Something someone said on Facebook caught my attention a few days ago. One of my social network peers was apparently offended by something someone on his network said about him, along the lines of "being nothing but just fair skinned".
To defend himself, my peer insisted on being "pretty" no matter what shade of skin he wears. It went on to raise other points, most of them arguing about his relative beauty against others. It was a superficial, petty quarrel that piqued my interest for its anthropological implications.
First: why is there a need to defend, and argue for, someone's beauty? Regardless if it's yours, or of someone you care about. An attack on one's physical attractiveness deserves no reply by my books. It's a ridiculous debate to determine who is beautiful and who is not because of a multitude of reasons, some of the ones I can throw from the top of my head are:
- Beauty is a social construct. What is "beautiful" for us "now" is a matter of what society grew to agree on as beautiful. What society agrees on is temporary, like territorial lines, and most moral systems. This means that you are "beautiful" only because most people "say" so TODAY, and RIGHT HERE. That doesn't make you "beautiful" THEN or FOR ETERNITY, and even for EVERYWHERE.
- Being pretty is a matter of genetic lottery. Bragging about your height, or your cheekbones, or your flawless skin, or your full lips is like being proud your father won a raffle draw. You absolutely HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. You are just a product of two sets of genes mixing together in your mother's womb, and coming out right for a particular here and now* (see argument above).
Also, what perplexed me with their online debacle is the issue it implies: What is the value of beauty?
Indeed, what is "being pretty" for?
I'm really baffled by the amount of money we throw to people who stood above the median height of the population, and the opportunities that we offer to people simply because they look foreign enough to be "uncommon".
"Being pretty" is pretty useless. You cannot create anything out of your cuteness. It is not creative, it is not productive, it is not useful to be pretty, or cute. You will achieve nothing out of your cuteness.
Even if you win the argument, and has indeed defended the honor of your physical attractiveness, in the end, you fought for something temporary and useless.
You cannot achieve any of your goals by looking pretty; unless you goal is to have a large set of options for mating purposes.
You do not become a better person just because you look good. What you DO is what makes you a good person.
You do not earn people's respect because you look hot. How you treat others is what will.
When you define yourself by how you look, you put limitations on yourself because you ignore what it is you CAN DO. By focusing on your physical attributes, you shortchange your potential. You are wasting your life by defining your life with your looks.
But then again, why should you care about what I think? You look good, and that's all that matters.
Sometimes (most of the time actually) we people claim physical beauty as if it is a bad thing. We often hear "maganda nga, matalino ba?" People go on extremes when it comes to this topic, there are people who glorify being pretty waaaay too much, which is the more common type, and then there are those who seem to condemn it, maybe because they get tired of the former. They're both wrong though.
ReplyDeleteI think beauty is just like other blessings we get, it's just like having an intelligent brain, or being strong and athletic, or an having innate sense in taste or a perfect eyesight. It's something to be thankful for, something to celebrate, and something that we can use to live a good life. it is a form of strength, and that is rock-hard undeniable as we can witness in the real world, but i should not be the only weapon in our arsenal. Beauty is not everything, but it is something. And though it is something, it is not everything. People only make it bad because they do not know where to put it on their priority ladders. That being said, it is not true that it's useless and you cant achieve anything out of it, because many people had, but I do agree on your point that you cannot get important things just with it alone, and yes, using it in arguments that do not even concern such aspect is just dumb.
No, Clay. You're wrong. You can't do anything with your physical beauty. Seriously. Name one good contribution to mankind that was created by someone's pretty face.
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCulture and arts are filled with physical beauty. It is not as significant as other dimensions like real talent and intelligence, but it still gives us something to hold on to one way or another. Though I admit that I cannot give a concrete example of a person that achieved things with beauty ALONE, there are many people who used their beauty added with many other assets. Like Princess Diana, the Kennedy's, Audrey Hepburn.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I do not even have to go to the lives of great people to prove that. You're well-written article says you cannot create anything out of beauty, and this, if I may, is a tragic generalization. tell that to the kids who helped pay the college fees through modeling, or the girl who got a confidence boost because her new hair cut got complimented. Or the burn victim who received a cosmetic surgery to make him "look better" again.
I assume your article does not pertain to a fixed, generic form of beauty, because it comes with different shapes and sizes, so we get to use them in different ways. But they're still physical beauty nonetheless. Like I said, you cant get anything out of it if it's your only asset, but the same principle also applies to charisma, intelligence or even hard work. It should just be a part of a greater army of strengths.
Heck, even a woman who got out of poverty because a foreigner found her common features as a form of "exotic beauty" used her looks in a beneficial way. Maybe it's not something you can totally be proud of, but it is obviously not useless.
re: "culture and arts filled with physical beauty".
ReplyDelete- That is silly. Art is evocative, art is sublime. Art is not beautiful. I'll take your position correct if you can tell me which of these are "physically beautiful": Peter Paul Rubens fat women, Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights, Warhol's Marilyn Diptych, Venus of Urbino, Piet Mondrian's Composition 10.
- The point here is that culture and the arts is not physically beautiful.
- The arts reflect what its age's notion of beauty is. Rubens painted curvy, voluptuous women because it is the standard of beauty in the time when it is a "privilege" to stuff one's face with food. Just like fashion magazines nowadays show mostly waif-thin walking coat hangers.
