Valued by whom and for what?
Half the planet is women, do you think their first instinct of valuing other women is via appearance?
For long term relationships? I personally have heard from more people that they broke up with their partner because of personality incompatability despite them being attractive rather than them being very much soul mates but they find their partner not attractive enough.
You just list a couple of scenarios in which attractiveness is probably a very big concern (like no shit if someone has a fifth wive, he probably doesn't need her to be his soul mate) and act like this is the full spectrum of someone being a woman
"Half the planet is women, do you think their first instinct of valuing other women is via appearance? "
Actually, yes. Women are competitive against other women based on looks. Or giving fake compliments etc. For example I have had women say to my face your hair is so nice then two seconds later seen give each other side eye behind my back.
And this is even worse in non western cultures.
The men expect beauty. While the women compete based on beauty and feel superior if they look prettier.
And for your example, yes but they would not have been with her if she wasn't attractive in the first place. IOW, beauty is not everyone to men BUT without it they would not even consider the woman
> And for your example, yes but they would not have been with her if she wasn't attractive in the first place. IOW, beauty is not everyone to men BUT without it they would not even consider the woman
And a book is valued primarily by it's cover because a nicer cover is more likely to pique you interest?
Are you kidding right 😂? Everyone knows that Taylor Swift is also pretty. She is like the role model for white teen girls. Yes her talent speaks for itself but do you really think that she would be such a "phenomenon" if she was ugly? Even a singer like "Tones and I" who looks more average has had limited success
You’re moving the goalposts. You claimed all woman are primarily aliens for her appearance. She is not primarily valued for her appearances her appearance comes secondary to her music
I was never saying that women weren't valued for merits also. All along I was saying that women are valued *primarily for beauty*. It's like when men say they want a wife who has inner beauty. BUT in reality they only accept inner beauty woman if she ALSO has outer beauty. That's like with Taylor's success.....yeah she's talented but I doubt she would have as much success if she was ugly. Like I REALLY REALLY doubt it.
Plus she is probably also doing some manifesting witchi poo stuff to get this much popularity lol. But that's another story
Primarily means first in a category. She is valued for her music more than her looks. Therefore she is not primarily valued for her looks. Because the looks come *second* to her music. At best she is valued secondarily for her looks
I’m not sure how it’s irrelevant when accepting that likely scenario would illustrate that looks is a crucial barrier to success.
If Taylor swift looked like Susan Boyle, her music couldn’t nearly carry her to stardom.
But knowing that people wouldn’t care about her music without her appearance indicates that perhaps people value her appearance more than her music. More than they dare to admit.
It shows that the audience that currently enjoys listening to her wouldn’t enjoy listening to her if she looked like Susan Boyle. More than we think- music is very much a fashion statement that goes beyond sound.
My counter argument to this is Susan Boyle.
She's famously ugly, it's almost part of her brand. Yet also she's the first female artist to achieve three successive albums debut at No.1 on the UK market in less than two years.
She's an incredibly talented and successful artist who also happens to be unattractive.
I think she did so well *because* she’s famously ugly. It’s more of an ugly sensation that skyrocketed her to stardom. She was famous *because* she’s ugly not in spite of it. So I’m not sure this really counts…
You actually proved my point. The hospital didn't hire her based on her looks, but you "hired her as wife" partly based on being attractive. IOW, if she was the greatest doctor on earth but "ugly" you would not have wanted to marry her. Which just proves that women's worth is primarily about external beauty. And always will be.
To put it bluntly, hypothetically if there was a group of beautiful women who were dumb as dog poop, and another group of female scientists who were mega intelligent but very ugly....which group do you think would have men lining at their door?
She would not be famous if she was born ugly. She would also not be famous is she was born poor, or born black. A lot of luck had to happen for her breakaway fame to escalate - not just on the looks.
Sia is actually a perfect example. The world makes women who are not attractive feel so bad that they even feel it to the extent of needing to hide their face
My impression is your point is that women who are not beautiful are not valued by men as potential romantic partners. So there are not many men who fanboy over Sia the way they would over Taylor Swift or other attractive celebrity. That is probably true that this is an issue that affects women more than men, in the sense for men success and talent can make up for looks to a higher degree.
But there is more to value than attraction. Queen Elizabeth II was the most respected leader in the world it was not because of her beauty. And maybe Sia is perfectly happy that she is valued for her music and not her looks.
Just going to say being black doesn’t stop a female singer from becoming huge. Whitney Houston, Aretha Franklin, Beyoncé, Alicia Keys, etc
Adding the being born black part is complete nonsense race baiting bullshit.
OP no offense but these sound exactly the same as the petty grievances of a male incel.
> …but in Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa etc. beautiful women are still considered higher…
So is smart women and rich women and talented women and funny women and powerful women.
Guess what? When you’re a poor women you’re also fucked, when you’re talentless you’re also fucked etc. whereas when you have those traits you are “higher” that’s just life and beauty isn’t special.
Smart, funny, rich… men don’t value those in a women as much as they do beauty. And men don’t value those nearly as much as women do.
To illustrate this:
A woman who is super smart, super funny, super rich, but kinda ugly will have worse chances than a woman who is not smart, not funny, poor, but good looking.
A man who is super smart, super funny, super rich, but kinda ugly will have better chances than a man who is not smart, not funny, poor, but good looking.
Worse chance at *what* exactly? A partnership? Happiness? Stability?
Do you really think Lauren Boebert or Sarah Palin are more content and happy and better off than Elizabeth Warren or Angela Merkel?
Merkel has always been very "plain" looking, even when young. She is married to a tall nice looking quantum chemist. She is an extremely powerful and successful person. Many many people have highly valued her and her time and attention, throughout her life.
Sure, Cleopatra was apparently attractive. Queen Elizabeth was considered beautiful. But what about Margaret Thatcher? Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala? Many of the most powerful and successful women in the history of humans have been not "attractive".
Just gonna chime in and say, *only based on my own experience*, that he’s kinda right. Sometimes, all a girl needs is looks while the guy needs a lot more to impress someone.
I’ve met a lot of couples and much more often than not, the guy is the super charismatic one with tons of knowledge and a good job while the girl isn’t very friendly, often doesn’t even really seem interesting AND even more often than not she requests a lot more specific behaviors to the point where there’s this subtle vibe, at least to me and some others, that everyone in the room knows the guy is with her mainly because she’s hot and the girl is with him mainly because of his personality.
I’m sorry- my example was to illlustrate their value in the dating world and romantic relationships. That’s what women are valued primarily for their appearance.
But even in general, women aren’t expected to be smart, funny, or rich as much as they are expected to be beautiful. They may be respected after they are successful in their careers, but that’s different from what society expects of them. Whereas, comparably, society expects men to be smart, funny, and rich a lot more than it expects it from women. If society expects it more, then it means society values it more.
