Slashdot Mirror


Are Women Getting More Beautiful?

FelxH writes "Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors. The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern." I just thought my standards were changing as I got older, but it turns out it's just science!

26 of 834 comments (clear)

  1. Each sex is defined by the needs of the other by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Women get more attractive. Men develop bigger wallets.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other by Deanalator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Female executives with no concept of work/life balance (living with cats) still get paid less than their male peers. Same thing for brown people, short people, and all sorts of minorities in the US (I am a tall white male that gets paid way more than my peers). The only way any of this will ever change is if companies start publishing payroll data publicly, or at least to their employees. Companies take advantage of the strange social stigma that it's somehow inappropriate to talk about salary with peers, and they use that to underpay as many of their employees as they can get away with.

    2. Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also a woman is seens as a risk. Yes, I know it's sexist and no employer will ever admit it because he could be dragged to court for it, but there is the "risk" that she will get pregnant and go on maternity leave. Depending on the country you're in, that could well mean not only that you are going to miss an experienced worker but also that she may even be entitled to getting her job back after being away 2-3 years. That in turn means that you would have to hire someone new, train him, then fire him after 2-3 years when he finally reached productivity level, only to rehire someone who has been out of the loop for 2-3 years and maybe has to be retrained.

      See why many companies refuse to hire women for any job but the ones that require the least training? And thus also usually have the lowest pay?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>Women's average earnings will stay lower than men's average earnings

      This is called lying with statistics. When you compare like-to-like, such as a female programmer with 20 years experience versus a male programmer with 20 years experience, you find the woman actually gets paid a few percent more. Given equal jobs with equal experience both sexes are treated basically equal.

      The reason why the *overall* average shows women getting less is because there are simply fewer women willing to do high-paid jobs like programming, or dangerous high-pay jobs like living on an oil rig.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Female executives with no concept of work/life balance (living with cats) still get paid less than their male peers.

      They make like 97 cents for every dollar that an equally qualified man makes. No, that's clearly not total parity but things are far closer than the whiners would have us believe.

      Same thing for brown people, short people, and all sorts of minorities in the US (I am a tall white male that gets paid way more than my peers).

      I'm a tall minority male. In every job I have ever held, I have made as much as if not more than my peers because I'm good at what I do and I know how much my work is worth.

      Companies take advantage of the strange social stigma that it's somehow inappropriate to talk about salary with peers, and they use that to underpay as many of their employees as they can get away with.

      Have you ever considered this... Companies will pay any employee as little as possible. Employees who know the value of their work and are willing to leave if they are not properly compensated are more likely to get paid what they're worth. Due to other societal factors, white men tend to be more bold or brazen in their desire to demand higher compensation so they are the ones who get it.

      I've been on interviews where they ask me for my requirements and I'm open and firm about what I need to make. Sometimes they come back with "Well, this position only pays $X", this isn't really to inform you. It's to test you. It's to find out if you will work for less. Stick to your guns. Be police, but firm that you need to make your figure. If you're the best candidate for the job, they'll hire you and pay you what you're worth.

      This isn't always the case during an economic downturn, but if you groom your expectations to match the current state of the job market you can still make it work for you.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  2. I'm dubious by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If more attractive parents have more daughters and if physical attractiveness is heritable, it logically follows that women over many generations gradually become more physically attractive on average than men.

    Except that the standard for "beauty" changes over time. I'm not sure I'm buying this.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  3. Re:As a male... by snspdaarf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a male, let me just say that it is sometimes good to be in the minority. The downside is that unless you are a dirty old man, there is no way to take advantage of the beautification of the female portion of the human race.

    Rich. Not dirty, rich.

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  4. The birth part is silly. by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anything the reasons a woman has a baby has nothing to do with her looks and everything to do with her sense of well being, security along with cultural beliefs. Women are plenty attractive enough to get some sort of a sex partner and I'm trying to identify a time when that has not been the case.

    In today's day and age, culture matters for birth more than looks. There are some women out there having nearly 10 children simply because they feel it is a christian thing to do. How does evolution account for that, unless it accounts for obvious social influences. On the opposite end of the scale, you have some green women who are deeply concerned that bringing too many children into the world might somehow compromise the planet.

    It's almost like environment plus culture need to be considered as a holistic system in order to really understand human evolution.

    --
    This is my sig.
  5. re: does it matter? by ed.han · · Score: 4, Insightful

    now that's a rejoinder that you could only find on slashdot...

  6. This thread is useless without pics by drater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This thread is useless without pics

  7. Eye of the Beholder, etc. by imgod2u · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They used old photographs in the study of people from past generations and their method of "objective" measurement of beauty were to have modern-day people judge them.

    It seems almost a foregone conclusion that people in modern times would find the women of modern times more attractive; standards of beauty change.

  8. Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Analog photoshup is an airbrush. Beer is more like chemical photoshop.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  9. DEFINE: Subjectivity by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Gee, more women appear to conform to modern standards of beauty, than at any time in the past!"

    Mid 19th century beauty can be deduced by portraiture. The pre-raphaelite stuff from Rosetti does a pretty good job of this:
    http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/s356.repro.jpg
    http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/s536.repro.jpg

    They'd have seen Jessica Simpson as a freakishly stretched elf - on the verge of starvation.

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They'd have seen Jessica Simpson as a freakishly stretched elf - on the verge of starvation.

      What do you mean, they would? Isn't that what people think about her right now?

    2. Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity by BPPG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Gee, more women appear to conform to modern standards of beauty, than at any time in the past!"

      Mid 19th century beauty can be deduced by portraiture. The pre-raphaelite stuff from Rosetti does a pretty good job of this:
      http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/s356.repro.jpg
      http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/s536.repro.jpg

      They'd have seen Jessica Simpson as a freakishly stretched elf - on the verge of starvation.

      I wish I had a mod point for you.

      We're talking about a lot of different cultures in lots of different times, I'm sure not many of the average men from each instance would find today's average American woman (The data used was gathered in the US) much more attractive. And of course, if the qualitative assessment of how beautiful a woman is is based on how many babies they make, I'm not sure if they could really agree anyways; I could call a girl a perfect ten, even if she turns out to be barren.

      I do find it odd, however, that the article states that today's men are supposedly as aesthetically pleasing as cavemen. This doesn't really fit with the argument they make in saying attractiveness tends to be hereditary. Smells a little too much like bullshit on the. Either that, or the scope of the study is too narrow. I'm failing at looking up any other real information about this study.

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
    3. Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity by divisionbyzero · · Score: 3, Insightful
    4. Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Generally speaking, men aren't selected on the basis of physical attractiveness. Women are generally selected based on replication value and have very little survival value. By contrast, men are generally selected based on survival value but have very little replication value.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    5. Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity by DrLang21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I see the exact opposite happening. I find the obsession today with straight, unfeminine, twig like bodies down right freakish and creepy. Today it seems like if a woman has nice curves, she is labeled as "fat". The concept of what makes a woman "fat" has become so blown out of reality that I can only assume that we have an entire nation that's slowly turning gay (not that there's anything wrong with that) as we prefer images of women that are more and more boyish.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    6. Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is attractive in a culture is usually tied to what is possible for high-status people to achieve.

      As obesity dominates the lower-classes, thinner body types will continue to define beauty. Working- and lower-class people in the US have diets dominated by heavy starches, red meat, high fructose corn syrup, and heavy food additives. The middle and upper classes, especially on the coasts, have diets dominated by fresh vegetables and seafood, and usually can afford the time and energy to go to the gym, etc. As long as body-types line up along class lines in that fashion, thin (and fit) will be in.

    7. Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity by Rupert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I discussed this with my wife the other day, after she'd been watching the Fashion Channel. The audience for catwalk fashion shows is buyers (mostly commercial) of clothing, and that audience is dominated by thin women and gay men. Whatever the models on the catwalk look like, it doesn't tell you anything about contemporary tastes of heterosexual men.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
  10. Re:As a male... by morcego · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is not only attractive women. What you are saying here is actually known as a social disease. Urban centers, overpopulation etc will have the effect of making woman want to have less kids. If you get those same woman and leave them on less populated places for a few years (6+), they will start wanting to have kids again.

    As a father, I can say this doesn't happen only to women. Having a child will actually completes you and make you happy. It is natural for men and women to want to have kids. All the other "career" bullshit (given as a reason for men/women not having kids) is a symptom of a social disease.

    --
    morcego
  11. Re:Wrong-o on the male-o by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except that has more to do with diet and nutrition.

    Either that or evolution happens *much* faster than I thought given that a single generation sees a 4" change reasonably often.

  12. Re:As a male... by Xerolooper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's true.

    What I don't understand is why evolution would self-select for prettier women, but not prettier men. A man who is ugly is not going to get any play or opportunity to pass his ugly genes to the next generation. Right? So then men should be becoming more attractive.

    The only reason I can think is that women are being honest when they say, "We don't care what the guy looks like."

    What you are noticing is the fact that men are "attractive" to women for different reasons than women are attractive to men.

    --
    "The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
  13. Re:As a male... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Having a child will actually completes you and make you happy."

    Hey, whatever floats your boat man...I've spent my entire life trying my BEST to avoid having the little 'milstones' around my neck. That's what contraception is for (and abortion if those still fail).

    I'm glad people like having kids, but, it just isn't right to say it "completes" you. I've never wanted any, and I feel very complete! I'm not tied down to kids and a wife, I can date as I please, trade to a new 'model' of woman when I feel like it, and I don't have to worry about what I spend my finances on, because little Suzy needs braces. I can come and go as I please, travel, experience life and all it has to offer.

    I don't look down on your for your choices, but, to say one must have that 'traditional' home with wife and kids to be a complete person is just plain nonsense. Different strokes for different folks...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  14. Re:As a male... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You experience all life has to offer? Really? You're experiencing a very limited subset of what life has to offer. Different strokes indeed, but don't delude yourself. You've traded one set of experiences for another.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  15. Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful


    If you soak her in warm salt water and scorch her in 100 degree heat for for a few hours and she still looks good in a bikini standing under the noonday sun

    Sounds like you're after a lobster, not a woman.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer