Domain Query: Mansplaining required

Some chick named Alicia Bennett - I am assuming her gender identity based on her profile page - stopped by to leave a comment from a post from over 3 years ago which I thought was worth sharing:

Cute and all but, this contest isn't about beauty :) It's a multi-factor competition to seek out the individuality of each woman representing their country. A three year old forum, yes, but this is still a problem in most "beauty pageants". Most of these women are cookie cutter beautiful, being full of feminine qualities and traditionally well versed in topics pertaining to their country, as well as looking like Victoria's Secret Angels. But we need to realize, not every woman is going to fit a societal standard of beauty. Time is changing, my brother of Incelibacy, and no longer is a woman left to care for kids and make PB&Js for them. Miss Jamaica showed the world that you didn't need to be a big smile blondie to be recognized for both your inner beauty and outward appearance. Femininity is found within, you must have it inside to display it out, and she obviously embraced her other features to still convey the emotion of being a subjectively beautiful and well rounded woman to an international audience.


Uh-huh. Right.


I love mansplaining basic things to feminists - not because it's fun (it often is not), but because it always reveals the incoherency of what passes for feminist "thought". Also, it really pisses them off, and that is always funny.

This will require a "fisking", so to speak.

Note - although at first glance this sounds like it might be a particularly disgusting and deviant homosexual practice, it actually is not. It derives from the savage ways in which internet bloggers dismantled the ad hominem arguments and fallacies of "journalist" Robert Fisk.

Also - the best examples of this sort of thing still come from The Mountain That Writes, Larry Correia. Here's one. And here's another.

Right. 'Ere we go:

Cute and all but, this contest isn't about beauty :)

Erm... why is it called a "beauty pageant", then? Instead of, say, an "individuality pageant"? Or a "tourism advertising pageant"?

Moreover, why is it that these shows have always been squarely focused on the beauty of the contestants, going all the way back to the 1920s?

I realise that this is a difficult concept for feminists to grasp, but words have actual meanings. Unlike gender identities - and what a load of nonsense those are - nouns and adjectives are used to name and describe very precise things no matter what language you speak.

It's a multi-factor competition to seek out the individuality of each woman representing their country.

Uh, yeah, but guess what: a woman's looks have a HUGE amount to do with her success in each factor used for assessing her overall score.

Here, supposedly, is an example of a beauty pageant scoring sheet - don't take my word for it, though, I am no expert in these matters:

It takes some doing and you have to squint hard, but it can be seen that each category contains a strong "attractiveness" and "physical fitness" component.

Which, again, given that it's a beauty pageant, is not in the least little bit surprising.

A three year old forum, yes, but this is still a problem in most "beauty pageants".

That comment is in aid of... what, exactly?

Most of these women are cookie cutter beautiful,

Oh really? Well let's just take a look-see at the last round of Miss Universe contestants:


What, exactly, is "cookie-cutter" about these women?

Some of them are beautiful to some men and not so much to others. I, for instance, am an absolute sucker for Eastern European blondes and brunettes, and tend to fall easily for tall slender Sino-Japanese women, but do not generally find darker-skinned African, Latina, and subcontinental women to be particularly attractive.

Other men may agree or disagree as they please. And that is fine. These women are from every possible ethnicity, skin colour, background, and hairstyle. What one man finds attractive, another might not.

These ladies do have some aesthetic commonalities, of course.

They are tall, more or less slender, with a bust-waist-hip ratio set that is in line with the classic 36-24-36 set that has historically been seen as the "ideal" female shape. Some are wider, some are thinner, but in general, most of these women are tall and shapely with high cheekbones, big eyes, firm breasts, and - this is pretty important, since my original point derived from this - really nice hair.

That, however, is not the result of "cookie-cutter" selection criteria. It is the result of thousands of years of genetic selection that makes these women highly attractive to most men.

Remember that each Miss Universe contestant first gets there by going through national pageants, each with their own unique set of contestants and judging criteria. So what you see among the international contestants is not the result of some arbitrary or random selection process; it is instead a rigourous winnowing of thousands of beautiful women down to under 200 finalists.