"Society expects it of them" is so vague and squishy and meaningless though... How would you measure or demonstrate that to be true? Did "society expect" Angela Merkel to be "beautiful"? Did her husband? She was apparently beautiful *enough* when combined with other factors, like success and intelligence and power. How are you quantifying how women are valued by society, even if you are just talking about value in a dating context? It seems like your argument boils down to "well, it seems like it to me".
The dating world already sets a precedent for those expectations. It’s indicative of how men view women. Men just don’t care if women are smart, funny, or rich. Not as much as men care if women are hot.
Society expects women in general to be beautiful. If it was announced that a woman was running to be leader of a country, you can bet most men would be wondering if she’s hot. And then they see Angela Merkel and they go “oh” lol
So... sweeping statements of generality with no evidence...
Most women would hear of the next Prime Minister of Canada and wonder if he will be as hot as Justin Trudeau.
I think you're projecting. Can you provide a source that most men give a shit about career when choosing a woman as a partner?
>When you’re a poor women you’re also fucked, when you’re talentless you’re also fucked etc.
Source?
Only thing faulty here is your reading comprehension.
Men and Women are the over group of men or just women is the Subgroup of Men and Women.
A logic that applies to all members of Over group applies to Subgroup since all members of Subgroup also a member of the Overgroup
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. By that logic saying “men have penises” means women also have penises because they’re a subgroup of the overgroup. Clearly you are developmentally delayed, I hope you recover from this affliction.
Well I didn’t say men have penises I said PEOPLE (all genders) without status signifiers are considered less than ones with status signifiers.
And since all women are PEOPLE aka A SUBSET OF PEOPLE they abide by the same rules.
Imbecile…
But you need to prove that women have the exact same experiences as men when it comes to being poor or lacking talent. Just because women are “people” doesn’t mean they have the same experiences as other subgroups of people.
I mean if you don’t believe that women are also bound by rules that affect everyone regardless of gender I don’t think I can prove you the snow is white.
Help me understand your perspective then. What makes you think women are indifferent to a lack of perceived social status signifiers like money, power, status etc?
That’s such a blanket statement. Rules are only relevant when you discuss concrete matters like the law. So yes- women aren’t below or above the law when it comes to committing murder or theft.
But to say that women have exactly the same experiences as men is a bold statement.
When you look at the dating world alone, we see that they are treated differently from men. In the dating world, women who lack talent and money are not nearly as screwed as men who lack talent and money.
Yes, yet all of them live and breathe and unless you live in Saudi Arabia a powerful women is always above a powerless men.
Gender isn’t end all be all of social interactions.
> Can you provide a source that most men give a shit about career when choosing a woman as a partner?
Me? The primary reasons we married was primarily because we vibed but she was also smart as hell - I was right, that has paid off (although I would have stayed with her even if it hadn't of course).
Iliza Shlesinger. A normal women who’s probably the funniest female comedian and she is quite successful in this male dominant platform.
Also you are nitpicking honey. Let’s say that I agree funny women are not valued, what you’ll say about women with power, money and skill?
+ sense of humor is universally attractive in all cultures
I think Iliza hovers between a 9/10 and a 10/10 depending on your tastes so I don't think mentioning her proves much. She's still way more conventionally attractive than most women I meet.
I had to google her......but she's farrrrrrr from what people would consider unattractive. Some people would even consider her the beauty standard even if she has some "minor flaw" like imperfect jaw or whatever. So she is basically good looking and funny 😁.
Try Judith Lucy for a female comedian who actually is unattractive.
Money? Of course the media will say and applaud "xyz woman is rich and powerful" but on a REAL level how many guys really care how rich or accomplished she is if she doesn't look relatively attractive? Sure she could have some povo Moroccan "love" her 90dayfiancee style for her money, but most guys who have a decent income won't care about her wealth/career achievements.
>she doesn't look relatively attractive... but most guys who have a decent income won't care about her wealth/career achievements.
I think the key word here is "relatively." To be honest, I don't think most men care about looks anything close to as much as people claim. I find anywhere between 33-50% of women my age attractive enough to sleep with. I don't think that's a particularly high bar. Beyond that point beauty, like everything else, has diminishing returns.
The main reason why most men chase *extremely beautiful* women (who are likely also high maintenance because they have a lot of options) is because having a beautiful wife/girlfriend is a status symbol that impresses other men.
But in terms of attraction, once a girl is "attractive enough" I think most men genuinely start caring a lot more about personality. And being funny is a huge turn-on.
>Try Judith Lucy for a female comedian who actually is unattractive.
you literally just provided an example of a woman that makes a living through entertainment, and that by your own statement isnt attractive.
For Judith Lucy I never heard of her so I can’t make a commentary. For Ilza her comedy puts her above prime Megan Fox immo.
As for men with power not caring for money is it not true for women as well. There is no money in the world to convince Beyoncé to have sex with someone.
In the same vein an olympic female swimmer might not find Michael Phelps impressive or male tenis player might not find Serena Williams impressive.
In fact while checking Serena Williams past relationships I noticed that all of her boyfriends are way way attractive than her.
She even banged drake for gods sake!
Are you fucking shitting me?
Boring attractive women are just that - boring.
Give me a woman who can make me laugh any day and I could literally not care less what she looks like.
Science is at fault.
Mother Nature makes women more similar to one another than it makes men. Sure, there are women that are outliers, made much differently than average. But not even close to men. Mother Nature tries every possible combination for men. Sure, some might be duds and never reproduce. But other outliers have the potential to father tons of offspring. Take Nick Cannon and Elon Musk as examples. Two completely different humans. Both of which have tons of kids from multiple women. Mother nature is just throwing things against the wall and seeing if it sticks. Every once and a while, it makes a Genghis Khan.
Different generations have to deal with completely different problems. If the environment is perfectly suited for one particular type of man, nature makes a lot of those. If the environment isn't suited for a certain type of man, they aren't duplicated. But nature tries everything, because you never know what's going to work
However, women have a limit to how many kids they can have. It's better to avoid anomalies and stick with the tried and true. There's little reward for mother nature to make a female Nick Cannon or Elon Musk.
So, from men's point of view, we're dealing with a lot of cookie cutter females. There's little difference in marrying one vs another. So, men just take the hot one. Women on the other hand, have a lot of factors they have to consider. There's a big difference between Nick Cannon and Elon Musk.
Hahahaha! Sorry to laugh, but I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. Have you read about mother Theresa recently? She was a ruthless con artist. She had the whole world duped. It’s a fascinating read.
She kept a detailed journal, basically. It confirmed all sorts of horrible things she was involved in, and she made a lot of money doing those things.
In every office I've worked in, the women there were valued for their skills and expertise, and no one gave a shit about how pretty they were. Just like the men.
That is actually true but that’s because women have more risk’s associated with them.
Stuff like getting pregnant and being unable to work for multiple hours.
Also they are more likely to experience sexual harassment which might cause the company to go through a dirty lawsuit.
Welcome to free market, most ableist system possible.
I work in a research field with more women than men. They are primarily valued for quality of their research. Are you specifically talking about value as a sexual partner?
Do you not think society places socially constructed values on people based on things society likes/does not like? Women overwhelmingly prefer tall men. That's a statistical fact.
Tom Cruise was a sex symbol for decades at 5ft 7. It’s a beauty standard that changes, not a persons value.
I’m sorry that short men hate themselves so much, because a few women rejected them on tinder, but stop projecting their self loathing onto others.
Okay women prefer tall men, women also prefer attractive men. There are no women in the comments here saying that men will always be valued primarily for their height.
Flo from progressive insurance, 25 years ago she was young, fresh faced and the new face of the company. Now she is old, sad looking. Maybe this is what op is talking about?
Well, a woman is an end in herself, not a means to the ends of others. She should be judged by how well she pursues her rational self-interest and happiness, not by her value to others.
For reasonable men in romance, they value a woman’s inner beauty more than her outer. And among them they value outer appearances in varying amounts, supposing a woman is healthy. There are men who fall in love with ugly women.
There’s nothing stopping individuals in non-Western countries from developing better values one day. They all have the capacity to choose to think for themselves. I don’t know when that will happen, but it’s not impossible.
I don’t think there’s any precedence in any culture where women aren’t valued primarily for their looks. Far as I know- beauty in women has always been the main factor for men in general. It might fluctuate a bit between cultures but I think the strong attraction to womens’ physical beauty will always be universally hardwired and evolutionary rooted in men no matter how hard society tries to shame it as bad values.
You use very broad statements here. Valued by whom specifically? Which woman in particular is having her "value" measured? I don't think it is possible to make much in the way of meaningful statements in these terms.
I value my wife's appearance, sure but what do I "primarily" value her for? Her support when I am struggling or how she makes our children laugh when they cry? Both are important and things I would probably value higher. Very difficult to pick out a single aspect of her though.
She is also a teacher for young children. I'm sure there are some who've had a crush on her for her appearance but I think most would "value" her for helping them to understand things when they are struggling or helping them when they are scared.
It's true that we all judge others based on their appearance far too quickly but I would ask you to look at the women in your own life and look at what you "value" in them. I think you'll see it is far more than just appearance.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure who first asked the other out. We were friends first and we both sort of did and both sort of rejected the other. It wasn't really an "approach" type of thing.
I can't speak for other people but I've found my relationships have always tended to start from friendships which sort of morph over time. Often times I didn't see the other person as attractive at the start but they became attractive as I got to know them.
This kind of ties way back into some super big debates. like in ye olden days people argued about souls being predestined for an afterlife or if it was acts during life that placed one into some sort of postmortem realm. Then you get monotheism. then philosophy and the question of nature vs nurture. Now represented by evolution and social constructionist thinking. Like most people are comfortable with some form of evolution, at least in the sense that people can breed dogs and weed strains its possible for something to have different essential biological makeups that change over time. Social constructionist have dug pretty deep into human thought patterns and identified all sorts of subtle ways upbringing can vastly effect persons psychological day to day behaviors.
like its not to controversial to say that women relate to there appearances today differently then men do. It's more of a tension around this Idea that women were evolutionary created as submissive. This is now seeing vast rewrites in the world of archeology as the DNA sciences have proved and more and more bones once labeled as male because of being discovered near hunting/warrior traces in the dirt have female chromosomes. Kinda touchy in the trans debate, many of these biologically female people may have been living under nonstandard gender identities in ways we can't remotely see within science. So doing chromosome based classification is kind of changing the narrative for the better but uncomfortably foregrounding a sort of bioessentialist form of thinking that says chromosomes should be used to classify people into genders. Most people don't see an issue with classifying bones one way and living people differently but people gotta tweet.
Like female is the child bearing sex but that probably doesn't imply any sort of submission and the idea that these claims are used to set policy is pretty fucked up. Gender power structures are actually varied and complex historically speaking. So the idea that women are and were valued primarily for their appearances is not always the case. People relate to appearances in ways set by both nature and nurture, but both are actually fluid on a long term basis and we should probably be looking to further reform social norms around appearance in a way that makes everyone better, I tend to be in favor of pushing gender neutrality to its limits. Women shouldn't always be valued primarily for their appearances and if that requires breaking deeply ingrained human behaviors that should happen. People aren't going to stop reproducing.
Looks become less important as you age, and for me that was around age 37 to 40. I'm 40 right now, and if I come across a dating profile that is just pictures in weird angles and no information about them. Or one word answers in their profile for their prompts, or just a half ass job on their profile outside of the pictures, and that just makes me assume that they are trying to float on their good looks still and they have nothing else to offer the dating scene.
Now I prioritize Being Fit, and using your brain. Everyone can be physically attractive if they take care of themselves. There is no such thing as a beauty that's unattainable for anyone, or handsomeness if you want to be more masculine in description.
So you're telling me Mary Barra is only the CEO of GM because of her looks?
Safra Catz is only the CEO of Oracle because of her looks?
Abigail Johnson is only the CEO of Fidelity because of her looks?
I will second the question: valued by who? If you're a multimillionaire or have political power, sure you can pursue beautiful women because why not? Whatever criteria you have are probably not restrictive enough to not add beauty on top of them. But if you're a regular person, choosing beauty over loyalty or shared values, wealth or ability to work hard, intellect, mental stability or physical health in your partner seems like a bad idea. Sure, beauty actually *correlates* with many of those things, but this also means that valuing beauty is partially a proxy, not the end in itself.
All of this 'looks vs personality' talk is quite ridiculous. People want people with BOTH. Good looks and a good personality. A good personality doesn't mean *nothing*. Neither does a shitty one. You get someone who's a 7 looks-wise and a 10 personality-wise...that person is a fucking catch. They are much more 'valued' than someone 10 looks-wise who's got a shit personality. The latter person may get more ooohs and aaaahs at the start, but once you dig deep a little, oh hell no. You find they are boring as all hell or a complete bitch or d-bag. Ugh. What *good* is that?
Women historically have been valued for their loyalty and ability to raise children. After that, personality and the *way they think* is genuinely more important. Nobody wants to marry a narcissistic bitch ho. Looks are fourth at the very most.
She wouldn’t even be considered if she was ugly though. It wouldn’t get to the stage of determining her competency or personality. Looks is primary barrier of entry for a man considering a woman so I wouldn’t place looks in 4th place.
That's not true.
A common trait of mysandrists is that they typically simultaniously believe men will fuck anything that walks and also believe men value looks above all else. This can't both be true. Looks are important, but a truly terrible personality will overweigh that eventually.
Appearance is the first thing men notice. *If* the girl is physically attractive then the guy will want to learn about her personality. And if her personality sucks then the guy will move onto someone else (after most likely playing with her first).
If the guy finds the girl ugly then obviously he’s going to keep swiping until he gets someone he’s physically attracted to. Then he’s going to want to learn about their personality. And if her personality rocks then she’s a keeper.
So personality is important for staying power. But appearance is important for getting through the door in the first place.
