Did attractive women actually benefit from feminism?

[avant-garde]

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

Instead of debating whether this is true or not, how accurate do you think this statement is?

 

[avant-garde]

No matter how hard I try to rationalize it, I can't find the argument for the attractive woman.

 

[Choronzon]

You've never heard the argument that men pursue wealth and power primarily to attract females, and that because females choose males instead of vice-versa, that the power any male holds is actually held by the female that chose him as a mate?

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

 

[Math Is Hard]

Mainstream what?

 

[Evo]

Did you mean to title the thread "unattractive women"? That seems to be what you posted about.

 

[Evo]

I thought my post was pretty much straightforward, but I guess I'll go back and fix it.

Most arguments I've seen say that feminism favored unattractive women, as in the Rush Limbaugh statement you quoted. Feminism would be seen to hurt attractive women that would have been seen to benefit from their looks and not from their brains. So, your thread title seems odd.

 

[avant-garde]

The thing is, most people who haven't really thought about the matter automatically believe that feminism helped ALL women across the board, so that's why the word "actually" is in the title...

 

[lisab]

The thing is, most people who haven't really thought about the matter automatically believe that feminism helped ALL women across the board, so that's why the word "actually" is in the title...

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

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

So feminism has hurt attractive women how, exactly?

 

[lisab]

Instead of debating whether this is true or not, how accurate do you think this statement is?

Totally nonsensical...there is absolutely no reason to talk about how accurate a statement is if it's not true.

 

[avant-garde]

I didn't go as far to say that feminism actually hurt attractive women, but I think Evo explains the case pretty concisely. Refer to #6

Totally nonsensical...there is absolutely no reason to talk about how accurate a statement is if it's not true.

Yes, and there is absolutely no reason to talk about how accurate a statement is if it's true.

 

[Choronzon]

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

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

So feminism has hurt attractive women how, exactly?

I've heard it argued that none of those things bring happiness, and that women are actually less happy than they were a century ago.

Not saying I buy it, but I have heard it.

 

[avant-garde]

I've heard it argued that none of those things bring happiness, and that women are actually less happy than they were a century ago.

Not saying I buy it, but I have heard it.

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

After 40 years of fighting for equality, it seems that women are no happier. In fact, women in many countries have been growing steadily unhappier compared with men, according to a study published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the United States.

Maybe the thread title should read "Why has greater equality brought women greater unhappiness?" Does having MORE of everything necessarily enrich people's lives?

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

So feminism has hurt attractive women how, exactly?

Well said, besides, I always thought attractive women were more exploited (than less attractive women) prior to the movement and thus benefited equally.

 

[turbo]

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

Instead of debating whether this is true or not, how accurate do you think this statement is?

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

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

 

[lisab]

Yes, and there is absolutely no reason to talk about how accurate a statement is if it's true.

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

I'm confused about what you're asking.

 

[rootX]

I was also going to point the feminism history. That statement is ridiculous if you look at the history. Feminism has nothing to do with the attractiveness IMO.

 

[avant-garde]

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

I'm confused about what you're asking.

A statement such as the one made by Rush Limbaugh is a huge generalization. The point of the thread was to analyze the generalization made and to what extent. It doesn't have to be true/untrue like a binary unit.

 

[Evo]

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

Instead of debating whether this is true or not, how accurate do you think this statement is?

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

I would have to agree that there was animosity between intelligent women that were held back and the women that used their looks to their advantage. But it goes far deeper, as lisab pointed out. Being female meant you couldn't even compete in many cases. The women that managed to get accepted academically were few and far between. But women that were attractive weren't competing academically, they were competing, if that would even be an appropriate term back then, mostly socially, sometimes in business.

 

[avant-garde]

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

I would have to agree that there was animosity between intelligent women that were held back and the women that used their looks to their advantage. But it goes far deeper, as lisab pointed out. Being female meant you couldn't even compete in many cases. The women that managed to get accepted academically were few and far between. But women that were attractive weren't competing academically, mostly socially, sometimes in business.

Your original point makes more sense. (Most) women who had good looks probably felt no need to compete academically in the first place, or even compete with men for that matter. Competition, among women, was based on looks and character, in which unattractive women already had partial disadvantage in. The attractive woman would feel flattered from going outside and getting seen where as the unattractive woman less so. Thus, in a way it behooves the unattractive woman to live in a system which sets the ultimate criteria based on labor and study, and the attractive woman may feel a bit more confined since she wants to go outside and get noticed. As an 18-year-old boy, this is what I've ventured to conjure.

