I went to college (in Canada...where they call it university) with Govindini's sister.

Re: the IMDB bio...it's written by Ms. Murty herself. Not that that's a bad thing...I'm just saying.

-D

"Angry, granola gals oppressed by the patriarchy often filled out the far left, weren't exactly the most dateable & he avoided them like the plague."

It's so presumptuous of you to put the link to the parody about the South Asian 'Facist' Sisters here...

I'm glad I avoided people like you back in college. You wouldn't have been worth it, and you're still not now. You f**kin' loser...

You f**kin' loser...

well, didn't you just kind of illustrate the belligerence that vinod was alluding to?

Although it is selfish, opportunistic, and in poor taste, I feel compelled to announce at this moment that I LOVE "Angry, granola gals." Call me.

My two cents:

"Angry granola gal" comments aside, I'm glad that SM tries to highlight different political perspectives.

But, as a friendly moderate, please allow me to say that it really doesn't help your political point of view to denigrate a feminine perspective - leftist, Republican, libertarian, or otherwise - to silly questions of physical appearance. Granted, it's fun to talk about our personal experiences of the political.......including funny college incidences with said granola girls (would it really surprise you all to know that I was once a granola-lookin' Republican with butch-short hair? hmmmm, doesn't that defy stereotypes?). Just trying to say: be a leetle more sensitive about your approach.

- From "another" Ms. Roy (and NO, I wasn't the "M." vigorously defending the "other" Ms. Roy)

desinar

((It's so presumptuous of you to put the link to the parody about the South Asian 'Facist' Sisters here...

I'm glad I avoided people like you back in college. You wouldn't have been worth it, and you're still not now. You f**kin' loser...))

You just vindicated every point he made in his generalised rather crude, but strangely funny and in a peculiar way, accurate satirical dig. Its not a parody when you are there to make posts like the above.

The greatest sin in many peoples eyes is not to have a sense of humour about oneself and the world. As much as anything, that is what the parody is based in. Your response adds to the comedy.

Peace and Love

it really doesn't help your political point of view to denigrate a feminine perspective - leftist, Republican, libertarian, or otherwise - to silly questions of physical appearance

Oh, please. Men will make fun of a loser like "desinar" b/c he can't handle a joke by SuperJagjit (who's prety bipartisan with the slams).

On the other hand, women will make fun of a guy if he's short, or uneducated, or stupid, or has a dead end job. All the feminist brainwashing in the world isn't going to make women date guys who are shorter than them (and isn't going to make them respect guys who are way less educated than them or who make half their salary). And, conversely, OF COURSE the looks of a woman are fair game.

besides, the south asian "kill kal penn" sisters ARE humorless far leftists. v-dawg is just calling a spade a spade...

and given that feminists actively oppose the idea that women should try to look good for men, and furthermore actively oppose the idea that men should try to appeal to women ("In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine. andrea dworkin"), they can't exactly say that hygiene/grooming/lipstick is their forte.

bottom line: appearance is fair game, and you're denying humanity itself if you think it's not a factor. the first thing every guy does when he meets a new girl is assess her attractiveness - you just can't get around it.

my boy v was just pointing out a fine example of a hot indian libertarian chick, and contrasting that to the unshaved womyn on the far left. if you find the comparison unflattering, perhaps you should reassess your support for an ideology that *instructs* women not to care about their appearance/hygiene/style...

btw Amelie Freak, if you really *are* a moderate (haven't been reading long enough to see), my apologies for misconstruing your position.

But if you *are* a member of the South Asian sisters, or you consider yourself a feminist, or if Ensler/Steinem/Dworkin/Friedan (or desinar for that matter) have any appeal to you then no apologies :)

He argued that the average attractive & approachable gal on campus was a soft lefty. She'd advocate things like national healthcare out of a semi-fashionable, prima facie concern for her fellow human beings.

soft being the operative term. a HUGE number of them haven't really thought about politics and are just going with the flow - all the brainwashing that starts during freshman orientation (american pictures, crossing the line, "diversity" indoctrination, etc.) defines the political climate and girls are on average more conformist & less likely than guys to step outside the boundaries of "what is allowed".

but once they're married & have kids, that soft leftism sloughs away once the decision is between an abstract "save the world" ideology and her kids. The thoughtless universalism of the left necessarily means that the welfare of her family and friends - and her children - is put on an equal plane with some anonymous guy in Timbuktu. Given that choice, she'll generally choose to take care of her family and expect others to do the same...which is why so many of those soft lefties swing hard to reality (and thus the right) when they become parents.

A mini sturm und drang here..

Going back to Govindini, she's smart, attractive and got some interesting viewpoints..

Quibble) I would feel awkward writing the sort of bio that Govindini's written about herself on IMDB? Seems a tad over the top to write such stuff about oneself. Maybe it's sine qua non in Hollywood.. or in sales.. and maybe a meek FOB geek like me doesn't get it?

Dont confuse a feminist perspective with a feminine perspective. The two are mutually exclusive.

y boy v was just pointing out a fine example of a hot indian libertarian chick, and contrasting that to the unshaved womyn on the far left. if you find the comparison unflattering, perhaps you should reassess your support for an ideology that *instructs* women not to care about their appearance/hygiene/style...

GC -

First of all, your attitude and approach are COMPLETELY offputting. You're taking my comments as personal attack on your friend, and by no means did I intend that. And for your information, NO, feminism does NOT instruct women to not shave, be unattractive, etc. Contrary to popular beliefs, the feminist movement is not composed of a bunch of a bra-burning, "angry" granola chicks. How can you reduce a movement to something so miniscule, yet another stereotype? Again, it seems like you're the guy with the "ideology" problems, not me.

Pico - I intentionally used "feminine" instead of "feminist" to denote the fact that I'm not talking about "feminists."

Finally, before this discussion even goes back to the realm of a previous post discussion regarding "Kill Kal Penn" (which I don't espouse): I DO consider myself a feminist. In fact, I'm a long-haired, makeup-wearing, armpit-waxing feminist. I'm a pretty feminist that likes men. I'm a happy feminist that doesn't think feminism is a dirty word. Just because I'm a feminist doesn't mean that I'm a soft lefty. Being a feminist encompasses far more political perspectives than commonly perceived. I don't doubt Govindini is a feminist on some level - I'm sure she wouldn't have quibbles with equal job opportunities and pay standards.

Therefore I really don't want your apologies, GC, because frankly, they wouldn't be genuine.

I am really sad to see the number of South Asians that look up to conservative and extremely right wing political activists/politicians. Not that I don't believe people of color cannot be conservatives, I do believe that we (South Asian community in America) have not reached a point in our civil rights agenda to be completely in support of conservatives (like Jindal et al). It further alienates our community from coalition building and political blocks with other communities of color.

On another tip, great job with this blog/website.

All the feminist brainwashing in the world isn't going to make women date guys who are shorter than them (and isn't going to make them respect guys who are way less educated than them or who make half their salary). And, conversely, OF COURSE the looks of a woman are fair game.

This is hilarious. I'm loving this.

Additionally, I don't think I've ever dated for or against politics or political leanings. I'm a moderate with somewhat acute dislike of the R party and shamed disappointment in the D party. Moot, but really, I don't think it's too terrible.

You can argue, but who doesn't love making up after a good fight?

Amelie Freak:

hey, if you're a Susan B Anthony equity feminist I've got no problem with you. But if you think that Dworkin, Steinem, Friedan, or Eve Ensler have spewed anything other than cultural Marxist hate unmoored from reality, then I'd have to disagree with you. As for this:

feminism does NOT instruct women to not shave, be unattractive

I wonder how to reconcile that with this, where the typical sleight-of-hand is apparent, to wit: "if you care about staying in shape, the patriarchy is forcing you to have an eating disorder!"

Naomi Wolf (1991) has a similar explanation of the origin of eating disorders in her bestseller The Beauty Myth. She states: "a cultural fixation on female thinness is not an obsession about female beauty but an obsession about female obedience" (Wolf, 187). Women who remain thin are being obedient; it is another way for patriarchy to control women. "If women cannot eat the same food as men, we cannot experience equal status in the community" (Wolf, 189)...

Martz et al. (1995) found that women with feminine gender role stress are at a higher risk for eating disorders and body image problems. Feminine gender role stress is regarded as "higher than usual levels of stress as a result of rigid adherence to the traditional feminine gender role" (Martz et al., 493). This study also confirms the feminist belief that women who try to achieve the cultural ideals, of feminine behavior and beauty are more susceptible to acquiring an eating disorder.

Now, that kind of thing is par for the course in Womyn's studies. I could quote about a thousand more things like this on how the ostensibly feminine idea of beauty is actually a function of patriarchy and anorexia, and how true feminists must reject the "beauty myth".

But here's the comical thing: no straight guy wants an anorexic chick . The guys who're putting up those androgynous anorexic girls in fashion shows are primarily gay fashion designers!

Don't believe me? Try a google for "anorexic babes" some day. With every bizarre variety of porn on the web, there is one which is distinctive by its absence: images of bone thin women. If straight guys wanted that stuff, yeah, you'd see it online. But you don't.

Note also that everything is phrased as *exploitation*, which is the root of cultural Marxism. Just as Marx believed that workers had to be "exploited" by their employers, cultural Marxists believe that all heterosexual male-female relationships will be "exploitative" until the "patriarchy" is overthrown (presumably ushering in an androgynous paradise, where the withering of the sexes accompanies the withering of the state). Some illustrative Dworkin quotes:

"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks"; "Male sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contempt for all life..."; (Letters from a War Zone, 14); "In seduction, the rapist bothers to buy a bottle of wine" (Ibid, 119); "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman" (Our Blood, 20).

The idea of *reciprocity* is not even entertained: it would be considered woefully retrograde for a woman to expect an ambitious, intelligent, tall guy in return for the guy to expect a beautiful, nurturing wife. That's not to say that intelligence *isn't* a factor (assortative mating for intelligence is very high), but rather that most women don't want to hook up with guys who are much dumber than them.

Anyway, I could go on about the fallacy of equating "staying in shape" with anorexia, especially given research in cross-cultural appreciation of waist-to hip ratios and their correlation with fertility:

Evidence is presented showing that body fat distribution as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is correlated with youthfulness, reproductive endocrinologic status, and long-term health risk in women. Three studies show that men judge women with low WHR as attractive. Study 1 documents that minor changes in WHRs of Miss America winners and Playboy playmates have occurred over the past 30-60 years. Study 2 shows that college-age men find female figures with low WHR more attractive, healthier, and of greater reproductive value than figures with a higher WHR. In Study 3, 25- to 85-year-old men were found to prefer female figures with lower WHR and assign them higher ratings of attractiveness and reproductive potential. It is suggested that WHR represents an important bodily feature associated with physical attractiveness as well as with health and reproductive potential. A hypothesis is proposed to explain how WHR influences female attractiveness and its role in mate selection.

But I'm tired. You might also check out this article at the Lancet .

Bottom line: you may have a particular reading of feminism that tosses out the feminist incitement to dress in a sack, eat like a whale, and act like a man. (again, Naomi Wolf: "If women cannot eat the same food as men, we cannot experience equal status in the community").

But that view is certainly not the view of feminists at large.

rversde23:

I do believe that we (South Asian community in America) have not reached a point in our civil rights agenda

South Asians are one of the best educated and most wealthy income groups in the US. This is why so many of us don't listen to professional angry ethnic leftist "activists" whose whole shtick is about how oppressed we are and how every white guy is fixing to commit a hate crime against us.

As for building bridges with the Sharptons and MECHAs from other "communities of color", you might want to talk to some NYC cabbies or Korean shopkeepers to see what they think about that...

gc--

"besides, the south asian "kill kal penn" sisters ARE humorless far leftists"

if you had any brains, you would have noticed that the 'Open Letter to the Community' sent out by the South Asian Sisters wasn't a critique of Kal Penn (as an individual or actor), but a take on the film and the character Penn plays in the movie... so f*** you. ha ha!

razib...

"well, didn't you just kind of illustrate the belligerence that vinod was alluding to?"

exactly... aren't we all full of contradictions?! that's the fun in all of this!

Punjabi BOY...

"The greatest sin in many peoples eyes is not to have a sense of humour about oneself and the world. As much as anything, that is what the parody is based in. Your response adds to the comedy."

Good, I'm glad you found it comical. I laughed too when I posted it!

Maybe boys like you don't approach "angry granola girls" because you're intimidated to do so. And you should be. If you can't handle our rockin' politics, try your luck with the "soft leftists", who are probably just as likely to diss you. I'm sure Govindi would not be impressed by a chump like you.

don't approach "angry granola girls" because you're intimidated to do so

anjali, i agree. the women who equate physical fitness with patriarchal oppression *are* often intimidating...intimidatingly bulky.

So let's make a deal. Why don't you take all the women who're angered by the nerve of men who expect women to look attractive? Clasp unto your breast the shapeless sacks, the mustachioed mamas, and the angry androgynes of the world.

We'll take the ones who wear lipstick, skirts, and makeup...and who don't think it's "oppressive" to stay within 10 pounds of their ideal body weight.

gc--

"We'll take the ones who wear lipstick, skirts, and makeup..."

what makes you think that we'll even come near you, with your small prick and your 2-second f*cks? dang.... think again, punk-ass.

You know, it is very revealing that GC sees an ideology that preaches that women shouldn't be *reduced* to their appearance as one that dictates that women should make themselves unattractive to all men.

Feminism argued that women should be judged in the professional realm according to the same standards as men, and that how ornamental they are should not be a component. Think about it -- a man can go make a professional presentation without wondering what people will think about the size of the bulge of his pants. He can be skinny, or fat, and still be judged according to what he has to say. A man doesn't have to be freshly coiffed before he speaks to a large group, he just has to look neat and presentable.

These are all priveleges that were hard won, GC. That's what Naomi Wolf writes about -- that female rhodes scholars had to be just as accomplished as the men, but then they also were prepped on how to be properly ornamental as well.

Fair is fair. If you want to enforce the norm that women have to be pretty to advance professionally, you should accept a similar rule yourself ;)

desinar

(what makes you think that we'll even come near you, with your small prick and your 2-second f*cks? dang.... think again, punk-ass)

Yuck. What a nasty misandrist mind you have.

*epiphany*

i get it!

desinar is gc's ex-! that's how she has carnal knowledge of him! (since she comments so expertly on his...shortcomings.)

;)

Punjabi Boy-- thanks :)

EOFIA-- "shortcomings..." i like how you put that!

desinar

It wasnt a compliment, please dont be proud of your degeneracy.

desinar is gc's ex

sorry, no...I only date women without noticeable drool marks around their chin. judging from her* diction, desinar's still struggling with the challenging task of disembarking the short bus. Did the aide leave her unattended at the keyboard again?

*- or should I say "its"? you never know with these LGBTQ "fellas" ;)

ennis:

That's what Naomi Wolf writes about -- that female rhodes scholars had to be just as accomplished as the men, but then they also were prepped on how to be properly ornamental as well.

Uh, no. Naomi Wolf is not writing high minded defenses of equity feminism. (In case you didn't notice, those battles were won sometime in between the advent of the miniskirt and the first majority female class at Harvard Medical School.)

No, Naomi Wolf is going to bat for the right of women to scarf down Hungry Man dinners like no tomorrow!

Naomi Wolf (1991) has a similar explanation of the origin of eating disorders in her bestseller The Beauty Myth. She states: "a cultural fixation on female thinness is not an obsession about female beauty but an obsession about female obedience" (Wolf, 187). Women who remain thin are being obedient; it is another way for patriarchy to control women. "If women cannot eat the same food as men, we cannot experience equal status in the community" (Wolf, 189)...

That's not exactly equal pay for equal work. She wants equal BMI for equal Big Macs, estrogen & testosterone be damned! Why...it's like she's protesting metabolism itself.

Next up: gravity!

gc's ex? hell no... everyone, i'm his mom. i saw the little prick gc was born with (what a disgusting sight!). feeling sorry for this thing, the dr. did the measurement thing... it ended up being below the standard penis-size that make babies male, but he felt sorry for the organism and placed the "male" gender on it. gc's been coping with his inadequacies ever since. hence, his sorry-ass self exists pathetically in this world.

PB:

"It wasnt a compliment, please dont be proud of your degeneracy."

I'm proud of my degeneracy. Thanks!

Please, everyone. A little maturity all around wouldn't hurt. This is like sticks and stones stuff now. Surely there are more important issues?

C'mon Abhi, we're South Asians, we're supposed to argue about petty things :-p

*ducks and covers*

oh, come now...if desinar had a scintillating, wicked wit and were more clever with her fire, would you really mind as much Abhi? ;~)

Note: Commercial, profane, or abusive comments may be deleted.
Unless they're viciously funny. It's all good then.

guess whose blog THAT is from? i like to use it as a general principle when commenting on blogs. :~D

if desinar had a scintillating, wicked wit and were more clever with her fire

Yeah, seriously. I mean, I respect ennis, abhi, etc. even when I disagree with them b/c at least they can write passably well. And so long as my interlocutor can craft a fine comeback or two, a flamewar is all in good fun & an entertaining way to while away time while my processes run. But jeez...desinar's just *stupid*.

It's as if the director of Intolerable Cruelty had cast George Clooney alongside a deaf, blind mute. All his best lines would be wasted because his witty repartee would be met with either a dumb stare or an inarticulate gurgle of incomprehension.

but anyway...

I did want to comment on this point of Ennis', which I missed initially:

He can be skinny, or fat, and still be judged according to what he has to say

Gotta disagree. Physical attributes - particularly height and athleticism - are key for male advancement in the business world. Yes, there are a few Napoleons, but they are the exception rather than the rule. You should google "height income"...as I recall there's a study that shows that each extra inch of height is (statistically) worth several thousand dollars of income.

But you don't see feminists complaining about heightism...b/c they're blind to the fact that there's also a caste system within males. The alpha-males that they bash so much are the only ones they actually want to hook up with. What heterosexual fem studies PhD wants to date a short guy, a high school dropout or a functional illiterate?

The point is that you're never going to have a situation where men aren't judging women - at least in part - on their physical attractiveness. Similarly, you're never going to have a situation where women aren't judging men on their ambition and accomplishment. Since when are losers without money or degrees considered catches?

That's just biology talking. The feminists don't have the courage of their convictions: they attack male preferences for neoteny, passable waist:hip ratios, etc....while maintaining their *own* preferences for hard charging alphas. Case in point:

Steinem, the co-founder of Ms. magazine, married South African-born entrepreneur David Bale, 61, in rural Oklahoma on Sunday.

Another case in point, w/ some killer quotes:

“I think women earning more than men can be devastating to relationships unless the guy is doing something the wife regards as having cachet, such as academia,” says Betsy, even though she still speaks fondly of her ex-husband and sends him the occasional check...

My husband had a very strong identity and was successful in his life,” Corcoran explains. “Thank God for that. There’s no way I can control him. I wouldn’t stay married to him if I felt I could. I can readily take my business personality into the home. But he forces me to be a partner rather than the boss. It’s what keeps our marriage healthy. He won’t give me an inch of satisfaction. He won’t acknowledge my superiority.”

When Emily comes home, she doesn’t always want to be the boss. But she says her husband no longer has the authority to take over. “I want somebody to take that power role away from me,” she explains. “Ultimately, it gets down to pretty basic stuff. It’s hard to be the power broker every day and then be the femme fatale. I’m not going to pay the bills—I feel like his mother—and then come home and suck his..."

Bottom line: women do not want to earn as much as their spouses. They will not respect them if they do. This never seems to be taken into account, but why should guys be the only ones enjoined to reprogram their biology? How can normal guys repudiate their *biological preference* for neotenous, slim, good looking women when the feminists - as committed to Lysenkoism as can be - can't even fight *their* biological urges for a broad shouldered provider?

Let me tell you this: when feminists are hooking up with hobos and special ed students rather than the entrepreneurial alpha-males ("South African entrepreneur!") they pretend to detest, maybe then I'll take them seriously. But I think that'll be a long time coming...

GC wrote:
"alpha-males ("South African entrepreneur!") "

you're just jealous because you aren't fine, south african-born, nor an entrepreneur, and your a f**king loser... Yeah for Gloria, she scored!

Note: Commercial, profane, or abusive comments may be deleted.
Unless they're viciously funny. It's all good then.

Good! I'm glad you all are enjoying this as much as I am!

GC: How important are height, musclarity, rugged features, and a full head of hair in your field? Do you spend 2 hours a day working out because your looks are critical to your career advancement prospects? I know women who do, but far fewer men (even on wall street).

Does anybody ever make cracks about your secondary sexual characteristics in a professional or semi-professional environment?

Do you think that women receive the same treatment? (Ask some if you haven't).

I'm just irritated about how the post is primarily about how Govindini is a 'hawt & sexee libertarian desi chick" rather than female desi libertarian. Really, you wouldn't be profiling Ms. Murty if she looked like the "angry granola girl" and had libertarian politics, no? On the other hand, if you were profiling a desi male libertarian you wouldn't be going on about how he looked like Shah Rukh Khan even if he happened to appear so. Just give us the hawt and sexee photos of Govindini if that's all you care about.

Uh, actually, most of the post is about how she's a female desi libertarian and context on just how unique that actually is. The fact that she's "hawt" is a very pleasant surprise - esp. given practically negligible female membership at this little corner of the political spectrum.

Pointing that out in no way detracts from my admiration of her politics and what she's doing. Hell, if any desi were involved with a libertarian film festival, it would be SM-blog-worthy. If Shah Rukh Khan or Aishwarya came out in support of Kerry, you don't think Saki would've made at least some hay of it?

Still, it's interesting that quoting a joke calling the far left "granola" (a moniker many eagerly adopt for themselves) & "angry" generated far more bile than derisively calling Libertarians a "Star Trek convention" or Republicans a "country club". Jokes about RedState Rednecks are fine, I guess, as long as you don't make fun of the PC left.

Govindini was featured on MSNBC's Scarborough Country last week. While I probably share most of her views politically, she did tend to interrupt other panelists. But, that could also be due to having four other panelists, plus the host. Plus, it is hardly a surprise that Hollywood is leans left, but they cannot seem to put much into effect. The only time celebrity makes a difference in an election is when the candidate is from show business, like Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood - all of whom ran as Republicans (of the more liberal California variety). But if all the celebrity is doing is campaigning for someone else, it does not seem to make that much of a difference.

Vinod, didn't you know a picture is worth a thousand words? Too bad there aren't more of them.
Only a little more than of your original post is about Govindini being a desi female libertarian, with the most generous reading including that random quote from her movie review (which takes nearly a hundred words). You don't even mention her name til halfway through.

You spend a little under half the post with some bizzare 3 bears political-hotness spectrum thing going,and that part is frontloaded, which is odd, if you were really interested in the libertarian angle. Only 119 words of your post have anything to do with Govindini being political at all.

Word count analysis aside, her looks and politics are irrelevant if her movie sucks. Good-looking, opinionated yet talentless people should not be forgiven for making crap films. (Boom anyone?)

Vinod, you mentioned in a comment that it's interesting that people get offended when joking about the PC left. And this is from your original post:

He argued that the average attractive & approachable gal on campus was a soft lefty. She'd advocate things like national healthcare out of a semi-fashionable, prima facie concern for her fellow human beings. Of course, she felt this concern naturally extended into politics & was blind to the economic logic.

Angry, granola gals oppressed by the patriarchy often filled out the far left, weren't exactly the most dateable & he avoided them like the plague. Being famously politically incorrect, he'd remark that these gals were "either angry cuz men always treated them like sexual objects or angry cuz men never treated them like sexual objects." I'll reserve my comments.

Yes, I took offense to the original post, and it's not just about calling the left "granola". Good for you that you found a desi libertarian to post about, but you do MUCH more than that.

Your "soft lefty" comments about women who really know nothing about health care issues but who advocate for national health reform are offensive. The CATO Institute, which you link to, has a very different, but not necessarily BETTER economic logic than a lot of more progressive think tanks. I believe strongly in health care reform and universal health care of various approaches, and have a very strong economic logic to back it up, and am not a SOFTY lefty. "Hard" and "soft" are such bullshit terms used by conservatives to fend off real critiques and discussion of their theories.

In addition, the link to the jagjit white castle picture is offensive for the Nth time. I don't know how many places that stupid picture has been advertised, including the mahoot media site and their emails, but it's a really lame response to some good discussion that occured around the Harold and Kumar movie.

I'm not sure what Sepia Mutiny is supposed to mean, and how bringing up jagjit's mock ad or the fallacy of soft lefties is supposed to work with that, but i'd rather see a discussion of libertarian issues framed a bit less disparagingly. And yes, making fun of college republicans as country club goers is also poking fun, but not to the extent that you intend to about others.

It's also hard to make good libertarian entertainment. Movies are about sentiment and schmaltz, libertarianism has little room for either.

Ennis - There is certainly room for a Libertarian ethos in entertainment. BUT, where it parts ways with Hollywood is that such material is usually along the lines of an almost Ayn Rand-ish ideal. Stuff like the heroic, and yet everyday individual striving for stuff like constructive enterprise, non-violent cooperation, economic gain, faith in the market, etc.

Alas, there's a pretty all-pervasive cynicism in Hollywood towards almost all of these themes. When the market is mentioned, it's always about its failure and eeeeevil big businesses. When someone's trying to build something, it's usually an eeeevil Developer or polluting industrialist. Money is an almost prima facie evil force. Comic books aside, Hollywood prefers heros who buck the market and Fight the Power rather than exercise the Libertarian brand of it....

For ex., a nearly "classic" libertarian-themed movie of recent times is "Dead Poet's Society." It's clearly entertaining, sentimental, and has a dose of schmaltz.

How important are height, musclarity, rugged features, and a full head of hair in your field?

In my area of science there are fairly few women, and even fewer attractive women. But science is atypical. In the world of work, obviously physical features are tremendously important for men. You aren't going to find too many CEOs under 5'10, for example. You've seen the height-income studies (unless you want me to link them).

Do you spend 2 hours a day working out because your looks are critical to your career advancement prospects? I know women who do

Hey, I spend 12 hours a day WORKING because my career is critical to my hookup prospects. If I didn't have the job and degrees that I do, it'd be tougher for me. That's not true for women, who can kick back and take it easy if they marry the right guy. Unfair? Nah, it's how the world works.

Point: this street goes both ways. I can't exactly shed tears for the women who have to look good at work for the benefit of shallow men, because for every woman doing that there's a guy working hard to get enough money to impress fickle women! Even the granola leftists on this thread aren't going to hook up with illiterates or guys w/o ambition.

As for me, I work out consistently b/c I want to stay in shape. No one needs to exercise "2 hours a day" unless you're a pro-athlete, so that strikes me as a straw man.

Besides, you're just not going to be able to eliminate the fact that men *will* treat women differently based on their appearance. That can work to their benefit as well as their advantage - there is a reason that many successful sales reps tend to be attractive women.

Fundamentally your "ideal of equality" is based upon an idea of fairness that is antithetical to human nature. If we were all sexless androgynes, then we could entirely divorce the world of work from the world of sex.

I should also point out that intelligence, like looks, is strongly genetically influenced. I don't particularly see why it should be more laudatory to esteem someone for one genetically influenced attribute rather than another. If a hot saleswoman uses her looks to bring in more revenue than a frumpy saleswoman of equal intelligence, I see nothing wrong with promoting hot one.

Anyway, I note finally that you avoided my original point: Naomi Wolf and the cultural Marxists like Anjali are *not* about equity feminism, but about a bizarro world in which women should be able to be as fat as they want without facing any social consequences.

gc wrote: "...a bizarro world in which women should be able to be as fat as they want without facing any social consequences."

there's nothing to say except that gc's a f***king loser! it's hilarious that he actually thinks this way, especially since his own mama's so fat.

gc, many angry leftist granolas aren't even attracted to men, so your economic exchange doesn't quite work! :)

Movies are about sentiment and schmaltz, libertarianism has little room for either.

I think the Incredibles had a subtextually Randian, libertarian message (bad guys = lawyers and regulators, good guys = family members working to realize their potential). [Note: I do not agree with Rand on most things, but Rand is certainly preferable to Marx.]

More generally, any movie which stomps on lefty taboos (like Team America, for instance, or many episodes of South Park & the Simpsons) can be funny.

Heck, this very thread has a few example of unfunny thought control leftists ripe for a libertarian puncturing. Case in point - Anjali:

the link to the jagjit white castle picture is offensive for the Nth time.

Ooooooh, it's "offensive"! If the Anjalites had their way, the only movie humor would be directed against rich straight white Christian Republican males (who happen to be considerably less than 50% of American society). As for the canonical one liner re: the number of feminists needed to change a light bulb, well...too hot for Hollywood.

Libertarians like Trey Parker and Matt Stone just don't care about such modern taboos, which are enforced by angry leftists with all the ferocity of religious ideologues. Had Anjali been born in India and raised in an RSS household, I have no doubt that she'd be going around with Bal Thackeray squawking about how Fire was "offensive" and shouldn't be shown in theaters.

Ooooooh, it's "offensive"

Heh... GC - you forgot to mention the "offense" of linking to a Cato report on health care economics. ;-)

As for the canonical one liner re: the number of feminists needed to change a light bulb, well...too hot for Hollywood.

wait...how many feminists does it take? i'm a feminist, and i've never heard this one... :)

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

that's hilarious.

i think the most hilarious thing is desi guys' "emasculated" asses feeling "offended" by sixteen candles and indiana jones! hahahha!

Q: How many libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. The lightbulb has to take personal responsibility! No hands up, no hands down and it can certainly screw and unscrew itself out of the socket!

She reminds me for some reason of Merle Oberon. Something about the hair and the sweep of the brow....

Merle Oberon has an interesting desi-type history, should you all care to google. Sepia mutineers, a Merle Oberon post would be mighty interesting. Anglo-Indian, she tried to hide it because you couldn't be open about these things and still star with Laurence Olivier in something as charming as the Divorce of Lady X.

And now back on topic, libertarians are lovely, and this one especially so.

the south asian "kill kal penn" sisters ARE humorless far leftists

that to the unshaved womyn on the far left

a HUGE number of them haven't really thought about politics and are just going with the flow all the brainwashing that starts during freshman orientation

The thoughtless universalism of the left

which is why so many of those soft lefties swing hard to reality (and thus the right) when they become parents

But if you think that Dworkin, Steinem, Friedan, or Eve Ensler have spewed anything other than cultural Marxist hate unmoored from reality

feminine idea of beauty is actually a function of patriarchy and anorexia, and how true feminists must reject the "beauty myth"

most women don't want to hook up with guys who are much dumber than them

Bottom line: you may have a particular reading of feminism that tosses out the feminist incitement to dress in a sack, eat like a whale, and act like a man.

South Asians are one of the best educated and most wealthy income groups in the US. This is why so many of us don't listen to professional angry ethnic leftist "activists" whose whole shtick is about how oppressed we are and how every white guy is fixing to commit a hate crime against us.

anjali, i agree. the women who equate physical fitness with patriarchal oppression *are* often intimidating...intimidatingly bulky.

So let's make a deal. Why don't you take all the women who're angered by the nerve of men who expect women to look attractive? Clasp unto your breast the shapeless sacks, the mustachioed mamas, and the angry androgynes of the world.

We'll take the ones who wear lipstick, skirts, and makeup...and who don't think it's "oppressive" to stay within 10 pounds of their ideal body weight.

you never know with these LGBTQ "fellas"

She wants equal BMI for equal Big Macs, estrogen & testosterone be damned! Why...it's like she's protesting metabolism itself.

I mean, I respect ennis, abhi, etc. even when I disagree with them b/c at least they can write passably well.

The alpha-males that they bash so much are the only ones they actually want to hook up with. What heterosexual fem studies PhD wants to date a short guy, a high school dropout or a functional illiterate?

Bottom line: women do not want to earn as much as their spouses. They will not respect them if they do.

when feminists are hooking up with hobos and special ed students rather than the entrepreneurial alpha-males ("South African entrepreneur!") they pretend to detest, maybe then I'll take them seriously

obviously physical features are tremendously important for men. You aren't going to find too many CEOs under 5'10, for example.

If I didn't have the job and degrees that I do, it'd be tougher for me. That's not true for women, who can kick back and take it easy if they marry the right guy

Even the granola leftists on this thread aren't going to hook up with illiterates or guys w/o ambition.

As for me, I work out consistently b/c I want to stay in shape. No one needs to exercise "2 hours a day" unless you're a pro-athlete, so that strikes me as a straw man.

Naomi Wolf and the cultural Marxists like Anjali are *not* about equity feminism, but about a bizarro world in which women should be able to be as fat as they want without facing any social consequences.

this very thread has a few example of unfunny thought control leftists ripe for a libertarian puncturing.

If the Anjalites had their way, the only movie humor would be directed against rich straight white Christian Republican males

enforced by angry leftists with all the ferocity of religious ideologues

Wow GC, why are you wasting your elite cognitive powers on
angry ethnic socialist communist granola activist leftist(liberal for short). You should be out there on TV or in the press and one day, dare I say you would be a...pundit! And who know you might even have an action figure.
I mean sure what you write often sounds like demagogic rhetoric often laced with racist and homophobic invective, but I think it's just that we are not at your cognitive level. *Sigh* I can still dream....

I was just thinking why stop the free market beliefs at economic policies, why not at all levels. Say for instance cars: get rid speed limits, seat belts, traffic signals, etc...my god think of efficiency. Why stop there what about sports? We don't referees do we? Get rid of the rules everything would end within 15mintues, no longer will I have to suffer the long games on tv because of stupid regulations....wow

What about police, we don't need them bothering people do we? All we need is guns and dogs, I'm sure that with everyone carrying guns around then no one would want to do anything wrong....

sluggo, while i appreciate the effort, you remind me of the special ed kids who spend *all day* coloring in the wrong section of their coloring books.

what exactly did that disjointed mumble about markets have to do with the topic of this thread?

well, didn't you just kind of illustrate the belligerence that vinod was alluding to?

And here I thought your elite cognitive powers would deciphered my dijointed mumbling, sorry to have gone off topic

whoa! Already time to color?

About mating choices:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/health/14men.html

Women in the study, which was financed in part by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them on the corporate ladder. And men did not show a preference when it came to the possibility of a one-night stand.

But when asked about long-term relationships, the men showed a marked preference for the subordinates as opposed to the bosses.

As to height, GC, you're looking at the one thing that a man can't change. My question was, to what extent are men judged professionally on the sexual characteristics that they can change, such as their muscularity. You flipped things around by saying that you work hard to raise your hookup prospects. I'm asking you whether your *professional* prospects depend on your muscularity -- it's a simple question.

More generally, do you think that a man's looks (those that he can control) play a bigger or smaller role in his professional advancement than a woman's looks (those she can control)?

Interesting... An Indian-American libertarian commentator - and a woman! This is perhaps the first time that I've come across someone like that. I would like to know more about her...

More generally, do you think that a man's looks (those that he can control) play a bigger or smaller role in his professional advancement than a woman's looks (those she can control)?

I think there's a fundamental asymmetry you're neglecting. If you poll men & women, women will consistently rate their family life to be more important than their career and vice versa.

In every society around the world, men with wealth trade their wealth and status to hook up with beautiful women. You don't find the converse happening - do you think Carly Fiorina would marry a male secretary, for example?

Just to put this on an empirical foundation:

Psychologists Elaine Hatfield and Russ Clark had actors (independently judged to be attractive) approach students of the opposite sex with a variety of lines and recorded their success rates. The lines were:

1) I've been noticing you around campus and I find you attractive. Would you go out with me tonight?

2) I've been noticing you around campus and I find you attractive. Would you come over to my apartment tonight?

3) I've been noticing you around campus and I find you attractive. Would you sleep with me tonight?

The success rates, as reported separately in two of my favorite popular science books, Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works and David Barash and Judith Lipton's Myth of Monogamy:

Will you go out
with me tonight? Will you come over to
my apartment tonight? Will you go to bed
with me tonight?
Male Respondents 50% 69% 75%
Female Respondents 50% 6% 0%

If table formatting is messed up, see here.

Your failure to include this behavioral asymmetry is the underlying flaw in your analysis. To boil it down (and oversimplify a bit):

1) Men have an easier time getting money (due to innately higher aggressiveness).

2) Women have an easier time getting sex (see above).

3) But men will trade money for sex, and women will trade sex for money. This is what marriage is all about :)

4) Thus complaints about the male advantage in acquiring resources must take into account the fact that the nontrivial advantage of males in acquiring resources due to higher aggressiveness is balanced by the fact that any reasonably attractive woman can have as much sex as she wants whenever she wants. Heck, it's more than balanced.

Judging from the above Hatfield & Clark study, a reasonably attractive woman could hook up with a hundred guys a year if all she was interested in was sex, whereas a reasonably attractive guy would be doing well to get 10. But a moderately competent male couldn't get 10 times the earnings of a moderately competent woman.

I'm confused as to why that's relevant to professional success. Perhaps, as you say, men need to earn money in order to get laid. Are you saying that this justifies judging women's professional performance by their physical attributes? Are you saying that women should be held back from competing with men professionally because men need the money more than women do in order to ensure their reproductive fitness? If men are more aggressive anyway, why do they need to handicap women?

My original questions remain:

* Is your professional success contingent upon your muscularity or other aspects of your physical attractiveness that you have control over?

* Do you believe that women's professional success is more dependent upon their physical attributes than that of men?

You're raising lots of other interesting points, but not addressing these.

Perhaps, as you say, men need to earn money in order to get laid. Are you saying that this justifies judging women's professional performance by their physical attributes?

What I'm saying is that it is impossible to wipe out the fact that women will be judged disproportionately on their appearance, and men will be judged disproportionately on their accumulated resources.

The point is that money & sex are not equally important *or* equally easy to get for the two sexes due to *biological predispositions*. Men are more aggressive and have higher libidos. Women are more cooperative and have higher nurturing instincts. These are mean differences that can and will play themselves out in the world of work.

Again, this is the key point. You insist on putting a Marxist frame on the issue (exploiter vs. exploited):

If men are more aggressive anyway, why do they need to handicap women?

But women handicap themselves when it comes to work through their lack of aggressiveness. Example:

Linda Babcock of Carnegie Mellon University finds that women may do worse than men even when they win a job, because they take a different approach to negotiation. Ms Babcock, who recounts her studies in a forthcoming book†, noticed that male graduates with a master's degree from her university earned starting salaries almost $4,000, or 7.6%, higher than female students. But when she asked who had simply accepted the initial pay offer and who had asked for more, only 7% of women, compared with 57% of men, turned out to have negotiated. On average, those who negotiated raised the initial offer by $4,053—almost exactly the difference between men's and women's starting pay. Ms Babcock felt some exasperation because, “I teach negotiation here, and I'm always telling students to negotiate.”

I ask you, is that the fault of men?

re: your questions...

1) Is your professional success contingent upon your muscularity or other aspects of your physical attractiveness that you have control over?

Of course it's a factor. Try coming to work unshaven, ungroomed, in t-shirt and shorts, etc. and watch how rapidly you're booted out of the building. Guys who have to wear suits to work every day at investment banks don't complain about "female gaze" or the "beauty myth". They do it b/c they know it makes them look better & more professional.

Also, the qualification you appended - "an aspect of appearance you have control over" is irrelevant. You're against the idea of women being judged on mutable *or* immutable characteristics related to their appearance at the workplace.

But whether the mostly immutable/innate variables are height or intelligence or looks or what have you, it *will* determine your success (albeit the weighting is different for different genders):

example 1:

Their findings: Men who were 28 inches or shorter at the end of their first year of life earned an average of $25,000 in their 50s. Those who were 31 inches or taller on their first birthday earned on average more than $36,000 in their fifth decade. The connection seemed to hold regardless of the baby's socioeconomic status at birth.

example 2:

It says 90 percent of company chief executives are above average height; job recruiters choose the taller man 72 percent of the time when choosing between men of comparable backgrounds and skills; promotions come faster to the taller man; women find taller men "significantly more attractive"; 18 out of the last 22 U.S. presidential elections were won by the taller man; and every extra inch in height brings a man an extra $600 per year in salary.

"We kind of feel that you can buy an $80 shoe and get $1,200 worth of a salary increase," Martin says with a smile, referring to the additional two inches many of his company's shoes guarantee. "There's no question that the taller you are, the more attention you get."

But one recent University of Florida study found that the salary gap between tall people and short people is much larger: about $789 a year in pay for every inch....

The research showed height was more important than gender in determining income and its importance does not diminish as a person ages. Plus, being tall may boost employees' self-confidence, helping them to be more successful and prompting others to give more status and respect to a tall person.

2) Do you believe that women's professional success is more dependent upon their physical attributes than that of men?

Sure, but that's true for better and for ill. Attractive women have an advantage over similarly attractive men in all kinds of one-on-one sales & service fields. You're framing this uniformly as a *disadvantage* for women, but it's not.

"Why...it's like she's protesting metabolism itself."

Well, what the modern feminist is typically after is doing away with the Yin and the Yang.

It is a protestation against genetics,
"The attributes of mothering and fathering are inherent parts of sex differentiation that paves the way to reproduction. This is where the sociology analogy so often drawn between race and sex breaks down in the most fundamental sense. Genetic assimilation is possible through interracial mating, and we can envisage a society that is color blind. But genetic assimilation of male and female is impossible, and no society will be sex-blind."
(American Sociological Review, Vol. 49, No.
1, Feb., 1984. Gender and Parenthood
Alice S. Rossi :10)

Why would anyone want a sex-blind society? Is having separate bathrooms or clothing deparatments for men and women "just like" having separate departments based on race? Is every Romance movie "just like" a movie promoting stereotype and discrimination?

I do not want a sex-blind society. I like feminine women and most women like to be feminine. Generally men desire women, women desire to be desired...as the Yin and the Yang are complementary patterns.

The modern feminist (who actually seems to be some sort of masculinist) often seems to be dealing with some type of personal gender identity disorder through their politics. For some, it's really just their own neuroses.

Why do all these people think that men and women are out there to exploit each other? why do we forget we are codependent and ont independent?
why do women have to be sexy in a low cut blouse to attract men? why do men have to be rich to attract women?