Stressed men fancy bigger women....

Oh, and I was having fun too. In both postings.

Sorry if I offended you Tei, you have a valid point I was just poking fun. :)

If people are going to keep raising difficulties, it's hard to see how we'll ever get anywhere.

But if you want a (more or less) serious explanation, then think of the comfort a child finds from his (or could be her) mother when s/he's hurt or frightened. I don't think the memory of being protected by one's mother, almost forgotten when one is an adult, has much to do with the mother's actual appearance. It's more the feeling of safety, the way that one's mother kept trouble away. And I'm suggesting that a man who's in need of reassurance might find his tastes biased towards a woman who looks as if she can supply both physical and psychological comfort. In fact there might even be a component of avoiding the qualities that we call "sexy" because that would conflict with the feelings of needing to be mothered.

Just speculating, you know.

So all mums are fat now?

Ooh...Not a smart comment to make on MUMSnet

What if his mum was skinny?

When a man is facing difficulties in his life, what could be more comforting than the idea of getting back to Mum. Obvious. Stands to reason.

Well that's what I think.

'this is what you must find attractive' actually encourages racism' it doesn't just encourage racism, but sexism, ablism - every sort of dehumanisation/othering. When it is white men pushing all 'norms' upon us and white men 'analysing' these prescribed norms that are adopted to make assumptions about everyone even - gasp- people who are not white or not male (you mean they actually exist?), it is a highly insular, circular sphere of 'knowledge'.

It is really poor science to not include the 'dominant group perspective' bias that findings will tend towards.

I also think the whole 'this is what you must find attractive' actually encourages racism. Not all races have huge boobs/bum/hips or thin noses or big baby blues.

I wonder if this is more the case now than in the past - I mean, since the photograph the 'acceptable face' and 'acceptable body' has become increasingly standardised, and increasingly possible to grade in a scale. I'm sure prior to the photograph there was much more disagreement and contention about good looks. I imagine there's always been a pleasing narrative of handsome prince/beautiful princess, but each individual would imagine that slightly differently - probably influenced by the people they'd found attractive previously.

That's very true FoodUnit. Even on here we see 'I met an amazing guy...But my mum/dad/brother/sister/aunt/friend hates him.'

It can be even harder when strangers disapprove, my ex was extremely attractive but not at all bright (as well as abusive, sadly) when we were in public we used to get looks because acquaintances would be like 'Why is Lurking dating such an idiot?' So of course I became very defensive and paranoid, convinced myself he was 'The One' and no one could possibly understand, etc etc.

The public has a very set idea of who belongs with who. Based on looks, I should be hanging off some revolting footy player's arm, or if my piercings and tatts are on display, I should be in some basement getting high with a greasy high school drop out.

People rarely see beyond the physical and see that someone's intellect, political affiliations and wit etc are often the true factors that determine 'who ends up with who.'

Yet as a society we hold on to these notions. Genuine question, why?

TheDoctrineOfEnnis I believe status is heavily bound up in attraction. Its rare for people to have the psychological independence to think 'I like who I like and f*ck what anyone else thinks'. People invest a huge amount in public approval because we are so gregarious as a species.

peaksandtroughs just wanted to say those are three very interesting points

Oh jeez. I thought HQ introduced the Fem Chat topic to prevent these very academic debates that invariably end up with the Radfems patting each other on the back for being the proper feminists and accusing everyone who disagrees on any point of being allied to the patriarchy or anti-feminist

That worked well then...

Thanks, FoodUnit.

On the original topic, the PP who hypothesed men under pressure might think less of themselves (and their own attractiveness) and hence be more attracted to those outside the "norm" of attractiveness makes sense. I vaguely remember an article from when I was younger about how it's pretty common for people of "equal" attractiveness to end up together (ie a man and a woman each with an average rank of attractiveness of a seven when assessed by groups of other people would be more likely to be together than a seven and a three)

schluuurp mmm thanks, I do love a cuppa!

Awww shucks! It's very early here, have some

thank you lurking glad to have you back

FoodUnit, I'm loving your posts!

