Olympic #IceSkating, from the dress of male vs. female skaters to I believe even the scoring (or maybe that's gymnastics. Either/or applies), shows us that men and women have natural differences, including unique strengths. The whole notion that there even exists a "fairer sex" tells us that men and women are different. If we were the same, neither would be "fairer" or better or worse at anything than the other. Women, on average, have been seen for a long time as having a certain beauty (or "fairness") and grace. Not that men can't have those qualities as well, of course. But because women have always been considered the fairer, more graceful sex, that is why their olympic ice skating outfits are different than men's, to accentuate and show off that "natural female beauty."

That is why their skating programs, if I remember correctly (I'm not an ice skating expert, just a gender differences expert!), are judged more on style and grace than the slightly more jump-intensive male programs. These are natural differences between men and women, biologically, which manifest in the way human beings see each other, and the way they act and perceive each other, and what they expect of each other. Many parents with daughters have taught them to be graceful throughout the history of civilized society. While the British-type schooling of getting your hand slapped with a spatula whenever you put your elbow on the table (or whatever those damn Brits do, I don't remember exactly) is obviously outdated, parents have raised their daughters to be graceful (and other similar things) for a long time, and many still do. It's a good thing. Not if it's pushed too hard that it suppresses who you want to be, but of course nothing is a good thing if it's suppressing who you want to be, so that could be said about anything and therefore it's really a useless point that says nothing. Within the bounds of common sense, grace is a good thing. Beauty is a good thing. Being the "fairer sex" is a good thing. One of women's strengths as a sex compared to men is their beauty. If you were to say that men have their brute genetic strength, and women have their beauty, while everything else between the two sexes, genetically, is equal, that would be an oversimplification, but those certainly are the two most obvious differences on average. That's why when people call the Ice Girls sexist because the outfits are designed to accentuate the female form more than the male form, they are ignoring many aspects not just of nature, but also nurture.

I don't remember hearing complaints during the Olympics, even though the female skaters were much more scantily clad than the Ice Girls. And it's the Ice Girls that actually have the simplest explanation. As I detailed in my blog on the subject, the Ice Girls exist in an NHL environment where a majority of the fans are men, and an extremely large majority of men are straight men. Obviously, straight men value the beauty of women over the beauty of men, so that alone would explain why the Ice Girls uniforms put more emphasis on the beauty of women in that male-heavy environment than the beauty of men. That part is very simple.

But the olympics, I would imagine, are viewed by just as many women as men, which brings us back to the point that even if more men weren't watching NHL games, it's simply human nature to accentuate female beauty. Imagine if you were asexual, if you had no sexual preference, would you prefer to see the "fairer sex" in skimpy outfits, or what would then have to be, by definition, the "less fair" sex in skimpy outfits? If women are the fairer, or better LOOKING, sex, then obviously they're also better to LOOK at (for the average person). That's what "better looking" means.

Does this mean it matters more for women to be beautiful than men? I wouldn't say that, although polls and statistics do show that physical appearance matters more to men in dating women than vice versa, but I wouldn't put it that way just because of the nature of the word "matters." Matters to who? Men vs. women, obviously, in those stats/polls, but since we're talking about the olympics, where both watch, "matters" is a fuzzy concept. So I wouldn't say it "matters" more, and obviously what gets lost in the averages, the overall truths about men and women as overall sexes, is that every individual is different. What it means is that whether it "matters more" or not that women be beautiful, the fact is that, for women on AVERAGE, it is a strength compared to men. Women are better at it, on average, not just being "fairer" on some simple points scale or anything like that, but in terms of women's own unique graceful beauty, however you want to describe it, that is distinct from men's. And like any strength, or any unique asset, human beings like to display it and value it and emphasize it, whether that be athletic strengths where thousands of fans pack stadiums to watch the best athletes, or intellectual strengths where scientists try to solve the mysteries of the universe and are given awards for their work, or anything in between. It really comes down to how I described it earlier: since women are the fairer sex in terms of appearance and "beauty," they are shown more in ways pertaining to their appearance and beauty. And this has its roots in biology where woman's main biological role is to bear children, and to bear children women need to get pregnant, and to get pregnant women need to attract a man, preferably a man who will stick around after to help raise the child, and to "attract" a man it helps to be "attractive." That's why, in biological terms, women were "made" to appear "fairer," and since biology requires men be attracted to women, men are wired to really value appearance.

What all this means with Ice Girls is that not only does the mostly male audience of the NHL explain more emphasis is put on the beauty of the female Ice Team members than vice versa, but even if the NHL audience was split 50/50, the way our society at large is made up, female appearance, grace, and style would still be emphasized and valued more because of human biology. How's this for a line to really make some feminists mad? They say the truth hurts most for those in denial. And let me stress, I have no idea why anyone would be in denial over this. It's not a bad thing. It's not an insult. Men and women have distinct strengths and differences, but I absolutely believe, as should everyone, that men and women are equal in the aggregate. But some want to pretend there are no differences, apparently, so this is the line that is sure to piss those people off...

Think of it like this: most the top athletes in the world are men, while most of the top supermodels in the world are women. Everything else, math, science, writing, medicine, there are smaller, more specific differences in other areas as well, but none as obvious. Most everywhere else, you're going to see things more equal. I did detail how more men like technology and CGI, so like I said, going from subject to subject, interest to interest, on a smaller scale, you will see some difference as well. Men and women are complex creatures, different in many ways, as those who have actually studied this know. But on the large scale, you will see men and women pretty equally represented in most other areas. But two of the most obvious biological differences, we have athletics vs. "fairness." Men have greater genetic strength, and women have a biological sex appeal to men and beauty recognized by all. That's why you'll notice so many men are emphasized and valued in our society for their athletic ability, while so many women are valued and emphasized for their beauty. Feminists hate that stuff, but it's not like Thor came down from heaven and put it into our heads, "hey guys, you guys should start thinking of women like this! Try it!" No one gave humans that idea. It wasn't artificially created, or started as some conspiracy on purpose. No, this came about naturally. This is how humans have been wired, biologically, and (or including) evolutionary. Feminists are going to immediately whine that I'm saying all women are good for is their appearance, while, of course, forgetting to whine about how I must also be saying that all men are good for is athletics. No, I didn't say either of those things, but that's indicative of their inconsistency. In any case, it's no conspiracy, and it's not sexism or learned social roles. It's biology. It's evolution. Women have been thought of as the fairer sex long before post-IR American society. This is nature, not nurture, and no, people, Mother Nature is not sexist.

Or is She? What if she's secretly a HE who actually got a sex change operation in secret so HE could be sexist towards women without anyone ever suspecting HIM?

I will investigate. I will find the truth. YOU HAVE MY WORD.

Reply · Report Post