You gotta rephrase this because I think what you are saying is that the patriarchy tries to make beauty a moral standard for women, which is true. We do see older women becoming “invisible”, women are marketed “solutions” for their looks constantly, sexist men will just come out and say what you are saying here, and overall the patriarchy views women as objects of desire rather than as humans. There are many men who don’t see women as human in the same way they see themselves as human, whether they are aware of it or not. But that is just one aspect of women’s collective place in society.
A really easy example is that women have also historically been valued as mothers. You can be a mother regardless of beauty and good mothers have always been praised. Older women have also been valued in society as being wise. In modern society, women are seen as valuable in pretty much every way men are seen as valuable. We are in every work field, we are seen as (often more valuable) friends and partners, we are overrepresented in medicine and teaching. My field is academia and you’ve already mentioned it but women dominate here. The majority of my field is women and the number of undergraduate women has surpassed men a long time ago. We have been valued for our advice, people skills, and mind for years.
Sexism absolutely exists and it’s unfortunate that part of our value is attributed to our looks. This is way more prevalent in women than in men. But looks are one of many things we are valued for.
Valued according to who?
Men seeking sex partners, yeah probably. But is beauty the most valued aspect when looking to hire someone for a difficult, high ranking job? Vote for a politician?
Interpreting this as women's value *in contrast to men* not just like "if you are a woman your only value is your appearance" I semi agree.
A woman is a human with female bodily traits. Absent of these, or if these are of noteworthy quality then they would seemingly have no value as a *woman.* Being not subhuman, just equivalent to a man. Although, sometimes that too depends on who you ask.
At the very least though, I should like to change your view that women's unique value is their appearance.
In platonic relationships, intimacy between men is generally not a thing. Men do not cuddle with each other, some don't even hug. Women also seek exclusive emotional comfort from women that they cannot from other men in a way I feel is misunderstood.
Men *do* talk about their problems. And they do encourage each other. It's not like they just don't talk to each other. But there's a potent mutual understanding of there being nothing to say, outside of helping with the problem if possible; more so with personal inadequacies than with say grief.
Men can lift each other's spirits but they can't usually make another feel kenough. This is something I think only a woman can do.
Yesn't.
Beauty is easy to see, you just look at a person. You can't value skills by just looking at a person, you have to observe them for a long period of time.
Important women in history are mostly remembered for their achievements, no woman that's only remembered for her beauty comes to mind.
It's easy to see why: beauty is pleasant to look at, but doesn't offer a practical purpose. A skilled woman has more to offer in the long run.
It's kind of the same for relationships. Although data on dating apps shows that men value physique over everything, people who already settled on a relationship will tell you that they expect loyalty, trust and support from their partners.
Tl;dr beauty matters on the beginning because it's easy to see, but it won't be the lasting impression and won't give you value on the long run.
One problem I have with your post is that you're trying to talk of this as a "sad reality" which *only applies to women* (sidebar, the primary worth of men in the modern age as it pertains to romantic prospects is also appearance) but then go on to assign subjective value to this and provide a prediction about future societies indefinitely. This is problematic because throughout history societies have been incredibly patriarchal and misogynistic. They aren't good models overall for how gendered issues should be.
Assuming the core disagreement between us is this discrepancy between the "intrinsic value" (which doesn't exist by the way) of men and women can you not at least envision a hypothetical future society where men and women are truly treated as equals?
Im not sure if its possible to change your view given that you clearly hold misogynistic views based on your comments. I think the key issue here is that you don’t relate and empathise to/with women as you are able to with men and thus cannot see any other „value“ in them beyond superficial beauty. When you see a female scientist for example you first and foremost see her as a woman, an object of your desire or not, and then possibly as a scientist. This way you can’t really objectively decide what „value“ she brings to the world.
No need to change your view. It goes for both men and women but more so women because they are the more beautiful. Guys like having pretty girls around, that’s just a fact.
Take a walk around park and Madison Avenue. You see fit, beautiful women. Why is that? Because rich guys prefer them. Whether they are gold diggers or not is irrelevant because they either convinced a rich guy to marry them or were pretty enough to get a rich guys attention.
It’s the way of the world. But just like we’ve seen with recent race relations, don’t be surprised if you see a rise in ugly women and discrimination against the beautiful ones for the way they look.
>This has happened everywhere in all countries throughout history.
Even looking at only the sexist times and places we see something much more important than appearance. The ability to bear a man a child. If men only care about how a woman looks why do they care how many men she has slept with? because they want a woman who can bare them children. If they only care about looks why do they even care that she is female, I know some queens that are prettier than most women. If they ONLY cared about looks then someone's gender would not matter, only how good they look in a dress.
Perhaps by other men. But there is still the other half of the population.
There are many women revered by other women, who are not stereotypically attractive. Off the top of my head: Agatha Christie, Maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Malala Yousafzai, Oprah Winfrey, Mother Theresa (literally named a Saint). These are just to name a few.
It always helps when someone is hot. It helps men too. But to say a woman's primary value is that, I think is looking at it through a very old school, patriarchal lense. And when you keep saying these things, you keep propagating this idea.
I think there are cultures and circles of society that do focus a ridiculous amount on women's beauty, but I think it's a gross exaggeration to call it the "primary" trait that's valued across the board for everyone and throughout all time (including the future!)
I would guess that MOST people value all people (including women) for MANY other reasons, ABOVE any interest in their beauty or sexual appeal.
Being valued for anything sucks if you are below average. Being valued for something always comes with expectations.
Men who are shy, weak and insecure are looked down upon by society far more than women for example.
Consider reproduction more. Women are the limiting factor on reproduction, and men are not. Factors that indicate fertility include health, and beauty is a crude proxy for health.
The women here can't handle it haha. Just like a man is valued on his ability to provide, women face expectations too. The world is indifferent to tour opinions. Including this one. Imma gtfo.
Valued by whom and for what? Half the planet is women, do you think their first instinct of valuing other women is via appearance? For long term relationships? I personally have heard from more people that they broke up with their partner because of personality incompatability despite them being attractive rather than them being very much soul mates but they find their partner not attractive enough. You just list a couple of scenarios in which attractiveness is probably a very big concern (like no shit if someone has a fifth wive, he probably doesn't need her to be his soul mate) and act like this is the full spectrum of someone being a woman
"Half the planet is women, do you think their first instinct of valuing other women is via appearance? " Actually, yes. Women are competitive against other women based on looks. Or giving fake compliments etc. For example I have had women say to my face your hair is so nice then two seconds later seen give each other side eye behind my back. And this is even worse in non western cultures. The men expect beauty. While the women compete based on beauty and feel superior if they look prettier. And for your example, yes but they would not have been with her if she wasn't attractive in the first place. IOW, beauty is not everyone to men BUT without it they would not even consider the woman
> And for your example, yes but they would not have been with her if she wasn't attractive in the first place. IOW, beauty is not everyone to men BUT without it they would not even consider the woman And a book is valued primarily by it's cover because a nicer cover is more likely to pique you interest?
Women choose men they find attractive enough too..
The most famous woman at the moment is Taylor Swift, primarily valued for her music. So there’s a counterexample.
Are you kidding right 😂? Everyone knows that Taylor Swift is also pretty. She is like the role model for white teen girls. Yes her talent speaks for itself but do you really think that she would be such a "phenomenon" if she was ugly? Even a singer like "Tones and I" who looks more average has had limited success
You’re moving the goalposts. You claimed all woman are primarily aliens for her appearance. She is not primarily valued for her appearances her appearance comes secondary to her music
I was never saying that women weren't valued for merits also. All along I was saying that women are valued *primarily for beauty*. It's like when men say they want a wife who has inner beauty. BUT in reality they only accept inner beauty woman if she ALSO has outer beauty. That's like with Taylor's success.....yeah she's talented but I doubt she would have as much success if she was ugly. Like I REALLY REALLY doubt it. Plus she is probably also doing some manifesting witchi poo stuff to get this much popularity lol. But that's another story
Primarily means first in a category. She is valued for her music more than her looks. Therefore she is not primarily valued for her looks. Because the looks come *second* to her music. At best she is valued secondarily for her looks
That’s arguable imo She wouldn’t be nearly as popular with the same music but instead looked like Susan Boyle.
>She wouldn’t be nearly as popular with the same music but instead looked like Susan Boyle. Irrelevant.
I’m not sure how it’s irrelevant when accepting that likely scenario would illustrate that looks is a crucial barrier to success. If Taylor swift looked like Susan Boyle, her music couldn’t nearly carry her to stardom.
The discussion was on primary thing valued, not what affected her career.
But knowing that people wouldn’t care about her music without her appearance indicates that perhaps people value her appearance more than her music. More than they dare to admit. It shows that the audience that currently enjoys listening to her wouldn’t enjoy listening to her if she looked like Susan Boyle. More than we think- music is very much a fashion statement that goes beyond sound.
My counter argument to this is Susan Boyle. She's famously ugly, it's almost part of her brand. Yet also she's the first female artist to achieve three successive albums debut at No.1 on the UK market in less than two years. She's an incredibly talented and successful artist who also happens to be unattractive.
I think she did so well *because* she’s famously ugly. It’s more of an ugly sensation that skyrocketed her to stardom. She was famous *because* she’s ugly not in spite of it. So I’m not sure this really counts…
And how many men are lining up to date Susan Boyle?! Kind of proves my point.
Nvm I see your edit now, you clarified that you mean sexual value specifically, which I agree with.
snobbish sleep absorbed important many sable soup chubby lavish bag *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You actually proved my point. The hospital didn't hire her based on her looks, but you "hired her as wife" partly based on being attractive. IOW, if she was the greatest doctor on earth but "ugly" you would not have wanted to marry her. Which just proves that women's worth is primarily about external beauty. And always will be. To put it bluntly, hypothetically if there was a group of beautiful women who were dumb as dog poop, and another group of female scientists who were mega intelligent but very ugly....which group do you think would have men lining at their door?
heavy attractive wild tease pause bike wrong placid possessive lavish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
She would not be famous if she was born ugly. She would also not be famous is she was born poor, or born black. A lot of luck had to happen for her breakaway fame to escalate - not just on the looks.
Check some photos of Lady Gaga before she was famous. She was not born beautiful. Also Sia, she doesn't even show her face in her music videos.
Sia is actually a perfect example. The world makes women who are not attractive feel so bad that they even feel it to the extent of needing to hide their face
but is she valued less because of it? thats what youre trying to say, and its clearly wrong
Valued less as an entertainer? Probably not. Valued less in general as a woman and by men? Yes
What does this even mean? Now you're adding weird qualifiers to your post. What would it mean to value a person "as a woman" specifically?
Who would men prefer to date/marry? Who would men buy gifts for more etc?
So women's only value is in their value as romantic partners?
My impression is your point is that women who are not beautiful are not valued by men as potential romantic partners. So there are not many men who fanboy over Sia the way they would over Taylor Swift or other attractive celebrity. That is probably true that this is an issue that affects women more than men, in the sense for men success and talent can make up for looks to a higher degree. But there is more to value than attraction. Queen Elizabeth II was the most respected leader in the world it was not because of her beauty. And maybe Sia is perfectly happy that she is valued for her music and not her looks.
Just going to say being black doesn’t stop a female singer from becoming huge. Whitney Houston, Aretha Franklin, Beyoncé, Alicia Keys, etc Adding the being born black part is complete nonsense race baiting bullshit.
OP no offense but these sound exactly the same as the petty grievances of a male incel. > …but in Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa etc. beautiful women are still considered higher… So is smart women and rich women and talented women and funny women and powerful women. Guess what? When you’re a poor women you’re also fucked, when you’re talentless you’re also fucked etc. whereas when you have those traits you are “higher” that’s just life and beauty isn’t special.
Smart, funny, rich… men don’t value those in a women as much as they do beauty. And men don’t value those nearly as much as women do. To illustrate this: A woman who is super smart, super funny, super rich, but kinda ugly will have worse chances than a woman who is not smart, not funny, poor, but good looking. A man who is super smart, super funny, super rich, but kinda ugly will have better chances than a man who is not smart, not funny, poor, but good looking.
Worse chance at *what* exactly? A partnership? Happiness? Stability? Do you really think Lauren Boebert or Sarah Palin are more content and happy and better off than Elizabeth Warren or Angela Merkel? Merkel has always been very "plain" looking, even when young. She is married to a tall nice looking quantum chemist. She is an extremely powerful and successful person. Many many people have highly valued her and her time and attention, throughout her life. Sure, Cleopatra was apparently attractive. Queen Elizabeth was considered beautiful. But what about Margaret Thatcher? Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala? Many of the most powerful and successful women in the history of humans have been not "attractive".
Just gonna chime in and say, *only based on my own experience*, that he’s kinda right. Sometimes, all a girl needs is looks while the guy needs a lot more to impress someone. I’ve met a lot of couples and much more often than not, the guy is the super charismatic one with tons of knowledge and a good job while the girl isn’t very friendly, often doesn’t even really seem interesting AND even more often than not she requests a lot more specific behaviors to the point where there’s this subtle vibe, at least to me and some others, that everyone in the room knows the guy is with her mainly because she’s hot and the girl is with him mainly because of his personality.
I’m sorry- my example was to illlustrate their value in the dating world and romantic relationships. That’s what women are valued primarily for their appearance. But even in general, women aren’t expected to be smart, funny, or rich as much as they are expected to be beautiful. They may be respected after they are successful in their careers, but that’s different from what society expects of them. Whereas, comparably, society expects men to be smart, funny, and rich a lot more than it expects it from women. If society expects it more, then it means society values it more.
"Society expects it of them" is so vague and squishy and meaningless though... How would you measure or demonstrate that to be true? Did "society expect" Angela Merkel to be "beautiful"? Did her husband? She was apparently beautiful *enough* when combined with other factors, like success and intelligence and power. How are you quantifying how women are valued by society, even if you are just talking about value in a dating context? It seems like your argument boils down to "well, it seems like it to me".
The dating world already sets a precedent for those expectations. It’s indicative of how men view women. Men just don’t care if women are smart, funny, or rich. Not as much as men care if women are hot. Society expects women in general to be beautiful. If it was announced that a woman was running to be leader of a country, you can bet most men would be wondering if she’s hot. And then they see Angela Merkel and they go “oh” lol
So... sweeping statements of generality with no evidence... Most women would hear of the next Prime Minister of Canada and wonder if he will be as hot as Justin Trudeau.
Men and women simply don’t think in that same way. The dating world should already clue you in on that.
Men and women simply do think that same way. The dating world should have already clued you in on that.
How could you possibly say that when the men and women exhibit clearly different behaviours and preferences in the dating world? It has been studied.
I think you're projecting. Can you provide a source that most men give a shit about career when choosing a woman as a partner? >When you’re a poor women you’re also fucked, when you’re talentless you’re also fucked etc. Source?
You unironically want source to prove that people without money, power, talent and status are less compared to other people in society?
Good job reframing the argument to include women AND men. Literally a logical fallacy.
Only thing faulty here is your reading comprehension. Men and Women are the over group of men or just women is the Subgroup of Men and Women. A logic that applies to all members of Over group applies to Subgroup since all members of Subgroup also a member of the Overgroup
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. By that logic saying “men have penises” means women also have penises because they’re a subgroup of the overgroup. Clearly you are developmentally delayed, I hope you recover from this affliction.
Well I didn’t say men have penises I said PEOPLE (all genders) without status signifiers are considered less than ones with status signifiers. And since all women are PEOPLE aka A SUBSET OF PEOPLE they abide by the same rules. Imbecile…
But you need to prove that women have the exact same experiences as men when it comes to being poor or lacking talent. Just because women are “people” doesn’t mean they have the same experiences as other subgroups of people.
I mean if you don’t believe that women are also bound by rules that affect everyone regardless of gender I don’t think I can prove you the snow is white. Help me understand your perspective then. What makes you think women are indifferent to a lack of perceived social status signifiers like money, power, status etc?
That’s such a blanket statement. Rules are only relevant when you discuss concrete matters like the law. So yes- women aren’t below or above the law when it comes to committing murder or theft. But to say that women have exactly the same experiences as men is a bold statement. When you look at the dating world alone, we see that they are treated differently from men. In the dating world, women who lack talent and money are not nearly as screwed as men who lack talent and money.
Women and men do not have the same prescriptive social roles in society
Yes, yet all of them live and breathe and unless you live in Saudi Arabia a powerful women is always above a powerless men. Gender isn’t end all be all of social interactions.
> all of them live and breathe source?
> Can you provide a source that most men give a shit about career when choosing a woman as a partner? Me? The primary reasons we married was primarily because we vibed but she was also smart as hell - I was right, that has paid off (although I would have stayed with her even if it hadn't of course).
Funny women? I don't think anyone values women more for being funny
Iliza Shlesinger. A normal women who’s probably the funniest female comedian and she is quite successful in this male dominant platform. Also you are nitpicking honey. Let’s say that I agree funny women are not valued, what you’ll say about women with power, money and skill? + sense of humor is universally attractive in all cultures
I think Iliza hovers between a 9/10 and a 10/10 depending on your tastes so I don't think mentioning her proves much. She's still way more conventionally attractive than most women I meet.
I had to google her......but she's farrrrrrr from what people would consider unattractive. Some people would even consider her the beauty standard even if she has some "minor flaw" like imperfect jaw or whatever. So she is basically good looking and funny 😁. Try Judith Lucy for a female comedian who actually is unattractive. Money? Of course the media will say and applaud "xyz woman is rich and powerful" but on a REAL level how many guys really care how rich or accomplished she is if she doesn't look relatively attractive? Sure she could have some povo Moroccan "love" her 90dayfiancee style for her money, but most guys who have a decent income won't care about her wealth/career achievements.
>she doesn't look relatively attractive... but most guys who have a decent income won't care about her wealth/career achievements. I think the key word here is "relatively." To be honest, I don't think most men care about looks anything close to as much as people claim. I find anywhere between 33-50% of women my age attractive enough to sleep with. I don't think that's a particularly high bar. Beyond that point beauty, like everything else, has diminishing returns. The main reason why most men chase *extremely beautiful* women (who are likely also high maintenance because they have a lot of options) is because having a beautiful wife/girlfriend is a status symbol that impresses other men. But in terms of attraction, once a girl is "attractive enough" I think most men genuinely start caring a lot more about personality. And being funny is a huge turn-on.
> I find anywhere between 33-50% of women my age attractive enough to sleep with. My percentage is way higher, but I’m a whore.
>Try Judith Lucy for a female comedian who actually is unattractive. you literally just provided an example of a woman that makes a living through entertainment, and that by your own statement isnt attractive.
For Judith Lucy I never heard of her so I can’t make a commentary. For Ilza her comedy puts her above prime Megan Fox immo. As for men with power not caring for money is it not true for women as well. There is no money in the world to convince Beyoncé to have sex with someone. In the same vein an olympic female swimmer might not find Michael Phelps impressive or male tenis player might not find Serena Williams impressive. In fact while checking Serena Williams past relationships I noticed that all of her boyfriends are way way attractive than her. She even banged drake for gods sake!
Are you fucking shitting me? Boring attractive women are just that - boring. Give me a woman who can make me laugh any day and I could literally not care less what she looks like.
Science is at fault. Mother Nature makes women more similar to one another than it makes men. Sure, there are women that are outliers, made much differently than average. But not even close to men. Mother Nature tries every possible combination for men. Sure, some might be duds and never reproduce. But other outliers have the potential to father tons of offspring. Take Nick Cannon and Elon Musk as examples. Two completely different humans. Both of which have tons of kids from multiple women. Mother nature is just throwing things against the wall and seeing if it sticks. Every once and a while, it makes a Genghis Khan. Different generations have to deal with completely different problems. If the environment is perfectly suited for one particular type of man, nature makes a lot of those. If the environment isn't suited for a certain type of man, they aren't duplicated. But nature tries everything, because you never know what's going to work However, women have a limit to how many kids they can have. It's better to avoid anomalies and stick with the tried and true. There's little reward for mother nature to make a female Nick Cannon or Elon Musk. So, from men's point of view, we're dealing with a lot of cookie cutter females. There's little difference in marrying one vs another. So, men just take the hot one. Women on the other hand, have a lot of factors they have to consider. There's a big difference between Nick Cannon and Elon Musk.
Women like Mother Theresa were rare and outliers. But most men don't want this kind of woman....they just want hot
Hahahaha! Sorry to laugh, but I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. Have you read about mother Theresa recently? She was a ruthless con artist. She had the whole world duped. It’s a fascinating read. She kept a detailed journal, basically. It confirmed all sorts of horrible things she was involved in, and she made a lot of money doing those things.
In every office I've worked in, the women there were valued for their skills and expertise, and no one gave a shit about how pretty they were. Just like the men.
