As if the foremost concern for contemporary feminism should be the failure to extend market principles to even more intimate aspects of life. Who gains from pinning reflective people into a situation where they need to acknowledge the benefits of fitness, beauty, and charm, in economic terms or be stigmatized as a naive, irrational, and un-analytical nincompoop? I think we can do better than the Wall Street Journal interpretation of love. "And erotic capital is not just about physical attractiveness. It also encompasses personality, charm, liveliness, social energy and the ability to make people feel at ease and want to know you... A study conducted in the mid-1990s on data from the U.S. and Canada found that attractive men earn 17% more than unattractive men, on average, but the "beauty premium" for women was just 12%. These findings, it should be noted, could not be attributed to differences in height or weight, which have their own independent impact on earnings." online.wsj/article/SB10001424053111904875404576530350876953890.html Here are some other ways of thinking about love. Obviously, it would be absurd to take any advice about love from me, but here are some of the texts that seem to know what they are talking about. mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3001.htm mesacc.edu/~davpy35701/text/plato-ladder.html via Jeff Markham bartleby/108/46/13.html via Kye Barker sydney.edu.au/contretemps/6January2006/brown.pdf (pg. 25-26) wscal.edu/blog/entry/3902
Posted on: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:32:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015