Also, I may just be seeing this wrong, but I think you're engaging in a bit of false equivalency.
If a woman's creativity or intelligence were so culturally valued that women without them faced serious social ostracism, then I think you could compare shallowness on those things with shallowness about aesthetics. But that's just not the case. It may be true that a rare few subcultures value these things more than they do a woman's looks, but even some of the ones that one might think would do so don't. Even in scientific fields, for instance, "attractive" women are more successful than equally qualified colleagues who don't fit cultural standards for looks.
Attractive women with no other skills whatsoever can make fortunes just by standing around and looking pretty. Unattractive women have to actually be better than average at what they do to get anywhere.
It may be that none of this is your personal experience for one reason or another, but statistically, it's definitely true for American culture, at least.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-19 07:30 pm (UTC)If a woman's creativity or intelligence were so culturally valued that women without them faced serious social ostracism, then I think you could compare shallowness on those things with shallowness about aesthetics. But that's just not the case. It may be true that a rare few subcultures value these things more than they do a woman's looks, but even some of the ones that one might think would do so don't. Even in scientific fields, for instance, "attractive" women are more successful than equally qualified colleagues who don't fit cultural standards for looks.
Attractive women with no other skills whatsoever can make fortunes just by standing around and looking pretty. Unattractive women have to actually be better than average at what they do to get anywhere.
It may be that none of this is your personal experience for one reason or another, but statistically, it's definitely true for American culture, at least.