Objectification of Women

Indeed.  You only have reason to ever put yourself up and feel good about yourself.  Everyone else in the world is there to shit on ya.

Quote from: kevin

It's admirable that they show such dedication towards their community, but I can't tell anything about these people based on their clothing other than that they're amish.

interesting. i live among them, and so i can tell quite a lot. these are old order amish above, possibly swartzentrubers. they'll be full or part-time farmers, with occasional employment in day labor or other occupations. i knwo what color their houses are, what sorts of wiindows they use, the style and color of their window curtains, how they cook, heat, what they eat, what they believe about raising children, marriage, machinery, telephones, plumbing, and how they travel from place to place.

the ones below are beachy amish, with less strict beliefs about community and how it works, and they'll both farm and work in town at permanent jobs. they will use motors for farm traction, but no personal automobiles.



these are progressive mennonites, with even more liberal anabaptist beliefs, and might own woodworking or metal working businesses, for example. they'll own motorized transportation. they'll have telephones and electricity:



plain quaker:



it depends on what you know about them as to what the clothing tells you. i can do this not because the clothing indicates anything personal, but because the clothing is specifically associated with lifestyle choices. in terms of personality, the clothing is uniform, which is done on purpose because uniformity is a community choice.

the quaker is a computer programmer.

I used to see quite a few Mennonites in my old town, unfortunately there aren't any in Nashville.

The Quaker is your wife, I'm guessing? I like Quakers. They might be my favorite version of Christian.

Does she play Quake?

We don't have Amish in the Netherlands, what is it that they believe in?

We don't have Amish in the Netherlands, what is it that they believe in?

God.

But why do they dress like it's the 1800s?

They are just overzealous hipsters trying to be ironic retro.

They want to avoid vanity and inequality.

They want to avoid vanity and inequality.

And they think they achieve that by dressing like it's the 1800s? Weird.

I dress well.

I wear jeans and t shirts and hoodies and a fitted baseball hat. I dress well too.

The dress in the 1800s was chosen for as much reason.

The point is the simplicity in design, message, and form.  Not overusing ones debt on, in their case, God.

I used to see quite a few Mennonites in my old town, unfortunately there aren't any in Nashville.

The Quaker is your wife, I'm guessing? I like Quakers. They might be my favorite version of Christian.

no mennonites there? that's odd. they get around.

the quaker's a friend of mine from colorado. most quakers don't adopt plain dress these days, though.

Mennonites know how to make good sausage.

Quote from: rooster on February 06, 2013, 08:59:42 PM

I used to see quite a few Mennonites in my old town, unfortunately there aren't any in Nashville.

The Quaker is your wife, I'm guessing? I like Quakers. They might be my favorite version of Christian.

no mennonites there? that's odd. they get around.

the quaker's a friend of mine from colorado. most quakers don't adopt plain dress these days, though.

I hope they wouldn't get around to the big city. I'm sure towns like Franklin can provide all their needs and it's not out of the way from whatever farm they probably live on.

So I was posting on Reddit, and I got negative karma for a post that well, in my opinion contained both humor and truth.  Its a bit long.  So I won't post the whole thing, but I basically argued that until you know a girl or have talked to her, its completely reasonable to have her looks be the most important thing about her. 

"If there were two women I have never met in the path of a moving bus, and I could only save one, with equal chance of rescue, I would save the prettier one. (lets assume I saw them before the crossed the street and was able to determine which was more attractive before hand) Is that wrong? It feels wrong, but I can't find a rational reason why it is wrong. Frankly speaking I would get an easy date out of the rescue. Maybe this is wrong because I am thinking about what I would get out of a rescue. Or that I am thinking about a date when a girl got ran over by a bus.

Lets make it a non lethal thing. Two girls are doing trust falls, but the people that were supposed to catch them are having simultaneous heart attacks. . . wait this one is getting dark now too. I would pick the prettier one every time, then I would call an ambulance for the two people dying, Unless either one of them was prettier than the girls falling in which case i would call the ambulance first. Or maybe I should still catch the girl then call the ambulance. The pretty girl having a heart attack is likely not going to remember the order, and I could probs still get a date with her if the girl i caught turned out to be not to my liking in the personality sector.

I guess my point is how can you appreciate a woman for more than her looks if you never have and never will meet her, and she is not famous and therefore you have no information about her? Seems that the only pragmatic answer is that looks are all you have at first, and that you better hope you are attractive, but not too attractive, you don't want to give you and your ugly friend's catchers heart attacks during trust falls."

I don't think this counts as objectifying women.  If I knew more about the two women than I would go on other things, but I don't.  Its the same exact thing as walking up to pretty girls at a bar as opposed to the ugly ones.  Only this one has much more significant consequences than me receiving a "hell no."

Maybe they just Down voted it because of TLDR.

The rational reason why this feels is wrong is because you are using your male sex-driven mind to determine someones worth, and subsequently, their life.  The reason you are having trouble seeing that it's wrong, even though it does feel a bit off, is because you erroneously think that judging someone by your level off attraction to them makes sense to you and you can even bring up Darwinian examples to support the claim.  However, we do not live in a purely Darwinistic society, and who would want to for that matter?  A place were only the strongest survive and the prettiest are selected for reproduction.  No, our society is the culmination of centuries of trial and error where even the cracks in the system are sealed by laws that we agree to live under to protect the whole (or hole, depending on what laws).  This example you have provided directly clashes with the culture humanity has cultivated to raise us from our arboreal ancestors that so long ago moved onto the grasslands where they began planting the seeds of society.

This also feels wrong because you know that there is more to a woman than her looks.  Yet, in your example, you are only given the briefest of moments to decide their fates.  You must disregard everything but what's on the thin surface.  You have no time to know whether one strings math problems like the other makes the cello sing; whether one has the heart of a poet or the other the hands of a chief; one a loving family one without anyone; the woman you would truly love, or simply a nice face.  Does your justification of saving the pretty one outweigh all of this?  Could you, after making your decision, tell the others family that she wasn't saved because she simply wasn't as pretty?  Would they look upon you as the monster you are?

All this being said though, I liken the scenario to a driver always swerving to protect themselves, regardless of who is sitting next to them being exposed to greater danger.  Like I said, we are products of our ancient ancestry and there are very strong survival instincts woven into the deepest parts of our genes.  These forces making you the monster you fear may always be stronger than the man fighting to drive them back onto the grasslands where they were borne.

To further expand on this topic, surely we can admit that we value some people's lives over others? If presented with my family or a stranger, I would choose my family every time. My family has inherent value for me that strangers do not have. And if we accept this, then surely we can extend it to prettiness?

I accept that you have an intrinsic love for your family that lacks in strangers, but I do not see prettiness as an extension of this. Your attraction to a pretty girl is driven by your genetic need to reproduce. Men that find women attractive reproduce substationaly more than men who do not. The love for your family has different roots.

I recommend you read The Selfish Gene. It's a poorly titled book about altruism and family affection. One of the conclusions that the author draws is that you are genetically predisposed to loving your family because they share the same genes as you. All genes want to do is reproduce and we, as well as all animals, are the magnificent byproducts of this system. One could say you are nothing more than a step along the path taken by your genome as it "walks" through the generations. So, genes find it a very successful means of reproducing to build a person who lives, loves, and sires. Also, being that your siblings and parents share half your genes and your cousins share a quarter, and so on, your genes find it beneficial to love/protect the people that are most like you.  This is a fascinating concept that I'm doing no justice by summing up in one paragraph. If you're interested, I can find you some YouTube videos that cover the topic more thoroughly. 

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on February 04, 2013, 09:25:46 PM

So I was posting on Reddit, and I got negative karma for a post that well, in my opinion contained both humor and truth.  Its a bit long.  So I won't post the whole thing, but I basically argued that until you know a girl or have talked to her, its completely reasonable to have her looks be the most important thing about her. 

"If there were two women I have never met in the path of a moving bus, and I could only save one, with equal chance of rescue, I would save the prettier one. (lets assume I saw them before the crossed the street and was able to determine which was more attractive before hand) Is that wrong? It feels wrong, but I can't find a rational reason why it is wrong. Frankly speaking I would get an easy date out of the rescue. Maybe this is wrong because I am thinking about what I would get out of a rescue. Or that I am thinking about a date when a girl got ran over by a bus.

Lets make it a non lethal thing. Two girls are doing trust falls, but the people that were supposed to catch them are having simultaneous heart attacks. . . wait this one is getting dark now too. I would pick the prettier one every time, then I would call an ambulance for the two people dying, Unless either one of them was prettier than the girls falling in which case i would call the ambulance first. Or maybe I should still catch the girl then call the ambulance. The pretty girl having a heart attack is likely not going to remember the order, and I could probs still get a date with her if the girl i caught turned out to be not to my liking in the personality sector.

I guess my point is how can you appreciate a woman for more than her looks if you never have and never will meet her, and she is not famous and therefore you have no information about her? Seems that the only pragmatic answer is that looks are all you have at first, and that you better hope you are attractive, but not too attractive, you don't want to give you and your ugly friend's catchers heart attacks during trust falls."

I don't think this counts as objectifying women.  If I knew more about the two women than I would go on other things, but I don't.  Its the same exact thing as walking up to pretty girls at a bar as opposed to the ugly ones.  Only this one has much more significant consequences than me receiving a "hell no."

Maybe they just Down voted it because of TLDR.

The rational reason why this feels is wrong is because you are using your male sex-driven mind to determine someones worth, and subsequently, their life.  The reason you are having trouble seeing that it's wrong, even though it does feel a bit off, is because you erroneously think that judging someone by your level off attraction to them makes sense to you and you can even bring up Darwinian examples to support the claim.  However, we do not live in a purely Darwinistic society, and who would want to for that matter?  A place were only the strongest survive and the prettiest are selected for reproduction.  No, our society is the culmination of centuries of trial and error where even the cracks in the system are sealed by laws that we agree to live under to protect the whole (or hole, depending on what laws).  This example you have provided directly clashes with the culture humanity has cultivated to raise us from our arboreal ancestors that so long ago moved onto the grasslands where they began planting the seeds of society.

This also feels wrong because you know that there is more to a woman than her looks.  Yet, in your example, you are only given the briefest of moments to decide their fates.  You must disregard everything but what's on the thin surface.  You have no time to know whether one strings math problems like the other makes the cello sing; whether one has the heart of a poet or the other the hands of a chief; one a loving family one without anyone; the woman you would truly love, or simply a nice face.  Does your justification of saving the pretty one outweigh all of this?  Could you, after making your decision, tell the others family that she wasn't saved because she simply wasn't as pretty?  Would they look upon you as the monster you are?

All this being said though, I liken the scenario to a driver always swerving to protect themselves, regardless of who is sitting next to them being exposed to greater danger.  Like I said, we are products of our ancient ancestry and there are very strong survival instincts woven into the deepest parts of our genes.  These forces making you the monster you fear may always be stronger than the man fighting to drive them back onto the grasslands where they were borne.

So I should pick the uglier one?

You would save neither or instinctively reach the closer one first. Looks have nothing to do with it and assuming they do in this scenario is silly and pointless.

You would save neither or instinctively reach the closer one first. Looks have nothing to do with it and assuming they do in this scenario is silly and pointless.

I thought we were talking about trust falls.  I agree the bus is a bad example.  But trust falls I am going to pick the prettier girl.

Quote from: rooster on February 07, 2013, 11:54:22 PM

You would save neither or instinctively reach the closer one first. Looks have nothing to do with it and assuming they do in this scenario is silly and pointless.

I thought we were talking about trust falls.  I agree the bus is a bad example.  But trust falls I am going to pick the prettier girl.

Why are you doing trust falls with strangers?

The thing is, you're creating scenarios where you're trying to prove that it's all about looks right off the bat. It's like... you're trying to create scenarios where you can look at women as objectively as possible. So in truth, this is objectifying women (and men depending on the gender). I guess I'm just saying, I don't understand the point. Once you get past the symmetrical phase, looks are generally pretty subjective to us. Then there is style and body language that also attracts us. There is rarely ever a situation when you need to judge someone solely on their naked "objective" looks.

Now aside from your ridiculous and offensive scenarios, it's really not difficult to admit that looks are the most important attractant before you get to know someone. But just to clarify, what attracts us is pretty subjective and include style and body language rather than just facial features. If someone is just objectively attractive, you may still be able to tell they're not your cup of tea before you know them.

So I should pick the uglier one?

Is that what you got from what I wrote?

We don't have Amish in the Netherlands, what is it that they believe in?

I thought the Mennonites started in Europe.  Are they not still there?

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on February 08, 2013, 02:38:11 AM

Quote from: rooster on February 07, 2013, 11:54:22 PM

You would save neither or instinctively reach the closer one first. Looks have nothing to do with it and assuming they do in this scenario is silly and pointless.

I thought we were talking about trust falls.  I agree the bus is a bad example.  But trust falls I am going to pick the prettier girl.

Why are you doing trust falls with strangers?

The thing is, you're creating scenarios where you're trying to prove that it's all about looks right off the bat. It's like... you're trying to create scenarios where you can look at women as objectively as possible. So in truth, this is objectifying women (and men depending on the gender). I guess I'm just saying, I don't understand the point. Once you get past the symmetrical phase, looks are generally pretty subjective to us. Then there is style and body language that also attracts us. There is rarely ever a situation when you need to judge someone solely on their naked "objective" looks.

Now aside from your ridiculous and offensive scenarios, it's really not difficult to admit that looks are the most important attractant before you get to know someone. But just to clarify, what attracts us is pretty subjective and include style and body language rather than just facial features. If someone is just objectively attractive, you may still be able to tell they're not your cup of tea before you know them.

Yeah I agree, although why are the scenarios offensive?  I thought they were in good taste.

Quote from: rooster on February 08, 2013, 11:10:25 AM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on February 08, 2013, 02:38:11 AM

Quote from: rooster on February 07, 2013, 11:54:22 PM

You would save neither or instinctively reach the closer one first. Looks have nothing to do with it and assuming they do in this scenario is silly and pointless.

I thought we were talking about trust falls.  I agree the bus is a bad example.  But trust falls I am going to pick the prettier girl.

Why are you doing trust falls with strangers?

The thing is, you're creating scenarios where you're trying to prove that it's all about looks right off the bat. It's like... you're trying to create scenarios where you can look at women as objectively as possible. So in truth, this is objectifying women (and men depending on the gender). I guess I'm just saying, I don't understand the point. Once you get past the symmetrical phase, looks are generally pretty subjective to us. Then there is style and body language that also attracts us. There is rarely ever a situation when you need to judge someone solely on their naked "objective" looks.

Now aside from your ridiculous and offensive scenarios, it's really not difficult to admit that looks are the most important attractant before you get to know someone. But just to clarify, what attracts us is pretty subjective and include style and body language rather than just facial features. If someone is just objectively attractive, you may still be able to tell they're not your cup of tea before you know them.

Yeah I agree, although why are the scenarios offensive?  I thought they were in good taste.

That's why. You're creating scenarios where you're making lightening fast judgments based on looks, the first one was even life or death. It's unnecessary. And do I really need to explain how it is not good taste to say you would save the prettier female's life? That's definitely the opposite of good taste. It may be honest, but it's not tactful.

No one needs these examples, all you have to say is that someone's outer appearance is the first attractant. Well... no shit. That seems pretty obvious unless you're Parsifal.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on February 08, 2013, 02:09:29 PM

Quote from: rooster on February 08, 2013, 11:10:25 AM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on February 08, 2013, 02:38:11 AM

Quote from: rooster on February 07, 2013, 11:54:22 PM

You would save neither or instinctively reach the closer one first. Looks have nothing to do with it and assuming they do in this scenario is silly and pointless.

I thought we were talking about trust falls.  I agree the bus is a bad example.  But trust falls I am going to pick the prettier girl.

Why are you doing trust falls with strangers?

The thing is, you're creating scenarios where you're trying to prove that it's all about looks right off the bat. It's like... you're trying to create scenarios where you can look at women as objectively as possible. So in truth, this is objectifying women (and men depending on the gender). I guess I'm just saying, I don't understand the point. Once you get past the symmetrical phase, looks are generally pretty subjective to us. Then there is style and body language that also attracts us. There is rarely ever a situation when you need to judge someone solely on their naked "objective" looks.

Now aside from your ridiculous and offensive scenarios, it's really not difficult to admit that looks are the most important attractant before you get to know someone. But just to clarify, what attracts us is pretty subjective and include style and body language rather than just facial features. If someone is just objectively attractive, you may still be able to tell they're not your cup of tea before you know them.

Yeah I agree, although why are the scenarios offensive?  I thought they were in good taste.

That's why. You're creating scenarios where you're making lightening fast judgments based on looks, the first one was even life or death. It's unnecessary. And do I really need to explain how it is not good taste to say you would save the prettier female's life? That's definitely the opposite of good taste. It may be honest, but it's not tactful.

No one needs these examples, all you have to say is that someone's outer appearance is the first attractant. Well... no shit. That seems pretty obvious unless you're Parsifal.

Yeah I see your point. (I did not actually think they were in good taste, just not offensive)

I thought the Mennonites started in Europe.  Are they not still there?

most of them left europe because of the persecution.

The intuition struck at here is genuine, but in some ways trivial. All other things being equal, a more attractive person is more likely to earn your salvation than a less attractive person. This is even a defensible position.


However, all other things are rarely equal. Including distance.

The intuition struck at here is genuine, but in some ways trivial. All other things being equal, a more attractive person is more likely to earn your salvation than a less attractive person. This is even a defensible position.


However, all other things are rarely equal. Including distance.

In the end you earn your salvation.