In Which I Continue to be Annoyed with Psychology Today

Previously, I mentioned my annoyance towards Psychology Today.

Today, I remain annoyed with Psychology Today, but for entirely new reasons.

Psychology Today has most recently taken it upon themselves to enlighten we dullards about the concept of beauty.

The magazine astutely points out that men like hot chicks. Apparently those who thought men didn’t like hot chicks were wrong!

While we wish things were different, we’d best accept the ugly reality: No man will turn his head to ogle a woman because she looks like the type to buy a turkey sandwich for a homeless man or read to the blind.

In an interesting study, Amy Alkon goes on and on about the subject of beauty. Hey folks! Men like fertile women, so you know, like young women with big eyes, clear skin, and child bearing hips. So if you want to get laid (and be worth anything in our society) then you better get some fucking eyeliner and a belt to accentuate your waist!

But looks matter a great deal. The more attractive the woman is, the wider her pool of romantic partners and range of opportunities in her work and day-to-day life. We all know this, and numerous studies confirm it—it’s just heresy to say so.

What if you don’t give a shit about men? Well, too bad, still. Even though you are clearly a hairy feminist, you will still suffer the harsh reality of never getting a job or, frankly, the respect of other human beings.

Last, even if you have a boyfriend, apparently you should still be worried!!!!! (He will probably leave you for someone hotter.)

A woman needs to come up with a workable routine for maintaining her looks throughout her lifetime and avoid rationalizing slacking off— while she’s seeking a man and after she has one. Yeah, you might have to put five or ten extra minutes into prettying up just to hang around the house. And, sure, you might be more “comfortable” in big sloppy sweats, but how “comfortable” will you be if he leaves you for a woman who cares enough to look hot for him?

In any case, you can read the article and decide its worth for yourself. As for me, here is a functional list of bullet points as to why I find this infuriating enough to blog about:

  • NO FUCKING SHIT ASSHOLE. People are attracted to “attractive” people. You really needed a field of “science” to figure that out?
  • The tone of it is more appropriate for Cosmopolitan, with it’s condescending conclusions. Really, Psychology Today? I guess you just won’t be happy until you join the crowd of marketing trash aimed at making women feel like worthless pieces of shit.
  • The whole thing about “why don’t you just fucking take five minutes and put on some goddamn eyeliner” bit upsets me as well. Honestly, I do fucking love sweats, and so fuck you. I don’t want to be with a man who can’t appreciate me for anything except how I look. In my estimation, if I am with a man who can’t stand to see me without makeup and skanky clothes, then I am not with a great man. I am probably with a shallow asshole. Instead, I prefer the company of men who are, you know, genuine human beings who understand women have personalities and aren’t just fucking walking sex dolls. If “my man leaves” because I am thinking about other things than makeup, then honestly, good riddance.
  • This article can go to hell. I understand that she concludes with some bullshit remark about, “just put on a little makeup and make an effort, but don’t go overboard” but it’s still obnoxious shit that continues to perpetuate something all women are already hyper-sensitive and self-conscious about to begin with. This article does not enlighten anyone or shed light on any relevant issues that women might have been previously uninformed about. Instead it just re-instills a previously existing anxiety in women to be valuable to men before they consider being valuable to themselves. FUCK THAT NOISE.
  • Last, fuck this article in the fucking butt, because the woman who wrote it looks like this:


4 thoughts on “In Which I Continue to be Annoyed with Psychology Today

  1. You probably just didn’t understand it because it’s based on a scientific study and women don’t really get science unless it’s for cooking.

  2. There are some points that Amy overlooks.

    It’s true that good looks are notably more important for women with respect to romantic and sexual processes, but sex differences might not be as apparent elsewhere.

    e.g. Judith Langlois’s 2000 meta-analysis.
    This paper by hamermesh and biddle:

    Some of their specifics are incorrect, too. Symmetry plays little and or no role in women’s facial attractiveness. See Weeden and Sabini 2005, Psychological Bulletin.

    Males may prefer hour glass figures in most cultures, but not necessarily all cultures.

    Tovée MJ, Swami V, Furnham A, Mangalparsad R. Changing perceptions of attractiveness as observers are exposed to a different culture. Evolution and Human Behavior 2006, 27(6), 443-456.

    Yu & Shepard. Nature. Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder? 1998.

    One study found that sort of figure didn’t predict the performance of porn actresses in moving stimuli.

    Voracek, M. & Fisher, M. (2006). Success is all in the measures: Androgenousness, curvaceousness, and starring frequencies in adult media actresses. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 297-304.

    Also, attractiveness is important for children of both sexes. See Langlois 2000, Psychological Bulletin, Maxims or Myths About Beauty. That would seem to be at odds with the idea that Akon espouses about good looks being about males’ gaze.

    Finally, many people of both sexes report prosocial personality traits to have a really important impact on mate choice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s