Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Did attractive women actually benefit from feminism?

  1. Oct 3, 2009 #1
    Did attractive women actually benefit from feminism?
    Or was it just a way to allow for unattractive women to vent their frustrations against how "easy" attractive women had their lives?
    Rush Limbaugh describes feminism as "a misguided way to allow unattractive women into the mainstream."

    Instead of debating whether this is true or not, how accurate do you think this statement is?
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 3, 2009 #2
    No matter how hard I try to rationalize it, I can't find the argument for the attractive woman.
     
  4. Oct 3, 2009 #3
    You've never heard the argument that men pursue wealth and power primarily to attract females, and that because females choose males instead of vice-versa, that the power any male holds is actually held by the female that chose him as a mate?

    I can see the validity of it from an evolutionary psychology viewpoint, but it just doesn't seem to match with reality.
     
  5. Oct 3, 2009 #4

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Mainstream what?
     
  6. Oct 3, 2009 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Did you mean to title the thread "unattractive women"? That seems to be what you posted about.
     
  7. Oct 3, 2009 #6

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Most arguments I've seen say that feminism favored unattractive women, as in the Rush Limbaugh statement you quoted. Feminism would be seen to hurt attractive women that would have been seen to benefit from their looks and not from their brains. So, your thread title seems odd.
     
  8. Oct 3, 2009 #7
    The thing is, most people who haven't really thought about the matter automatically believe that feminism helped ALL women across the board, so that's why the word "actually" is in the title...
     
  9. Oct 3, 2009 #8

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well let's look at the US before feminism. Women, even attractive women, were not seen in any numbers in science, in engineering, in math, or business. They were not represented in higher education as a whole, actually.

    Women, no matter how attractive, were not allowed to hold positions of power. And now they can, if they can earn it...a direct effect of feminism.

    So feminism has hurt attractive women how, exactly?
     
  10. Oct 3, 2009 #9

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Totally nonsensical...there is absolutely no reason to talk about how accurate a statement is if it's not true.
     
  11. Oct 3, 2009 #10
    I didn't go as far to say that feminism actually hurt attractive women, but I think Evo explains the case pretty concisely. Refer to #6
    Yes, and there is absolutely no reason to talk about how accurate a statement is if it's true.
     
  12. Oct 3, 2009 #11
    I've heard it argued that none of those things bring happiness, and that women are actually less happy than they were a century ago.

    Not saying I buy it, but I have heard it.
     
  13. Oct 3, 2009 #12


    Here's an article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6395879.ece#

    Maybe the thread title should read "Why has greater equality brought women greater unhappiness?" Does having MORE of everything necessarily enrich people's lives?
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  14. Oct 3, 2009 #13
    Well said, besides, I always thought attractive women were more exploited (than less attractive women) prior to the movement and thus benefited equally.
     
  15. Oct 3, 2009 #14

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Did you buy into this? There are plenty of women who were not "cute" when I was in HS that I loved, and plenty of women who were outwardly "cute" that were poison. Did feminism change any of that? It's been that way forever, as much as I can figure.

    I had to dump my HS GF because she was manipulative and I couldn't deal with it. The next year, she was a Miss Maine runner-up. Cute can't cover up other faults.
     
  16. Oct 3, 2009 #15

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You just agreed that it makes no sense to talk a statement's accuracy if it's not true. And then you said it makes no sense to do so if it is true.

    I'm confused about what you're asking.
     
  17. Oct 3, 2009 #16
    I was also going to point the feminism history. That statement is ridiculous if you look at the history. Feminism has nothing to do with the attractiveness IMO.
     
  18. Oct 3, 2009 #17
    A statement such as the one made by Rush Limbaugh is a huge generalization. The point of the thread was to analyze the generalization made and to what extent. It doesn't have to be true/untrue like a binary unit.
     
  19. Oct 3, 2009 #18

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Oh, I just re-read this, you're asking more about it from a female feminist perspective?

    I would have to agree that there was animosity between intelligent women that were held back and the women that used thier looks to their advantage. But it goes far deeper, as lisab pointed out. Being female meant you couldn't even compete in many cases. The women that managed to get accepted academically were few and far between. But women that were attractive weren't competing academically, they were competing, if that would even be an appropriate term back then, mostly socially, sometimes in business.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  20. Oct 3, 2009 #19
    Your original point makes more sense. (Most) women who had good looks probably felt no need to compete academically in the first place, or even compete with men for that matter. Competition, among women, was based on looks and character, in which unattractive women already had partial disadvantage in. The attractive woman would feel flattered from going outside and getting seen where as the unattractive woman less so. Thus, in a way it behooves the unattractive woman to live in a system which sets the ultimate criteria based on labor and study, and the attractive woman may feel a bit more confined since she wants to go outside and get noticed. As an 18-year-old boy, this is what I've ventured to conjure.

    In fact, many women felt fairly confident about their position in the domestic realm. Even greater potential for material comfort came if she was one of the more attractive ones that rich men would set their eyes on.

    *btw, I'm not here to piss anybody off
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  21. Oct 3, 2009 #20
    Now, this is you talking not what Rush might be thinking? I don't know how you could make these generalizations confidently without any source.
     
  22. Oct 3, 2009 #21

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Oddly, I watched a documentary on this just last night. It was about in the last 200 years in the US, that it was how rich you were and the social class a woman was in that decided how far she could go. The removal of class distinctions had a great impact on removing barriers for the subsequent feminist movement to succeed here.
     
  23. Oct 3, 2009 #22

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Where on earth did you get the notion that some defined segment of the population would be happy to just coast, without pulling their fair share...and that segment would be totally content with not competing?

    Try substituting "brown haired people" for "attractive women" in your argument, and try to imagine how difficult it would be to keep brown haired people in that tiny, boring little box.

    Also, if "many women felt fairly confident about their position in the domestic realm", why was feminism so popular? Feminism changed our world almost overnight; it must have seemed like a good idea to a *lot* of people (not just women, btw).

    I don't mean to beat you up here, a-v, I just don't think you really thought about this from all points of view.
     
  24. Oct 4, 2009 #23
    Well I guess women in the past could have had a completely different set of goals from the first place. There was competition, but usually on a different criteria.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Domesticity

    I don't really know how popular feminism was. But I'm guessing that the mainstream "Cult of Domesticity" actually encouraged many women to uphold the traditional ideals.

    Once again, this particular outlook on life that society held probably also favored attractive women over unattractive women. The type of competition we have today, which is mostly based on productivity and effectiveness, gives almost no favorability towards attractiveness of the woman. An unattractive scientist is just as valuable as an attractive scientist and thus the unattractive woman has gained relative ground.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2009
  25. Oct 4, 2009 #24

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sure, if you raised a female child giving her the idea that her only value was in how useful she was as a domestic partner. And girls were raised that way for thousands of years.

    Oh, yes, feminism caught on like wild fire in the Western world. After all, many men have daughters in whom they saw high potential...and they their girls to have every opportunity their sons had.
     
  26. Oct 4, 2009 #25
    Feminisms is so confusing. Excuse me if I'm being politically incorrect. Did you mean a girl?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook