Recent comments

Kimberly: So I have no background in science and have abandoned scientific reasoning or any semblance of logic? Let us see just how “scientific” your response is.

You have brought in off-topic issues because of your inability to criticize my reply. You have judged a book by reading a few excerpts and not seeing how the cited evidence supports the arguments, which can be inferred by the absence of any reasoning as to why the arguments in it are crazy and insane. Your portrayal of its arguments represents craziness.

The book explicitly argues against homosexuality being a disease, and does not imply anything along the lines of “feminine women naturally kowtow to a sexist culture because it’s what they want and how they are, vs. those bad masculine women who act that way because only men are capable of such feats as libidinousness, assertiveness, etc.”

The book doesn’t argue that feminists are usually lesbians but that a huge proportion of feminists are lesbian. Here is the relevant quote:

Quote:

Clamoring for genuine women’s rights does not distinguish feminists from non-feminists espousing the same rights. Although it cannot be assumed that all homosexual women are feminists, a huge proportion of feminists are homosexual. Therefore, an examination of thinking that is exclusively feminist will perhaps shed some light on the thought processes of several homosexual women.

The quote is followed by an examination of core feminist beliefs, and it should be obvious that women who hold on to these core beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary are unambiguously feminist, and lesbians are vastly overrepresented among these women.

The book doesn’t say that models have “masculine” heights. Here is the quote:

Quote:

Female haute couture models range from 5’8” to 6’0”, i.e., they are as tall as men, on average.

Where is it implied that women in this height range are masculine because of the height range?

To point out my “disgusting agendas,” you link to a page where I argue that Christianity is unfairly blamed for anti-gay sentiments. You have not disputed anything in the essay, and there are no recommendations representing any agendas in it either. In case you haven’t figured out, I am not a Christian.

How reasonable a reply on your part! You need to comply with the basic requirements for a reasonable debate or not comment here.

Someone: I don't see the point of your mentioning "gender stereotypes" and "cognition of gender." Behavior/personality are not being addressed here.

No one is saying that very thin females are masculine. Melisande's masculinization is obvious in her skeletal proportions. Here is an example of a very thin woman that cannot be described as masculine.

To say that the ultra thin model ideal in the fashion world is driven by the aesthetic appeal of youth is to be very incomplete; the complete version is that it is driven by the aesthetic appeal of boys in their early adolescence to male homosexual fashion designers.

I have avoided posting pictures of Melisande where she is skinny. Whereas you may like her skinny self and are not alone, most people don't prefer skinny looks.

Simon: Nothing is wrong with the forehead-nose projection and jaw shape of Suada Sherifaj. These features were pointed out in her because their configuration is on the masculine side. I haven’t seen clear pictures of her physique to comment on it, though it is unlikely to be feminine.

Oh don't get me wrong, Erik. Things can be both misleading as well as entertaining. Ever watch the Daily Show?

I already mentioned I haven't examined their physiques enough to judge them based on that. The only two I see that look unhealthily thin are Italy and Tanzania, based on these pics anyways. I'm sorry they're not juicy cows like you prefer your "women." Just because one is thin doesn't mean they are anorexic, either. But hoorah for over feeding our American people to the point where we're wasting precious food, right? Screw the starving in 3rd world countries. Let's eat all the food in the world even if we're not hungry! YAYYY

Clearly you're the one without a background in science, as you have abandoned scientific reasoning or any semblance of logic, which is best illustrated by your insane book preview.

Really, I hope all site visitors take the time to read how crazy it is.

I do not think this site tells us women how we should look. Sure, it is about the ideal feminine apperance, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should try to copy it especially if we are not naturally endowed with those feminine characteristics.

Of course, only very few women possess an hourglass figure. So what? The webmaster isn't trying to offend anybody - he's just stating facts. The problem is not with this site, it is with women who are offended when somebody points out the truth that people perceive an hourglass figure as the most beautiful female figure and that those women don't possess hourglass figures. What we should do is not to copy the ideals of beauty that we can't acheive but to learn to accept ourselves the way we are and focus on inner beauty instead. Let's face it - not everybody can be considered physically beautiful. But that doesn't have to be a problem at all since inner beauty has just as much or probably even more weight than physical beauty.

My sister actually told me about this site and I didn't believe her, so I decided to take a look at it myself.

Yeah boy do the models have masculine features, I always noticed that myself! In fact, now whenever I get Victoria's Secret in the mail--- they ALL LOOK LIKE MEN AAAAHHH! haha see this is what happens?

But I do have some complaints about this site, which from what I can see you are used to.

I don't think that you realize the impact of your words on women overall. You say that this site is not intended to hurt anyone's feelings, but it happens anyway. You say that this site is purely informational/appreciative, but I see a lot of areas where you are bashing people for looking a certain way that they can't help. You say that women shouldn't try to be something they aren't but you subtley imply throughout various areas of the site how feminine women should look.