(Getting it now )

Sorry, can't let it lay.
"don't accuse others of Workin' For The Patriarchy"

What do you mean by this? Do you think 'The Patriarchy' are like a civil service of grey men in bowler hats, with secret handshakes and employment contracts? Because I have been clear I do not.

'Inevitable male dominance' is a patriarchal idea, since alternatives are not just possible, but do happen. If your allegiance is to this patriarchal assumption contradicting the evidence, and I point out your patriarchal bias, I am not saying you are employed by this organisation, I am saying that you have a patriarchal bias.

Elsewhere when I said you weren't feminist, was because you seem to put forward antifeminist arguments.

For the benefit of the lurkers, if you haven't been bored to tears.

"You focus on the very small number of women stoned and in hiding as a rock to build a worldview around, but that view means you cannot grasp that the very,very,very much larger number of women not stoned is it's invalidation. (Not that stoning women isn't a terrible thing, and it should be fought, but it's really not not the vast majority of womens' reality)"

There are two aspects of violence. The violence itself and the fear of that violence. You can control (oppress) others with both violence and fear of violence - think of 'show trials' and how they immediately terrorise a population, very effectively making them compliant, without having to publicly execute all of them on spurious charges. So all the women in Saudi do not have to be stoned to death, for all the women in Saudi to fear being stoned to death, which alters their behaviour.

I just had to clarify that one.

Whatme a clarification is needed to this wrong end of stick: " (Far-Closer-To-Us-And- Not-Free-Lovin) Chimps"

We are in many ways closer to Bonobos than chimps (eg shagging outside oestrus) and chimps also have massive testes because they are 'free lovin'. Its the gorillas we are not like.

Anyway I find it frustrating speaking to you, because of annoying errors like these in your arguments.

Clearly you love the idea of being 'sneaky women' for some reason. For me I see that as unnecessary to explain the biology. Lets leave it there.

I know this conversation has been derailed and apologies. It is not supposed to be about the nature of radical feminism

Well, next time don't accuse others of Workin' For The Patriarchy when they say things you don't like.

I have also noticed another classic gambit by our MN Radfems friends is to claim a thread is "derailed" if stuff they don't agree with is being said :o

Food Unit, IMO your worldview, by putting all its eggs into a Single Simple Answer box, faces the problem of not describing the true complexity of women's reality.

Life is way too short to respond to all your demands for clarifications, details, data, etc. This is a chat group not a PhD viva (If you're genuinely interested, Google is your friend), but two responses:

You focus on the very small number of women stoned and in hiding as a rock to build a worldview around, but that view means you cannot grasp that the very,very,very much larger number of women not stoned is it's invalidation. (Not that stoning women isn't a terrible thing, and it should be fought, but it's really not not the vast majority of womens' reality)

Or, to take another example from above, you see that evolution places Humans somewhere between Patriarchical Gorillas and Free Lovin' Bonobos, but then you pick the one that fits your worldview (Bonobos) to base your view around - but you can't admit the any lessons from Gorilladom, or from (Far-Closer-To-Us-And- Not-Free-Lovin) Chimps as that is of course out-of-worldview.

And so, back on the rails to the OP's original question.

IMO you can predict that anyone who is interested in how men and women behave in (a complex) reality would find the research interesting, but anyone whose worldview is threatened by it will be very defensive.

And so it has turned out....

And IMO everything that can be said on this thread has been said, so by your leaves I take mine....

lurkingandlovescats "I don't think I'm smart enough to understand this debate any more. So I'm out."

I know this conversation has been derailed and apologies. It is not supposed to be about the nature of radical feminism - the disjointed lurches in thinking are what's confusing you, not because you are not smart!

?the RadFem belief set is essentially based around one god - that "'male domination' is at the heart of those intersecting oppressions?

Let?s be clear. By ?oppression? I am speaking about ?women?s? oppression. So, yes I would agree that male domination is at the heart of women?s oppression as a class irrespective of the other oppressions intersecting for each individual woman within that female class. Having established that (here?s where it gets confusing) I can?t see what you are driving at here:

?by definition [radical feminism] has to [be] very threatened by any research/activity that would show that any of these apply:

?(i) Male domination is not at the heart of the oppression, or is only one of the causes?

