{"id":147,"date":"2005-11-03T16:25:09","date_gmt":"2005-11-03T20:25:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/2005\/11\/03\/cover-girl-what-does-she-want\/"},"modified":"2007-02-16T00:36:24","modified_gmt":"2007-02-16T04:36:24","slug":"cover-girl-what-does-she-want","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/2005\/11\/03\/cover-girl-what-does-she-want\/","title":{"rendered":"Cover Girl: what does she want?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name=\"a2255\"><\/a>  It&#8217;s amazing how the popular media take a fairly common-sense &#8212; even dry &#8212; scientific finding and succeed in sensationalising it into some kind of alleged truism that reveals the eternal (read: biologically immutable) &#8220;nature&#8221; of the male-female relationship.  Yesterday, slumming on google news (I was avoiding real work), I noticed a <em>Daily Mail<\/em> article about the effect of oestrogen on women&#8217;s facial appearance.  While the <em>Daily Mail<\/em> perhaps isn&#8217;t an outright member of <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Yellow_press\">the yellow press<\/a>, it sure seems to be part of &#8220;media bias.&#8221;  Titled <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/pages\/live\/femail\/article.html?in_article_id=367332&amp;in_page_id=1879&amp;in_a_source=\">How make-up masks that feminine glow<\/a>, the article begins with the thrilling observation that putting on make-up <em>&#8220;is the most important part of a woman&#8217;s day.&#8221;<\/em>  It&#8217;s a sentence obviously designed to get every woman&#8217;s attention, either because she finds it outrageous or because she wants to confirm that she is indeed doing what&#8217;s important at the most important time in the most important manner etc etc <em>ad nauseum<\/em>.  It&#8217;s designed to get men&#8217;s attention, too, because, yee-haw, with a statement like that, there&#8217;s bound to be a <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Catfight\">cat-fight<\/a>, no?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>Make-up, scientists believe, interferes with the most basic and instinctive lines of communication between male and female.<\/p>\n<p>It masks the natural feminine glow which, through centuries of evolution, has been the signal to a man that a woman is fertile. <\/em>  [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/pages\/live\/femail\/article.html?in_article_id=367332&amp;in_page_id=1879&amp;in_a_source=\">More&#8230;<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The statement that &#8220;scientists believe&#8221; is already ridiculous because it is certainly not the job of the scientist <em>to believe<\/em>.  Observe, maybe.  Conclude, perhaps.  But let&#8217;s leave belief out of things.  However, by using a word like &#8220;belief,&#8221; the author (a woman, BTW) signals a clear trajectory: we are in the realm of the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fitzwimarc.org.uk\/glossary\/n.htm\">numinous<\/a> here, where scepticism is suspended, and awe in face of the sex-drive&#8217;s mighty and mysterious workings is idolised.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.rxpgnews.com\/specialtopics\/evolution\/article_2773.shtml\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"288\" height=\"184\" border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/www.rxpgnews.com\/artman\/uploads\/biology_of_beauty_hi_and_lo_oestrogen_small.jpg\" \/><\/a><br \/>\nSo what if scientists have observed, via a carefully crafted photographic test (whose results in turn are hardly carved in stone, given the subjective nature of responses), that a woman is (slightly?, marginally?) more attractive to a sexually active male when she is ovulating than when she isn&#8217;t?  And who cares if it turns out that make-up literally &#8220;masks&#8221; that effect?  Isn&#8217;t that the whole point of make-up &#8212; to mask?  See this more scientifically written article, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.rxpgnews.com\/specialtopics\/evolution\/article_2773.shtml\">Oestrogen Levels Translate Into Facial Attractiveness<\/a>, for a slightly less sensationalising account.<\/p>\n<p>Oh, what does Media want?  Oh, what does Science <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/entrez\/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&amp;db=PubMed&amp;list_uids=2793321&amp;dopt=Abstract\">want<\/a>?<\/p>\n<p>Well, science wants to observe and parse findings.  Media wants to sell us a pile of crock.  Humans have distinguished themselves from most other mammals for millenia precisely because they alter their appearance, as part of their cultural definition.  Whether through body-painting, scarification, piercing, various cuttings-away of body parts, corsets, plucking of hair, growth of hair, plaiting of hair, painting of hands, colouring of eyelids, rouging of cheeks &#8212; it&#8217;s all part of a cultural game.  It has a sexual component insofar as we&#8217;re always fooling with kinship relations and scoping out nature for this or that advantage or ruse over the mere facts of biology.  But that&#8217;s the fun of being human, for heaven&#8217;s sake!<\/p>\n<p>I don&#8217;t know of a single woman who thinks, &#8220;Ooh, I&#8217;m ovulating and looking to get pregnant, so I&#8217;m going to attract some hunk of a humanoid ape in the jungle out there by putting on my foundation, powder, rouge, and mascara.&#8221;  No, she thinks, &#8220;hey, I&#8217;m in fine fooling and maybe I want to have sex, too &#8212; and maybe I just want to fool around.  Let&#8217;s try <strong>this costume<\/strong> on for size &#8212; pass the powder, baby!&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Masquerade is fun.  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/exec\/obidos\/tg\/detail\/-\/B00005NGNE\/103-5322101-4948623?v=glance\">Girls just wanna have fun<\/a>.  Women, too, Siegmund.<\/p>\n<p><em>Daily Mail<\/em>, get over yourself.  And Tarzan?  Go home.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It&#8217;s amazing how the popular media take a fairly common-sense &#8212; even dry &#8212; scientific finding and succeed in sensationalising it into some kind of alleged truism that reveals the eternal (read: biologically immutable) &#8220;nature&#8221; of the male-female relationship. Yesterday, slumming on google news (I was avoiding real work), I noticed a Daily Mail article [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":311,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[600],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-yulelogstories"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/311"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}