|
You know what?
Personally I think that stuff like this goes too far - "Don't treat women like objects! We should band together and destroy this misogyny!"
OK . . . now, let's be honest. There are arbitarty standards of beauty in the world, and there's no way to refute this. Everyone is held to them.
The problem only arises when you make inferences as to a person's worth based upon his/her physical beauty - NOT when you compare people on subjective (or even objective) bases.
Let me draw the line in the sand for you all: THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE IN THE WORLD BLESSED WITH MORE PHYSICAL 'BEAUTY' THAN OTHERS! - and another key facet - we don't need to deny this! It's not a problem to say "I'm less attractive (physically) than someone else" - this mumbo-jumbo crap that everyone has to eliminate arbitrary standards of physical attractiveness is absolutely ridiculous.
The key: learn to use other standards to judge people's worth. Everyone has value, and has something to offer - just don't make the judgement on what that is, or to what extent, based on attractiveness.
The societal dimension that has moved toward elimination of arbitrary standards of beauty is sorely misguided - how about instead we move toward an emphasis on the rounded individual, an emphasis on judging people in every way and not just in a few? This way, we remove the stigma based in looks - realistically, few people become depressive, anorexic, or exhibit signs of any other disease based solely on looks, etc. It's a worth issue - with which, in principle, physical attraction should have little to do.
So if you want to say that these men are 'pigs' for judging women based upon how they look, well, I'll respectfully dissent - they are pigs for using this as a value judgement, but not for using it as a comparative measure.
Few would get pissed if I said that Linus Pauling was an inferior scientist when compared to Isaac Newton, just like I wouldn't be upset if someone told me that I couldn't long jump as far as Carl Lewis in his prime.
Could you allow that arbitrary standards of beauty are nearly the same things? Let these guys have their "pig parties" - i think it's hypocritical to call them names for doing something we all do normally, and that is compare people based on attributes - chances are they're not doing this for the right reasons, but it's their responsibility to do this. "Looks" are the only attribute people try to make "off-limits" for discussion - I say, allow it in its fullest, just make sure it's utilized for the right reasons, and that 'value' judgements are reserved for the whole person. While the attitudes exhibited at the "Pig Party" may be immature, I'll venture to say so would be any movement to try to prevent the use of physical attractiveness as a tool for comparison between people.
Just like I can say, "You know, I really like Monet's early works far better than 'Water Lillies' . . . ", it's allowable that one can say "Rob, you're just not as physically attractive as Tom Cruise." That's certainly allowed.
|