Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    What's to discuss??  Is this an old cliche I've never heard?
    
    How about:
    
    Women are designed to be strong
    
    Men are designed to be beautiful
    
          * the only problem with the above (other than its absolute
            absurdity - meaning I don't think any of us were collectively
    	    designed for one purpose) is the connotation of the adjectives
    	    when attached the nouns.
             

     This is meant to be a continuation of a rathole started in another
    note. The views expressed in the basenote are not my own; verily I say
    unto thee- I do not subscribe to them.
    
     Having seen several requests to move this part of the discussion
    elsewhere, I decided to move the thread this way.

    whew!  .0's phraseology hit between the eyes.
    
    Deja vu!! I just walked back into my contemporary western philosophy
    final with only two blue books ... 
    
     8-}.
    
    Ann

    Re .0, that must make things really tough for men who aren't strong,
    and women who aren't beautiful.....
    
    Lorna
    

    The whole subject presupposes that men and women were "designed",
    rather than what really (how's that for opinion disguised as fact?)
    happened - through various accidents of evolution over the millenia,
    they just turned out the way they are today. Design doesn't even come
    into it.

    Even if you're into the idea that the homo sapiens form factors were
    designed, "designed to be beautiful" doesn't scan particularly well,
    since the notion of beauty is very culturally relative. 

    
    	The design?  What about the evolution?  Female homo sapiens have
    	not always had enormous firm breasts, thin waify arms, and eensy
    	weensy bikinis in which to flaunt such attributes.  Neither have
    	I, for that matter.  Female homo sapiens have not always had the
    	luxury (ahem) of long nails, hairspray, soft hands, and any other 
    	socially attributed "beautiful" characteristics.
    
    	I would guess that a million years ago when women had to be much
    	more physical in their daily lives (I wonder if neanderthal men/
    	women were concerned with outward beauty) that they were _quite_
    	capable of exerting great physical strength, perhaps moreso than
    	what women are used to today.
    
    	Women were not *designed* to be beautiful by anyone or anything
    	other than a society who mistakenly considers them objectified
    	by that alleged beauty.  I've met plenty of non-beautiful women
    	and plenty of non-strong men.  And it really never occurred to
    	me that they should be anything other than what they are.
    
    	Carla
    

     I personally disagree that A) women are designed to be beautiful
    and B) all women are beautiful.
    
     I agree with Ann who said (para) "Women were designed to bear
    children." That makes sense to me. This doesn't mean that bearing
    children is the ONLY thing they were "designed" for, just that what
    differentiates them from men is that they are made to bear children and
    men aren't.
    
     I don't believe that all women are beautiful. About the only thing I
    can honestly say about all women is that they are all female (though in
    this day and age, it is no longer a given.) Beautiful is subjective; it
    is in the eye of the beholder. In this beholder, not all women are
    beautiful, from an aesthetic point of view.
    
    The Doctah

re Note 906.2 by BROKE::SSMITH:

>     How about:
>     
>     Women are designed to be strong
>     
>     Men are designed to be beautiful
  
        That's the way it is in Lake Wobegon, you know.

        Bob

re Note 906.0 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE:

>      Men are designed to be strong.
>     
>      Women are designed to be beautiful.
  
        My problem is with the phrase "are designed to be".  To say
        that something is designed to be something has connotations
        of purpose and essence.

        First off, I would observe that women and men have most of
        their design objectives in common. We can get quite
        philosophical about what the ultimate purpose of people may
        be.

        I would also observe that men and women have some difference
        in function -- they are designed to function differently in
        reproductive matters.

        I would suggest that form followed function, but then if one
        observes that men would be quite capable of impregnating
        women without being any stronger (or even equally strong),
        then what function might be implied from greater average
        physical size?

        (I would add that it is quite possible for some aspects of
        "form" to be mere accidents, and not a direct requirement of
        some "function".)

        Bob

    If men are meant to be strong, why then do:
    
    Women tend to live longer lives
    Women bear the pain of childbirth, not men
    Behind every successful man, usually there's a STRONG woman behind
    him!
    
    If women are meant to be beautiful, why then:
    
    Do men usually age more gracefully than women (I know, it's the
    old hormones ...)!
    
    Tammi
    

        <<< Note 906.12 by MAMTS2::TTAYLOR "Straight from the heart" >>>
>>>  Women tend to live longer lives
>>>  Behind every successful man, usually there's a STRONG woman behind
>>>  him!
    
    Could it be because there's usually a strong woman behind a successful
    man that men tend to live shorter lives than women?

    All this talk about design and beauty makes me want to have a
    talk with the design engineer.  I mean let's face it, beyond
    the individual and cultural external declarations of that which
    is "beautiful", it seems to me that there are some serious design
    flaws.  
    
    Like f'rinstance, what's the deal with nose and ear  hair getting 
    longer and more profuse in old age?  And who's idea was the uvula?
    And how come guys get baldness but don't get multiple orgasms?
    And how come there are menstrual cramps?  Wouldn't it have been 
    more convenient to have, say, sneezes?  What about pimples, smelly
    feet, and the appendix?  I mean, what gives??
    
    Emily Litella's brother, Steve

    Following will be the disentangled bits of discussion from topic 892
    that are being moved here to discuss the strong/beautiful dichotomy. 
    It will take a while so please be patient.
    
    -Jody
    

Excerpted from...

================================================================================
Note 892.73         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           73 of 94
SSDEVO::GALLUP "when it comes to rumours, I'm a dea" 38 lines  19-DEC-1989 12:35
             -< Alright...I feel the heat already coming my way. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

	 The female body was DESIGNED to be sexy.....*I*
	 even find the female body to be sexy and desireable to look
	 at (as do many women.....just open Cosmo, Vogue, etc).  These
	 magazines, many of them, are run by women for women.  

	 What is your basis for your desire to deny women the right to
	 self-expressionism?  I view the SI Swimsuit issue and other
	 as a control that women have over MEN!  We're goddesses,
	 we're beautiful........have you seen the "Women of Mensa"
	 issue of Playboy?!  Outrageously beautiful!!!

