Ever thought about
04-07-2006, 12:37 PM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,985
Well, the correlation is that as women grow competitively in the workplace, they have inherently taken up less physical space. They've gone from being physically strong to being physically diminutive.
In response to this, men have been required to present the strength or the appearance of strength to continue to be viewed as masculine, and therefore more competent than smaller male competitors. They've gone from physically average for their frame size to a good bit above average.
In response to this, men have been required to present the strength or the appearance of strength to continue to be viewed as masculine, and therefore more competent than smaller male competitors. They've gone from physically average for their frame size to a good bit above average.
04-07-2006, 12:54 PM
#12
Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: VA
Posts: 2,532
Originally Posted by Sinful7' post='812602' date='Apr 7 2006, 12:37 PM
Well, the correlation is that as women grow competitively in the workplace, they have inherently taken up less physical space. They've gone from being physically strong to being physically diminutive.
In response to this, men have been required to present the strength or the appearance of strength to continue to be viewed as masculine, and therefore more competent than smaller male competitors. They've gone from physically average for their frame size to a good bit above average.
This phenomenon is so utterly complex that it could never be fairly summarized in just a few sentences. The various social and economic variables affecting physical stature in males and females could very well fill a book. Work habits, amount and use of leisure time, diet, genetics, social conventions, marketing influences, etc. etc. etc. Do the observed changes in physicality occur only in working women, or in those playing a more traditional role as homemaker as well? And why is it that so many top managers are weasely, scrawny twerps who ruthlessly excel in management as a way to compensate for their physical shortcomings?
04-07-2006, 06:55 PM
#15
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Amityville, New York
Posts: 12,288
Originally Posted by Sinful7' post='812589' date='Apr 7 2006, 12:06 PM
It appears as though while women are migrating to a more equitable role in the corporate work environment, they have become physically smaller. Men, by contrast, have become more muscular and physically larger.
its ok to have a few chins
04-08-2006, 10:02 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California
Posts: 22,465
Originally Posted by 1988RedT2' post='812597' date='Apr 7 2006, 09:55 AM
I understand Napoleon was a little fella. Hitler too, I think.
napoleon was so small he built HUGE monuments, like the arc de triumph, it celebrates some small french military "victory"
04-10-2006, 04:57 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California
Posts: 22,465
Originally Posted by Sinful7' post='812977' date='Apr 9 2006, 08:39 PM
I just thought it was interesting. BTW, I found an educational video on the subject but it's $275. I wonder if the library lends DVD's?
04-10-2006, 05:23 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,467
full figured women were considered attractive, goes back much further than the 1800s, lots of junk in the trunk and what have you
For some reason the ribcrackers of today are now the "attractive" ones. There is nothing more attractive than a woman that turns sideways and disappears. I wanna drive through LA, with a potato gun, shooting in-n-out burgers down the gullets of these skinny little bitches.
eat something and stop slammin dope!
For some reason the ribcrackers of today are now the "attractive" ones. There is nothing more attractive than a woman that turns sideways and disappears. I wanna drive through LA, with a potato gun, shooting in-n-out burgers down the gullets of these skinny little bitches.
eat something and stop slammin dope!