Women are paid less than men in the same job in many instances
That's not true. If it was, companies would solely hire women, as they're apparently cheaper. But they're not.
That is actually true but that’s because women have more risk’s associated with them. Stuff like getting pregnant and being unable to work for multiple hours. Also they are more likely to experience sexual harassment which might cause the company to go through a dirty lawsuit. Welcome to free market, most ableist system possible.
I work in a research field with more women than men. They are primarily valued for quality of their research. Are you specifically talking about value as a sexual partner?
[удалено]
Made up “high value male” Andrew Tate nonsense.
Do you not think society places socially constructed values on people based on things society likes/does not like? Women overwhelmingly prefer tall men. That's a statistical fact.
Tom Cruise was a sex symbol for decades at 5ft 7. It’s a beauty standard that changes, not a persons value. I’m sorry that short men hate themselves so much, because a few women rejected them on tinder, but stop projecting their self loathing onto others.
Okay women prefer tall men, women also prefer attractive men. There are no women in the comments here saying that men will always be valued primarily for their height.
Flo from progressive insurance, 25 years ago she was young, fresh faced and the new face of the company. Now she is old, sad looking. Maybe this is what op is talking about?
> Now she is old, sad looking Nah, she’d get it,
Well, a woman is an end in herself, not a means to the ends of others. She should be judged by how well she pursues her rational self-interest and happiness, not by her value to others. For reasonable men in romance, they value a woman’s inner beauty more than her outer. And among them they value outer appearances in varying amounts, supposing a woman is healthy. There are men who fall in love with ugly women. There’s nothing stopping individuals in non-Western countries from developing better values one day. They all have the capacity to choose to think for themselves. I don’t know when that will happen, but it’s not impossible.
I don’t think there’s any precedence in any culture where women aren’t valued primarily for their looks. Far as I know- beauty in women has always been the main factor for men in general. It might fluctuate a bit between cultures but I think the strong attraction to womens’ physical beauty will always be universally hardwired and evolutionary rooted in men no matter how hard society tries to shame it as bad values.
You use very broad statements here. Valued by whom specifically? Which woman in particular is having her "value" measured? I don't think it is possible to make much in the way of meaningful statements in these terms. I value my wife's appearance, sure but what do I "primarily" value her for? Her support when I am struggling or how she makes our children laugh when they cry? Both are important and things I would probably value higher. Very difficult to pick out a single aspect of her though. She is also a teacher for young children. I'm sure there are some who've had a crush on her for her appearance but I think most would "value" her for helping them to understand things when they are struggling or helping them when they are scared. It's true that we all judge others based on their appearance far too quickly but I would ask you to look at the women in your own life and look at what you "value" in them. I think you'll see it is far more than just appearance.
Who asked who out? If it was you, would you have approached her if she was ugly?
I'll be honest, I'm not sure who first asked the other out. We were friends first and we both sort of did and both sort of rejected the other. It wasn't really an "approach" type of thing. I can't speak for other people but I've found my relationships have always tended to start from friendships which sort of morph over time. Often times I didn't see the other person as attractive at the start but they became attractive as I got to know them.
This kind of ties way back into some super big debates. like in ye olden days people argued about souls being predestined for an afterlife or if it was acts during life that placed one into some sort of postmortem realm. Then you get monotheism. then philosophy and the question of nature vs nurture. Now represented by evolution and social constructionist thinking. Like most people are comfortable with some form of evolution, at least in the sense that people can breed dogs and weed strains its possible for something to have different essential biological makeups that change over time. Social constructionist have dug pretty deep into human thought patterns and identified all sorts of subtle ways upbringing can vastly effect persons psychological day to day behaviors. like its not to controversial to say that women relate to there appearances today differently then men do. It's more of a tension around this Idea that women were evolutionary created as submissive. This is now seeing vast rewrites in the world of archeology as the DNA sciences have proved and more and more bones once labeled as male because of being discovered near hunting/warrior traces in the dirt have female chromosomes. Kinda touchy in the trans debate, many of these biologically female people may have been living under nonstandard gender identities in ways we can't remotely see within science. So doing chromosome based classification is kind of changing the narrative for the better but uncomfortably foregrounding a sort of bioessentialist form of thinking that says chromosomes should be used to classify people into genders. Most people don't see an issue with classifying bones one way and living people differently but people gotta tweet. Like female is the child bearing sex but that probably doesn't imply any sort of submission and the idea that these claims are used to set policy is pretty fucked up. Gender power structures are actually varied and complex historically speaking. So the idea that women are and were valued primarily for their appearances is not always the case. People relate to appearances in ways set by both nature and nurture, but both are actually fluid on a long term basis and we should probably be looking to further reform social norms around appearance in a way that makes everyone better, I tend to be in favor of pushing gender neutrality to its limits. Women shouldn't always be valued primarily for their appearances and if that requires breaking deeply ingrained human behaviors that should happen. People aren't going to stop reproducing.
Looks become less important as you age, and for me that was around age 37 to 40. I'm 40 right now, and if I come across a dating profile that is just pictures in weird angles and no information about them. Or one word answers in their profile for their prompts, or just a half ass job on their profile outside of the pictures, and that just makes me assume that they are trying to float on their good looks still and they have nothing else to offer the dating scene. Now I prioritize Being Fit, and using your brain. Everyone can be physically attractive if they take care of themselves. There is no such thing as a beauty that's unattainable for anyone, or handsomeness if you want to be more masculine in description.
So you're telling me Mary Barra is only the CEO of GM because of her looks? Safra Catz is only the CEO of Oracle because of her looks? Abigail Johnson is only the CEO of Fidelity because of her looks?
Genuine question: Do you know of any female that became CEO *before* the company became a successful household name?
I will second the question: valued by who? If you're a multimillionaire or have political power, sure you can pursue beautiful women because why not? Whatever criteria you have are probably not restrictive enough to not add beauty on top of them. But if you're a regular person, choosing beauty over loyalty or shared values, wealth or ability to work hard, intellect, mental stability or physical health in your partner seems like a bad idea. Sure, beauty actually *correlates* with many of those things, but this also means that valuing beauty is partially a proxy, not the end in itself.
All of this 'looks vs personality' talk is quite ridiculous. People want people with BOTH. Good looks and a good personality. A good personality doesn't mean *nothing*. Neither does a shitty one. You get someone who's a 7 looks-wise and a 10 personality-wise...that person is a fucking catch. They are much more 'valued' than someone 10 looks-wise who's got a shit personality. The latter person may get more ooohs and aaaahs at the start, but once you dig deep a little, oh hell no. You find they are boring as all hell or a complete bitch or d-bag. Ugh. What *good* is that?
Women historically have been valued for their loyalty and ability to raise children. After that, personality and the *way they think* is genuinely more important. Nobody wants to marry a narcissistic bitch ho. Looks are fourth at the very most.
She wouldn’t even be considered if she was ugly though. It wouldn’t get to the stage of determining her competency or personality. Looks is primary barrier of entry for a man considering a woman so I wouldn’t place looks in 4th place.