	...

	 kath

Moved in full:

================================================================================
Note 892.74         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           74 of 94
LEZAH::BOBBITT "LEZAH lives!"                        32 lines  19-DEC-1989 12:57
                            -< a possible solution >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: .73
    
    Yeah, but kath...these magazines only show one kind of beauty, only
    espouse the value of these women as residing in their beauty (if the
    women of mensa had just had IQ scores or essays printed, THEN maybe I'd
    believe it wasn't just another "They're BEAUTIFUL....(oh yeah, and
    they're smart too...heh heh)...
    
    That is where the male-catering male-run part comes in.  YES they are
    glorious looking women.  But isn't every woman glorious looking in her
    own right?  Shouldn't every woman be accepted on her own visual terms? 
    Shouldn't woman be sensitive to the fact that every hustler, penthouse,
    and playboy is slanting the odds against them if they don't look JUST
    LIKE THOSE WOMEN?  Yes, these are goddesses - goddesses of velvet and
    feather and airbrush and lust...goddesses to adore, to worship, to
    praise, to fantasize over.  But these goddesses have no voice, and no
    thoughts other than what the magazines choose to place beneath their
    softly lit pictures.  
    
    The women-as-objects (whether they be objects of violence, objects that
    do not matter, objects to be used and thrown away, objects that do not
    have feelings or thoughts) is what I think has to go.  
    
    The solution, btw, is not to make men into objects in any way shape or
    form (just in case that was going to come up) - the solution is to
    deobjectify women.  To put the blood back into their lifeless forms -
    the forms we see on screen and paper. - to put the sweat and the tears
    and the heart and the feelings and the thought and the VALUE back into
    these women.  
    
    -Jody

Moved in full.
    
================================================================================
Note 892.75         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           75 of 94
SSDEVO::GALLUP "Got the universe reclining in her h" 90 lines  19-DEC-1989 13:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .74
    
>    Yeah, but kath...these magazines only show one kind of beauty, only
>    espouse the value of these women as residing in their beauty (if the
>    women of mensa had just had IQ scores or essays printed, THEN maybe I'd
>    believe it wasn't just another "They're BEAUTIFUL....(oh yeah, and
>    they're smart too...heh heh)...

	 True...that is why I said we need to work to add the other
	 beauty in.  I don't believe taking away the viewing of a
	 woman's body as beautiful is right.  Women were MADE to be
	 beautiful.  Women were also made to be smart, intelligence,
	 able to survive on their own, etc.  Just as men were made to
	 be physically strong, women were made to be beautiful.

	 BTW...there were essays/IQ scores printed with each woman's
	 photo.  That to me says....these women are SMART AND
	 BEAUTIFUL and BEAUTIFUL AND SMART.  I don't feel beauty
	 should fall below the level of smart, nor do I feel smart
	 should fall below the level of beauty.  In their own right,
	 they are just as important.

	 I, for one, do not want to lose my self-expressionism
	 simply because other women feel it is *wrong* for me to
	 display my body (that it detracts from equality).

	 
>   But isn't every woman glorious looking in her
>    own right?  Shouldn't every woman be accepted on her own visual
>	 terms?

	 Yes, she should....Yes, every woman is beautiful in her own
	 right. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.....But taking away of the
	 viewing a female body thru modelling/soft porn/etc is, IMO,
	 the wrong way to go about doing it.  (And we are totally off
	 the subject here, this should all be moved to a new note).

	 What we need is to place more emphasis on the other aspects
	 women hold, not take away one of them!  

>    Shouldn't woman be sensitive to the fact that every hustler, penthouse,
>    and playboy is slanting the odds against them if they don't look JUST
>    LIKE THOSE WOMEN?

	 If the odds are being "slanted against them" in a man, I
	 maintain that he is not the right man for them.  Just as with
	 music videos/lyrics, Playboy/Penthouse, etc....I feel the
	 slant against women lies in the individual that READS/SEES
	 that.

	 Now, I also believe our society is doing a lot to promote
	 that slant.  But the guilt still lies in the person, not the
	 medium.

         We need to work to even out the beauty vs smarts portrayal.
	 We SHOULDN'T, in my opinion, try to downplay beauty to even
	 it out with the smarts.  We should try to BOOST the image of
	 women as smart......up to be equal with their beauty.

	 
>    The women-as-objects (whether they be objects of violence, objects that
>    do not matter, objects to be used and thrown away, objects that do not
>    have feelings or thoughts) is what I think has to go.  


	 See...we don't see it the same way...there are times when I
	 WANT to be viewed as an "object of a man's desire."  Now, I
	 agree with you that violence and using/throwing away are
	 negative images.......  But some times it's nice for me to be
	 thought of as an object to be desired......

	 Sometimes I want to be viewed as intelligent, and sometimes I
	 want to be viewed as delightful to the eye.

	 I don't know if I'm getting my point across here... I think
	 it's important for the two to go hand-in-hand....I think we
	 need to work in the idea that women DO have thoughts and
	 feelings, that they ARE equal with men......

	 ....instead of destroying/hiding an inherent part of
	 ourselves.
	 


	 And this is all way off the subject of what happened in
	 Montreal...can it be moved to another topic?

	 kath    

Moved in full:

================================================================================
Note 892.76         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           76 of 94
VIA::HEFFERNAN "Juggling Fool"                        7 lines  19-DEC-1989 14:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE:  Annual Swimsuuit Issue of SI

I think it's time for the *wm* annual Swimsuit Issue note.

;-)

Moved in full:

================================================================================
Note 892.77         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           77 of 94
COBWEB::SWALKER                                      14 lines  19-DEC-1989 14:22
                                    -< Gag >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 <<< Note 892.75 by SSDEVO::GALLUP "Got the universe reclining in her hair" >>>

>	 ... Women were MADE to be
>	 beautiful.  Women were also made to be smart, intelligence,
>	 able to survive on their own, etc.  Just as men were made to
>	 be physically strong, women were made to be beautiful.