And I also think you are ignoring the fact that there are at least half of the female population in the US who are NOT your typical Caucasion-hourglass look (sorry if I can't spell). Yes I know you said that this site is intended to be towards a Western audience but there are MANY women in the Western hemisphere who are black, Oriental, Hispanic, Indian (I am), mixed, etc who are going to look at this site and think "huh??"

Not to sound sappy and start complaining, but it's really hard for a girl who is NOT Caucasion to see a website like this and then get the message that an hourglass figure is what is really beautiful when in reality she's never going to be able to achieve that. I'm not an hourglass figure, I'm actually a small pear and I would also like to point out that many of your examples are not even really hourglass-- they are pears. Very very VERY few women are actually "true hourglass" figures (where their tops are equal or within an inch of measurement to their bottoms, and their waist is the smallest area). But I'm sure you probably already know that.

I understand you wish to see more women in the fashion industry who aren't shaped like rulers on the verge of malnutrition-- trust me WE ALL wish to see less of that! But I don't think that bashing what is already there is going to help anything-- it's encouraging and supporting more healthy figures and viewpoints. So far, I only see a couple of areas of your site which address that issue, but for every part that addresses it, there are 10 areas that promote bashing.

I don't think any side of this issue has it right so far. And I think Hanna is more nuts than you'll ever be. :S We SHOULD NOT all look like nasty ass skinny crack-addict fashion models-- yuck! We might as all become anorexic. BUT on that note, if you NATURALLY possess (sorry I suck at spelling) a figure that is waif-thin, what can you do about it? If you naturally possess a figure with wide hip bones what can you do about it? I don't think Dove or you Erik have it right either. It's all about balance.

Though I do agree that more fashion models should have diversified looks instead of the typical nasty Gisele look...she needs to eat a cookie.

Speaking of models, take a look at the model here:

http://www.bleuphoenix.com/component/option,com_gallery2/Itemid,30/?g2_itemId=1595

Would you say that she's feminine or masculine? she's actually a friend at school who has done some modeling. She's super skinny (natural) but has big boobs (also natural).

Wow I know this is a LONG ass post so I will say my last bit and be done.

I work with a master's student at school who is doing research on eating disorders and the influence of body ideals. So far, her research group has found that whenever a bodily ideal is encouraged instead of basic physical health and fitness for your OWN body, is when adolescent girls resort to eating disorders, with the hope that they will achieve that look. Just something to think about.

sorry erik i meant to write andy (above comment)me and my mate simon are using the same pc and reading your site and by accident i wrote his name as he was using the pc just before me

why whats wrong with her forehead nose projection and jkaw shape?

what about her physicque is it feminine or masculine?

Frank: I am not ignoring the mass of modern studies on the Jomon/Ainu. The study by Brace is current, uses excellent methodology -- thereby carrying weight -- and is much superior to the studies based on Y and mtDNA because of the aforementioned limitations of these studies and also the fact that craniofacial features manifest extensive autosomal gene expression. You certainly haven’t read the Brace paper closely. Brace is far from a remnant of the “old school of physical anthropology” given that he has denied the existence of races and here is the relevant statement from his paper:

Quote:

The fact that Late Pleistocene populations in northwest Europe and northeast Asia show morphological similarities suggests that there may have been actual genetic ties at one time. Those morphological similarities can still be shown between Europe and the descendants of the aboriginal population of the Japanese archipelago, i.e., the Ainu. This similarity provides some basis for the long-time claim that the Ainu represent an "Indo-European," "Aryan," or "Caucasoid" "type" or "race" (54, 55), however unfortunate those designations and their implications may be.

Note that Brace has put some typological terms in quotes because he rejects such terminology and he doesn’t say “however unfortunate or benign those designations and their implications may be.” It is clear that the Ainu are craniofacially closer to Europeans than to East Asians. Your repeated references to race, racism and typology are not relevant to the discussion since they are not part of this website.

Minor features -- from a phylogeny standpoint -- such as epicanthal folds have not played a major role in past typology, especially since they are not preserved in normal human remains. It is a safe-bet that a European or sub-Saharan African with epicanthal folds is unlikely to be classified as an East Asian anymore than a sub-Saharan African albino is likely to be classified as white. There is a correlation structure underlying population differences, and differences in the correlation structure are not minor.

Studies of molecular markers have indeed shown conflicting results, but these have usually been a result of too few markers assessed or different paternal and maternal ancestries. With respect to our discussion, namely the relatedness of mainland northeast Asians, mainland southeast Asians and Europeans, both Brace’s 21-24 largely neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances and multiple molecular markers as in the Rosenberg et al. study I cited (close to 1,000 microsatellites) show the mainland northeast Asians and mainland southeast Asians clustering together. There is no inconsistency.