Re: "concrete example of a person that achieved things with beauty alone"
- That, my dear, is the point of the whole discussion. Of all the assets you may have in your possession, it's "beauty" that matters the least because you cannot achieve anything with it alone.
Re: "Kids who helped pay the college fees through modelling"
- I hope they got through college for studying. Also, some kids actually WORKED REAL JOBS to go through college.
Re: "the girl who got a confidence boost because her new hair cut got complimented"
- Whereas the rest of her is ignored? To put that much importance on a praised hair cut (vis-a-vis, a well applauded poem) is to miss the big picture.
Re: "The burn victim who received a cosmetic surgery to make him "look better" again.
- Think you are missing the point. This is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Find someone who can support your views on this, and I will take this seriously.
Re: Preceding examples
- AGAIN, you are missing the point. You cited examples where people who happen to fall within the standards of what is considered "beautiful" feel good about themselves for passing that socially constructed standard. You still have not cited an example where SOMETHING USEFUL is created out of beauty.
For your first argument, the one about art...
ReplyDeleteAll of the examples that you gave support my claim. See, beauty does encompass art. It may be of different forms, but they still hold physical beauty nonetheless. Your examples show that. Look at the curves, the anatomy, the faces. They're inspired by something or someone physically beautiful, maybe not by your standards, but beautiful nonetheless. You do not even have to go down the far hallmarks of history. Fashion editorials for example, show the power of beauty, and one cannot deny that they're art.
Also, about your idea that art reflects what age sees beauty as... that's something I totally agree, and trying to point out. Those pear-shaped women are what was beautiful during those ages, and they were used in art, the same way that a fashion model's physique is today's standard of beauty, and we use them for art. Each culture and era have a definition of their own brand of physical beauty afterall. Who knows, maybe in the far future, beauty means having three eyes or a patch of an animal's skin. That would still be physical beauty, and would still be used for art. So beauty is not COMPLETELY useless.
About achieving beauty...
You said your whole point of your post is congruent with mine, which is about the idea that you cannot achieve things with beauty ALONE. Weird though, because when you wrote "You cannot create anything out of your cuteness," "You will achieve nothing out of your cuteness," and "You cannot achieve any of your goals by looking pretty," it seems that you made it clear that beauty can never be used even in the smallest role possible, as oppose to your reply that "Of all the assets you may have in your possession, it's "beauty" that matters the least because you cannot achieve anything with it ALONE." The latter seems to give a very small, but present credit to beauty now somehow, even though it's the weakest link of all the assets. See, contradicting.
About kids who paid college fees through modelling...
ReplyDelete"Also, some kids actually WORKED REAL JOBS to go through college." True, but does that change the fact that kids who got paid for their looks USED their appearance for something productive and helped them or their parents? It doesnt. And finishing their degrees is another discussion, though I have confidence that their capability to finish their education varies just as much as those with "real jobs."
About the girl with new hair...
Sure, maybe the rest of her is ignored, the big picture just became a blurred background. But was the beauty of a new haircut completely USELESS? It doesn't seem so. She still got something out of it. Maybe not very essential, but still something.
About the cosmetic surgery...
Dude, I work in the medical field. You dont have any idea how many people have their lives made better by constructive surgery or by aesthetic prostheses. It's like giving a depressed teenager a good make over to start a new life (see, another example baby!), only probably 80x more serious.
About not giving an example...
Sorry, I thought you got my point when I said I cannot cite useful things that was made by beauty ALONE, but I named things that was created by beauty along with other things (like the ones about art). I thought you grasped that my answer were scattered along the paragraphs my answer. Another example is in job applications or corporate ladders. Studies have shown that the way you look do affect your chances of being hired or favored upon (those are researches, with numbers and facts, not just opinions). And yes, you'll probably point out that their criteria for who would do well on a job or a position is wrong because it should be about skills and personality and other stuff. Boy, I do agree. But the world is sometimes shallow, and things like that happen. A simple reminder from reality that remind you that looks may be misused, but it is not completely USELESS. Take Ambercrombie and Fitch for example, where they hire gorgeous store greeters or store models. Seriously, the have looks as the major standard. You can get fiored from that job simply by gaining flab. Those darn, corporate moguls who feed off from people's insecurties! Superficial right? And the jobs that those greeters have is nothing compared to the researchers, and bankers, and engineers of the world, you might say. I agree. All they do is stand pretty and shirtless and assist you with something almost everybody can do. But are their abs, and perfect skin, and pretty smiles useless? based on their paychecks (for the rent and the bills) and the perks (traveling the world for free) they get, it's not.
I totally get your point. That beauty should not be the most upheld aspect of a person. Like I mentioned before, it becomes bad because people cannot prioritize it well. Man, I do get annoyed at guys who seem to have working out and sculpting their bodies to be their most important goal and purpose. Whatever happened to attitude, intellect, substance, right? But I am having this debate with you because what you have there, my friend, is generalization, which is a logical fallacy at its best. Saying beauty is useless and cannot give you ANYTHING is like saying intelligence will guarantee you a financially wealthy life, or being good at sports is only for stupid people, or all children like video games, or all appetizers are soup. That is basically what I am fighting for here. Also, you have this thing about being inconsistent. Some of your replies actually support my point, which I already shed light on in my first comment.
Peace out!