What ?oppression? are you speaking about here? Are you speaking about ?women?s oppression as a class? or some other 'generalised oppression of people'?

?(ii) Despite Male Domination being at the heart of all, women have evolved plenty of methods over time to subvert it, or?

Surely if the ?mode? is the male or the ?norm? is male domination, and for women having to ?subvert? (or fool) ? that is a sign of women?s being oppressed? In all cases of gross power differential (up to the extreme of master and slave) the powerful are able to be open and free in their choices, but the less powerful, in order to have any self-determination have to deceive, fool or subvert. I find it weird to say ?women have evolved plenty of methods? to subvert, when that could be said of any movement towards emancipation ? not just women.

?(iii) Violent Male Oppression is a paper tiger.?
I find it astonishing that you could say this. Are the women buried up to the neck and stoned to death for being raped actually a bit deluded, because it is only a paper tiger not violent male oppression? The same could be asked of the women who virtually live in hiding for fear that their ex is going to come along and kill them, and all other women who are totally controlled by the fear of, and actual male violence in the world.

?Evolution, and offshoots like Sociobiology and Evo Psych threaten (i) and (ii) as they increasingly come up with inconvenient truths about women actually having far more influence and power than is comfortavble within RadFemworld.?

This is the kind of thing I need you to clarify.

?Any research into (iii), that directly contradicts the Violent Male patriarchy, is of course a knife in the heart of RadFemDom, so any statistics showing the relative rarity of Violent Men, and the even rarer likelihood that they will be violent to women (as a % of population and violence incidents).?

This bit is weird, are you denying the prevalence of male-violence and its impact here? Or are you setting up a straw woman ? saying that rad fems believe that because a) the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by men b) the consequent trauma and fear of that violence has a lasting and wider impact on women than the specific act or perpetrator then c) radfems believe all men are violent?

?That Male violence to women is a paper tiger is easy to show, simply because the huuuge number of women who like men, have frequent sex with large numbers of them, and make all sorts of sacrifices to be around them.?

This does not logically follow. Because many women don?t experience male violence, doesn?t mean that male violence is not a real threat. Eg- even if you make sacrifices to live with a man you love, doesn?t mean his best mate isn?t going to rape you and leave you to deal with the fall-out.

?Because of your binary worldview - either you are a RadFem, or you are a TOTP/MRA, you can't comprehend a 3rd "not either of those" slot - especially a Liberal Feminist view that says you can be a Feminist and not buy into the view of of the All Powerful and Violent Patriarchy?

I wouldn?t say I?ve a binary world view. I just find your perspective of inevitable male-dominance where female autonomy is expressed only by subversion is a view prejudiced by patriarchy. I believe that other ways are possible.

?What i respect about science is that it looks at what is, rather than what one wants it to be. So you can say with certainty that women have evolved to fool men about when they are fertile, whose child they are carrying etc (if you don't like the word Fool, a Thesaurus is your friend). Evolution hasgiven them the power to mate select, despite the best efforts of this Violent Patriarchy to enforce its choices. And in fact, science shows that the Violent Patriarchy is not that violent to women compared to violent to itself (statistics are your friend here), and has in fact invented a whole lot of tools of seduction that are mutually pleasurable (wit, music, poetry, wine....etc).?

This statement is more along the assumption of male ownership, female deceit. Human promiscuity ?as testified by size of human testes- is a bit closer to that of the bonobo than the gorilla. Female bonobos (or chimps ? even though bonobos like us humans have sexual interaction outside oestrus) do not ?fool? or ?subvert? males who believe the female is carrying their genetic material. They all openly shag whoever they want (unlike gorillas with the dominant male). When you start talking about guaranteed fatherhood or fooling males into believing they are the father, you have brought inevitable male dominance into the biological equation. I am simply pointing out your prejudice in this case.

?My contempt is for a mindset that automatically assumes that anything that contradicts the RadFem worldiew must therefore be siding with Patriarchal Orthodoxy, and brooks no other point of view. Its a very limited way of looking at the world.?

SO this statement is you getting the wrong end of the stick.

I don't understand it either. Either a lot of it is speculation, or there have been big jumps made to reach various conclusions.