Obviously, natural selection is not responsible for all craniofacial differences between populations. Look up Brace’s measures and note that he avoids the lower jaw and teeth, features obviously affected by natural selection. Also note that he is using 20+ inter-landmark distances, i.e., even if you were to argue that all of these are affected by natural selection, you cannot insist that his population affinities are explained by convergent evolution of distant populations under similar selection pressures.

Quote:

"The earliest Homo sapiens sapiens skulls in Eurasia, including East Asia, all look more “caucasoid” than do modern East Asians."

You have paraphrased what I stated, taken straight out of Brace. Until a few thousand years ago, most of Northeast Asia was occupied by a European-type people, who were eventually replaced by Asian types.

Quote:

'Similarly, early and many modern Amerindian populations similarly are not characterised by such features as “mid-facial flattening”'

Once again, also shown by Brace. The first humans to arrive in the Americas clustered with Europeans whereas the later ones clustered with Asians. In other words, some of the early populations in East Asia and the Americas that you are referring to were roughly speaking European-type people who were replaced by other populations with more ancestral features.

Regarding how recent are flattened nasal bones, general mid-facial flattening, larger faces, larger teeth, etc., I don’t think you will dispute larger faces, large jaws and larger teeth as more ancestral features since eating cooked food is recent rather than ancestral. Look up Hanihara’s paper on facial flatness and notice the part where he reports the results of canonical correlations. You see a clear tendency for greater mid-facial flattening to correlate with greater jaw protrusion, which should not be surprising; just take a look at our closest primate relatives. Hanihara’s paper also features a bunch of citations showing that the earliest anatomically modern humans had more or less flattened mid-facial regions. Therefore, compared to Northern Europeans, the complex of features among East Asians characterized by greater mid-facial flattening, more protruding jaws, larger faces and larger teeth indicates a face that is overall more ancestral, certainly nowhere as recent as that of Northern Europeans, though some East Asian features could be of recent origin.

Again, Peter Frost’s paper on hair color diversity in Europe implicates sexual selection. If some characteristic East Asian features of recent origin are a result of sexual selection or natural selection, then you have not suggested what features these are, let alone provided a plausible mechanism behind the selection.

Brenda certainly hasn’t claimed that all women posted by Sarah after Dawn Yang have undergone plastic surgery. She just wants Sarah to tell her the names of the women so that she can verify if some of these women have undergone plastic surgery. Some of your stereotypes about the Western view of Asians border on straw man arguments and you do not seem to realize that people usually have a harder time distinguishing the facial features of other ethnicities. Some Asians, too, undoubtedly feel that people of some other ethnic groups “all look alike.”

You again blame the problem on the stereotyping of “races,” but the typologies are by no means of recent European origins. Even the ancient Egyptians were known to classify people as Semites, Afros, white, etc. Even children can observe average differences between populations. Regardless of typology, classifications based on multiple visible physical differences accord very well with classification based on multiple molecular markers. It doesn’t take much observation to learn that there is variation both between groups and within groups and that there are grey areas between groups and that there are outliers within groups, but none of these facts undermine average differences between groups, and clusters emerge notwithstanding clinal variation.

Early anthropologists didn’t have access to morphing software to come up with population averages, and the vast majority likely did not associate averageness with attractiveness. The averageness-attractiveness correlation surprised many psychologists as recently as roughly 20 years ago. And no, anthropologists didn’t go around selecting extremes among non-European populations to illustrate “stereotypical” examples. For instance, the Choe et al. study cited above showed the following image:

http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/korean.5.jpg

From left to right: average North American white, attractive Korean, average Korean (Korean women rated by Korean judges).

In other words, the average Asian looks more Asian, not less Asian than the attractive Asian, who is overall shifted toward European norms. You got it exactly opposite by saying that “the average typical Asian face is more “caucasian” than the supposed stereotypical one.”

By your reasoning, “Using the same principles to characterise “caucasoids” as were used to characterise other races, a typical “caucasoid” would...” certainly not have lots of body hair, a very long and narrow face and a hooked nose. In the Europe-Middle Eastern region, hooked noses, long faces (shape) and excessive body hair are most extensively found among Middle Eastern populations and their counterparts in Southern Europe, whereas the most European- or “Caucasoid”-looking people are found in Northern Europe. The hook-nosed appearance is due to a more prominent nasal tip and less prominent nasal root, and the tip, being composed of cartilage, which is not preserved in human remains except in rare cases of mummification. When you consider the skeletal aspects of the face as they have transformed from the ancestral to the derived, the major tendencies such as more prominent nasal bones, more regressed jaws and gracilization (finer facial features) are at their most extreme in Northern Europe.

The use of depilatory creams, lipstick, mascara and hair dyes constitute minor cosmetic enhancement compared to having a surgeon operate on your face, and among young adult European women, there is no surgical analog that approaches the frequency of eyelid surgery among young adult East Asian women. In addition, some of the most unflattering major cosmetic surgery procedures are less used by the more “Caucasoid”-looking women. For instance, I recently found out that ethnic minorities in Stockholm (Sweden), mostly Middle Eastern and also Southern European women, are responsible for up to half the nose jobs there, and I will be addressing this study in the future because it offers some useful insights.

Sarah, thanks for the advice. I don't have that much time to post, and I will have to consider whether it's worth it here. I'll probably eventually post some of my original intended reply in an edited form.

To Kimberly and Brenda. You claim that all the Asian women whose photos Sarah posted have undergone plastic surgery. Well, you may be entirely right, or you may be entirely wrong. Or you may be partly right.

As an Asian, one of the things which annoys me most about western views of Asians is the stereotyping - i.e. Asians all look alike, all have epicanthic folds, have broad faces with broad noses etc.etc. Actually there is as much variety in Asian physiognomies as in "Caucasian" ones. My own family is a case in point. My father had "western" eyelids, which are actually in a majority over much of China and East Asia. My mother had a narrow nose which actually looked "hooked" in profile, she looked more like an Amerindian than a supposedly "typical" East Asian. Both myself and my brother are at least as tall as the average "caucasian" of our generation, and my sister was always one of the tallest girls in her class at school, the rest of the girls being almost all "caucasians". One of my cousins (a professor in the States) is at least 6ft.6in. tall, probably more. Another of my cousins had as a child hair so light in colour that he was nicknamed "Yellow Hair". Both myself and my brother have much more body hair than East Asians are supposed to have. When we first moved to England, some English were surprised that we were so light skinned - "You're skin is white" was one response - although our skin tone is actually typical for Northern Chinese. And none of my family are lactose intolerant. And so on. And it's not just my family. So many of the Chinese I have met don't correspond to the usual sterotype. Of course others do - and they are the ones regarded as "typical".

The problem resides in the ways that "races" were stereotyped in the first place. The usual typological race classifications ("caucasoid", "mongoloid", "negroid" etc.) were dreamt up by Europeans in the early part of the last century. These typological race classifications, based almost entirely on visible physical features, are largely discredited in scientific anthropological and biological circles today - but they still have a vast, and undeserved, influence in popular thinking - the very use of the term "caucasian" is an example of this.

When stereotyping "caucasoids", the European classifiers did choose typical, average, European types. Studies have shown that, at least as far as women are concerned, average faces are actually the most attractive, because they don't possess any extreme features. Thus the stereotypical "caucasoid" was automatically an attractive face.

However when stereotyping other "races", such as "mongoloids" (East Asians etc.) and "negroids" (Black Africans), the European race classifiers chose not the average, but the most extreme characteristics, those most different from the typical "caucasoid". These stereotypical Asians and Africans are thus not typical and average, even from the viewpoint of Asians and Africans themselves. The actual typical average for these other races is thus inevitably more "caucasian" than the supposed stereotype.

Using the same principles to characterise "caucasoids" as were used to characterise other races, a typical "caucasoid" would have a very long narrow face, with a long pointed chin, very thin lips, a very long hooked nose, and very hairy bodies, with the women having slight moustaches. Many of these might also seek plastic surgery to make themselves closer to the actual typical average.

And indeed plastic surgery is not just rampant in Asia. It is also rampant in Europe and the USA among "white" women. And of course there are many, many other cosmetic procedures which are commonplace in the developed world. To take just one example, how many western women use depilatory agents? Or hair colouring? Or indeed any sort of cosmetics? In fact, "natural" beauty cannot really be said to exist in the developed world among women of any race - or among men for that matter. That's a matter of fact, NOT a criticism, as attempts to change one's appearance are universal. It only becomes a matter for concern, and morality, when people of either gender undergo potentially medically harmful procedures to try and achieve a desired appearance, and are encouraged by others to do so.

Kimberly: The ubiquity of masculinized female models is not indicative of many people having endorsed them, but of the gay domination of the fashion business. I have had to repeatedly point to you that controlled laboratory studies show that most people harbor a preference for above average femininity in women, i.e., people’s preferences, properly evaluated, haven’t been affected. Your socialization idea is a myth. Given the dearth of feminine beauty in the limelight and posing tricks, implants and airbrushing among models, many heterosexual men will fail to notice the extent of masculinization among fashion models.

Nordic skin is typically normal for a white person, which is how you should have understood it, and normal means pale by default and capable of tanning up to light brown. I have never heard of Northern Europeans regarded as stupid by Indians and Middle Eastern people when they first encountered them. Please cite some references.