It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sexist Female Oppression? Cleavage In The Workplace

page: 52
24
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Why? I use every natural advantage I can to get ahead. Why shouldn't a woman?


If you use your looks or seduce a boss then you are basically saying you don't have the skills in your field to succeed and so you have to resort to other methds, you might be perfectly ok with that but i guess it's where your moral line ends. I think people should get ahead based on talent, unless we're talking about modelling or some other industry that is based on looks alone.



Originally posted by Astyanax
Not if it gets him in with a chance, eh (nudge nudge, wink wink)?



See i am sure you're joking here but even so it's rather sad. If someone wants the best for their business they don't promote someone to get into their underwear.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


If you use your looks or seduce a boss then you are basically saying you don't have the skills in your field to succeed and so you have to resort to other methds

I could have all the necessary skills to succeed in my field, except for the fact that there are dozens of equally skilled candidates vying for the same position or promotion. In a situation like that, why shouldn't I use whatever assets I have to prevail against the competition in a world where losers get nowhere?

Success is never a question of mere job skills. Getting on well and cooperating with others, being willing to accept authority, having the 'right' social skills and image factors, a refusal to be discouraged by setbacks... these and many other seemingly extraneous attributes are essential factors for success in most occupations. Looks and height are important predictors of success, as I'm sure you know. Why shouldn't someone use the sex appeal they've got? Why is that specially reprehensible?


you might be perfectly ok with that but i guess it's where your moral line ends.

Could you explain what, if anything, morality has to do with this issue?


I think people should get ahead based on talent, unless we're talking about modelling or some other industry that is based on looks alone.

As your sentence indicates, looks are a form of talent.

Moreover, good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre. I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that.


If someone wants the best for their business they don't promote someone to get into their underwear.

All human culture is the product of sexual competition, so don't be too surprised.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
I could have all the necessary skills to succeed in my field, except for the fact that there are dozens of equally skilled candidates vying for the same position or promotion. In a situation like that, why shouldn't I use whatever assets I have to prevail against the competition in a world where losers get nowhere?


Well to me it's about ethics, if you aren't hindered by them then you won't understand. This is why psychopaths do so well in the corporate world (no i am not calling you a psychopath, just making a point). Of course you could work on getting more skills to make yourself the best candidate, but hey why should you work hard right? This seems to be the basis of your attitude.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Success is never a question of mere job skills. Getting on well and cooperating with others, being willing to accept authority, having the 'right' social skills and image factors, a refusal to be discouraged by setbacks... these and many other seemingly extraneous attributes are essential factors for success in most occupations. Looks and height are important predictors of success, as I'm sure you know. Why shouldn't someone use the sex appeal they've got? Why is that specially reprehensible?


All of the things you listed can be learned and improved, they are things which an individual earns and develops except sex appeal. It can be used but i think it's wrong to use it and no i'm not some big fat guy who is jelous in case that thought skipped across your mind.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Could you explain what, if anything, morality has to do with this issue?


Yeah i think we're seeing why this discussion won't work, you don't even understand why it's morally wrong to get ahead based on looks rather than skills alone. Skills have to be developed, learned, honed, but looks don't help you in a job, unless it's a job based around image (modelling etc). What i am trying to say is an ugly manager can be as effective as a good looking manager and that's what it should come down to.



Originally posted by Astyanax
As your sentence indicates, looks are a form of talent.


My sentence indicated absolutely no such thing, looks are genetic, they are not talent. That right there is one of the problems with our society, i don't suppose you work in marketting do you?


Originally posted by Astyanax
Moreover, good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre. I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that.


Wow, just wow. I'm not terribly ugly myself so i harbour no resentment to good looking people, but to see you post this is an utter disgrace. Looks are an excellent predicator for intelligence? Maybe you should check the pop charts, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Linsay whateverhernameis, yeah smart people right there. And moral fiber? You know Ted Bundy was pretty good looking, that's some quality moral fibre.



Originally posted by Astyanax
All human culture is the product of sexual competition, so don't be too surprised.


Surprised no, thinking it's pathetic to promote someone because of their looks, yes.
edit on 27-12-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Moreover, good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre. I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that.


