Does Ms Hale have any actual thoughts of her own?

> members of the "feminine-industrial complex"
> like yourself capitalize on our insecurities.

Whaddya mean "our" insecurities, sugarbun? There's nothing especially feminine about fear.

One good thing about growing up masculine though... At this point in human development, when a young man confesses to being insecure about something stupid, his friends are programmed to mock him, rather than indulging his weakness for his comfort (or their own subsequent manipulations).

PS— Amy's "academic"?

PPS– A truly literate school girl wouldn't type "asshole" as two words.

Does Ms Hale have any actual thoughts of her own?

If so, they were unexpressed. She stuck to feminist talking points.

I love that she lectures me on French post-structuralist manurethink, which she's apparently been taught to revere.

A couple summers in a row, we rented the Paris loft of one of the premier French feminists, and the bookshelves were filled with THE most amazing crap by authors like Sheila Jeffreys (England's Andrea Dworkin). The stuff was just too unbelievably idiotic too pass up, so I took some notes: Jeffreys: "When a woman reaches orgasm with a man, she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression."

I just got back from Frogland, and I do love the place, but on a lot of levels, the French are just full of shit in ways that would be -- well, hard to fathom here.

As my friend M. says, they're good at three things, "The Three F's": Food, fashion, and fucking.

P.S. French feminists only have jobs pumping out their unintelligible crapthink because they're subsidized by the state.

"manurethink"

THAT'S my new word for today!

Amy's "academic"?

Oh, I didn't know she meant me.

As I wrote to Gabriel Evans, who left this comment about me:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/12/plain-and-suffe-1.html

Amy Alkon is a total nitwit. I don't understand how a purported psychology magazine could feature a cover article by a shallow web-blogger such as she.

Me: Gabriel, I'm a shallow nationally syndicated columnist and author. (I'm also a shallow web-blogger, but that barely pays.)

I weep for the human race.
I have 2 daughters. The eldest got her bachelors in chemistry, her masters in materials science, and would have gotten her PhD as well if her husband hadn't gotten transferred to Italy. (tough choice, 2 years in Europe or stay in school :p) oh, did I mention she had full scholarships, and modeled while she was in school?
My younger daughter is blessed with gorgeous brown eyes and lashes that will never need mascara. I taught her to play them up, because whatever is in the arsenal is "all fair", amirite?
I got them both t-shirts that say "All this and Brains Too!" for Christmas this year, because they are the whole package :)

A truly literate school girl wouldn't type "asshole" as two words.

Hee. That was my thought, too. This is like that other letter Amy got that boiled down to "Let me tell you exactly why I disagree with your article--you're old and have red hair." Though this letter made a passing attempt to talk about the content, "in short, you're an ass hole [sic]" ain't really helping your case.

And I like your thought about indulging weakness, Crid. That's where I find fault with so much of this uber-feminism bullshit. I'm all for introspection, but there comes a point where you're just nurturing that weakness at the expense of everything else. Stop with the Miracle-Gro, let the damn thing wither and try to actually think rather than resting on your oh-so-oppressed laurels.

And I'm sick to death of the "capitalizing on our insecurities" crap, too. The women I choose to associate with are smarter than that. While I can't deny that this exists, it takes more than a racy magazine ad or a commercial for skin cream I supposedly need to make me feel bad about myself. I am able to separate myself from people I see in magazines and on television. I suggest Ms. Hale look into that.

Is androcentric the new patriarchal?

>> we must work for a society in which beauty is understood as fluid and subjective

Why? I mean you might not like 'androcentric' concepts of beauty, but why should they be fluid instead? They're already subjective.

One thing that I don't like about this style of argument, which is typical among aca-pomo types, is that it's basically an insult wrapped in an appeal to authority, and ornamented with a template of jargon. Because she's claiming that beauty for everyone else is determined and false, only she, with her sword and magic helmet of critical gender theory, knows true beauty.

I have written a formal response which I'm submitting to Social Text - http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/2088489874/

This woman is the reason that ignorant, serial liar Rush Limbaugh once said, "Feminism was established so that ugly, unattractive women would have easy access to mainstream society."

She's not a feminist. I don't think she knows what one is. She's simply a misandrist who is hijacking/piggybacking on the feminist movement.

It's actually a classic move...even done with some variation on message boards and blogs, including this one: simply attempt to bully someone into silence by insults.

Wimmin (by this, I mean the soi-disant feminists, not all women) can cry all they want that men's tastes are superficial, shallow and they should be more into ("me!") women for their minds and personalities. But ultimately, men like what they like, and can't be harassed and intimidated out of their tastes...although some spineless men actually let themselves be bullied into making a go at it.

I think I need to get back to bed. I have this nearly overpowering urge to email Madeline Hale and say, "Hey, show us your tits, bitch!"

Amy, allow me to translate this letter into plain english

> As a student of feminism, sociology, geography and history

"As someone who has no idea what I want to do, other than to avoid real effort, I have signed myself up for lefty courses that have little or no actual content. On basis of these courses, I am qualified to criticize you."

>reductionist, essentialist...androcentric...fluid and subjective
>...feminist, postmodernist and poststructuralist

"About the only thing I have achieved in my intensive studies is to memorize a bunch of buzzwords. Stringing them together gets me good grades from my leftist professors, so I'll bet that using them will fool you into thinking that I have actually learned something. I could probably write a paper almost as good as this one."

Ordinarily I would take issue with someone who signs themselves "on behalf of [insert group's name here]," but then again, we're talking feminists.

Also, as someone who has taken courses in sociology, geography and history, I can tell you that these courses are not devoid of content. Leftist? Perhaps. Sociology, definitely so. On the other hand, you do get to familiarize yourself with prominent thinkers. Their names, their philosophies, etc. Reject their views all you care to, but at least you'll know who's being discussed when their names are tossed around. Know your enemy.

My sociology professor had us write a term paper on conspiracy theories concerning the Kennedy assassination, and say which one we supported.

Mine was rather uninteresting in its conclusions: Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and he acted alone.

The three pieces of idiocy, er, conspiracy theories I discussed (for the sake of meeting my requirement for the term paper) were the three tramps, LBJ engineered it, and anti-Castro Cuban exiles...I couldn't tell you much about these theories now, as I make a point of trying not to retain bullshit for too long.

Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson and wrote "Helter Skelter," has researched the Kennedy assassination for twenty years and published his findings in "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy," and sifted through more documents on the subject than anyone. He concluded that the Warren Commission's findings were correct, ie, LHO killed Kennedy and acted alone.

"mustachioed mines of feminism."

I read this as "mustachioed mimes".

"beauty is understood as fluid and subjective."

Aka, "stop judging me on my looks! Oh, by the way, what do you do for a living sir?"

Beauty is already subjective, mandating it by feminist fiat won't change basic human nature though. Its just led to more men ignoring women.

Pwned! All their base are belong to you! Huzzah!
--
phunctor

I love this crowd. We're all over the hermeneutics of quantum gravity this morning. Hee!
--
phunctor

'members of the "feminine-industrial complex"'

That made me laugh out loud. Truly an entertaining diatribe. Amy you *reductionist* you (shock, gasp, horror)!

Many people confuse the ability to string big words together into something clever-sounding, with the ability to actually think and write clearly. My favorite essay on that topic is 'Less Than Words can Say', I think Mizz Hale needs to read that.

"Beauty is already subjective"

Beauty is not really subjective, though we'd all love to believe it is --- in reality the hard facts tell us otherwise; there is a TINY degree of subjectivity, but the vast majority of the basis of beauty is objective and remarkably universal across individuals within society. Men instinctively are genetically programmed to find 18-year olds more beautiful than 50 year olds, for example, because of the objective and factual truths that the bodies of the former will be more fertile, ready and capable of bearing children, and have many child-bearing years ahead of them still. We find symmetry e.g. in a face beautiful because it indicates health, which indicates genetic strength to maximize the survival of our offspring; these are factual and objective, and can be quantified. We almost universally find particular types of landscapes beautiful when they exhibit certain objective qualities that factually reveal evidence of a place that can sustain healthy life, e.g. green fields, a lake etc. We find skilled dancing 'beautiful' or great works of art beautiful partly because the vitality represents the health of a society (that it can sustain such activities), the health and vitality of its members, etc.

Check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PktUzdnBqWI

Even when we find very abstract things 'beautiful', one can boil it down to certain object qualities if one truly chooses to think about it. An engineer who designs power plants can find an otherwise ugly coal power plant "beautiful"; that still doesn't mean beauty is subjective, what it means that the engineer is understanding and seeing the beauty of the DESIGN - meaning, he sees the beauty of the level of the skill in the engineering that went into the plant, and what that represents - life, vitality, civilization.

Saying 'beauty is subjective' is just one of those white lies we tell unattractive children to make them feel better about themselves. It's admirable, even though it's mostly not true. Yes we mostly end up *choosing* people who don't look like e.g. George Clooney or Megan Fox, but that's just pragmatism -- I mean come on, let's be honest, it's not because the average person who marries another average-looking person REALLY thought their partner *looked* better than George Clooney or Megan Fox.

I visited the London Tate (Modern Art) gallery the day visiting the Classical Art Gallery. The difference is stupendously remarkable, from so much that is beautiful, to so much that is ugly, from the very building (which is an adapted coal storage facility) that house the Tate. But was this just "subjective"? Is my personal preference for classical art, and finding modern art ugly, completely arbitrary and subjective? I did a small experiment, and observed the people around me in each of the two museums. Virtually universally, the people in the classical art gallery looked more enthralled, far more engaged, and often stopped to linger and look at details within paintings. In the Tate, the people almost universally walked around almost completely disengaged from the 'art', almost zombie-like, disinterested, disconnected, most not even looking at the art, most just ambling forward as if trying to get to the subway.

@Sokal: "One thing that I don't like about this style of argument, which is typical among aca-pomo types, is that it's basically an insult wrapped in an appeal to authority, and ornamented with a template of jargon."

That's a beautiful turn of phrase!

I guess one thing that bothers me about Ms. Hale's overreaction to Miss Alkon's piece was that she didn't appear to understand that nothing Miss Alkon wrote was set in concrete. Yes, one can say what body types and appearances men prefer, as long as one understands that these preferences are only typical -- individual preferences would be expected to fall along a range, and probably a wide one, too.

By the way, what does the phrase "...reductionist, essentialist and outright ignorant" actually mean? The ignorant part I get, but I don't understand the other parts. Was I supposed to?

"Saying 'beauty is subjective' is just one of those white lies we tell unattractive children to make them feel better about themselves. It's admirable, even though it's mostly not true. Yes we mostly end up *choosing* people who don't look like e.g. George Clooney or Megan Fox, but that's just pragmatism -- I mean come on, let's be honest, it's not because the average person who marries another average-looking person REALLY thought their partner *looked* better than George Clooney or Megan Fox."

Yes, but the real question is whether or not beautiful people are happier in relationships with other beautiful people, and, from what I've seen, and read about in a recent study, the answer is no.

According to the study, women are actually happier in relationships with men a notch or two below them in attractiveness - he works harder to please her because, for him, she's a prize.

Beauty increases a woman's opportunities WITH MEN, which only has value when pursuing men, which most feminists claim not to be doing anyway - and many are lesbians - so I don't see why they get so upset about this. I suspect their problem is with the word "opportunities", as if Amy is suggesting that being less attractive will impact all areas of life.

Although it's probably true that being traditionally attractive helps a woman get ahead somewhat in business (thin women make more money that fat women, according to another study), being unattractive isn't really going to limit a woman's professional opportunities, and, in some professions, attractiveness may hinder their oportunities because they'll be taken less seriously.

So, these feminists need to chill. Being attractive has value only as far as attracting a greater number of men. That's simply true.

But the men being attracted aren't necessarily higher quality mates or better people. Besides, one doesn't have to have the broadest appeal to make a solid selection. It only takes one. In fact, if you have 100 choices or 25 choices, you can still pick a dud.

Attractive women have more choices in men, but, in my experience, we (I'll include my hot self) have to weed through them more carefully because we tend to draw men of lesser character.

How cute, she thinks she's an academic. Now get get off your horse and drink your milk, little lady.

I'm going to go in a different direction here. What upsets me about this professor's email is not that she is offended by Amy's article, but that instead of articulating an argument based on facts, or some form of facts, she resorts to, "you suck." The tuition at Towson is incredibly expensive and I would expect a professor from such a fine institution to be able to come up with a better argument.

And as far as Women's Studies, an acquaintance of mine teaches Women's Studies and she does not teach that all men are rapists and oppressors. In fact, just the opposite. She loves men. I'm sorry that Amy's experience was so terrible, but I've also taken some "lefty" sociology courses and never once came out of them feeling anything negative about men. I think its unfair to paint that with such a wide brush but I doubt its an argument I'd ever win here.

Kristen: she's a student (almost certainly an undergrad), not a professor. See the email address "@students.towson.edu".

To write such a pretentious letter ("poststructuralist", give me a break) she is pretty full of herself, and yet she resorts to name-calling. The combination is likely a sign of the quality of her education: she can recite buzzwords, but has little or no training in critical thinking, or how to present an argument.

One might hope that one of her professors would take the opportunity to dissect her letter in a lecture, show her and her classmates what they are missing, and use this as a basis to introduce critical thinking.. Unlikely, of course, as her feminism and sociology professors are probably no more skilled in this area than she is.

I point again to the best sociology paper of all time.

A lot of my girlfriends were/are great beauties, and they married very high status men. That is mostly what great beauty is good for. But a whole heap of us are divorced now - because high status men tend to keep trading that status.

