quote:

I assumed that if I wished to assure that my offspring and heirs could be properly breast-fed, I needed to select for larger breasts; somrthing missing in my own genetics and something not in line with my own sexual preferrences.

quote:

---

Wow, has this thread every taken a very strange turn. I can certainly see how the "selection for genetics" talk is offensive. Especially since it apparently isn't a joke? I can barely tell anymore on most threads. But selecting a partner for their genes or their line is both sexist and racist even if not expressed in racialist terms. If it was indeed a joke, a kind of satire on the 'animal husbandry' method of pairing one sees in breakaway Mormon communities for example, I could see it. But then when he says it's not a joke?

---

First - sexism ? As if there are not families wherein both genders tend to be taller, shorter, nearsighted, prone to certain health problems, etc. How taking such factors into some account when choosing a mate could be considered "sexist" quite escapes me.

Racist ??? If there is some correspondence between breast size and race, it is news to me - news that could only come from someone who takes much closer notice of disparities between races than do I.

So, sexist ? No. Racist ? Not even close. Misguided ? Probably. Currently advocated by anyone here. Not that I know of. Certainly not by me.

My thanks to the strong feminist and progressive women here who have deplored the unwarranted mischaracterizations and personal attacks by personal message.

quote:

---

Originally posted by out-of-academia:
His argument falls apart on many levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by out-of-academia:
Fact is, a woman can get laid any night of the week, should she choose to. Different story for most men (falling short of paying for it).

---

James writes:

quote:

---

First - sexism ? As if there are not families wherein both genders tend to be taller, shorter, nearsighted, prone to certain health problems, etc. How taking such factors into some account when choosing a mate could be considered "sexist" quite escapes me.

---

Y'see, James, you keep claiming that you were only talking about views you held thirty years ago, and yet those sentences I've just quoted imply that you still consider "breeding" standards to matter.

Well, fine for you if you do, but that attitude is part of what many women have long recognized as an oppressive horror in their lives, to which they were forced to submit historically because of their material vulnerability.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kurichina:
the comment in question [is that it} looks at women instrumentally - as means to an end or as reproduction machines that process sperm into children - rather than as people or as individuals. ... I felt offended.

---

If your place of priviledge provides for the luxury of dreaming up such perverse lines of reasoning and motivation, and then to be self-offended by them, feel free.

edited again: I should just leave my initial reaction instead of trying to dress it up.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: kurichina ]

Women start talking about bras, and then about breasts, and they can begin to joke quite broadly among themselves. And then suddenly a man steps in, thinking he can tell the same jokes, and suddenly ... something is just a little ... off.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
James, it is your place of privilege that has allowed you to get so far in life while remaining impervious to the objections of many women to your blithe objectification and dehumanization of them.

---

It is astounding that you can presume to know not only my place and position in life, but my thoughts as well. "So far in life" ?? Save it for someone who has a reasonable expectation of having a roof over their head next week, please.

My "blythe objectification and dehumanization" of women ??? skdadl, I am at most 6 years your junior. Many, many years of diverse interactions and relationships on many levels with many women. Out of them all, I know you would not find a one, even amonst those you have other reservations, who would recall the experience as "objectifying" or "dehumanizing". "Empathetic", "validating", "empowering", "sacrificing" are probably the most common descriptive terms I regularly receive in conversation and correspondence with women whose lives have instersected with my own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Stepping back a bit ... Y'know, one could see this happening earlier in smaller bursts on that thread.

---

Exactly. I hadn't seen the new argument on that thread until now, but I was annoyed almost from the beginning of the thread.

I mean, let's look at this post, which happened within the first several posts of that thread:

quote:

---

Through my adult life, I've equated bras as a symbol of oppression for women. You know, the obligation to be uplifted and conical. The bra-rejection retoric of the feminists of my generation supported, or perhaps sponsored those thoughts.

Most of my progressive (word had far different meaning then) female contemporaries resented to or discarded them.

The woman I was once married to and who bore my children, herself a very large busted woman until she opted for reduction surgery, always said she was more comfortable braless, and wore them only when she felt social conditions (work, etc.) demanded.

And certainly as a male. I have always much preferred the "unbound" look.

But then, yesterday, I read women saying that, even beyond athletics and whatnot, there are many circumstances that make support more comfortable. So I'm left puzzled, conflicted, and open to reconsider.

---

First of all, bralessness was NOT "central" to feminism during the second wave. Bralessness was central to the BACKLASH against feminism during the second wave - you know, the issue that people who hated feminists used to belittle feminists with. Yeah, second-wave feminists were all about the bras - secondary to the all-important bra issue were equal pay for equal work, the ERA in the US, the right to choose, child care, fair divorce settlements and child support, birth control, marital rape. I mean, what the fuck?

From the post above, basically what it looked like to me is this: All the feminists I knew during the 60's and 70's went braless. Therefore, bralessness was central to feminism, and hey, being a man, I like the look of unrestrained hooters, so I've always figured that women who wear bras aren't real feminists, or are probably just internalizing their own oppression.

It reminds me of the stories I've heard from second wave feminists about guys who would try to get them into bed by saying, "Hey, you're liberated, aren't you?" I mean, give me a break. Then, further on in the thread, he claims that his entire generation of men believe that women who wear bras aren't really feminists. Which is also entirely bullshit - I've met lots of men from his generation who don't believe that bralessness was "central" to second wave feminism, or that women who wear bras are not really feminists.

Bralessness during the second wave was central to Men Who Didn't Get It, whether it was men who hated feminists and wanted to ridicule them by calling them bra-burners, or whether it was men who were looking to cash in sexually on feminism by supporting feminism when it comes to bouncing breasts, birth control, and less emphasis placed on chastity for women.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

Women start talking about bras, and then about breasts, and they can begin to joke quite broadly among themselves. And then suddenly a man steps in, thinking he can tell the same jokes, and suddenly ... something is just a little ... off.

Suddenly, it doesn't feel like the liberation of laughing over shared experience. It feels ... invasive. At least to me it does.

---

I'm with skdadl, RB and Michelle on this.

It happens over and over here, as skdadl says, men come into a discussion among women, KNOWING what the women are talking about and then blithely throwing in their 2 cents' worth, demonstrating they DON'T know, huffiness ensues among the women, then defensiveness ensues among the men.

quote:

---

Originally posted by clersal:
I really think that James gets the point. Is it possible to drop it? I feel there is a ganging up and it leaves a bad taste.

---

There are, as we all should know, multifarious (and sometimes competing) feminisms. To assume ONE feminism, and one alone, is really rather phallic [at best],

quote:

---

Originally posted by xander:
Just to jump into this conversation as of late but it seems as though those whom have been posting on this thread assume "feminism" to be some kind of monolithic entity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

And who would those people be?

---

Excellent question Well by "these people" I was referring to those who have posted on this topic and not made the distinctions among the various feminist thinkers/activists.

For instance nobody has mentioned Melanie Klein in contradistinction to Gloria Steinam, let alone Anna Freud's 'difference' vis a vis B. Freidan,

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
I'd think it would be a consenssus here that this need not be revived.

---

Sawwwryy James,

Revivification in this instance seems appropriate,

And have you read any of the rest of the feminism forum, where most of the feminists here are constantly debating different types of feminism and different issues that come up BETWEEN feminists?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
And why would the differences between Steinem and Klein and Freud and Friedan have come up in this particular thread, pray tell? What does this thread have to do with that?

And have you read any of the rest of the feminism forum, where most of the feminists here are constantly debating different types of feminism and different issues that come up BETWEEN feminists?

So which people in this thread do you think should have been bringing up Klein and Friedan and Steinam, and in what context to the current conversation do you think those names should have been brought up?

---

Michelle,

Play nice. You previously penned "And who would those people be?" **NOW** you demonstrate an acquaintance with their work ?!!

So, who are the babblers in this thread that you claim "assume "feminism" to be some kind of monolithic entity"?

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I asked you a simple question which you didn't answer. You claimed that certain people in this thread "assume "feminism" to be some kind of monolithic entity". I asked you who the people IN THIS THREAD would be that you're accusing of this. Then you went off on a famous feminist name-dropping spiel that has no relevance to this thread whatsoever.

So, who are the babblers in this thread that you claim "assume "feminism" to be some kind of monolithic entity"?

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

Nice try. Once you have replied to my previous question - that is, why you seemed to know of whom I was speaking (and yet nonetheless feigned ignorance ???!! ) - I will reply to yours,

You made a broadside overgeneralization about women who have posted TO THIS THREAD. Michelle asked you to put names to your overgeneral accusation.

You are refusing to do that, although it was your overgeneralization about us that provoked the first question.

Michelle then also asked why you think that a bunch of celebrity feminists are at all relevant to a discussion of a single, focused incident that occurred on babble. You haven't answered that question either.

She also pointed out that discussions of various streams of feminism and all those names you drop have been going on for four years in the feminism forum, contrary to your opening assertion.

So, ah, it would seem to me that you have two tasks before you:

1. answer Michelle's opening question: which of the women babblers above is more ignorant than you of the various streams and traditions of feminism; and

Gosh. I have just run into something very similar on another site, and I have to tell you, it is getting to me. Was there something in the water this weekend or what? Full moon? All the masculinist-dominionists seem to have been out in force, and it is simply so impossible to talk to them. Before you've had one simple exchange with them, you have to start to untangle their logic, which is impermeable.

2. explain why discussions of those various streams would be at all relevant to this most particular discussion.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Gosh. I have just run into something very similar on another site, and I have to tell you, it is getting to me. Was there something in the water this weekend or what? Full moon? All the masculinist-dominionists seem to have been out in force, and it is simply so impossible to talk to them. Before you've had one simple exchange with them, you have to start to untangle their logic, which is impermeable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xander:
1. answer Michelle's opening question: which of the women babblers above is more ignorant than you of the various streams and traditions of feminism; and

2. explain why discussions of those various streams would be at all relevant to this most particular discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xander:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by skdadl:
[QB]You're right, WW.

Gosh. I have just run into something very similar on another site, and I have to tell you, it is getting to me. Was there something in the water this weekend or what? Full moon? All the masculinist-dominionists seem to have been out in force, and it is simply so impossible to talk to them. Before you've had one simple exchange with them, you have to start to untangle their logic, which is impermeable.

Gosh indeed skd ! It's kinda like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a heterosexual person.

---

quote:

---

Gosh indeed skd ! It's kinda like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a heterosexual person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Isn't this such a poisonous little gem?

Man, xander, but you got probs. Not that you're going to be here long enough for me to help you, mind, but I would like to extend my sympathy, just before you go, to anyone whose sexuality is that insecure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Isn't this such a poisonous little gem?

Man, xander, but you got probs. Not that you're going to be here long enough for me to help you, mind, but I would like to extend my sympathy, just before you go, to anyone whose sexuality is that insecure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xander:
[QB][/QB]

---

xander, you seem to be equating my aversion to masculinist ideologues to some sort of sexual preference of my own.

How very sad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Well, gee. You failed, didn't you.

xander, you seem to be equating my aversion to masculinist ideologues to some sort of sexual preference of my own.

How very sad.

We're not talking about me here, xander. We're talking about you.

---

Good try there Skd. Almost got suckered in there ...

What I was checking for, however, was a reply to my questions from the poster named Michelle.

Good "filler" though there folks ! All that 'ad hominem' ...

quote:

---

skdadl, how often do I have to tell you to stay away from the Maxim boards?

---

Compared to you, we're positively Socratic.

Whether feminism likes it or not, evolutionary biology sez we have in the past and continue in the present to select mates on the basis of physical traits, and that for those biases to persist in the gene pool, they have to have, in most cases, some evolutionary benifit. Anthropologists have traced a "golden ratio" of women's proportions that seems to be preferred in virtually all societies where we can document preference. There is thus a good case for superficial physical judgements being hardwired, predating and not determined by patriarchy.

quote:

---

Large breasts and narrow waists indicate reproductive potential
Proceedings: Biological Sciences
Volume 271, Number 1545, Pages: 1213 - 1217

Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women.

---

link

quote:

---

the relationship between WHR and female attractiveness is not culture-specific and not inculcated by modern Western fashion dictates or media.

---

quote:

---

Waist-Hip Ratio and female attractiveness
Strong correlations between attractiveness and particular physical properties have been found, across cultures. One of the more important properties is symmetry, which is also associated with physical health. Large clear eyes are also important. In women, a waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) of about 0.7 ratio (waist circumference that is 70% of the hips circumference), is typically considered very attractive.

---

This site has an interesting general discussion of what people perceive as attractive. Unlike the above, it's general information, not peer-reviewed scholarship.

link

[ 19 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]