eyes and would like a younger woman and therefore should not be counted on to stick around once she dares to have wrinkles and saggy breasts. Additionally, a man who doesn't protect his mother is failing at one of the basic tests of belonging to a human tribe: Basic reciprocity. If a man won't give to the one person who took care of him when she gained nothing/he was at his most vulnerable, then how can his fellow hunters (who he's less attached to) trust that he'll reciprocate when they help him? This assumption also outright dismisses the bonds between say, a brother and a sister. Do you think most men wouldn't protect their sisters because they're not sex objects? Older women are also far more able to keep contributing to the tribe than older men if we adhere to this strictly gendered idea of primitive humans. They can care for children while women in their prime gather, they can rear children whose mothers have died (and this is common due to the fatality rate of childbirth), they can take care of the sick, etc. A man who can't keep up with his male duties is far less useful - a man who is over 60 and has 60-80% of the speed and strength of his fellows, or a bad limb, or sensory impairments, is far less able to hunt than a woman over 60 is to caretake. They're more likely to live longer and therefore a better repository of historical knowledge. Idk, I just always find it interesting which physiological and psychological aspects of humanity are ignored or unmentioned whenever someone is making some kind of argument about primal gender roles.
  - threethirtytwo 6mo ago
    Bro you made many assumptions. First women today have plenty of power. A lot of times more so than men. I only refer to prehistoric times. Men primarily drived survival in prehistoric times. Without a man a women could not survive. That doesn’t mean she couldn’t contribute it means she was not the primary driver. Women contribute a lot, but that contribution is in the end supplementary because it is not critical for survival and this definitely shapes evolved behavior. It means for survival a man is required for her, this is asymmetric for a man and you can see this in how women and men select mates. Men select based off of superficial markers for fertility. Women select more on practical markers for capability. This is because a women’s survival is dependent on the man’s capability while a man’s survival is not as much dependent on this. Additionally please don’t make the argument personal. If you disagree attack the argument don’t attack or make assumptions about my character. Thank you.
    - Mezzie 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      - threethirtytwo 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        circlefavshape 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        threethirtytwo 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        circlefavshape 6mo ago
        I came back cos I felt a bit guilty. You're right - I was condescending and I'm sorry I think your model of men's social status being solely based on strength, and women's on beauty, is too simplistic to be useful. Even male chimpanzees' status isn't based solely on strength (social grooming and coalition building are also really important), and female chimpanzees' status is not based on the males they attract. Human societies are complex, and people can be useful to the group in a zillion different ways. Men were never only hunters/warriors, and women were never only wives/mothers. Even in societies where almost all food was from hunting it needed to be processed and preserved, and that work was very often done by women. A beautiful woman who takes shortcuts when preserving meat and runs the risk of poisoning the whole family does not make a good wife The core of anyone's power is how useful they are to people around them. If you're beautiful that can be part of your usefulness, but if that's all you have to offer then you're not going to be very powerful
- circlefavshape 6mo ago
  Nah, it is bizarre. > You need to think of things from this perspective rather than the perspective of what's "taboo". It's only bizarre because society has conditioned you to look away from the cold hard truth. Haha good lord. Of course you have access to the cold hard truth that I'm too foolish to see! Your fixation on "power" (whatever that means) is incredibly reductive, and I expect your knowledge of human behaviour is rather limited
  - threethirtytwo 6mo ago
    You’re the one being reductive. Power is an incredibly broad term that encompasses many dimensions that different across species and gender. You irreducibly assumed the singular most negative interpretation of my usage of the word and you deliberately attacked my character personally. Please keep the debate impersonal. If you disagree and believe my arguments are without merit please attack the arguments rather than my character. Thank you.

threethirtytwo 6mo ago

[flagged]

Mezzie 6mo ago
What I find interesting about comments like this is how revelatory they are of the worldview of the people writing them. It's always interesting to see which facts about the primal human experience are left out when this kind of thing is discussed. For example, I'm betting you're a male who likes women who's between the age of 20 and 45 and likely doesn't have children (I'm pretty sure on male between 20 and 45, but children could go either way). Consider the assumptions present in: "Of course this also begs the question of what happens to a woman when she gets old and ugly? Where does she get her power from? She gets it from her man." The assumption there being the only reason a man would protect a woman is because she's pretty and she's having sex with them, likely because the sexual relationship is the main way you're looking at women at this point in your life. Even if we assume women can only derive power from male proximity in nature, there's an obvious alternative answer to where she would derive power from: Her sons and grandsons. If she lives through her childbearing years, a woman in nature is far more likely to live to old age than her male mate: She has better resistance to famine, a better immune system, and if we assume the rigid gender role evo-psych of men = hunters and women = gatherers, she also engages in far less physically risky activities. Even if 'her man' is alive, the odds of him being crippled or simply unable to protect her from younger, fitter men are high. A 35 year old son or 18 year old grandson is far more valuable for protection, and far more stable: a man is always her son/grandson, whereas if we're assuming the red pillish evo-psych is true, 'her man' probably has wandering eyes and would like a younger woman and therefore should not be counted on to stick around once she dares to have wrinkles and saggy breasts. Additionally, a man who doesn't protect his mother is failing at one of the basic tests of belonging to a human tribe: Basic reciprocity. If a man won't give to the one person who took care of him when she gained nothing/he was at his most vulnerable, then how can his fellow hunters (who he's less attached to) trust that he'll reciprocate when they help him? This assumption also outright dismisses the bonds between say, a brother and a sister. Do you think most men wouldn't protect their sisters because they're not sex objects? Older women are also far more able to keep contributing to the tribe than older men if we adhere to this strictly gendered idea of primitive humans. They can care for children while women in their prime gather, they can rear children whose mothers have died (and this is common due to the fatality rate of childbirth), they can take care of the sick, etc. A man who can't keep up with his male duties is far less useful - a man who is over 60 and has 60-80% of the speed and strength of his fellows, or a bad limb, or sensory impairments, is far less able to hunt than a woman over 60 is to caretake. They're more likely to live longer and therefore a better repository of historical knowledge. Idk, I just always find it interesting which physiological and psychological aspects of humanity are ignored or unmentioned whenever someone is making some kind of argument about primal gender roles.
- threethirtytwo 6mo ago
  Bro you made many assumptions. First women today have plenty of power. A lot of times more so than men. I only refer to prehistoric times. Men primarily drived survival in prehistoric times. Without a man a women could not survive. That doesn’t mean she couldn’t contribute it means she was not the primary driver. Women contribute a lot, but that contribution is in the end supplementary because it is not critical for survival and this definitely shapes evolved behavior. It means for survival a man is required for her, this is asymmetric for a man and you can see this in how women and men select mates. Men select based off of superficial markers for fertility. Women select more on practical markers for capability. This is because a women’s survival is dependent on the man’s capability while a man’s survival is not as much dependent on this. Additionally please don’t make the argument personal. If you disagree attack the argument don’t attack or make assumptions about my character. Thank you.
  - Mezzie 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - threethirtytwo 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      - circlefavshape 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        threethirtytwo 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        circlefavshape 6mo ago
        I came back cos I felt a bit guilty. You're right - I was condescending and I'm sorry I think your model of men's social status being solely based on strength, and women's on beauty, is too simplistic to be useful. Even male chimpanzees' status isn't based solely on strength (social grooming and coalition building are also really important), and female chimpanzees' status is not based on the males they attract. Human societies are complex, and people can be useful to the group in a zillion different ways. Men were never only hunters/warriors, and women were never only wives/mothers. Even in societies where almost all food was from hunting it needed to be processed and preserved, and that work was very often done by women. A beautiful woman who takes shortcuts when preserving meat and runs the risk of poisoning the whole family does not make a good wife The core of anyone's power is how useful they are to people around them. If you're beautiful that can be part of your usefulness, but if that's all you have to offer then you're not going to be very powerful
circlefavshape 6mo ago
Nah, it is bizarre. > You need to think of things from this perspective rather than the perspective of what's "taboo". It's only bizarre because society has conditioned you to look away from the cold hard truth. Haha good lord. Of course you have access to the cold hard truth that I'm too foolish to see! Your fixation on "power" (whatever that means) is incredibly reductive, and I expect your knowledge of human behaviour is rather limited
- threethirtytwo 6mo ago
  You’re the one being reductive. Power is an incredibly broad term that encompasses many dimensions that different across species and gender. You irreducibly assumed the singular most negative interpretation of my usage of the word and you deliberately attacked my character personally. Please keep the debate impersonal. If you disagree and believe my arguments are without merit please attack the arguments rather than my character. Thank you.