From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:47:18 GMT

In article <Bzo75G.LBB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>The thoughtful paragraph you quote above is, unfortunately, not
>by me. It is by a man saying that he appears younger than he is.


	True.  I did misattribute.  In any case, it still applies--
	to both men and women.

>I note that my mother appears younger than she is; and she once
>got in trouble, on a bus, when an angry driver refused to believe that
>she was over 65. I do think the driver's reaction was sincere, even
>though he was a man.


	It happens, especially in interactions that last a 
	short time.  However, it doesn't last more than about
	5 or 6 minutes.  


>>	The same occurs for men.  It is well known that
>>	appearance has a great deal of affect on how well one
>>	succeeds in life.  It's not a discrimination thing, it's
>>	a human thing.  As far as I can tell, the only way to 
>>	solve it would be to put everyones eyes out at birth.
>>	
>>	We judge *everything* by appearance--not just people.  Most
>>	people eat attractively prepared food despite the fact that
>
>>	it has little or nothing to do with taste or flavor (which
>>	is clearly more important).  People prefer attractively styled
>>	furniture no matter how much more comfortable ratty looking
>>	chair might be.  

>People considered for highly technical positions are not furniture. 

	Nice point.

>The best analogy is not to a chair, but to a computer. And if
>I were buying a computer, I would definitely be more concerned with
>what chip was inside, than the esthetic quality of the casing.


	This is not entirely true.  In fact, most people buy computers
	by judging the pretty/shiny quality of the user interface.
	See Macintosh, Windows.  (And possibly Open Look, Motif, NeXTStep).
	(by User interface I also mean the interfaces of the common
	applications).  

	Only tech weenies (unix gurus, hackers, whatever) buy by the internal
	chip--otherwise most of the world wouldn't be using Intel's x86..
 

>(I note that computers are, on the average, not as attractive as
>chairs; other considerations seem to be more important.)


	Computer *cases* aren't, but a pretty interface (regardless
	of actual interface quality) sure sells. 

	For that matter, so do a color monitor--which is pretty much
	useless for most business/dtp uses.  A mono or grey scale
	display is cheaper to buy, faster to use (fewer bits/pixel)
	and more representantitive of the final product(DTP, WP).
	So why do even secretaries get color?



>I also refuse to believe that any social injustice cannot be minimized
>(though few can be eliminated entirely). In particular, I note that the 
>physical appearance of women was *not* as overvalued 30 years ago,
>as it is now. 


	Sure it was.  If they valued other things more, well, that
	was then this is now and whatever.  Appearance is not 
	"overvalued" it is simply valued higher than other things
	(like "cooking skill" and "child rearing skill").  Would
	you prefer one of these others valued highest?
 
	What is most valued in a man?  Looks, probably.  After
	that, probably money-making ability.  Yeah, this makes me
	feel all warm and happy inside.
 
	Tough.

>If you will take a fast rewind back to Victorian times, you note
>that birth was much more important then than it is now; so important


	Shifting priorities.  You'll find, however--all through
	time that physical appearance has always been valued extremely
	highly.  Sure, it would do no good to marry a lowly peasant, but
	s/he'll make a great bedwarmer.  How many bastards did these
	noblemen father?  How many illegitimate children did these
	noblewomen bear?  Quite a few.


>that noblemens' sons could be offered positions they did not 
>deserve, and otherwise dump on people and get away with it. (Read


	Shifting priorities.  Family lineage was once valued
	as having great importance.  As it is now, in this country,
	it doesn't matterif your father was a murder or embezzler or
	professor.  Unless it's some real high-profile thing (president,
	senator) it doesn't matter--and even then it's more likely 
	that the difference is wealth.


>Lenore Levine


-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

	     Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
	  	  Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal