In a message dated 97-05-28 13:12:24 EDT, you write: >Buss uses what is called "evolutionary psychology" to explain the >"mating" preferences of men and women. Basically, women, since they >are more reproductively "valuable" than men and must invest much more >in the gestation of a child, naturally "select" men which can provide >them with a steady supply of resources. >From a biological stand point, the male sperm contributes as much to birth defects as women's activities. This includes the ability to carry children full term. For instance, spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) are often related to the drug and alchohol abuse of the father, not the mother. Or, low and defective sperm counts in men are related to such things are wearing tight pants--when the scrotum is restricted it gets hot and the heat causes defective sperm and reduces the overall sperm count. Second, 'valuable' is a socially determined category (e.g., the chief's sheep in a tribal society don't mean much on Wall Street). Third, Anthropological research has pretty much proven that all gestation, child rearing, and household duty responsibilities are socially, not biologically driven. I know it might seem like a tremendous chore, but try reading some feminist anthropological work. >Men are looking for cues to >reproductive capacity, which must be deduced indirectly, since human >females have what is known as "cryptic" ovulation as compared our >primate relatives. These cues are youth, health, and other "beauty" >cues such as hip-size (actually, waist to hip ratio---.70 being about >"ideal"), which provide fairly good estimates as to a woman's >reproductive capacity. In many societies (Puerto Rico, Hawaii, etc.) small women are considered inappropriate and undesirable for bearing children. If one looks at most fertility symbols, they have large breasts, found bellies and huge thighs. Western, Caucasian, society sees skinny women with small waists as sexually desireable--here goes one more western white man putting his sexual fantasies down as universal facts. However, I find this a little boring, after all, this is nothing but a rehash of past justifications. Some women don't get husbands because they don't fit the right physical mold--more time at the gym for you honey! Of course, the concept that a lot of women just don't want husbands never gets put in the book, even in a foot note. > >Buss gives some fairly sophisticated arguments for why humans select >mates as they do. For example, he reasons that men prefer a hip ratio >approaching .70 because a higher ratio mimics pregnancy, is correlated >with diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, heart problems, and >others. Lower ratios are correlated with earlier "pubertal endocrine >activity," greater ease in becoming pregnant, greater ease in carrying >and bearing a baby, etc. You call this sophisticated? I call it trash. This kind of justification for seeing women as objects who must conform to a specific body type is about as sophisticated as the Bell Curve was. Men hunt women who conform to socially determined standards of physical body types--Newt Gingrich says the same thing. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
