The tweets saying "this should be illegal" are IMO making the opposite claim to how you read them. IE: the made-up evening dress look should be illegal, not the bikini pics on the left. The bikini pics are of a normal attractive woman. She is human, approachable, anyone could be her friend. The pic in the dress is literally not real. That person exists only on film, and only after many hours of expensive specialized labor. "The men" (or whoever) are being fed a superstimulus that cannot exist, and in the process their model of what a normal human they can interact with actually looks like is destroyed.
I think the claim is akin to "advertising heroin should be illegal." Or maybe "fraud should be illegal." Made worse by the fact that one is supposedly victimized by the heroin/fraud simply by seeing the photo which is usually involuntary -- an infohazard was thrust in front of them and has degraded their ability to have real relationships with real women.
"Raw maleness still contains within it the masculine drive for systematized order. But raw femaleness makes a mockery of it."
As a female, I'm always mystified about such claims. Is it anything real or just an urban myth that men are about logic and women are somehow not? I always liked the nice, well-systematized stuff - all kinds of stuff, including feminine, nicely systematized. Look at Aella - she's trying to draw logical models of human behavior and that's why we read her, right? Can it be that women have other and sometimes more complex goals in social matters and that's why men find women's actions and feelings illogical, not knowing what the goals are?
I was talking here about overgeneralized archetypes, obviously there is a huge diversity of both men and women (as Aella shows!) and civilization needs both. But the preference for systematization vs. empathization is the largest gap we observe in male vs. female psychology. And civilization, meaning a large group of people united by shared stories and not just by blood, ultimately requires substituting a lot of empathy for ordered systems of law, commerce, religion, etc.
OK. I reacted before because I dislike sentences like "raw femaleness makes a mockery of [systematization and other rational things]", I suspect it's a flowery way of saying that females are performing low in these tasks, on average, which is likely true, but I prefer it to be said outright.
This might be wrong, but I've always understood women's complaint about objectification as relating to *how* they are seen sexually. You can take either of two approaches to seeing a person:
1. See them as a pair of boobs, buttocks, a beautiful face, etc.
2. See them as an unembodied personality, consisting of feelings, desires, emotions, likes, dislikes, memories, experiences, skills, etc.
Obviously it's a mix and no one sees people exclusively in either of these ways. But I've always interpreted the "objectification" complaint as being that women want to be seen more as (2) and less as (1).
The tweets saying "this should be illegal" are IMO making the opposite claim to how you read them. IE: the made-up evening dress look should be illegal, not the bikini pics on the left. The bikini pics are of a normal attractive woman. She is human, approachable, anyone could be her friend. The pic in the dress is literally not real. That person exists only on film, and only after many hours of expensive specialized labor. "The men" (or whoever) are being fed a superstimulus that cannot exist, and in the process their model of what a normal human they can interact with actually looks like is destroyed.
I think the claim is akin to "advertising heroin should be illegal." Or maybe "fraud should be illegal." Made worse by the fact that one is supposedly victimized by the heroin/fraud simply by seeing the photo which is usually involuntary -- an infohazard was thrust in front of them and has degraded their ability to have real relationships with real women.
"Raw maleness still contains within it the masculine drive for systematized order. But raw femaleness makes a mockery of it."
As a female, I'm always mystified about such claims. Is it anything real or just an urban myth that men are about logic and women are somehow not? I always liked the nice, well-systematized stuff - all kinds of stuff, including feminine, nicely systematized. Look at Aella - she's trying to draw logical models of human behavior and that's why we read her, right? Can it be that women have other and sometimes more complex goals in social matters and that's why men find women's actions and feelings illogical, not knowing what the goals are?
I was talking here about overgeneralized archetypes, obviously there is a huge diversity of both men and women (as Aella shows!) and civilization needs both. But the preference for systematization vs. empathization is the largest gap we observe in male vs. female psychology. And civilization, meaning a large group of people united by shared stories and not just by blood, ultimately requires substituting a lot of empathy for ordered systems of law, commerce, religion, etc.
OK. I reacted before because I dislike sentences like "raw femaleness makes a mockery of [systematization and other rational things]", I suspect it's a flowery way of saying that females are performing low in these tasks, on average, which is likely true, but I prefer it to be said outright.
This might be wrong, but I've always understood women's complaint about objectification as relating to *how* they are seen sexually. You can take either of two approaches to seeing a person:
1. See them as a pair of boobs, buttocks, a beautiful face, etc.
2. See them as an unembodied personality, consisting of feelings, desires, emotions, likes, dislikes, memories, experiences, skills, etc.
Obviously it's a mix and no one sees people exclusively in either of these ways. But I've always interpreted the "objectification" complaint as being that women want to be seen more as (2) and less as (1).