Beauty is just a tool...an especially lethal one in youth...but it has a limited shelf-life. That's what I think young women need to know. How beauty is used depends on the opportunities you seek. If you want a high status mate, then beauty can be a very useful tool, but that probably shouldn't be the opportunity you're after.

My daughter is very pretty. She could be drop-dead gorgeous if she wanted. Some of her teen friends have already gotten boob jobs in an effort to conform to the standards of beauty that appeal most to men. But my daughter plays her beauty down somewhat.

And she seems to have no trouble attracting really nice, smart boys, who appreciate who she is. As a parent, that's what I want to see - not that she has boys lined up at the door, like some homecoming queen, but that the boys she brings home are of good character.

What upsets me about this professor's email is not that she is offended by Amy's article, but that instead of articulating an argument based on facts, or some form of facts, she resorts to, "you suck."

I've come to the conclusion that all of these supposedly intellectual "wimmin" who have nothing better to say about Amy and her article than "you suck", is that they know, deep down, that Amy is right, it just leaves them speechless, and the words "you suck" are the only way they can articulate how they really feel about themselves.

Yes, it sucks to be them!

I love the jargon. Love it. It's so clearly an attempt to sound more scientific through obfuscation. If this young woman followed Amy's suggestion and actually studied science or engineering, she would discover that mathematical and scientific jargon is designed to make a problem tractable, not to confuse and intimidate the reader.

Flynne, I happen to think Amy's article was a very good one and I agree with her points. A professor who wants to disagree however should be able to articulate a better point than, "you suck." Its a shame because my experience with sociology classes has been positive and she could have used her email as an opportunity to show that she's not a bitter feminist. Instead she made Amy's point about such classes.

According to the study, women are actually happier in relationships with men a notch or two below them in attractiveness - he works harder to please her because, for him, she's a prize.

That's one reason, sure. Another is that when they go walking down the beach in swimwear, she's the one getting the looks, the compliments, and the whistles, not him.

And she doesn't need to work so hard to keep him happy, and she doesn't have to worry as much about some other skank coming along and purloining him away from her.

..and the reason why Maryland taxpayers should be paying for the kind of "education" that is evidently going on at Towson is..????

Pictures, or I'm not believing a word she says.

I go to France often -- just got back last week -- and know what utter unfounded crapthink that is, and try to avoid fathoming it, save for when I need a good laugh.

Continental philosophy, as it used to be called, hasn't been popular on the continent since the early nineties. It's only in Anglo countries that you'll find remnants of it, having been institutionalized in the various identity studies.
Once again, the French are laughing at us.

I think that twit wins the Internet prize for most useless buzzwords in an email. Wow.

my, how twee, and tragically hip she is.

And how many different ways we have of speaking of "beauty". Trying to pack so many maneings into one word, there's your problem. Fluid and Subjective? Shyeah, ya think? It isn't the beauty itself that is fluid and subjective, it's that every person has a different thing they LIKE. It isn't necessarily called beauty. Many great points have been made about the generalities that people look for in mates. hip/waist ratio, status, rack, symmetry, age, etc, etc... there are reducto common denominators, for all genders. Most of that is initial reaction. 5 seconds of reaction, and long before you can get one of those big honkin' words out.

Ever known one of those people who is quite plain until they smile? And then? Like the sun breaking through clouds. And people will try to make them happy just to see them smile. What is that reaction?
Getting wrapped around the axle talking about beauty is absurd. Even if Lobster quantifies it in such a way we aren't talking about that, really.

we are talking about attraction. Is there something about you that pulls in a suitable mate?

I believe that what gets this type of feminista upset, is the very idea that they need to attract anyone. that there has to be a GENDER SPECIFIC interest going on. They may well completely discount such a notion if they are lesbian just because the gender is the same. Even though the feelings and interest invovled are really the same regardless of who the object of your desire is.
Maybe that's it right there. The problem is Desire. A lot of people hate that it's about that... because it may be fickle, and it's certainly unexplainable.

sure there are basics, but ultimately? I like brunettes with dark eyes. you can'y put it in a box or take control of it, because it is only my interest.

It's all about control and power. To take something, define it as you wish, and then make people agree or fight you.

Best quote ever, from my friend while we were sitting at the coffe shop listening to two women talking: "Oh how cute! A feminist! I've never really seen one before!"

I have a riddle for you.

If feminists like this one believe beauty is subjective, then why do they always label men as shallow for their subjective views on what is attractive?

>>my, how twee, and tragically hip she is.

I love that, SwissArmyD.
(Fact is I rather loved your whole comment).

"Beauty increases a woman's opportunities WITH MEN, which only has value when pursuing men, which most feminists claim not to be doing anyway - and many are lesbians - so I don't see why they get so upset about this."

Et tu, lovelysoul?

Look, some feminists can be total wankers.
And some lesbians make shitty feminists.
Also, why do you appear to assume lesbians are indifferent to female beauty?

Can't we leave the 'many feminists are lesbians' crap to the usual suspects?

Women are so beautiful when they're angry.

Hey, at least she admits she hates all men. She gets a point for that at least.

"he works harder to please her because, for him, she's a prize."

true. WHich is sort of another version of my grandmother's advice-"in a marriage, one person is usually more in love. It's a happier marriage if the man is the one who is".

It's not true all the time, but fairly often.

> Et tu, lovelysoul?

Y'ever see that movie "Sophie's Choice"?... Wherein the 'most talented actress of her generation'™ has to choose which of her beloved children has to die at the hands of the Nazis? Or whatever?

This is like that for me. Only backwards— Just one?

I mean, BOTH these hideous commenters can't be so repugnantly foolish, can they?

Well, CAN THEY??!!??!?????

Total paradox. I'm, like, completely stuck.

... the honesty, I mean, not the man-hating. I like it when bigots are honest, at least.

Just another example of why the voting age needs to be about 28. This woman thinks she actually know something because she is attending college. Tell her she can have an opinion when she enters the real world, gets a real job, pays real txes, and experiences real people

Like the guy we saw last night at a friend's book party -- he was about 40 and wearing a jacket with a Yale University patch on it -- the use of the word "Cisnormative" speaks volumes.

"Also, why do you appear to assume lesbians are indifferent to female beauty?"

Actually, Jody, I guess I should've said feminist lesbians. There are a lot of very beautiful lesbians, but the feminist variety don't seem to emphasize attractiveness as much. Perhaps that's an unfair opinion, but that is the topic here - how feminists are mad at Amy for emphasizing beauty. It can't be both ways. Either they appreciate beauty or they don't.

I suspect they do appreciate beauty as much as anyone else does, but they won't admit it, and, because they won't, they often seem to go out of their way to be ungroomed and unattractive...and choose unattractive partners...almost as a statement that beauty doesn't matter.

>>Y'ever see that movie "Sophie's Choice"?... Wherein the 'most talented actress of her generation'™ has to choose which of her beloved children has to die at the hands of the Nazis? Or whatever?This is like that for me. Only backwards— Just one?

I'm too dense to catch your drift here, Crid.
(Seriously. I already suspected I was having a dumb day!)