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

*btw, I'm not here to piss anybody off

 

[rootX]

Your original point makes more sense. (Most) women who had good looks probably felt no need to compete academically in the first place, or even compete for that matter. In fact, many women felt fairly confident about their position in the domestic realm. Even greater comfort came if she was one of the more attractive that rich men would compete for.

Now, this is you talking not what Rush might be thinking? I don't know how you could make these generalizations confidently without any source.

 

[Evo]

Your original point makes more sense. (Most) women who had good looks probably felt no need to compete academically in the first place, or even compete with men for that matter. Competition, among women, was based on looks and character, in which unattractive women already had partial disadvantage in. The attractive woman would feel flattered from going outside and getting seen where as the unattractive woman less so. Thus, in a way it behooves the unattractive woman to live in a system which sets the ultimate criteria based on labor and study, and the attractive woman may feel a bit more confined since she wants to go outside and get noticed. As an 18-year-old boy, this is what I've ventured to conjure.

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

*btw, I'm not here to piss anybody off

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

 

[lisab]

Your original point makes more sense. (Most) women who had good looks probably felt no need to compete academically in the first place, or even compete for that matter. In fact, many women felt fairly confident about their position in the domestic realm. Even greater comfort came if she was one of the more attractive that rich men would compete for.

*btw, I'm not here to piss anybody off

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

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

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

I don't mean to beat you up here, a-v, I just don't think you really thought about this from all points of view.

 

[avant-garde]

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

Well I guess women in the past could have had a completely different set of goals from the first place. There was competition, but usually on a different criteria.

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

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

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

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

 

[lisab]

Well I guess women in the past could have had a completely different set of goals from the first place. There was competition, but usually on a different criteria.

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

I don't really know how popular feminism was.

Oh, yes, feminism caught on like wild fire in the Western world. After all, many men have daughters in whom they saw high potential...and they their girls to have every opportunity their sons had.

 

[Phrak]

Sure, if you raised a female child ...

Feminisms is so confusing. Excuse me if I'm being politically incorrect. Did you mean a girl?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Your original point makes more sense. (Most) women who had good looks probably felt no need to compete academically in the first place, or even compete with men for that matter. Competition, among women, was based on looks and character, in which unattractive women already had partial disadvantage in. The attractive woman would feel flattered from going outside and getting seen where as the unattractive woman less so. Thus, in a way it behooves the unattractive woman to live in a system which sets the ultimate criteria based on labor and study, and the attractive woman may feel a bit more confined since she wants to go outside and get noticed. As an 18-year-old boy, this is what I've ventured to conjure.

I find it a bit odd that our very lovely and intelligent PF ladies have not specifically mentioned this but many women pre-feminism were held back because they were attractive. If you were a good looking woman it was expected that you would easily be able to find a good wealthy husband and be taken care of for the rest of your life. If an attractive woman expressed a desire to be something other than a well taken care of house wife she was asked why on Earth she would want anything else. While they were probably comfortable and taken care of they were not necessarily happy. The best that many did was to find a caring husband who would allow them to help in their business. Most well accomplished women in that era of history were the ones that inherited businesses or took over their husband's estate after their death.

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

I would think that this is the only harm that feminism has done. A significant portion of society finds it contemptible that a woman would want to be a house wife. They feel that such a woman has obviously been brainwashed to believe that she can not have more. Some women though sincerely just want to be house wives, have children, and stay home to take care of them.

 

[avant-garde]

I find it a bit odd that our very lovely and intelligent PF ladies have not specifically mentioned this but many women pre-feminism were held back because they were attractive. If you were a good looking woman it was expected that you would easily be able to find a good wealthy husband and be taken care of for the rest of your life. If an attractive woman expressed a desire to be something other than a well taken care of house wife she was asked why on Earth she would want anything else. While they were probably comfortable and taken care of they were not necessarily happy. The best that many did was to find a caring husband who would allow them to help in their business. Most well accomplished women in that era of history were the ones that inherited businesses or took over their husband's estate after their death.

I would first like to ask why you chose to describe it as being "held back."
Why is it that one cannot replace those words with "freed from the burdens of labor."

My whole point is that your perspective on their lives is probably coming from a modern-day career-oriented woman who was taught since childhood a set of completely different values from those taught during the pre-feminism era. This is apparent in the way you describe what an "accomplished woman" was, but neglect to take into account what the Cult of Domesticity had to say about an "accomplished woman" during those times. (I hope this didn't come off as an accusation.)

While they were probably comfortable and taken care of, [attractive women] were not necessarily happy.

I think you've basically conceded part of the debate. You've acknowledged that attractive women did, in fact, have the advantage of being comfortable and taken care of.

 

[f95toli]

I think you've basically conceded part of the debate. You've acknowledged that attractive women did, in fact, have the advantage of being comfortable and taken care of.

You do realize that you are basically using the 18th century conservative argument for monarchism (and against democracy), don't you?
Just replace "women" with "general populace". The problem with that argument is of course that most people do want more from life than being cared for by someone else.

I also don't see why "attractive women" would have benefited more once they were actually married. They were just as vulnerable to abuse(men had e.g. the right beat their wives, as long as they didn't actually kill them) and as powerless as "unattractive women".
Also, who you married usually had more to do with social status than with looks, it is not like an attractive woman from the lower (poorer) classes were able to marry someone from the upper class that had lots of money and could take care of them. The whole idea of "marrying for love" is to a large extent a rather modern concept which didn't become important among most people until feminism gave women more power.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Instead of debating whether this is true or not, how accurate do you think this statement is?

The boys in the back room are going over this now in order to figure out what it means. While I await the answer, I'll answer the following with a question of my own.

Rush Limbaugh describes feminism as "a misguided way to allow unattractive women into the mainstream."

What is the proper way to allow people into the mainstream?

 

[Sorry!]

I didn't read most of the posts here just answering quickly but really? Like come on avant lol.

Feminism movement can hardly be said to only have benefitted the 'unattractive girls'. Maybe what you meant to say was 'girls from lower social status'? A lot of getting married to be taken care of by some wealthy manly man was done based upon the economic status of both parties. (So super wealthy would marry super wealthy)...

With that aside from the OP I don't see why it would even matter if only unattractive women benefitted from feminism. Even if attractive women didn't benefit that doesn't mean they were negatively affected either. I'm pretty sure attractive women still get the same type of privledged treatment vs. unattractive girls from the past. Possibly even MORE so now that feminism has come into play and females are being hired for jobs they never could have had before. (you think that an unattractive female has the same chance of getting that nice job at the firm as the really attractive female?)

My writers craft teacher was a feminist... although she kind of got annoying sometimes she told me this:

'feminism isn't a movement to better the lives of a particular group of people, but to ensure that EVERYBODY is treated equally.'

 

[Integral]

I gained a bit of respect for Rush L. the day I heard him admit that he was in the entertainment business. His social commentary is for entertainment. When he makes a silly statement like this you are supposed to slap your knee and say "that was a good one! ha ha ha".

You get much better social commentary and comedy if you listen to George Carlin. (RIP)

 

[GeorginaS]

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

Instead of debating whether this is true or not, how accurate do you think this statement is?

Let me understand this properly. You're asking us to -- with completely straight faces -- "debate" the veracity of an extremely offensive statement made by a rude man whose sole intent is to be deliberately provocative by posting bigoted, racist, chauvinistic, and hate-filled commentary? Truly?

I'll make one comment with regard to this useless bit of woman-baiting -- Lisab mentioned the advantages accrued by women as a result of second-wave feminism. I'll mention one accrued by all women (attractiveness notwithstanding) as a result of first-wave feminism and that's women's suffrage.

 

[avant-garde]

I'll make one comment with regard to this useless bit of woman-baiting

Useless bit of woman-baiting? W-o-w.
If anything, I would see how supposedly "unattractive" women may feel about this thread, but even that is stretching it.

If any ladies truly feel threatened or offended by this thread, I think it should go ahead and be closed.

 

[Moonbear]

Useless bit of woman-baiting? W-o-w.
If anything, I would see how supposedly "unattractive" women may feel about this thread, but even that is stretching it.

If any ladies truly feel threatened or offended by this thread, I think it should go ahead and be closed.

Good. I'll second that motion. I can't even believe you'd entertain the misogynistic comments of a bigot like Rush Limbaugh.

 

[GeorginaS]

Useless bit of woman-baiting? W-o-w.
If anything, I would see how supposedly "unattractive" women may feel about this thread, but even that is stretching it.

If any ladies truly feel threatened or offended by this thread, I think it should go ahead and be closed.

Might I suggest you rethink your ideas about how women perceive themselves?