Let’s be fair: the same conclusion is tested and proven in virtually every column or article that features the word “study”. Any article that mentions both evolution and body image means that Ben and i are both going to have a field day.
This article is like a grown up version of “Highlights For Kids”, except it’s “how many things can you find wrong with this article?” I was going to start out by asking “How many things are wrong about this article? I’ll give you a hint: there are # sentences in it.” But then i realized i’d have to count the sentences, and it’s already done enough damage to my poor brainmeats.
I should probably link the article in question, and give some idea as to what’s so Oh Hell No about it: Evolution produces more ‘beautiful’ women: Study shows attractive women have more children. Interestingly enough, that’s not the headline i saw in the link (i know, space-saving measure and all that), which was: “Studies: Women getting prettier.”
So my initial curiosity about the article was “O RLY? How does that line up with the ZOMG OBESIPANIC *FLAIL*?”
But oh, it’s so much worse. So, so, SO much worse. And here comes the break down…
Recent studies found that, evolutionarily-speaking, women are growing more beautiful while men are remaining their same scratchy, hairy primordial selves, according to a report in The Sunday Times.
That’s the second paragraph/sentence in the article. I find it offensive because on one level, it lines up the socially acceptable “men can be ugly, women have to be pretty” double standard; it plays directly into the war of the sexes: men are primitives, women are the ornamental bastion of society. If women are around for decoration and men are still working out which end of the stick to stab the mammoth with, who’s actually building this civilization?
Further, a study from the University of Helsinki found that beautiful women have more children than their less-than-blessed peers.
Sure, if you’re Angelina Jolie. But what explains Octomom?
I don’t follow the news much, but it was hard to avoid news about “Octomom”. In fact, i distinctly recall seeing an article that existed for the sole purpose of comparing Angelina’s visual appearance to that of Octomom Nadya Suleman, noting their similarities. Now, the idea that this article existed is offensive on so many levels that it’s a whole other not going there. Honestly, i think both women have issues; one’s are written off or seen as idiosyncratic (maybe because she’s rich and famous?), and the other woman’s issues are thrown at her with a dehumanization that makes me nauseated.
For instance, the University of Helsinki looked to a 40-year study of 1,244 women and 997 men from the U.S., which included photos of the participants’ looks as they aged and taking note of how many children each had, with lovely ladies bearing 16 percent more babies other women.
First things first: 2 thousand people (out of a current population of 307,010,000) is barely scratching the surface. In my own family, we have pictures of my father’s grandparents (or great-grandparents, i can’t recall off the top of my head). So that’s four or five generations right there. Just a little math here: if you divided those ~2k people into 3-4 generations, and assumed that you had pictures of entire families for accurate comparisons, you’d have roughly 500-650 families… out of 307 million people? That isn’t even 1%.
Some other questions raised here:
- What was the method of selection for the photographs?
- What areas of this rather large country did these women come from?
- How many different races and nationalities were represented?
- By which society’s (and era’s) standards were these men and women judged?
Obviously, the criteria is sexual appeal as evidenced by sexual activity, this reduces the study to the shocking revelation that people who get shagged more often tend to have more children – finally disproving the long-held myth of cabbage patch babies.
Next up:
Kanazawa’s work, the Times reports, found that attractive parents were more likely to bear daughters, suggesting that the human DNA was programmed to do so.
Last i was aware, the gender of the child was determined by the male’s genetics, not the female’s. Extending that, we have the idea that: men who choose attractive women as mating partners are more likely to produce female children. Many cultures deem it emasculating for a male to fail to produce male offspring. Honestly, i do find that fascinating, especially when you start getting into topics such as royal heirs, female infanticide and societal demands upon women’s appearances.
And the cherry on top of the sundae mess that is this article:
Researchers also found that both sexes agree women are more visually pleasing than men, according to the Sunday Times.
We needed a study to support that?
When it comes to men, researchers found no notable difference in the number of off-spring by hot or homely men. Because let’s face it, a man’s looks are second only to success. Don’t believe us? Ask Donald Trump. Or Howard Stern. Billy Joel. Ozzy Osbourne. Woody Allen. Kid Rock. You get the idea.
Donald Trump has a very publicly disastrous love life. Ditto Howard Stern, he and his now ex-wife got together before he was successful.
The thing that’s really offensive about this? Aside from Donald Trump, they’re listing artists, and then going on to imply that their success is the only thing attractive about them. We’re supposed to believe that the only thing to find attractive about Billy Joel is his money? That is the direct implication of the article. Ask Tori Amos about that – she has commented about the appeal of Billy Joel at some length – and not because he makes a lot of money. And how many supermodels has Billy Joel dated? Must only be because of his money, right?
Ozzy Osbourne is a rock culture sex icon, and has been for almost 40 years. For a lot of people, he is the physical incarnation of the rock and roll credo Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll. Note that “shitload of money” is not part of this credo. In no part of the song Crazy Train does he mention the ticket prices.
Woody Allen is almost in his own category. Jokes are written about why Woody Allen has sex appeal; he’s a different sort of cultural icon. He is the guy who is charming and appealing in his insecurity, anxiety and quirkiness – not despite them. This is the foundation of his entire career. Have you ever seen a Woody Allen movie? This is what they’re about.
The idea of someone thinking Billy Joel is an ugly man is just bizarre to me. He is a handsome man, and he is a musical genius. I think that might have some appeal to some people, just maybe. He’s passionate. He is driven by his conscience and his sensitivities. He has spent a lifetime creating beauty. So obviously the only reason anyone would ever want to shag him is because he has money? This is akin to saying Nelson Mandela shook Paul Simon’s hand in the hopes of getting campaign contributions.
Frankly, even the proposition that these men are appealing for no other reason than their financial success, and that this is presented in the article as an unquestionable fact with which the reader must automatically agree, is indicative of a deep sickness in our culture.
Now the fun part: evolution. I know wikipedia isn’t the best resource, but work with me, here:
Two major mechanisms determine which variants will become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, meaning that more individuals in the next generation will inherit these traits.
This is the context that brings the article to some Next Level shit. The simplified (read: no sleep) version is this: being unattractive is harmful to the species on a genetic level.
But waitaminit… look at lower back problems. The human species is prone to lower back problems. Our spine is poorly suited to our posture and our activities. This is why lower back problems are as common as they are. Evolution is not a well-polished, robust design process that systematically removes negative traits over time. The most we can say is that it reliably reduces traits that result in pre-reproductive death: do you die before you get to shag? If yes, then evolution will take care of that. If no, it’s a great big shrug, maybe.
Whether aware of it or not, most people talk about evolution as if it were “intelligent design”.
BUT:
The other major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role that chance plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce.
So let’s see… a study that focuses on less than 1% of the population of a single country… an article that does not define the methods of selection OR the standards by which the people in the study are being judged… and the complete failure of that article to even come close to mentioning that attraction is subjective.
It’s just insidious. And we have the audacity to wonder why people have body image issues?
Are you prepared to sell your blog? I am thinking about buying it.