Gaah. These gynosaurs just reinforce the stereotype.

Her mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.

"Looks, in a partner, don't seem to matter as much to women. We seem to have evolved to prioritize power, status and earning power in a partner."

I think that is changing as women have more status themselves, which only makes sense.

My friend is a doctor, and he's noticed that many of the female doctors he works with have begun dating lower status, but hunky, men - like fireman, personal trainers, and so forth.

This is true for me as well. I wouldn't want a high status man. I have money, so I don't need to choose a man on those grounds.

Women have long needed high status males to protect them or lift them out of poverty, but as that becomes less necessary, they go for looks and kindness over status. It's not that they really find unattractive, high status men sexually appealing...they find the status gain appealing...and sometimes that's an aphrodisiac, but, believe me, it wears off.

What! Someone had the effontry to write an offensive e-mail to AA?

BTW, the next-to-latest issue of The New Yorker (a good mad, btw) has an article on the strange fallibility of scientific studies.

As ever, even after peer-review and studies to verify replicability, it turns out many scientists find what they are looking for in their studies.

Symmetry is specifically mentioned as a one-time "hot" idea, "proven" in many studies, only to become unproven in later studies.

I advise AA, so impressed with scientific studies and sauve French manners, to peruse this New Yorker article. You will likely cite "scientific" literature with a little more reserve in the future.

No, this does not mean men hotly pursue women with lopsided titties. And yes, I like 'em hot, young, curvy, ready and silky skinned. I do like conversation too. Well, can't have everything.

"gynosaurs" - love it!

> I'm too dense to catch your drift

Yeah

Thw whole first paragraph is classic in its incoherence and circularity.

"As a student of feminism, sociology, geography and history, I can guarantee that beauty standards have changed over time, space, and identity."

Maybe so, maybe no, but for the sake of argument...

But wait:

"Rather than accepting the androcentric world of beauty standards,..."

So she's saying those changing beauty standards were not "androcentric"? And speaking of androcentric, what else would female beauty standards be? What else would male beauty standards be than gynocentric. This is a monoeciuos species after all. Surely a jargon-banger like you, Madeline (And if you care a litle less ridiculous in your intellectual snobbery, you might want to start speeling your name right.) will know whjat that menas

"...for a society in which beauty is understood as fluid and subjective."

And what else are "androcentric" beauty standards if not subjective, as others have pointed out.

"Indeed, it is both of those things now, but members of the "feminine-industrial complex" like yourself capitalize on our insecurities."

Your insecurities, your responsibility. No one has any obligation to respect your weaknesses.

How do you account for cultures that have more than two genders?

Name one.

How do you account for people attracted to people of the same sex or for whom gender is a non-issue in a partner?

If they're male, they generally go for looks, too.

Despite what you see on television, most gay guys I know are dating guys at or about the same level of attractiveness.

...as for women's studies, I feel that it has a magnificent application in terms of research. Women's studies majors know how to research basically everything within humanities and social sciences at least at a basic level.

And, like most "soft science" majors, no idea how to interpret data.

A "real" class in statistics would benefit most social science majors. But then they'd have to stop projecting causality from correlation.

Thankfully I realized after my posts (thanks a random guy) that this was a student not a professor. At least now its just a silly 20 year old trying to show off her big vocabulary. I'm sorry to see she's already bitter about men but being bitter is easier than taking personal responsibility for bad choices.

I advise AA, so impressed with scientific studies and sauve French manners, to peruse this New Yorker article. You will likely cite "scientific" literature with a little more reserve in the future.

To advise blindly discounting all research -- I expect no less of you, BOTU. You have much in common with this girl in your desperate sucking need to seem smarter and better than other people, and that the only way you can do that is not through accomplishments but by trying to make other people look bad or stupid.

I have learned to read studies for flaws and bias in methodology and design, which is why it takes me a long time to read a single study. I start by looking for the flaws and limitations (for example, a just-published study in Evolution and Human Behavior repeats the flaw in the original Clark/Hatfield study: women aren't likely to go home with a stranger they meet in the middle of campus because they fear for their safety in a way men do not).

By the way, as I've learned from an epidemiologist, all studies are flawed; some just have fewer and smaller flaws than others on a topic.

...as for women's studies, I feel that it has a magnificent application in terms of research. Women's studies majors know how to research basically everything within humanities and social sciences at least at a basic level.

Um, no -- these studies tend to be the shit methodology center of the universe because they tend to be a search to confirm ideology rather than a search to find the truth.

My friend is a doctor, and he's noticed that many of the female doctors he works with have begun dating lower status, but hunky, men - like fireman, personal trainers, and so forth.

Hahahahahaha. Those types of relationships are only transitory, you know just foolin' around. Commitment types tend to be with a man of high status. Georgina Chapman didn't marry Harvey Weinstein out of looks.

Oh and btw some of my friends do that too lovelysoul, date someone of low status but they've confessed to me that they either feel they can't get the man they actually want because it scares them or they are just fooling around.

One more thing looks don't really matter that much to lesbians. A model named Jessica Clark, who came out as lesbian, has stated that it was the hardest thing in her life for lesbians to take her seriously or even want a relationship with her because she is so drop dead gorgeous. Whereas men would constantly harass her for dates.

Anyways certainly lesbians aren't obsessed about looks like gay men.

No, actually, they are marrying them, Ppen. I meant marrying not dating.

There will, of course, always be golddiggers. Georgina Chapman must be impressed by Weinstein's money of power (I believe she's a psychologist). Not saying that's going away. What I dispute is that a woman is really ATTRACTED to a rich man...that women are not visual. For most of history, women have simply been unable to indulge their visual side. They made relationship choices pragmatically, not based on who they found physically appealing.

In April, I'm marrying a hunky man who works with his hands, and makes less money than me, though he has his own business. I find him far sexier than my high-status ex.

That is what you often see - the first husband has money. The second husband has looks. There's a reason for that.

It's hard to tease any general rules out of lesbian behavior, because you have true lesbians, women who become lesbians because men don't find them attractive, and then a lot of fucked up women who become lesbians because they can't stand men. There are also a lot of women who are lesbians until they want kids, and then become straight, at least until the kids get older.

Also when I'd worked in academia, the lesbian faculty always went after the youngest hottest lesbian students they could find. They made the male faculty look like a bunch of Puritans. So don't tell me that lesbians aren't interested in looks.

That is what you often see - the first husband has money. The second husband has looks.

I'd read about a study that was conducted recently on the preferences of affluent, successful, women that bore that observation out. They were more likely to go for physically attractive men. What's interesting is that the age of the man was actually relatively older than average. That is, rather than younger men, or men their own age, these women were going for men ten or more years older.

"Oh and btw some of my friends do that too lovelysoul, date someone of low status but they've confessed to me that they either feel they can't get the man they actually want because it scares them or they are just fooling around."

In actuality, they really should be scared. High status men are harder to keep. They will have their high status far longer than the woman will have her looks, so it's a rather precarious position for most women.

Like I said, most of my friends, who were/are great beauties, and snared a really high-status male, are now divorced...usually traded in for a younger model.

I mean, you can't cry for them because most are very well off too - like Elin Nordregen - but it's not the ideal. So, if a woman has her own money and status, she's much better off marrying a nice, lower or equal status guy, who is slightly less attractive, and will treat her like a prize. I'd take a hunky, sweet fireman over Weinstein or Tiger Woods any day.

Assertions without evidence have never changed a single mind. Rudeness and condescension strengthen opposition. There is no correlation between the length of a word and the strength of an argument.

It's amazing what you can fail to learn at the best universities.

"My man-hating is simply..."

Amazing isn't it how someone oh so passionate about social justice for all can baldly admit to hating half the human race without the slightest hint of shame or irony.

What I find ironic about this little self righteous brat's comments is that the pressure I feel to look good most often comes from other women.

Most guys I know could care less about an extra ten pounds on a girl. And I've had guys approach me (back in the day) when I wasn't wearing any makeup. But lemme tell you...put on a little weight or have a bad hair day and it's other women who will look you up and down like you're a maggot infested deer lying by the roadside. And then follow that look up with a little smug grin of satisfaction as they say in their head "Ha. I look so much prettier than she does".

Anyone seen "Mean Girls"? Don't talk to me about the oppressive patriarchy. My husband seems to like me best in my bra. I'll admit... it's often other women I through on that dress and Jimmy Choos to impress.

Amazing isn't it how someone oh so passionate about social justice for all can baldly admit to hating half the human race without the slightest hint of shame or irony.

I doubt our little Maddy-Waddy considers men "human."

@lola
Also when I'd worked in academia, the lesbian faculty always went after the youngest hottest lesbian students they could find. They made the male faculty look like a bunch of Puritans. So don't tell me that lesbians aren't interested in looks

One of the best posts I've read in long time.

Way off topic, but I thought this was the best gem to arise: "When you feel okay with yourself, your goal is communicating, not trying to sound really smart"

Oh, how I wish the entire start-up world realized this! After hearing clients pontificate for hours about "platforms, synergies, economies of scale, and (my favorite) 'net-net'", I often have to ask - "who is going to give your company money, and where do you want that money to go?"

"To advise blindly discounting all research" --

I didn't advise that; I advised using "reserve" when citing studies.

I am very impressed you are able to better discern the quality of a scientific study than even professionals working for peer-reviewed journals, such as Nature, who allow such weak studies into print. You have a Leonardo Da Vinci-like intellect under your broad-rimmed hats!

Speaking seriously for a moment, if you read the well-done New Yorker article, you may discern that some flaws are not in the design or methodology, but elsewhere and "off the record," so to speak.

For example, when testing a new drug for schizos, researchers may first choose promising (less-troubled) patients. This bias will not be detectable in any reviews of the design or methods (I will eschew the fancy word "methodology" of your youth) of the study. Indeed, some patients may never show up, and those are the worst ones--no fault of the researchers.

As for any recognition I might get from posting in your blog--forget it, I am anonymous. I get no recognition here, or feeling of superiority over digitized words and images on a screen.

I was just trying to help you see that citing studies that favor your outlook--well, studies come and go, especially in the tangled area of diets, personality disorders etc. The soft sciences.

My favorite field, economics, is littered with "studies" that inevitably "prove" whatever political bias the researcher has.

I tend to believe those studies that verify my point of view. But then, I am not advising or riposting with troubled or wayward youths, as sometimes you are.

"I wrote about a study in which women found THE EXACT SAME GUY less attractive when he was in the driver's seat of a beater car. Men's feelings about a woman's attractiveness did not vary whether they were shown in the driver's seat of the beater or an expensive new car."

The flaw in that study is that most women are not financially independent, so they will be thinking of that aspect when judging a man. Show those photos only to women who already have money/status/power and it will likely be different.

I mean, if you showed photos of babies to young women who had not yet had children, you'll get a different result than if you showed them to women my age, whose kids are grown. The study might conclude all women want children.

Status is so inextricably linked emotionally to women's survival, through years of evolution, that, of course, it's going to be an appeal, but much less so when a woman isn't worried about survival or financial well-being.

I love the jargon. Love it. It's so clearly an attempt to sound more scientific through obfuscation.

Abjure Obfuscation!

Wow.

Well, at least now I know what "cisnormative" means. I am happy I am cisgendered, though I am sad that Madeline hates me.

If women wish their sex to be taken more seriously, the sad fact is a great many of them would do the entire sex a great deal of good in that vein by getting back in the damn kitchen.

The dumbass male ditch with no education and no aspirations to one digger does his sex a service by providing an obvious social benefit, his being intellectually bereft is no handicap or obstacle.

However the dumbass womyn's studies student who can say "My manhating..." as if it were acceptable to hate half the world's population, and use words such as heteronormative and cisnormative, not only add nothing of concrete productive value to the world, but they make all women look bad by extension, the more so because they make themselves so public about their stupidity.

Leave the intellectual stuff to the men and women who can actually find a good use for it, and don't need to disguise their lack of substance by long words and obscure poorly researched and more poorly understood references.

She admits she's a man-hater. She claims it's not from her studies, but she still admits it. She lost the argument before she started.

As a student of feminism, sociology, geography and history, I can guarantee that beauty standards have changed over time, space, and identity.

A while back I was walking through the Deutsche Museum. Stepping into one of the galleries, I saw a woman whose beauty was so jaw-slackening and breath-stopping that it was practically a force of nature.

Sadly, she has been dead for 3,000 years.

While women did evolve to want providers, to an independantly wealth woman a good 'provider' might have little to do with the size of his wallet

Hey Skipper-

I dunno about that woman. She's got no body to talk about. Do you get horny about women in wheelchairs? Not that there's anyting wrong with it.

The desire for men of status frequently does not end up being a straight up analysis of financial resources and power. I use my brother as an example because it baffles me how he has women falling all over him, willing to ditch the men who ARE paying the bills for a petty thug who sells Christmas trees on the side of the highway.

My brother is attractive (or was -- less so now after years of drug abuse and a hard life) and strong, and he has a lot of confidence. That screams status and power to a lot of women, even when there's nothing there behind the curtain. They want a guy who can beat up all the other guys in the neighborhood, not someone who will give them a cushy life.

She's got no body to talk about.

Can I help if if I like busty women?

talking status is talking about generalities, too, just like any other mode of attraction. I know outliers like your brother MonicaP... in fact my ex-step uncle was one of them. He had a million stories, but the fact was he was a smooth talking n'er do well... who could and often did charm the pants off of any woman.

This is where a trend like my love of brunettes as a trend can be completely overcome by a woman who isn't one, if the timing/moonphase/someotherreason is right. We all have this, and that is why your charming brother and my uncle could get away with it.

that being said, in a study environment there are more guides in place mostly based on not talking to an individual, rather a type.

Once we get down to an individual level, many of the bets are off.

which is the funniest part of the whole presentation. ADVICEAmy says something like "wear makeup, and don't wear sweats if you want a guy" and to the guys she might say "don't ask her to go dutch on the first date, and avoid the iron maiden t-shirt" and it makes sense, but she DIDN'T say you CAN'T find some partner that would accept those features. Just that the odds aren't as good. And somehow this is threatening... to feministas, it's confusing.

"How do you account for cultures that have more than two genders?"

What on earth is she referring to with this claim?

Before I trash it, I concede it's slightly plausible there may exist some obscure group of people somewhere where e.g. a genetic anomaly has been bred in to the point that it is expressed at high rates in the population. I know a little about global cultures as it's in my field, but cultures are virtually universally male / female two-gender oriented - in fact most more so than Western culture, as most are behind the Western-led 'female-equality' trend curve.

"Women, if they could, would go for George Clooney and the like. But, they will also date ugly men."

Yes, when people choose mates that don't look like George Clooney, it just means that looks are only one of multiple criteria used to choose a mate, NOT that looks were "subjective" and that they found Joe Average better-looking. My wife chose me to marry her, but I'm not naive enough to think that means she "subjectively" finds me more physically attractive than someone like George Clooney. And most men would rather their SO's looked like Scarlet Johansen but most men know that ain't going to happen.

Of course it's part of the mutual 'social contract' that we don't openly say such things, that's standard diplomacy, to maintain good relations with the people in our lives (that's also why we like to pretend beauty is subjective), but when we are being scientific we must adhere to the truth.

"My man-hating is simply a function of personal experience"

So your emotion is clouding your "science".

lower status, but hunky, men - like fireman

It's good work and takes a brave soul to do it, "lower status" or not. I'd rather have a fireman than a suit and tie, but I'm from a fairly working class background and tend to find that more admirable than airy fairy shit that amounts to naught in the real world.

But, I do my very best to be more arm candy than arm meatloaf.

lol Well it does feel good to make your man the envy of other men. I want a man to feel proud, not embarrassed, to be seen with me, and I don't see what's wrong with that. Most women like to feel attractive, and making a man feel lucky is part of that.

Monica is right high status doesn't necessarily mean boatloads of money. Amy has used the term "big man on campus". Someone that is a leader in a particular something. Maybe the greatest novelist despite being piss poor is going to get plenty of kitty. Btw lovelysoul Georgina chapman was a wealthy girl all by her lonesome and the creator of marchesa a fashion line that is loved by critics. This was all before good old Harvey. So your theory is faulty. And when i said some women are scared and they go with lower status men it's that they are afraid of going after what they really want.

In actuality, they really should be scared. High status men are harder to keep. They will have their high status far longer than the woman will have her looks, so it's a rather precarious position for most women.

That's a risk that many women are going to face regardless. I've seen the same dynamic play out among couples who are middle income. Pretty girl marries an average guy with a good job. She's looking for a provider. Eventually the lack of chemistry takes its toll. Maybe she lets herself go, not caring, or someone cheats. By the time they're approaching forty, the lifestyle isn't enough to keep them together, and he's got options that she doesn't. That's why I think that it's important to marry for love. A man is going to be less likely to leave a woman who he knows has always cared for him, than one that he thinks has married him for a meal ticket.

"My favorite field, economics, is littered with "studies" that inevitably "prove" whatever political bias the researcher has."

Economics is one of the weaker sciences, because it's really a social science studying how people behave and interact, so yes, it is 'fluffy' and littered with bad research but your argument seems to be that that means you can pick and choose arbitrarily whichever you want? Some are 'more correct' than others.

"I tend to believe those studies that verify my point of view"

You admit such a thing? That's the opposite of science.

I believe --- my "point of view" is --- that the Newtonian atom model is correct, and I've tried to design computers based on this model but for some reason I can't fathom, they don't work. Strange eh? Surely I can pick and choose whichever verifies my point of view?

"Monica is right high status doesn't necessarily mean boatloads of money. Amy has used the term "big man on campus". Someone that is a leader in a particular something."

Yes, men belong to (and construct) multiple hierarchies. Financial is just one. But a hierarchy is a hierarchy.

Lobster-

I was admitting that as a layman, yes, I tend to believe economic studies that "prove" what I want to believe anyway---a little tongue in cheek. At least I know that I am "weak" for certain kinds of studies.

I was not advising that Alkon act in the manner I do, but rather that she become aware of her limitations and those of studies she cites--the diet and psych studies that are routinely soft as fresh poop.

However, Alkon evidently believes she is intellectually deft enough to decipher even misleading clues or incorrect peer-reviewed studies, and of such intellectual rigor that she never "falls" for a study as it affirms her point of view.

No worries!

As for Newtonian psychics, I am working on a mobius strip-perpetual motion machine. Positive and negative charges are concurrently released into permanent magnets, that are re-charged by the process of creating energy.

Hey Skipper-

Now that was a bona fide clever and funny retort.

Hoist a brew for me, I would pay if I could.

BOTU -- thanks; hoisting.

"By the time they're approaching forty, the lifestyle isn't enough to keep them together, and he's got options that she doesn't." jj

So, if this is true, then why are ~75% of divorces initiated by Women?

The guy is likely to continue going to that same job and trudging through it... what changes for him in the lifestyle is largely negative... and what options do you think he has? He is 40 now divorced, maybe with kids, and likely broke... not exactly a chick magnet.

"By the way, as I've learned from an epidemiologist, all studies are flawed; some just have fewer and smaller flaws than others on a topic."

Some of you missed that. I won't say your screen name.

"Science" is NOT a series of unsupported allegations. In ALL cases, the method by which information is gathered is an inseperable part of the observations in scientific investigation. It is religion, not science, which claims an answer without showing the work.

So, yes, Amy can, indeed, determine when a study is junk, and so can you if you can see around your lips.

Radwaste:

I am pulling my lips out of the way to read your handiwork. Please read the New Yorker article referenced.

Even peer-reviewed articles and studies--some accepted by the FDA--have turned out not to be validated by wider experience.

Some drugs accepted by the FDA to treat schizos--after abundant testing--in fact work no better than earlier drugs or nothing, though they were hotly touted at one point.

My understanding of the FDA (and I have done intense PR work for a pharma company) is that getting approval is a rigorous, multi-stage process--some complain too rigorous. Yet even the FDA is foiled by poor research.

Okay, maybe you and Alkon can see things the FDA or reviewers at peer-reviewed publications can't--perhaps.

I would be very impressed.

That said, you may wish to consider taking studies with a grain of salt, especially those which validate your point of view.

For just a quick moment, may I point out that for someone who is being very condescending toward Amy, she misspelled "condecention".

Her punctuation kind of sucks too.

"Long story short, you totally suck. Thanks for making academics look like ass holes."

And with that any of the "intelligent" points she was trying to make went up in dust. It's a common misconception in this age group, isn't it, that having a potty mouth makes them look adult, savvy and sassy? I wonder how many chances they miss, how many of these potty mouthed young women shoot themselves in the foot without ever realizing it? They make themselves repulsive and then, well it's all the Patriarchy, the Patriarchy ***squawk!!**

crella - it's pretty much du jour for 20-somethings to have a potty mouth these days. Not that would say ALL of them do, but certainly womyn studies majors.

Listen, maybe this girl is a goof, but it's not like these "intellectuals" have a growing market of human mindshare or anything. Yes, they say stupid things, and say them on the public/academic dime... But it's not like anyone (at least, no one in this forum) is taking affirmative steps to clean up women's studies departments.

Most people who graduate from programs like that move out into the world and see that all their preciousness means nothing to anyone. Then they have a choice: They can grow up, or they can go back to graduate school. If they actually get a job and make their way through the world on the world's terms, all the silliness we see in these emails to Amy becomes a half-forgotten teenage hobby... Like her old Celine Dion records, just a scruffy memory of her pre-orgasmic lifetime.

Yeah, it would be cool if the stupidities of academe could be mopped up, but these wouldn't be our first targets.

And besides, it might be more productive to go after the Scientologists. Their tax exemptions are newer, and their wretchedness stems from a similar set of interpersonal weaknesses.

"Wrong. Women who are powerful want MORE powerful men (the "theory of structural powerlessness" is the notion echoing yours above, that they only want powerful men because they lack power, and it's been well-disproved)."

I'd like to see the studies. Power is one thing, money is another. Some people are powerful, but not necessarily financially comfortable. Everyone has a certain financial number where they feel safe. Female friends of mine who have secured that number don't tend to pursue men on the basis of money. Power, perhaps, is a different animal. Most women want a strong man, and showing power, in various ways, like hiring, firing, and exerting influence, indicates that, but it doesn't necessarily have to do with making more money.

As Luj says, "While women did evolve to want providers, to an independantly wealthy woman a good 'provider' might have little to do with the size of his wallet."

A fireman is generally more physically powerful than a stockbroker, but he's usually not richer. So, what did the studies mean by "powerful"?

My fiance is far more physically powerful than my rich ex. He's 6'2" and a blackbelt. I appreciate that, but it has nothing to do with his wallet.

"FYI, I just wrote something on the brain, and my worry is always, always, that I put out the best evidence-based truth I can."

Thank you for this. I think this is what makes you a stand-out, that your bias is slanted not towards right or left but toward right or wrong.

"Well, CAN THEY??!!??!?????

Total paradox. I'm, like, completely stuck."

Crid? Have I told you lately that I love you?

>>Please read the New Yorker article referenced.

BOTU,
It appears to be one of the New Yorker pieces behind the subscrption paywall.

(I've checked for another source -but no luck at all.)

"The desire for men of status frequently does not end up being a straight up analysis of financial resources and power. I use my brother as an example because it baffles me how he has women falling all over him, willing to ditch the men who ARE paying the bills for a petty thug who sells Christmas trees on the side of the highway."

Monica, let me clear this up for you. I suspect your brother is great in bed. That has a status all its own. The guy women gossip about because he's (usually) well-hung and talented in bed is also a major prize. It's a lot more subtle than the flashy millionaire, but snaring that guy can be as much (or more) of a thrill.

"Her mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." - Isomber

Hedy [That's "Hedley!!"] Lamar from Blazing Saddles, bathtub scne talking to Mr. Taggart, yes?

"I love the jargon. Love it. It's so clearly an attempt to sound more scientific through obfuscation. If this young woman followed Amy's suggestion and actually studied science or engineering, she would discover that mathematical and scientific jargon is designed to make a problem tractable, not to confuse and intimidate the reader."

Bravo, Astra. Well done, and this paragraph neatly summarizes everything that's wrong with the humanities today. Assistant Village Idiot wrote a great blog post about this a few years ago. Scientists and engineers may use ten-dollar words, but that's usually because they are trying to describe some concept for which there are no words otherwise. (And if they're smart, they will only do that between themselves; when speaking to a general audience, they will strip it back down, even if that means taking several extra minutes to explain what it means.) On the other hand, the humanities and social sciences appear to have devolved into the equivalent of medieval mystery guilds, which used fancy language not to enlighten, but to obscure. Also to identify themselves as members of the tribe -- there's a fair amount of Gnosticism in the humanities today.

If beauty doesn't matter, why don't more mtf transgendered look like Gertrude Stein?
A Google image search finds our young correspondent looking sort of horsey.

> Have I told you lately that I love you?

There's no need, Keenster... I can always feel it, and that's what's important.

Anyway...

Hours later, around the campfire in the valley, there's a slight odor of shame wafting down from the day's mountain hike. Exactly WHY did I get so sarcastic with LS & Tressider?

Let's review!

1. LS, despite patterns of error, made a pretty mild comment.

2. Tressider scolded her.

3. I hate scolds... Especially when they scold people who are, howsoever improbably and infrequently, essentially correct... And who scold without recognition of larger ironies, i.e., in the manner of Amy's goofy-scoldy correspondent.

So!

And just like that, the Los Angeles evening air is cleansed... Crickets chirp in a cool, moist evening breeze, with just a kiss of brine scent from the nearby Pacific.

Everything's good again.

Thank you Crusader, I didn't know (but suspected as much). Just because they think that sprinkling their conversation with those words proves how 'open' they are, doesn't mean that anyone else is going to love it. Like shouting 'c*nt' at the Vagina Monologues, just because you declare a word not longer offensive doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees.

Is it me, or is it repulsive to hear words like 'asshole' and 'f**k' out of young women's and girls
mouths in public?

Now, now...Yeah, telling someone "you suck" is pretty damn rude, but looky here: College is the time when you soak up all kinds of ideas. Some are genius, some just seem that way because - gosh! - you'd never thought of that before, and you've never heard it discussed anywhere! And God! This changes EVERYTHING!

Having your brain cracked open is a wonderful thing; in some cases an Ayn Rand wields the chisel, in others, it's an Andrea Dworkin. Either way, the initial effect is usually a passionate intellectual embrace followed by a period of excruciatingly rigid classroom dissertations, party chatter and letters to writers like that evil witch, Amy Alkon...

Subsequent to that, if the college is doing its job, that embrace of one's first mind-blowing idea becomes less passionate, more tentative. The student, once so ardent a lover, wants to see other people - perhaps a Naomi Klein or a Susie Bright has seduced her with more things to think about and more perspectives to examine.

At this point, the best outcome IMHO, is a student who continues a lifelong love affair with ideas, regularly subjected to the kind of rigorous testing only life experience and accumulated wisdom can provide.

But that doesn't come 'til after graduation, usually.

In other words, chill, peeps. Ms. Hale's a college student and you're all grownups. I think it's understandable that her feet are starting to feel a bit chilly now that her correspondence is public knowledge. I don't blame her; a lot of the comments I see here seem designed to obliterate rather than stimulate.

Hi, Peter! I think that someone who decides to write a screed against an author and send it to that author should be a little more aware of formal rules of writing and decorum. Clicking off a " u suk" email isn't exactly a sophisticated attempt to engage the author in a conversation about ideas. Hale didn't really debate Alkon, she just tossed around some $5 words, made some snide comments, and leapt to some wacky conclusions. if she's going to pitch snark, she should be prepared to catch snark.
The internet is a great leveler-- I once emailed Garrison Keilor about one of his Salon columns, but I sure didn't point out that he was ugly and dressed funny.

>>Exactly WHY did I get so sarcastic with LS & Tressider?

Crid,
Annoyingly, that doesn't answer my original question!

I just didn't understand why you thought Meryl Streep's role in that movie had something to do with my exchange here with lovelysoul?

(All I can recall of "Sophie's Choice" - I think it was a bit overblown for my taste - was when Streep's character vomited in a library. The scene had something to do with Emily Dickinson? To be fair to me, I only saw the thing once, almost 30 years ago!)

> I just didn't understand

I don't love you enough to repeat a punchline. I'd rather sit quietly and enjoy a moment with the crickets.

I don't care about my husband's power in the world or his salary, but I do have to be married to someone I respect. For me, that includes being smart, since it would be hard for me to respect someone who wasn't at least as intelligent as I was.

When I read Pride and Prejudice as a young woman, I found this line sexist:

"I know your disposition, Lizzy. I know that you could be neither happy nor respectable, unless you truly esteemed your husband; unless you looked up to him as a superior."

Now I see the wisdom in it.

Could I be married to a smart man who was not a scientist? Maybe, though I like being able to talk to my husband about my work and having him understand. Perhaps that is why 90% of married female scientists are married to male scientists.

> Now I see the wisdom in it.

Does anyone remember some talk about this on the internet recently, perhaps even on this blog, suggesting that in contemporary America it would be unthinkable for Michelle Obama to admit that she looks up to her husband and seeks his approval?

Well, Amy, perhaps the idea you soaked up in college was that there was nothing for you to learn, no opposing viewpoints to consider, and that everyone's experience before, during and after your enrollment in Women's Studies was, is, and will be, exactly like yours.

I'm aware of the fact that a lot of these segmented fields of "inquiry" are clogged with lotsa b.s., but there are also scholars out there who are very smart and very grounded in intellectual rigor. And guess what? A lot of the more traditional fields of inquiry or study are also sclerotic with b.s. as well as a worldview that can be gender-centric (sp?) ethnocentric, or class-centric - which, if not countered by other perspectives, prevents us from seeing things as clearly and objectively as we might.

I am glad you at least learned the part about going to a man's house alone and emerged unscathed. (And what was this turd of a man, but a pathetic patriarchical lame-o assuming he could trade his experience and connections for some tender young poon?)

> and that everyone's experience before,
> during and after your enrollment in
> Women's Studies was, is, and will be,
> exactly like yours.

Dude, clue us in. What exactly has the product of this field of study done for us? What innovations have these departments –disproportionately prevalent in public, state-funded institutions, I would wager– brought to civilization's intellectual dynamic?

(Beyond a fresh harvest of soft-palmed, zombied tenure-bots, I mean.)

Describe, in a few sentences, three trends that have rippled through this important new course of study. Please. I beg you.

"...but there are also scholars out there who are very smart and very grounded in intellectual rigor."

Yes. We call ourselves "physicists."

Tee hee.

Sayeth Crid: "Does anyone remember some talk about this on the internet recently, perhaps even on this blog, suggesting that in contemporary America it would be unthinkable for Michelle Obama to admit that she looks up to her husband and seeks his approval?"

And yet it would be seen as charming and sensitive (at least by some), if the President admitted he looked up to his wife and sought her approval.

No particular point, just an observation. And don't harsh Crid's mellow!

When I was in my history/anthropology course study I had a freind mke me a T-shirt tht said

Ethnocentrism
Because my culture
really is
better than yours

My teacher loved it

@McQuaidLA: "...but looky here: College is the time when you soak up all kinds of ideas. Some are genius, some just seem that way because - gosh! - you'd never thought of that before, and you've never heard it discussed anywhere!"

And some of the ideas are so ridiculous they'd surely die outside of the academy. Being able to identify nonsense when you hear is a valuable skill, but as many posters above have said, it usually takes time to develop.

As regards Miss Alkon's "Not if you have a brain" remark, I disagree. You'll soak up the idea by sitting in the lecture hall (if, unlike me, you managed to stay awake). That doesn't mean you have to embrace it, and maybe what you learn is the opposite of what the professor wants you to, but oh well. That's part of education, too.

I think Ms Hale has figured out that she's nothing going to be allowed to just gas on about her feelings and intuitions if she comments here. She's been told that feeling strongly about a subject is as important as having actually studied and formed an opinion.

My favorite part was "we must work for a society in which..."

And I'm all like "Who's we?" and "Whaddya mean must, dorm-girl?"

"(Beyond a fresh harvest of soft-palmed, zombied tenure-bots, I mean.)" Crid

threadwin there, dude. and I'll bet maddy herself is in the line.

Once again, if beauty is to be subjective, then how can men be wrong for liking what they like?

"As for Newtonian psychics"

I actually use language with precision, seldom bluntly or vaguely, if a word is there it's for a reason and refers to something specifically --- just for clarification, I actually referred to the Newtonian atom model, not "Newtonian physics"; the former is objectively horribly wrong and won't get you anywhere if you want to build a computer. The latter, while outdated for certain modern applications, actually otherwise encompasses highly accurate approximations andis so useful that it almost single-handedly underpinned the most massive explosion in technological development ever seen in human history. We literally seldom go minutes in society without touching or being affected by something that could be developed thanks to Newton's physics breakthroughs. I don't think any one other person changed society so much.

> Once again, if beauty is to be subjective,
> then how can men be wrong for liking
> what they like?

Luj, try to understand; Hale's never had a boner, OK? If she HAS ever woken up with seven inches of burning flesh in her underpants, the flesh wasn't hers.

This is a problem for women: Because so many of their attractions are dictated by social forces instead of animal ones, they think that men who do stuff they don't understand are just badly programmed.

One of the tenets of feminism has been that men have been oppressing women for untold thousands of years.

So...at some point in history we start getting higher learning, universities, and the like in an increasingly modernized western society.

Yet in all that time nobody comes up with a "Men's studies" department.

Anybody ever wonder why women need their own special course focused entirely upon their own sex?

Ensuring proper indoctrination comes immediately to mind as a reason.

> Once again, if beauty is to be subjective,
> then how can men be wrong for liking
> what they like?

They wouldn't, but what Amy is saying is that beauty isn't THAT subjective. Not many men are pining for overweight women with mustaches. Feminists want to believe that men's attitudes are "evolving" to encompass all manner of unattractiveness.