But almost all of the porn available is geared toward what men want (with socialization apparent in the differences in what is considered the most popular porn in different cultures), just as the definition of “aggression” is based on what men do.
It’s like saying statistics show that men have more heart attacks than women because the symptoms of a heart attack are right-side chest discomfort and indigestion (whereas for women they’re more likely to be throat discomfort and vomiting).
No, but she doesn’t get to decide if she is one either. Which is the problem with celebrity, it’s not based on merit, its based on notoriety.
Nicely put.
But that’s only because celebrity is perceived as being more valuable than anonimity.
With what men think they should want (which becomes self fulfilling prophecy because then it also becomes the only thing there is), that distinction is important even here.
Males who fear they are not men will surround themselves with the trappings of manliness like (videogame) violence, (virtual/online/proxy) sex, and old spice so that others don’t question their manliness.
Some will find a way to be OK with this, others will be consumed by it and rage at anybody who points to the incongruities.
Vivian James herself is just a shallow recrafting of Tomoko Kuroki, but the GGers “improved” her by removing the flaws and making her sexier. It’s just more proof of their pervasive sexism, showing a true disinterest of creating strong female characters by making sexist versions of existing female characters.
It really doesn’t with any certainty. The only way to really know would be to compare subjects who have not been socialized at all. Raise them by robots in controlled conditions, and then maybe we can make a comparison. But even still, the resulting data would be subject to the biases of human interpreters, because criteria such as belligerence, aggression, and danger - as we understand them - are distinctly human concepts.
And even if it was entirely a matter of nature, why not fix it? People seem to find this a far less compelling argument with regards to behavior compared to, say, life expectancy. The same people aren’t eager to swallow that their dying at 45 years old might be perfectly natural. And regardless of how long one lives, why would anyone choose to resign themselves to living that span of time making poor decisions? Not managing one’s hormones - or, at the very least, one’s responses to one’s hormones - seems terribly irresponsible. It’s also rather selective, since many personal and social shortcomings could be passed off as having a biological cause and are not similarly dismissed.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