Some women are not beautiful, and some men are not physically strong 
(and although you may argue that every woman is beautiful in her own
way, you'll never convince me that every man has his own way of being
physically strong!).  I suppose this makes them inferior, because they
aren't all they were "made to be"?

	Sharon

Moved in full:

================================================================================
Note 892.78         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           78 of 94
GEMVAX::KOTTLER                                      10 lines  19-DEC-1989 15:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .73 - you're kidding, right?
    
    re .74 - thanks.
    
    re .75 - if you think this doesn't have anything to do with what
    happened in Montreal, think again!
    
    re .76 - suit yourself.
    
    Dorian

Moved in full
================================================================================
Note 892.81         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           81 of 94
SSDEVO::GALLUP "i get up, i get down..."             38 lines  19-DEC-1989 17:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                     <<< Note 892.77 by COBWEB::SWALKER >>>
>-< Gag >-

	 First off, I resent your title and the attitude toward me
	 and my ideas that it contains.
	 
>Some women are not beautiful, and some men are not physically strong 
>(and although you may argue that every woman is beautiful in her own
>way, you'll never convince me that every man has his own way of being
>physically strong!).  I suppose this makes them inferior, because they
>aren't all they were "made to be"?

	 Second off.....everyone is beautiful in their own way.....and
	 'physically stronger' than what?!?!?  Did I make a definition
	 of what physically strong was?

	 The male body is DESIGNED (do you get that word????) to be
	 able to be physically stronger than a woman's body.....also,
	 by virtue of their hormones, men are physically ABLE to
	 become physically stronger.

	 The female body is DESIGNED to be beautiful.....

	 Whether or not someone CHOOSES to do with their body what it
	 was designed for is another issue.  Also, I never used the
	 word "inferior" in any way......you chose to use that word.
	 Don't place words into my mouth that are not there.


	 A Porsche 935 is DESIGNED to drive at speeds over 150mph.
	 Have you seen a Porsche 935 doing that on a regular basis?
	 Does this mean that this Porsche is inferior to other
	 Porsches that DO drive over 150mph?

	 You're really reaching...................


	 kath

Moved in full
================================================================================
Note 892.82         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           82 of 94
CADSE::MACKIN "CAD/CAM Integration Framework"        10 lines  19-DEC-1989 17:56
                      -< and the children above average? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Double gag.  How on earth do you know that women were "designed" to be
    beautiful?  You've seen these design prints, I assume?  The female body
    has evolved (do you get *that* word, Kathy?) such that, in addition to
    everything else, can bear children and support their nutritional needs
    for the first few years of life.  If some women, or the female body
    proper, is also "beautiful" then that's because our brains have evolved
    to view it as such.  Male brains maybe more so than female brains.
    
    Where does all this leave intelligence if all the men are strong, the
    women good looking ...

Moved in full
================================================================================
Note 892.83         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           83 of 94
THEBAY::VASKAS "Mary Vaskas"                         34 lines  19-DEC-1989 18:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh??

>	 The male body is DESIGNED (do you get that word????) to be
>	 able to be physically stronger than a woman's body.....also,
>	 by virtue of their hormones, men are physically ABLE to
>	 become physically stronger.

In what sense?  There are studies that say that a male's typical strength
is focussed in the upper body and for short periods, while a female's
typical strength is focussed in the lower body and for more long-term 
stamina -- but our society calls the former "strong" and the later "weak".
So, I would say, men's bodies are designed for upper-body, short term
strength while women's bodies are designed for lower-body, long-term strength.
But, that's not as important a point to me as:

>	 The female body is DESIGNED to be beautiful.....

Huh?  What does this mean?  "designed to be beautiful"??

Who's idea of beauty?  Who defined it?  
The way the 1989 western society advertising business defines it? 
This year our society calls women with a particular shape or
size "beautiful" -- next year, last year (next decade, last decade),
it was a different shape and size and look.
Is the male body not designed to be "beautiful"?  Is it designed to be
"ugly"?

This sounds way too close to previous centuries' "women are not designed
to be intelligent; their brains are physically smaller" justifications
for not *letting* people develop their full potential, if it contradicted
someone else's stereotype (or "god's plan").

	MKV

Moved in full

================================================================================
Note 892.84         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           84 of 94
SELL3::JOHNSTON "bord failte"                        31 lines  19-DEC-1989 18:25
                         -< diving down that rathole >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If, I may interject, here...
    
    kath,
    
    unless I'm missing something in your assertions, I cannot agree with you
    that women are designed to be beautiful and men to be strong.  perhaps,
    I need some clarification.
    
    yes, men are a physically stronger subset of people than are women; and
    yes, it is 'by design.'
    
    but, if you saying that women as a subset are inherently more
    beautiful, you've lost me.  I don't agree.  Beauty is just as
    capriciously bestowed upon the male of the species.
    
    I believe that the complement to male strength in terms of the 'design
    spec theory' would be the female's ability to bear young.
    
    When I first read you note, I was a bit put off.  'Oh no,' says I to
    myself. 'Another woman saying women are _supposed_ to be beautiful.'
    Not because I'm a Feminist [even though I am] and not because I am not
    beautiful [even though I am not...at least not by today's standards]. 
    The was nothing political or envious in my reaction, merely the
    distancing of myself from an attitude that is the antithesis of the
    very real woman that I am.
    
    But upon reflection, I would like to know why a woman, in this case
    you, would make such an assertion.  No 'gag', no 'rhetoric', no
    invalidation.  I really _am_ curious.
    
      Ann

Moved in full

================================================================================
Note 892.85         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           85 of 94
TINCUP::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante"             12 lines  19-DEC-1989 19:09
                   -< I'm getting more depressed every day >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<	 The female body is DESIGNED to be beautiful.....

    The female body was designed for enduring childbirth. Our culture
    determines whether we think a particular combination of features is
    "beautiful". And so far our culture has defined beautiful to a
    standard most of us can't touch. Why, if we were designed to be
    beautiful, do males think our legs must be altered by high heels to
    have a nice shape? Or why like shaved legs over the original design
    which has hair? liesl

    P.S. I don't give a sh*t about the SI swimsuit issue and what it
    means anymore. 

Moved in full

================================================================================
Note 892.86         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           86 of 94
DECWET::JWHITE "ohio sons of the revolution"          3 lines  19-DEC-1989 19:17
                        -< men strong/women beautiful >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    you're kidding, right?
    

Moved in full
================================================================================
Note 892.87         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           87 of 94
SSDEVO::GALLUP "Got the universe reclining in her h" 24 lines  19-DEC-1989 23:45
     -< I'm a adult....please treat me as such...don't be condescending. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	 1)  No, I'm not kidding

	 2)  I'm obviously not getting my point across

	 3)  I've asked for this note to be moved three times now
	 because it doesn't belong in this string

	 4)  I never ONCE said anything about intelligence of
	 women/men having ANYthing to do with the discussion of
	 strong/beautiful

	 5)  As to making my point clearer, I'm obviously not doing a
	 good job, because you're all WAY off on what I'm trying to
	 get across.

	 6)  will the moderators PLEASE move this topic elsewhere,
	 until then, I won't address this topic again......(I'm tired
	 of being misunderstood and misrepresented...especially in
	 this discussion, in this topic.....and I refuse to be treated
	 the way I am now......)

	 kath

Excerpted from :
    
================================================================================
Note 892.88         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           88 of 94
GEMVAX::KOTTLER                                      36 lines  20-DEC-1989 08:35
                      -< "Only connect." -- E.M. Forster >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<hag on>
    
re .79 -

>    I have to agree with Kath on this one. You are able to find some sort
>    of misogyny in most everything that occurs on the face of the earth.

Surely you don't mean just the *face* of the earth? What about all her
other Isolated Body Parts?  ;-)
    


  
...

Dorian

<hag off>

>Moved in full
================================================================================
Note 892.89         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           89 of 94
MOSAIC::TARBET                                       24 lines  20-DEC-1989 09:23
                       -< <*** Moderator Response ***> >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One member of our community appears to have been assigned the role of
    lightning rod.  I'm not the only one to have noticed it:  the other
    mods also have, and we received mail last night from another member
    pointing it up.
    
    It's probably inevitable for various reasons that this person would
    take a lot of heat, but what is neither inevitable nor very
    complimentary to our community's reputation for warmth and tolerance is
    the language in which the heat is wrapped.  Do we really need to malign
    someone personally when we disagree with their positions?  I hope not;
    it does us no credit.
    
    ===================================================================
    
    Second issue:  Kathy Gallup (and someone else?  I can't remember) has
    requested that the substring on beautiful women/strong men/whatever be
    moved to another string.  Dorian Kottler disagrees with this, and
    argues that the two issues (the massacre -vs- societal perceptions of
    women) are closely related.  I tend to agree with Dorian on this, but
    of course will move it if the majority of participants decide that it
    would be better off elsewhere.
    
    						=maggie

Moved in full:
================================================================================
Note 892.93         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           93 of 94
RAB::HEFFERNAN "Juggling Fool"                       16 lines  20-DEC-1989 13:43
                               -< a digression >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE:  Men/women are designed to...

In my view, people are designed to love one another and take care of
this planet we have been given.  The other stuff doesn't matter too
much in the end.

RE:  Where to discuss.

I've never been a big fan of keeping notes uniform and on track.  It
must be from noting in GRATEFUL where nothing is even on track and
there is frequently no correlation between the title and the
conversation after a while.  In fact, we even have a digressions note
devoted to digressions.  People "complain" when the conversation is on
the same topic for too many notes!  My 2 cents.

john

    The migration is complete.
    
    Happy Hollandaise.
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .8
    >                                    that they [women] were _quite_
    > capable of exerting great physical strength, perhaps moreso than
    > what women are used to today
    
    I don't know...that awful supermom myth that seems to be gaining
    momentum certainly goes against this.  You know the image--the woman 
    in her mid-thirties in a grey suit with an overflowing briefcase on 
    one shoulder, a diaper bag on the other, balancing a toddler on one 
    hip while she takes a grocery bag out of the back of her minivan.
    Also, in non-industrialized countries, women can still be seen working
    the fields while carrying the babies, setting up and tearing down the
    living space in nomadic tribes, etc.  Gosh, where did that supermom 
    idea come from?  
    
    When I was a baker, I could only carry one 50-lb. bag of wheat at a
    time, while the men carried two.  But I still managed 10- and 12-hour
    days.  Most of us may be pysically weaker, but there's a lot to be said
    for physical stamina and mental endurance.
    
    re: .11
    >men age more gracefully than women
    
    Where do *you* live and is there room for me?  When I look around, I 
    see an equal number of pot bellies and flabby arms on both sexes.  
    (I happen to like grey hair and wrinkles.)  And I've heard that the
    baldness gene is handed down by the mother.
    
    Nancy 

    in re .34
    
    small biological nit here. The baldness gene is not carried on
    the X chromosome and can be passed  by either parent. It is a
    sex influenced gene not a sex linked gene (a sex linked gene would
    be color blindness or hemophilia).
    
    Bonnie

    re.0 I don't see strength and beauty as opposites. Rather,
    strength is a component of beauty. Do you know anyone you
    consider to be 'weak' and 'beautiful' ?
    
    (Note necessarily physical strength. Emotional strength is
    *essential*, muscularity is, or can be, an enhancement.)
    
    Dana
    
    PS Hi, beautiful ! (you know who you are)

I am going to make an attempt to explain what Kathy meant in her original
wording, because I think everyone is misunderstanding her.  (Of course, I
may not understand her any better...)  If I am right, I mostly agree with
her (therefore this is peppered liberally with my own interpretations.)

I don't *think* when she said "Women are designed to be beautiful, men are
designed to be strong" that she meant that as a comparison/dichotomy, or
the implied that you can't be beautiful and strong or anything like that.
I think she was giving the latter statement as *another* example, like
"women are designed to be beautiful" of how evolution differes between the
sexes.

Secondly, I *think* what she meant by "women are designed beautiful", and
I agree, is that the female of any species is designed to be sexually
attractive to the male of that species.  (To the extent that one can refer
to "evolution" as "design"...I might prefer the verb "shaped.")  this is
quite obviously true, else the species would not continue.  Since the
evolution of the species happens as a system, one can not point to a particular
trait and say "That happened because of *this*", it would be equivalent
to say "men were designed (evolved) to be sexually attracted to women."

It is true that standards of beauty change with time.  Sexual attraction
doesn't.  Increase in blood pressure, stiffening of erectile tissue (to put
it delicately), release of certain hormones - these are signs of sexual
arousal, and for a species to continue, this must happen in malse in
response to females.  If one equates sexual attractiveness with beauty, then 
it is true women were designed to be beautiful.

I *think* her point was that it is *natural* for men to be attracted visually
to women, since visual attraction (along with pheremones and other stuff)
is one aspect of the system that causes males to be attracted to females.
It is part of the human reproductive systems that males will respond sexually
to the visual image of women.  That telling men they *shouldn't* enjoy
looking at a women doesn't make sense because that sexual response is
ingrained deeply, both biologically and socially.

In general (my opinion) is that a woman's body and face are as much a part
of her being as her mind and soul.  They can be appreciated alone or together
with the rest of her, as can her mind and soul.  Would you tell someone that
they shouldn't be interested in talking with someone if they don't know 
what that peron looks like?  No, else none of us would be here.  That would
be similar to saying that someone shouldn't be interested in looking at 
someone unless they know how they think.  I don't think that makes any sense.

D!

    re.37
    
    Well, D!, your interpretation of kath's statement is similar --
    although not identical -- to what I inferred from it.  I _did_ see a
    dichotomy.
    
    And I was/am a bit put off by it.
    
    I don't object to men liking to look at women. I do not dispute that
    there is or should be a male response to physical attractiveness in
    women. 
    
    However, following up the logic of man strong/woman beautiful as the
    raison d'etre of sexual attraction and perpetuation of the species sort
    of rings down echoes of the old 'he sees, he likes, he overpowers'
    scenario.
    
    Now mind you, I've no objection to being found physically attractive;
    but I have considerable objection to being overpowered.  I've had that,
    I don't like it, it makes me nauseous. [no judgement upon the tastes of
    others implied.  I speak for myself and my own tastes from my own
    experiences]
    
    Also, I like to think that evolution, or 'design' if you will, has
    worked just as much magic in making men pleasing to _my_ eye as my kind
    to them.  Women here have frequently commented upon the turn of a cheek
    or the set of a chin, so I do not believe I am alone.
    
      Ann

re Note 906.37 by TLE::D_CARROLL:

> If one equates sexual attractiveness with beauty, then 
> it is true women were designed to be beautiful.

        Even that isn't required by the observed facts.  It is
        equally supportable that "men were designed to regard women
        as beautiful."

        Bob

	 RE: .37 (D!)


	 Very close....

	 I haven't been able to adequately respond here because I keep
	 getting thrown out of Womennotes.

	 I'm formulating a response off-line, and will enter it soon.


	 kath

RE:  D! et al.

But couldn't most of what you say be true if you exchanged the word
man for woman and vice versa?  Men must be attractive to women as
well.  There seems to be a generally consensus that men tend to be
more concerned with physical appearence and women more concerned with
intellectual/emotional factors.  If this is indeed so, I attribute it
to cultural conditioning and not to some innate human characteristic.
Anthropologists have repeatedly shown that one's perception of beauty
is in a large part culturally relative which implies a socially
conditioned response.  If men are made to be attracted to women's
beauty, where does homosexuality come into play?  Is there innate
sexual function somehow faulty?  I don't think so.

I guess on not 100% clear of what the point is here.  Sure, there are
physical differences between men and women.  How we deal with them and
what they mean is largely up to us (in my view).

This question of what we are designed to do is a very interesting one.

Are women designed to have babies because they have the equipment for
it?  Are they faulty is they don't?

Are men designed to bring home the bacon since they are stronger?

In my mind, such assertions have lost their relevance.  I'm looking
forward to a society where men can show weakness, emotions, caring and
well as strength, intellect, leadership, doing and can involve
themselves with children.  Where women can show intelligent, actions,
have careers leadership as well as emotional nurturing, etc.

Each of us has been given a body.  I think it really up to us on what
we want to do with it.  The physical aspects of this body, while
wonderful and amazing, are subsumed by higher questions that we each
must answer.  Who am I?  Why I am here on this earth?  Is there a way
to live correctly?

I think if we live by what society expects of us our chances of a a
joyful and productive life are slimmer.  Is is really understood how
much these culturally conditioned roles are ingrained in our pyshce?
We can never be free if we are doing what we think we are supposed to
be doing.  I think the first step is really being aware of how gender
based cultural conditioning manifests itself within us and I think
it's a lifetime process.

john

    I don't want to de-rail Kath's clarification of her views,
    but this looked like such a neat question I couldn't resist
    putting in a bit myself.

.0>     Men are designed to be strong.
.0>     Women are designed to be beautiful.
.0>     Discuss.

    I had to break this down into the various connotations and
    implications that occurred to me...Since the original
    sentences are in passive voice (quite possibly intentionally)
    most of the connotations which occurred to me were
    speculations on who/what did the "designing."  And there's
    also plenty of fertile ground in asking what "strong" and
    "beautiful" mean, objectively. 

	Men are designed [by Someone] to be strong.                    (1)
	Women are designed [by Someone] to be beautiful.

    I don't think anyone is arguing for this point.  Several
    people have already pointed out that if Someone designed us,
    Someone didn't do a very consistent job, as there are plenty
    of women who are not perceived as beautiful, and plenty of
    men who are not perceived as strong.  Since Someone (in our
    western culture, with its Judeo-Christian background) is
    usually presumed to be omnipotent, we are faced with either
    assuming that Someone did *not* design us, or that Someone is
    leaving it up to us to correct our perceptions.

	Men are designed [or shaped by natural selection] to be strong.      (2)
	Women are designed [or shaped by natural selection] to be beautiful.

    My understanding of the process of natural selection is that
    it doesn't generally select for such vague and fuzzy concepts
    as "strong" and "beautiful."  If we could clarify what we
    mean by these terms, then perhaps we could discuss whether
    they were selected for.  Some things that come to my mind:
    "strong" might mean short-term upper body strength, or
    extended endurance such as is necessary to swim the English
    Channel.  "Beautiful" might mean having small breasts (as
    among many Oriental cultures), having obvious facial hair
    (the Anu consider a woman's "moustache" quite sexy), and
    having broad hips and heavy thighs (which might aid in giving
    birth).

    The phrasing of the above assertions implies a dichotomy.  It
    could imply that women are designed/shaped to be "not
    strong," and that men are designed/shaped to be "not
    beautiful."  Or it could mean that although women are not
    designed to be strong, it could happen anyway; and that
    although men are not designed to be beautiful, it could
    happen anyway.  In the first case, we would need to show that
    women are "not strong" and men "not beautiful" and then show
    that natural selection had operated to cause this; in the
    second case we would need to show that women are strong and
    men beautiful despite the fact that natural selection did
    *not* select for those attributes.

    Of course, upon thinking about it, we might decide that the
    dichotomy is false, that in fact *people* are "designed" to
    be both strong and beautiful -- which is a different question
    I don't have much time to explore here.

	Men are designed [by human society] to be strong.                   (3)
	Women are designed [by human society] to be beautiful.

    This allows for the possibility that "strong" and "beautiful"
    might not have objective (ie: always true) definitions, but
    might have flexible definitions depending on the culture, or
    even the individual judging the "strength" or "beauty."  It
    also allows for a selection process which works on a much
    faster time-scale than natural selection:  if a male infant
    is weak, sickly, and doesn't seem likely to ever be "strong",
    or a female infant has attributes that make her appear
    "ugly," then the infant can be exposed.  Children can be
    taught the appropriate techniques for becoming
    strong/beautiful:  "It's not healthy for you to sit around
    and read so much, why don't you go play football with the
    other boys!" and "What a pretty dress Santa brought you for
    Christmas!" and so forth.  Society can leverage sanctions
    against those men who do not try to be strong ("Him?  Oh,
    yeah, he's a real wimp") and women who do not try to be
    beautiful ("She could be really pretty if only she'd wear a
    little makeup and do her hair differently").  Such sanctions
    can range from mild teasing to severe disapproval, possibly
    even to bodily harm and death.

    IMHO, phrasing (3) of the premise is closest to the way
    things actually seem to work...and we are taught that
    phrasing (1) or (2) is the "real truth."  This means that one
    of the sanctions for persons who step outside the bounds of
    "strong men" and "beautiful women" can be that they (we) are
    told that they (we) are "unnatural" or "disrespectful" or
    "flouting God's law" or whatever. 

    -- Linda

>> If one equates sexual attractiveness with beauty, then 
>> it is true women were designed to be beautiful.

 >       Even that isn't required by the observed facts.  It is
 >       equally supportable that "men were designed to regard women
 >       as beautiful."

Ahem.  That is what I said.  Right there in the message, I said that
saying "women were designed to be sexually attractive to men" is
equivalent to "men were designed to find women sexually attractive."
You can't seperate the two, since men and women evolved *together*
as a system, the two statements are saying the same thing.  (The ambiguity
really comes from the inappropriate use of the word design...it would
be more accurate to say simply "women *are* attractive to men via
evolution".)

D!

John and Ann...
I never said anything about male sexual attractiveness to females.
I didn't say it existed, or didn't, I just didn't comment, because the
specific discussion was not about that.  Since you ask, yes, I would
say an analogous system of sexual attracted developed the other direction,
too.

John,
I think you have mistaken me for implying that we are slaves to evolution.
I never meant any such thing.  I was just talking about how men and women
evolved so that men are visually (and otherwise) attracted to women.
This is *not* to say that evolution is our total destiny.  It is quite
clear that women evolved to bear children - but I never said, and I do not
believe, that because a women *evolved* in such a way that any individual
woman is less than a woman because she choses *not* to do that which 
evolution gave her the ability to.  (Someone stated this mch more eloquently
recently in a response to the Globe letter saying "women were made to give
birth and so that is their only purpose.)

As for a woman who cannot give birth, that doen't make her less of a erson.
But, purely evolutionarily speaking, that is a flaw.  She can't pass on her
genes, and therefore that marks the end of her evolutionary line.  

As fo homosexuality, the same goes there.  While homosexuals (in general)
are capable of producing children, they are not inclined to perform acts
which make that happen.  (They might, however, be inclined to have children,
in which case they can find ways to get around their lack of inclination to
do such acts.)  Again, this says nothing about their lack of personhood,
or anything like that.

Both categories fall within reasonable variation/deviation from evolution,
therefore do not disprove this theory.

Frankly, I am not quite sure of the point of this discussion.  It seems
clearly obvious to me (tho apparantly not to others) that what I am saying
is true, but it seems pretty much irrelevent.  As others have said, 
evolution shaped our bodies and brains, but really has little to do with
day to day life, and as free thinking people, we are not constrained to do
or feel that which evolution has "designed" us to do or feel.

D!

    This note is not adressed to anybody in particular, it's the expression
    of my (strong) personal feelings on this topic.
    
    To me, saying that "women are designed to be beautiful and men are
    designed to be strong" is both absurd and distateful.

