Status: O
Richard Twine wrote using phrases like
"hegemonic aesthetic standards"
"oppression via aesthetics"
as if the preference for certain kinds of bodies was purely a matter of
social construction.
I doubt it. Cross-cultural studies that I have read about recently,
admittedly in the popular press, have shown that there is wide agreement
about what constitutes an attractive person across disparate cultures and
ethic groups.
Tim Flannery, a well-known Australian scientist and scientific
populariser, wrotein the Sydney Morning Herald, that the more disparate
faces measurements are layered over each other - ie averaged, the more
people (in differnet cultures) choose them as being beautiful. He argues
that symmetrical features are our best outward sign of healthy genes, and
that we are genetically programmed to prefer them.
As someone who has been passed over for more beautiful women by men that I
wanted, and resented it bitterly, I don't like these evolutionary ideas at
all. However, no matter how much I kick against them, I find them utterly
convincing.
I hope to hear from someone who can convincingly refute them.
However, I do want to say this. Getting ourselves into extreme social
constructionism and denying an element of biological necessity will see
the disability rights movement becoming increasingly marginalised,
confined to fighting unwinnable battles over incomprehensible semantics.
Judy Singer
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|