The fact that the finalists all have strikingly similar general attributes does not speak to a "cookie-cutter" selection approach, but instead tells us that the traits that both men and women consider to be most attractive are actually (mostly) universal across cultures. (There are exceptions.)

being full of feminine qualities and traditionally well versed in topics pertaining to their country, as well as looking like Victoria's Secret Angels.

Yes, and?

But we need to realize, not every woman is going to fit a societal standard of beauty.

Calm down, dear, societal standards of beauty vary depending on the country in question, though there are certain commonalities between them. That has always been the case, and always will be. What the Chinese find attractive can be very different from what the Russians do - as I can attest from personal experience, having visited both countries.

The point of my original article was to make note of the fact that Miss Jamaica chopped her hair short, and as such was considerably less attractive to both the judges and the crowd. This should not be controversial. Very few women look better with short hair than they do with long hair - because, again, long lustrous hair is a sign of good health and therefore female fertility.

Miss Jamaica lost because she failed to meet the high standards of femininity set by her peers in the final judging rounds. She simply was not as attractive as any of the other finalists.

Time is changing, my brother of Incelibacy,

Boy, that really smarts coming from a girl who is so basic that she thinks that meeting a YouTuber challenge makes her special.

Here is my response to our body-positivist friend:


Lord help me, but I do love a good slutty nurse...

Also - why oh why are feminists so bad at speaking basic English?!? The phrase is: "Times are changing". "Incelibacy" is not a word, the phrase you are looking for is "incel", and that is a portmanteau (big word, I know, go look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, if you can handle such a thing) of "involuntary celibate".

and no longer is a woman left to care for kids and make PB&Js for them.

And this is relevant to my original point about short hair in what way, exactly?

Moreover, did anyone bother to explain to this young lady that being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen is actually where a woman is happiest?

Miss Jamaica showed the world that you didn't need to be a big smile blondie to be recognized for both your inner beauty and outward appearance.

Did Miss Jamaica win the Miss Universe contest that year?

Nope.

She lost. Period. Full stop. The end.

Here, by the way, is the woman who won that particular pageant:


Now it could be that my eyesight is going - I am in my early thirties, after all, and that is a ripe old age - but I'm pretty sure Ms. Paulina Vega there is a brunette.

Oh, just for giggles, here is Miss Universe 2015:



Unless I am very much mistaken, I do believe that is black hair, not blonde.

And here is Miss Universe 2016:


Huh. Whaddayaknow. She's brunette. (Also French, but I'll try not to hold that against her too much.)

And, just to drive home the point a bit, here is Miss Universe 2017:


Also a brunette. (And really damn cute.)

Call me crazy, but I do believe there might be a pattern here.

Namely - all of these ladies have beautiful long hair.

Which, the observant reader may recall, was precisely my point in the first place: hot women with long lustrous hair look great, and hot women with short chopped-off hair look worse.

Femininity is found within,

You keep telling yourself that as you chow down on your Twinkie and mash the scales into the redline, honey.

you must have it inside to display it out, and she obviously embraced her other features to still convey the emotion of being a subjectively beautiful and well rounded woman to an international audience.

I do not debate for a moment that Miss Jamaica was (and is) an attractive woman. She simply was not as attractive as her peers. And that, really, is all that matters.

I realise that words like "contest", "winning", and "first place" make no sense to Generation Snowflake and their "All Must Have Trophies!" mindset, but the plain fact of the matter is that Miss Buzzcut lost.

What I find remarkable is that she got as far as she did in the contest. An optimist would argue that this speaks volumes for her grace, dignity, poise, intelligence, and other sterling qualities. A cynic (like me) would argue that perhaps there was a bit of thumb-on-scale going on to ensure that she got to the final five, just so that the judges could score brownie points with the Diversity Uber Alles crowd.


Ladies, DON'T CUT YOUR DAMN HAIR!!!

Comments

  1. In that particular year, from that page's portraits, and in no particular order of merit: Indonesia, Malaysia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Iraq.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts