Topic: Do you still think beauty standards are eurocentric, and can you see this changing in the future?
June 17, 2019 / By Ammihud Question:
* images of
Excuse me if this may be seen as racist (that is not my intent at all), but doesn't it seem like the media is dominated by images and caucasian women? And doesn't it seem like European beauty standards seem to dominate? It seems like most people I know want lighter hair and eyes, and most people who are of non-white races that I know seem to do certain things, though it may not be their intent, to look more "westernized," which seems to mean white.
For example, I'm biracial, with my dad being Spanish and my mom being Korean. My relatives always say that I'm lucky to have such "big eyes" with a "double-eyelid," and I also get compliments on my nose and skin tone. For people who aren't of Asian descent, I'm lettting you know right now that Asian noses tend to be broader, with loser nose bridges, and they tend to have less defined tips. I apparently have a "pretty," more caucasian nose, and it's also apparently awesome I don't have overly tan skin.
Has anyone else noticed this? And do you think this will lessen as America gets closer to becoming a minority-majority? As random as it may sound, my race makes me feel uncomfortable. I always am asked "what are you?" which is kind of offensive, considering I'm human too, and I feel like I'm not conventionally attractive because I'm not European.
@Not so naughty me: Is that to say features of any other race aren't as attractive? And why would you feel that way? Objectively speaking, there's this scale of beauty called the Golden Ratio, and it's been shown to work well for attractive members of all races and ethnicities, making me believe this preference for Caucasian features is cultural.
@Not so naughty: Meh, I live in an area where 98% of the people are white and it seems I'm "exotic" which is another label I don't especially like.
@In a Silent Way: In Korea scientists measured the number of caucasian models in magazines and they constituted 56% of all models. That is a majority. In Brazil, most prime time television channels have caucasian characters with lighter skin and hair. Check out this blog and search "Eurocentric Beauty":
Most countries have eurocentric beauty standards, and in the media, most depict caucasian models. It doesn't seem to be a matter of preferring your own features.
@End_Lib: Yeah, that's due to the golden ratio and facial proportions, which can be applied regardless of race; however, we see an over-representation of caucasians in media in all countries. Yeah, infants do prefer certain features and certain measurements are seen as attractive, but it's been proven attractive Caucasians aren't more likely than attractive members of any other ethnic group to have measures close to these optimal proportions, making me think it's social conditioning.
Tirzah | 6 days ago
Nope. Quite the opposite. I think Asian mixtures are seen as more attractive and exotic than any European. In the Middle East they like blondes. In Asia they like non Asians. In the US they like Asian/Latina/Hally Berry... so, the grass is always greener on the other side.
I think that the beauty standards in this country has alot to do with the majority of the people in this country being white.
People tend to find their own to be the most attractive, or whatever is the most available to them to be attractive. For example if you are an Asian man which grew up around mostly Indians then you would likely find Indian standards of beauty to be more attractive.
You expecting white men to find other cultures beauty standards to be higher than their own is being completely unrealistic.
"Eurocentric". The majority of people in Western countries are of European descent so their preferences for beauty will reflect that. And it isn't the West's problem if other countries idolize European features. They should work on improving their own inferiority complex.
Contrary to popular indoctrination, beauty standards are quite objective. An infant a few weeks old stares longest at faces that our supposedly "trained" adults would rate as most beautiful.
As with so many other differences, some races average higher in beauty. This gives the mistaken impression that "beauty standards" are somehow "Eurocentric."
It really doesn't matter what the media say. Objectively Caucasian features really are generally beautiful. I have to agree that the question, "what are you" is highly offensive, but I never heard anyone ask a biracial that kind of question.
Originally Answered: How would this contribute to a sustainable future?
While it will not save a planet, it might help reestablish some scenic value to an area that might otherwise not be given a second thought. However, with that said, there are things that man has done that might actually create it's own beneficial habitats. Many decomissioned ships have been sunk to form artificial reefs. In a number of rivers in the US, where logging was performed up into the 1930's many times logs were floated downstream. While some claim there is no habitat created by sunken logs, that is not completely true. A sunken log can provide cover for baitfish, crayfish, and also a number of insects that have an aquatic larval stage. Not to mention it creates and eddies and wakes where larger fish might settle in and rest. Large rocks and boulders do the same things.
But I am sure you are meaning things more on the order of river cleanups of old tires and appliances, and while unsightly, they too create habitats, but all too often not habits that benefit desirable animals. Some other things, such as restoring prairie spaces, if done in a manner that is not detrimental to other uses or detrimental to other people, they can be a benefit in many ways.
Things such as removing Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) is a good thing because they are invasive, and do not provide a food source for anything, and they also tend to choke out other plants completely.
Now there are some programs that probably go too far, by trying to remove all traces of man in a region already altered by man is not entirely constructive. Animals are very adaptable, and abandoned human habitations provide shelter for many animals, most of the time it is actually aiding the predators and scavengers who lost habitat when man entered an area, and lose it again when the things that were left behind are also removed. And some try to take the idea even further than that.
Too much propaganda has muddied the waters of honest discussion and debate. So much so that the term "green" is virtually meaningless because everyone defines it differently.
In short, the world does not need "saving," because nature is a powerful force, it will deal with just about anything man can come up with. Yet this does not mean there are not larger threats to mankind than Buckthorn or tires in a river, for there are. Chief among them is GMO crops and ranching Cloned GMO herds for example.
There is more at risk to all life on this planet from the GMO crops contaminationg non-GMO crops and poisoning the food supply that I would accept tires or appliances in a river if it meant getting rid of ALL GMO crops. Codfish genes in a tomato? Yep- trade name is Flavr' Sav'r. Bacteria genes of Bacillus thuringensis, you can get it at a nursurey as "Dipel Dust." The difference being, if you apply it as directed, you are not consuming the bacillus as it is washed off the surface when you wash the vegetables, but BT genes spliced into GMO Corn? Soybeans? Cotton? And other food crops near you?- Yep. Anything touted as "BT" "Roundup Ready" or Glyphosphate tollerent" are GMO. And you can read up on how political gladhanding got these things approved without adequate testing. http://www.seedsofdeception.com
To read more about the risks there is also the book "Genetic Roulette" http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/G...
For the doubters, check out the articles here:
Just because there is a government stamp of approval on it does not make it safe. Consider all of the drugs recalled by the FDA over the past 40 years that were initialy deemed "Safe." If you want to save the world, you can direct your energies to the real threats of genetic contamination of your food crops.