Harsh words, but they do ring somewhat true in a "Survival of the Fittest" sense. However, I strongly urge you to reconsider this view. I used to work with a woman that was rather uneasy on the eye - as well as being withdrawn and unfriendly. After talking with her a few times, I realised she was actually a rather nice person that just had a few problems - don't we all?

I have also met some stunning women who appeared Angel-like in their looks (their physical beauty simply breathtaking) who turned out to be mean and unpleasant to be around - they initially seemed warm and friendly. They would be very self-absorbed and indifferent to the views of others.

The point is that our minds sometimes deceive us into viewing physical attributes as the most significant attribute in the person who stands before us. It is important to remember that in many ways what we cannot see (character, intelligence, compassion,ambition) is more important than what we can. Especially in the workplace where Intelligence and Skills are of a higher priority than physical attractiveness.

edit on 27/12/2010 by Dark Ghost because: grammar



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Astyanax,

I think your operating philosophy is very close to this one from Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike...particularly about winning and losing.


Life is a battle, and to fight that battle heroically and well is the great purpose of every man’s existence, who is worthy and fit to live at all. To stem the strong currents of adversity, to advance in despite of all obstacles, to snatch victory from the jealous grasp of fortune, to become a chief and a leader among men, to rise to rank and power by eloquence, courage, perseverance, study, energy, activity, discouraged by no reverses, impatient of no delays, deterred by no hazards; to win wealth, to subjugate men by our intellect, the very elements by our audacity, to succeed, to prosper, to thrive;–thus it is, according to the general understanding, that one fights well the battle of life. Even to succeed in business by that boldness which halts for no risks, that audacity which stakes all upon hazardous chances; by the shrewdness of

p. 854

the close dealer, the boldness of the unscrupulous operator, even by the knaveries of the stock-board and the gold-room; to crawl up into place by disreputable means or the votes of brutal ignorance,–these also are deemed to be among the great successes of life.

But that which is the greatest battle, and in which the truest honor and most real success are to be won, is that which our intellect and reason and moral sense, our spiritual natures, fight against our sensual appetites and evil passions, our earthly and material or animal nature. Therein only are the true glories of heroism to be won, there only the successes that entitle us to triumphs.



I could have all the necessary skills to succeed in my field, except for the fact that there are dozens of equally skilled candidates vying for the same position or promotion. In a situation like that, why shouldn't I use whatever assets I have to prevail against the competition in a world where losers get nowhere?


This is one of those statements which looks good on paper until one gets to the part about responsibility and bearing the responsibility for the job or tasks assigned. I say this in lieu of this other quote of yours...
Also notice in the end of the quote from Morals and Dogma..the usage of the word..entitle.."entitle us to triumphs."


Success is never a question of mere job skills. Getting on well and cooperating with others, being willing to accept authority, having the 'right' social skills and image factors, a refusal to be discouraged by setbacks... these and many other seemingly extraneous attributes are essential factors for success in most occupations. Looks and height are important predictors of success, as I'm sure you know. Why shouldn't someone use the sex appeal they've got? Why is that specially reprehensible?


There is a certain truth about what you are saying here. I state this because the template you describe is exactly what has become of our body politic and our leaders. This is becoming more and more apparent as time transpires and it can no longer be hidden from public view. What you describe in your template works well as long as the public is not aware of what has transpired. With today's "ends justifies the means " thinking this is becoming more difficult to hide from a public which is expected to abide some moral standards...or limits on them while leadership is exempt. This is also a definition of feudalism...royalty.

Responsibility and the burden of said responsibility is often lost in the concept of just winning. This is apparent in our current leadership...though it has been going on much longer than this current crop of what passes for leadership.


Could you explain what, if anything, morality has to do with this issue?


See the above quote from Morals and Dogma. Your question here is indicative of a certain moral and ethical religion at work. Its basis is in religion. The question for those who can think for themselves is what is the name of such an religion??


Moreover, good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre.


Your public education non standards are showing here. Hollywood is a perfect textbook example of what you are describing here...Yes??? This is also why Washington DC is so heavily up the backside of Hollywood...to gain intelligence, fitness, and moral fiber..yes??? Or are they merely attempting to gain the "appearance" of intelligence, fitness, and moral fiber?? Public education has become a television/movie education today.
And who pays for and finances this...the body politic.

For those who know..this is called Demigods...to be worshipped and idolized..it is remarkably effective on those who cannot break the yoke. This is also the goal of politics...absolute power. Feudalism/royalty.


All human culture is the product of sexual competition, so don't be too surprised.


It is if you are in this world and of this world and the shallow transient values it often promotes.
This philosophy/religion is feminine...in and of this world...and the things of this world.
The problem with this as well as cleavage as in this article..is what skills does one fall back on when the biology run out and it gets ready to strike midnight Cinderella??

Agree very much with what Dark Ghost has stated as I have found the same.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom
edit on 27-12-2010 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Moreover, good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre. I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that.


Sorry, but I will go as far to say I am always surprised to find nearly the opposite is true more often than not, sometimes it seems a person with at least the blessing of a good physique was not gifted with the rest of the package, sure there are people somewhat in between, but each person is different, no two people have identical moral and physical qualities. I especially find that people with the best physiques if not brought up properly will turn to things that are rather sexually immoral due to the added temptation. On the other hand, many "nerdy" guys who don't have much in the looks department can be quite intelligent on many levels, not all levels, but overall they can score better intellectually than some people rated high in the looks department, again though, this is not a hard and fast rule, it all depends on the individual. You may say intelligence and morality are different, but I still think they are related. I'm sure we've all met attractive blondes that seemed fairly ignorant, as well as others that were intelligent. If all handsome and beautiful people were so morally adept then I doubt there was be half as much morally questionable material on certain internet venues.
edit on 27-12-2010 by bigrex because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
It would be wonderful if we could all have working environments where the people wore whatever they wanted and it didn't negatively impact the work, but in today's world (in the US at least) we have been taught to be SO uptight about sex and the body that seeing a glimpse of a nipple on TV throws the country into a tailspin as all the moms reach to cover their children's eyes!

My opinion: It's not natural for men to be obsessed with breasts. In other countries where breasts aren't covered, they do just fine and the size of the breast isn't an issue. They're utilitarian. They serve a purpose, just like the arm or leg. Look at Muslim countries where the women cover their whole bodies. The flash of an ankle or elbow can send a man into a tizzy just as a breast does here. It's our rigidly conventional society that is the source of the obsession.

I heard once, on a show about sexuality, that men are attracted to the cleavage because it resembles the bottom... A throwback to when the missionary position wasn't so popular as it is today.


It's hard for me to "blame" the woman for using her assets to get ahead because we are taught to do so from day one! We are taught to use our womanly wiles to manipulate the man. We are taught to give and withhold sex to get what we want. And many women aren't even aware of this. And it takes years of self-deprogramming to get rid of all that crap and become an equal, who wouldn't even THINK of manipulating the man with her femaleness.

And it's hard for me to "blame" the man for the same reason: I can't speak intelligently to what men have been taught, but I'm still frequently amazed at what I find out about my husband and his upbringing as a man.

Bottom line is that we live in a sick society and most of the twisted logic we use has been taught to us. It's up to us to break away from it and change ourselves to have a more healthy and mature attitude about sex and the human body.
edit on 12/27/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I'm pretty sure most men everywhere see the breasts in that fashion. Either that and/or the hips.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Moreover, good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre. I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that..


Ugh! Stereotype, much?

Good looks are an excellent predictor of SUCCESS because of other people's perceptions and judgments, but not intelligence, fitness and moral fiber. Are you kidding? Better looking people are more moral? Give me a break!

Attractive people are perceived to be more approachable, more helpful, more cooperative... but there's no indication that they ARE, and they're no smarter or more moral than anyone else. I hate these wide brushes I see thrown about.



"Good looks have what social scientists call the halo effect. Because someone is attractive, we assign many other positive attributes to him or her that have nothing to do with looks."
...
The good news for those like Ugly Betty (played by America Ferrera, below) is that when the beautiful people are not pulling their weight, their good looks count against them. In those situations, the unattractive invariably come out as the winners.


The Independent



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by Annee
Since Adam and Eve - - - man continues to blame woman for their own failings.

And what do women do when faced with their own shortcomings? Hide behind a movement that bitches and moans that "man's Oppression of women" is the reason for their own failure to achieve in the same areas that men tend to excel in. Men might be afraid of Commitment, but it seems Feminist women are petrified of Responsibility.


Love your stereotyping.

Next . . .



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teeky
I work at an upscale department store and we are allowed to wear mini skirts, heels, and show cleavage. It's a pleasant environment to be in.


I worked at a small publishing company. We could wear anything we wanted. Most wore shorts and tank tops.

Once again its about distraction and loss of production. Doesn't matter what the distraction is.

Like the one girl I knew who was in a punk rock band and had a multi-colored Mohawk. Her day job was in accounting in an upscale finance company. She wore a wig.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


If a woman knows her sexuality can get her ahead and uses it then i think that woman is pathetic.

Why? I use every natural advantage I can to get ahead. Why shouldn't a woman?


Equally the person who promoted her is a moron.

Not if it gets him in with a chance, eh (nudge nudge, wink wink)?


Do you agree that when a woman who, in her own words, has rather large breasts which she loves, refuses to hide them and wears V cut shirts because she enjoys showcasing her best assetts, is asked to cover up her cleavage, that is is oppressive, and a conspiracy against women?

And what do you think of a woman who attempts to "showcase her assets" and then whines because it didn't work, saying, "I find it disgusting that some bosses overlook some females just because they show cleavage. I think that reflects the perversion of thought in the boss's own mind, personally"?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


If you use your looks or seduce a boss then you are basically saying you don't have the skills in your field to succeed and so you have to resort to other methds

I could have all the necessary skills to succeed in my field, except for the fact that there are dozens of equally skilled candidates vying for the same position or promotion. In a situation like that, why shouldn't I use whatever assets I have to prevail against the competition in a world where losers get nowhere?

Success is never a question of mere job skills. Getting on well and cooperating with others, being willing to accept authority, having the 'right' social skills and image factors, a refusal to be discouraged by setbacks... these and many other seemingly extraneous attributes are essential factors for success in most occupations. Looks and height are important predictors of success, as I'm sure you know. Why shouldn't someone use the sex appeal they've got? Why is that specially reprehensible?

Social skills are very important, yes. But making your cleavage the focal-point of your appearance tends to cause social problems. Other women get jealous or judgemental, men get the wrong idea and tend to take flirting to far, and then some will get bitter and bitchy, feeling that, as to them you look like a cheap tart, you had no right to turn them down. It doesn't work around gay men or lesbians either.

Looks and height are advantages, and so is restrained sex appeal. But "in your face" sex appeal tends to be counterproductive. In my experience this has been sad for the ones who use it, because generally they are trying to level the playing field between them and the women with more "ideal" beauty, and you can hardly blame them for trying.



you might be perfectly ok with that but i guess it's where your moral line ends.

Could you explain what, if anything, morality has to do with this issue?

I couldn't put it into words myself, but I can tell you I'd have prefered to lose a job than to keep it by looking tittilating. Thinking about it, I guess my over-riding reason was pride. I had confidance in myself, and in my ability to inspire other people with confidence in me.

Even in every day life I wouldn't do that. When a principal with a dreadful reputation started treating my handicapped children badly, a department psychologist, there as an advocate for my children, showed how she could make men do what she wanted by undoing a few buttons and fluttering her eyelashes. She did it well, too. But the idea of doing that to Clary, the principal, left me wanting to vomit. So instead I helped him make a fool of himself in front of all his staff, totally incriminate himself to the education department, and then forced his resignation.



I think people should get ahead based on talent, unless we're talking about modelling or some other industry that is based on looks alone.

As your sentence indicates, looks are a form of talent.
Inevitably good looks make it easier to get a foot in the door. And they help some idiots to make a good living who would be poor little unknowns otherwise. However once people get to know you, presentation, intelligence, ability, hard work and people skills mostly become more important.


Moreover, good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre. I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that.

There is some connection because nutrition plays a role in enabling you to reach your potential both mentally and physically. However the people I've known with the highest IQs, (apart from myself
) have been quite unprepossessing.

Three close relatives have IQs of around 200, and they're not exactly ugly, just short, skinny and, well they have aspergers badly, and tend to avoid eye contact and look quite vacant. Yet all three have firms head-hunting them because they have such reputations in their fields.

Another very intelligent man I knew, one who helped me turn my life around with his wise mentoring, had a face like the backside of a camel with piles. Yet he was world renowned in his field, and had full-page obituaries in Australia's major papers when he died.

And isn't there a rather short, funny looking fella in a wheelchair who's made some contribution to physics and cosmology? I guess no-one thought to point out to Stevie that any guy with his looks must be stupid and lacking in moral fibre.




If someone wants the best for their business they don't promote someone to get into their underwear.

All human culture is the product of sexual competition, so don't be too surprised.

It does happen. But some women prefer not to have a sleazebag's genes trying to win the competition by combining with theirs.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
In threads like these, it seems people are prone to use what I like to call the "Burka Card". Whenever irrefutable evidence surfaces that shows women who sexualise themselves usually suffer negative consequences, the talk of "men who go crazy at the site of the toe of a women in Muslim countries" is used in an attempt to misdirect the issue. It doesn't matter how much proof is given, some people feel women should be absolved of responsibility to dress appropriately and professionally.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


I think your view is too simplistic. The women who display their cleavage instead of dressing professionally are of course responsible for their own problems however the men promoting them are also morons. On the other hand if they don't get a promotion because they show cleavage it could be said it is societies general idiocy regarding appearance that is the issue, but knowing they might not get the promotion the women are still at fault to a large degree.

What i am saying is that it would be such a lovely world if we could wear what we liked without being judged but sadly it is as it is.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Unrepentantly Yours

Thanks to all those who went to the trouble of taking me to task for the matter of my previous post. Here are a few replies.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Well to me it's about ethics, if you aren't hindered by them then you won't understand.


Hey why should you work hard right? This seems to be the basis of your attitude.


You don't even understand why it's morally wrong to get ahead based on looks rather than skills alone.

Counting what you said in an earlier post, that's four times so far you've called me amoral or lacking in ethics. Do you mean to be insulting, or do you simply not understand that you're giving offence?

Decent people don't go around calling others amoral or immoral, just because they take an opposite line in argument. But never mind; I forgive you. Let's get on with the conversation, and see if we can find some actual substance in your post...


All of the (non-job-skills-related attributes of success) you listed can be learned and improved, they are things which an individual earns and develops except sex appeal.

But are you sure sex appeal cannot be learned and improved? I rather think it can. In fact, there are countless ways to do it--taking a bath, changing one's dress, hairstyle and makeup, training in voice, gesture and deportment, becoming richer, undergoing cosmetic surgery or ritual scarification, etc., etc. There are vast industries, employing millions of people, whose purpose is to improve the sex appeal of their customers. And of course sex appeal, in a general way, is something that develops from adolescence onwards, so it is not static.

I'm afraid we must conclude that you are wrong, and that there is nothing unique about sex appeal.


What i am trying to say is an ugly manager can be as effective as a good looking manager and that's what it should come down to.

I dispute it. Show me the facts on which you base this claim.


Looks are genetic, they are not talent.

Are you saying talent isn't genetic? You are on extremely shaky ground, my friend.

Looks are a form of talent because they enable people to do certain things better than others do them. If that isn't a satisfactory definition of talent, would you like to provide a better one?


Astyanax: Good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre. I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that


IR1984: Wow, just wow. I'm not terribly ugly myself so i harbour no resentment to good looking people, but to see you post this is an utter disgrace. Looks are an excellent predicator for intelligence? Maybe you should check the pop charts, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Linsay whateverhernameis, yeah smart people right there. And moral fiber? You know Ted Bundy was pretty good looking, that's some quality moral fibre.

'Moral fibre' is an old-fashioned term for courage.

It is dangerous to rely on the make-believe world of consumer media to provide you with the facts of life. Here, instead, are some papers and articles you may find interesting:

The Looks of a Winner: Beauty, Gender, and Electoral Success 2007, Social Science Research Network

Good Looks, Good Pay? 2005, Forbes magazine

Good Looks Equal Success: Attractive and Tall People Get Better Jobs and Higher Pay 2009, Suite101.com

By the way, your assumption that beautiful women are stupid is actually a form of sexist prejudice, as shown by this study: Attractiveness and Corporate Success: Different Causal Attributions for Males and Females 1985, Journal of Applied Psychology

*


reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Good looks are an excellent predictor of SUCCESS because of other people's perceptions and judgments, but not intelligence, fitness and moral fiber. Are you kidding? Better looking people are more moral? Give me a break!

Think it through to the next step. When we say someone is good-looking, it is evolution that speaks. To say someone is good-looking is merely to recognize, instinctively, the superior genetic and environmental endowments of that person.

The correlation of good looks with intelligence, fitness, courage, etc., is not absolute but it is, statistically speaking, significant enough to be trustworthy. People's instinctive judgements of these qualities--what you call perceptions--are not whimsical or random. It is when we begin to second-guess ourselves that we go wrong.


Attractive people are perceived to be more approachable, more helpful, more cooperative... but there's no indication that they ARE, and they're no smarter or more moral than anyone else

I'm not sure about approachable, helpful or cooperative--perhaps you can direct me to the relevant studies. But intelligence, fitness and physical courage are pretty well correlated with good looks. In fact, they are among the attributes that cause us to regard people as good-looking in the first place.

*


reply to post by Kailassa
 


Do you agree that when a woman who, in her own words, has rather large breasts which she loves, refuses to hide them and wears V cut shirts because she enjoys showcasing her best assetts, is asked to cover up her cleavage, that is is oppressive, and a conspiracy against women?

Not at all. Simple courtesy demands that one follow the customs and manners of the group one finds oneself in. If cleavage is thought unbecoming, the cleft must cover up.


And what do you think of a woman who attempts to "showcase her assets" and then whines because it didn't work, saying, "I find it disgusting that some bosses overlook some females just because they show cleavage. I think that reflects the perversion of thought in the boss's own mind, personally"?

The poor girl isn't doing it right, is she? I'd call her a born loser.


edit on 29/12/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Counting what you said in an earlier post, that's four times so far you've called me amoral or lacking in ethics. Do you mean to be insulting, or do you simply not understand that you're giving offence?

Decent people don't go around calling others amoral or immoral, just because they take an opposite line in argument. But never mind; I forgive you. Let's get on with the conversation, and see if we can find some actual substance in your post...


Decent people call others immoral if they say and do immoral things. You stated that good looking people tend to be more intelligent, this is obviously false, you stated good looking people tend to have moral fibre, this is obviously false and both statements show a very shallow viewpoint. You also stated you would use your looks to get ahead, well i consider that to be immoral and saying so doesn't mean i am not decent.

But nice try


The papers you list tell of success but maybe you should check around a science lab, most people working in it are not good looking people, they are often average because most people are average looking.
edit on 29-12-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Everyone should go to work naked.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
By the way, your assumption that beautiful women are stupid is actually a form of sexist prejudice, as shown by this study:


I never made such a comment or assumption, beautiful people can be intelligent or dumb, just like ugly people can be intelligent or dumb.


Originally posted by Astyanax
The correlation of good looks with intelligence, fitness, courage, etc., is not absolute but it is, statistically speaking, significant enough to be trustworthy. People's instinctive judgements of these qualities--what you call perceptions--are not whimsical or random. It is when we begin to second-guess ourselves that we go wrong.


Please provide these detailed statistics because i've never seen any proof that good looks are correlated with intelligence at all, nor is it associated with fitness, courage etc. Check around and you will find most people are average looking and most succesful people are average looking, it's simply a numbers game.
edit on 29-12-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


most people are neither naturally attractive or naturally ugly. they fall somewhere inbetween and use their intellect, artistic flair or what have you, to accentuate their best features, play down their not so good features, and apply this same principle across all their spheres of knowledge.




top topics



 
24
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join