Absurd, because the "design" question implies a designer and, unless you 
believe in an all-powerful God, Leonardo da Vinci-type, the only other designer
I can imagine would be a designer of our thoughts, i.e. the society we live in:
and I certainly don't feel comfortable with the idea that I have to be beauti-
ful and my husband has to be strong just because we have been brain-washed by
our cultural environment.

Absurd also because if you look at nature, you can see that the MALE of the
species is usually more attractive than the female, the idea being that the 
female will be less conspicuous and thus less visually attractive to preda-
tory animals of other species. She will then be available to protect/raise
her progeny. 

And now I come to the distateful part: to me, this sort of stereo-typical thin-
king is dismissive of so much of what humanity has acquired in this century
in terms of equality between men and women that I just can't accept this sort
of statement. It smacks of elitism - men who aren't strong and women who aren't
beautiful just don't make it; it opens the door to all sorts of ugly generali-
sations - blacks were designed to be ruled by the white man, the aryan race was
designed to rule the world...

I find the statement of society's stereorypes represented as universal truth 
extremely upsetting.

Before entering my note, I re-read every single note both in this topic and the
Montreal topic. I don't participate much in =WN=, both because being an active
participant takes too much time and because quite a few people in here express
thoughts sufficiently similar to mine that I don't feel a compulsion to enter 
my own answers. In this case, I have been bothered by this statement ever since
it was entered, and I feel I'd better have my say or I will continue to be 
upset by it until Doomsday.

Joana        
    

PS: I will be on vacation as of this p.m. until January 3rd, and will answer
    any dissent/complaint/refutal as soon as I am back.

>      <<< Note 906.46 by SHIRE::BIZE "La femme est l'avenir de l'homme" >>>




         	 Yes, it IS obvious, especially from the last reply,
	 that my statements were TOTALLY misunderstood.


	 ASAP, I'll get something posted in here about what I really
	 meant (is everyone going to read it with an open mind and not
	 "add to it" like they have been in this discussion already?
	 I would appreciate that..)


	 Gimme some time to finish it.

	 kath

    I, too, quite honestly, think men are the peacocks of our species (and
    have said so before in other notesfiles at other times).  I
    have seen many more naturally-beautiful/handsome/attractive men than
    women in my life.  Natural, meaning unadorned and unaltered.  Men seem
    more often to have more beautiful lashes, more beautiful hair, more
    graceful bodies.  Why, back in the early middle ages (date may be
    slightly incorrect, but back around then sometime) women were forbidden
    to wear jewelry, and only men could adorn themselves with it.  Men wore
    the fancy clothing, boasted beautifully crafted codpieces, and adorned
    their heads and necks with plush hats and large chains and collars.  Of
    course, I'm talking about the nobles.  The noble women dressed well,
    yes, but I think their splendor seldom approached that of the men,
    simply because society would not see the beauty of their menfolk
    eclipsed so.  The plain townsfolk dressed (both sexes) equally simply
    then, I believe.  
    
    If the women I know and love were designed for "beauty", why do so many
    fall short of the perfection society has defined?  If the men were 
    designed for "strength", why am I stronger than many of them I know?  I
    know that most women are soft in structure, and most men's bodies are 
    harder than women's - perhaps this is what was created and designed? 
    
    my .02
    
    -Jody
    

		I wish to thank both Linda (.42) and Joana (.46) for
		their replies and I give a second to what they are
		saying.

	This conversion smacks of elitism and I find that very, very
	distasteful.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			The Goddess is strong and beautiful
			AND she is in all - so ALL are strong
			and beautiful.

    I agree, Peggy.  This is pretty absurd.  D! I think came the closest
    to making some sense of it but what she simply "didn't comment on",
    (that men are also attractive to women), speaks volumes.  She stated
    that men needed a "response" to women.  But doesn't anyone believe
    that women also need a "response" to men?  Don't women need to get
    their juices flowing or are we supposed to just sit around and preen
    and wait to be taken by the man who responds to our particular
    "beauty"?
    
    The sexes have evolved so that their physical differences are visually,
    (and tactily!), exciting to one another.  In our culture, only men
    have traditionally been expected to express overt sexual desire.
    It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that I believe women's
    special characterstics are so overplayed and *not* because they
    are any more inherently beautiful than those of men.  Teenage girls
    are *not* expected to sit around in groups foaming over pictures
    of male body parts.  Men are expected, encouraged, and often forced
    by peer pressure to foam over female body parts.  Sure, women are
    "more" sexy - to MEN!  It's still difficult, even in this allegedly
    enlightened age, to imagine a woman as sexual hunter and to imagine
    a man's body parts as not his pride but her prey.  No sex has the
    edge on beauty.  I can't believe that people actually think the
    world must be so devoid of sexual beauty for women - that all we
    really care about are brains and sensitivity and given those, even
    Quasimodo would do.  But I can see how it helps the ugly man feel
    good about himself while he's poring over his skin mags and becoming
    obsessed with the beauty of HIS sexual prey, her brains and sensitivity
    notwithstanding, and figuring he can just spout a little Proust
    to get her.  It's the joke of the century and the cat's now out
    of the bag.  Everyone wants a looker.  Everyone.

Re: .50 (Sandy)

>           It's the joke of the century and the cat's now out
>    of the bag.  Everyone wants a looker.  Everyone.


No, not everyone.  Or perhaps, some are looking for inner beauty and
disregard the wrapping.

				Steve

    All things being equal, you'd take the ugly one?  Or are you assuming
    that inner beauty and outer beauty are mutually exclusive?  A common
    misconception when appraising women.

    Jeez, you mean I spent all that time cultivating sensitivity and
    spouting Proust FOR NOTHING?
    
    I am crushed!
    
    -- Mike

All things are never equal.  Perhaps I misunderstood your statement.  I 
interpreted your comment as saying that looks were always a primary selection
criteria, and I disagreed with that.

I don't recall saying anything about a correlation between inner and outer
beauty, nor did I say I had a "preference for ugly".  But I have found great
beauty in women who might not be considered to be "lookers".  I have little
experience with women with great traditional outer beauty, so I can't
comment there.

			Steve

    Yes, you misinterpreted.  Everyone would like to have, in addition
    to all the other qualities they want, a good looking mate.  As one
    matures, one either finds they have to settle for less, are willing
    to place other qualities ahead of looks, or are lucky enough to both 
    find and attract a mate with both inner and outer beauty.  But we
    all start out wanting physical perfection and many never relinquish
    the desire - just sublimate it with skin mags, quiet it with
    rationalizations, etc.
    
    Mike Z - you haven't wasted your time at all.  Most women in this
    culture have been raised to believe it is not in their best interests
    to chase after mere sexual delight.  So Proust will still probably
    get you more action than great buns.  ;-)  Since men *are* encouraged
    to chase after mere sexual delight, great buns will get a woman
    more action than reading all the great literature in the world in
    5 languages.  More money, too.

    Robert A. Heinlein once speculated that the appearance that we
    call beauty is really just an indicator of health and intelligence.
    
    							Ann B.

    The problem I have with the statements in .55 is that, to me, it sounds
    as if there's one and only one standard of "good-looking". It's true
    that I want someone whom I find attractive, but that doesn't
    necessarily match (and, in fact, is usually pretty far from) current
    society's ideal man. 
    
    I think it's a valid generalization that people want a "good-looking"
    mate, but since everybody's tastes differ, I don't see a problem with
    that. Isn't the problem really that some people want a mate that
    _others_ find good-looking? The "date as status symbol" syndrome -
    which (at least according to the media) makes men want big-busted women
    with long, flowing hair, and women want men who drive expensive cars...
    I mean, if you're going to pick someone for looks, pick the looks *you*
    like, not the ones your pals will approve of!
    
    -b

    Okay, I lied about Proust.  I've never read a single thing by that
    author.
    
    But hey, now that you've told me that doing so might get me some action,
    I'm certainly willing to give it a try.
    
    -- Mike (That's V, by the way, not Z)

    
    This is somewhat along the line of what we've been discussing. This
    is from the "Tao of the Loving Couple" by Jolan Chang.

    "Instinctively women sought out the strongest, ablest men's seed to
    impregnate them so they would produce the best children. If a woman
    had to choose between a complete second-rate man and a fraction of a
    first-rate one, she would certainly prefer the latter. Second-rate
    and third-rate men created the law of monogamy so that they wouldn't
    be without women."

    I don't even know what I think of this idea as it took me by
    surprize. Jolan is a "free love" and "open marriage" advocate.
    Perhaps I'm too blinded by my upbringing to fully appreciate this.
    liesl

>                    <<< Note 906.55 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>

>    Yes, you misinterpreted.  Everyone would like to have, in addition
>    to all the other qualities they want, a good looking mate.


	 I'm a little confused, Sandy.

	 Aren't most people's mates 'goodlooking?'  I mean, after all,
	 the old adage is true......beauty IS in the eye of the
	 beholder, not in outward appearance, nor is beauty defined by
	 society.

	 I would believe that MOST people have (at one time, at least)
	 viewed their mate as beautiful...regardless of what anyone
	 else views them as.

	 I believe there is a mixup here as to what the definition of
	 'beautiful' is........most people seem to be comparing
	 a beautiful woman to someone you would see as a model in a
	 magazine........I RARELY find that beautiful...in men OR
	 women!!

	 What YOU find to be beautiful comes from inside you...not
	 from anything anyone else does to makes themself look
	 beautiful.

	 kath

    
    Men had better be strong. They can't afford not to be.

>	 Aren't most people's mates 'goodlooking?'

 To an extent (usually small). 

 If you lined up all of the people in any particular heterogeneous place, you'd
probably find that 10% were quite physically attractive, 20% were somewhat
attractive, 40% were neutral, 20% were somewhat unattractive and 10% were
downright distasteful to look at. (Nice bell curve. :-)

 In any case, there are alot of people who are not physically attractive (at
first glance at least). Many more than are attractive. So I guess I disagree
with your premise, that most people's mates are "goodlooking."

 I think Sandy's right. If you were able to assemble the perfect mate, choosing
from a series of menus, the end product in most instances would be pretty
darn attractive. People naturally are attracted to beautiful people. Often
it takes no more than physical beauty to attract considerable attention. The
next time you are at a social gathering, notice the people who have the most 
people hanging around them; also notice the people standing off by themselves.
A disproportionate number of centers of attention will be good looking and
those that are standing off by themselves are very rarely "lookers." 

 The Doctah

    Yes, Doctah, that's it.  And that's different from finding your
    mate beautiful.  I'm talking about a mate you would want to acquire
    and not the one you may have acquired.
    
    My apologies to Mike Z and Mike V for confusing the two of you.
    Mea culpa.  

> I think Sandy's right. If you were able to assemble the perfect mate, choosing
>from a series of menus, the end product in most instances would be pretty
>darn attractive.

Where did you get the idea that we are "assembling the perfect mate" here?

> In any case, there are alot of people who are not physically attractive 

And how many times do I have to say "attractiveness is within YOU, not within
the person you're looking at."


Granted, Sandy is right, in what she is talking about.....but her and I are
talking about VERY VERY different things.  I'm not talking about societies
perceptions of what is considered beautiful.....I'm talking about YOU, inside
each and every one of you, what YOU perceive as beauty....as attractive.


Yes, a very different topic all together.

kath

>Where did you get the idea that we are "assembling the perfect mate" here?

 I used the concept as a vehicle to expand upon what Sandy said.

>And how many times do I have to say "attractiveness is within YOU, not within
>the person you're looking at."

 As many times as you find it enjoyable, I guess.

>Granted, Sandy is right, in what she is talking about.

 Glad you agree.

>.but her and I are
>talking about VERY VERY different things.

 Then I guess it's ok for her to make her assertions without you having to make
that statement about beauty again. Good. (You can still make it if you want,
though.)

 The Doctah