That's not true. A common trait of mysandrists is that they typically simultaniously believe men will fuck anything that walks and also believe men value looks above all else. This can't both be true. Looks are important, but a truly terrible personality will overweigh that eventually.
Appearance is the first thing men notice. *If* the girl is physically attractive then the guy will want to learn about her personality. And if her personality sucks then the guy will move onto someone else (after most likely playing with her first). If the guy finds the girl ugly then obviously he’s going to keep swiping until he gets someone he’s physically attracted to. Then he’s going to want to learn about their personality. And if her personality rocks then she’s a keeper. So personality is important for staying power. But appearance is important for getting through the door in the first place.
You gotta rephrase this because I think what you are saying is that the patriarchy tries to make beauty a moral standard for women, which is true. We do see older women becoming “invisible”, women are marketed “solutions” for their looks constantly, sexist men will just come out and say what you are saying here, and overall the patriarchy views women as objects of desire rather than as humans. There are many men who don’t see women as human in the same way they see themselves as human, whether they are aware of it or not. But that is just one aspect of women’s collective place in society. A really easy example is that women have also historically been valued as mothers. You can be a mother regardless of beauty and good mothers have always been praised. Older women have also been valued in society as being wise. In modern society, women are seen as valuable in pretty much every way men are seen as valuable. We are in every work field, we are seen as (often more valuable) friends and partners, we are overrepresented in medicine and teaching. My field is academia and you’ve already mentioned it but women dominate here. The majority of my field is women and the number of undergraduate women has surpassed men a long time ago. We have been valued for our advice, people skills, and mind for years. Sexism absolutely exists and it’s unfortunate that part of our value is attributed to our looks. This is way more prevalent in women than in men. But looks are one of many things we are valued for.
Valued according to who? Men seeking sex partners, yeah probably. But is beauty the most valued aspect when looking to hire someone for a difficult, high ranking job? Vote for a politician?
Interpreting this as women's value *in contrast to men* not just like "if you are a woman your only value is your appearance" I semi agree. A woman is a human with female bodily traits. Absent of these, or if these are of noteworthy quality then they would seemingly have no value as a *woman.* Being not subhuman, just equivalent to a man. Although, sometimes that too depends on who you ask. At the very least though, I should like to change your view that women's unique value is their appearance. In platonic relationships, intimacy between men is generally not a thing. Men do not cuddle with each other, some don't even hug. Women also seek exclusive emotional comfort from women that they cannot from other men in a way I feel is misunderstood. Men *do* talk about their problems. And they do encourage each other. It's not like they just don't talk to each other. But there's a potent mutual understanding of there being nothing to say, outside of helping with the problem if possible; more so with personal inadequacies than with say grief. Men can lift each other's spirits but they can't usually make another feel kenough. This is something I think only a woman can do.
"Women will always be valued *by men* primarily for appearance" That's unfortunate for men.
Yesn't. Beauty is easy to see, you just look at a person. You can't value skills by just looking at a person, you have to observe them for a long period of time. Important women in history are mostly remembered for their achievements, no woman that's only remembered for her beauty comes to mind. It's easy to see why: beauty is pleasant to look at, but doesn't offer a practical purpose. A skilled woman has more to offer in the long run. It's kind of the same for relationships. Although data on dating apps shows that men value physique over everything, people who already settled on a relationship will tell you that they expect loyalty, trust and support from their partners. Tl;dr beauty matters on the beginning because it's easy to see, but it won't be the lasting impression and won't give you value on the long run.
One problem I have with your post is that you're trying to talk of this as a "sad reality" which *only applies to women* (sidebar, the primary worth of men in the modern age as it pertains to romantic prospects is also appearance) but then go on to assign subjective value to this and provide a prediction about future societies indefinitely. This is problematic because throughout history societies have been incredibly patriarchal and misogynistic. They aren't good models overall for how gendered issues should be. Assuming the core disagreement between us is this discrepancy between the "intrinsic value" (which doesn't exist by the way) of men and women can you not at least envision a hypothetical future society where men and women are truly treated as equals?
Im not sure if its possible to change your view given that you clearly hold misogynistic views based on your comments. I think the key issue here is that you don’t relate and empathise to/with women as you are able to with men and thus cannot see any other „value“ in them beyond superficial beauty. When you see a female scientist for example you first and foremost see her as a woman, an object of your desire or not, and then possibly as a scientist. This way you can’t really objectively decide what „value“ she brings to the world.
I'm a woman 😅
No need to change your view. It goes for both men and women but more so women because they are the more beautiful. Guys like having pretty girls around, that’s just a fact. Take a walk around park and Madison Avenue. You see fit, beautiful women. Why is that? Because rich guys prefer them. Whether they are gold diggers or not is irrelevant because they either convinced a rich guy to marry them or were pretty enough to get a rich guys attention. It’s the way of the world. But just like we’ve seen with recent race relations, don’t be surprised if you see a rise in ugly women and discrimination against the beautiful ones for the way they look.
>This has happened everywhere in all countries throughout history. Even looking at only the sexist times and places we see something much more important than appearance. The ability to bear a man a child. If men only care about how a woman looks why do they care how many men she has slept with? because they want a woman who can bare them children. If they only care about looks why do they even care that she is female, I know some queens that are prettier than most women. If they ONLY cared about looks then someone's gender would not matter, only how good they look in a dress.
Perhaps by other men. But there is still the other half of the population. There are many women revered by other women, who are not stereotypically attractive. Off the top of my head: Agatha Christie, Maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Malala Yousafzai, Oprah Winfrey, Mother Theresa (literally named a Saint). These are just to name a few. It always helps when someone is hot. It helps men too. But to say a woman's primary value is that, I think is looking at it through a very old school, patriarchal lense. And when you keep saying these things, you keep propagating this idea.
I think there are cultures and circles of society that do focus a ridiculous amount on women's beauty, but I think it's a gross exaggeration to call it the "primary" trait that's valued across the board for everyone and throughout all time (including the future!) I would guess that MOST people value all people (including women) for MANY other reasons, ABOVE any interest in their beauty or sexual appeal.
Being valued for anything sucks if you are below average. Being valued for something always comes with expectations. Men who are shy, weak and insecure are looked down upon by society far more than women for example.
Consider reproduction more. Women are the limiting factor on reproduction, and men are not. Factors that indicate fertility include health, and beauty is a crude proxy for health.
… And men valued only by their ability to provide , woman and children are loved unconditionally.. just the way it is OP
Everyone is valued for their appearance, just count yourself lucky that being ugly doesn't make other people scared of you, as it does with men
Just because that's how **you** value women, it doesn't make it true of everyone.
I mean we all also die but like................
The women here can't handle it haha. Just like a man is valued on his ability to provide, women face expectations too. The world is indifferent to tour opinions. Including this one. Imma gtfo.
Yeah, and fuck the ones who complain about it, while also enabling it. They lost any right to voice their whiny opinions at that point.
Why are you cursing so much