Her eyes and mouth are slightly wider than a relaxed expression, so there’s visible tension. In video it could be cute, like she might just be happy, but if you freeze just that one moment then her expression is ambiguous. Either she’s talking and smiling enthusiastically, or she’s about to eat you enthusiastically, or more realistically she’s afraid and trying to hide it. Add the creepy text and you’re primed to interpret the expression negatively.
Right, but nobody except grammar nazis and the sith deal in absolutes like that.
Obviously the signifiers have a level of stability otherwise nobody would understand any of it.
This is yet another way in which language and gender are analogous.
Words are objects in a sense, although they are abstract, but there is no singular objective language in the same way that there is no objective gender. Both are intersubjective, they are interactions negotiated between subjects. There is no fixed object that you can point to and call “language” independent of a subjective experience of that language.
And your argument could be applied to expressions of gender. A feminine dress is an object, and a beard is an object. These are gender signifiers, but that doesn’t make gender itself objective in any way. The analogy to language is very close. They are both sets of signifiers.
It does change all the time, and dictionaries don’t ensure any kind of standard. The linguists who write dictionaries will tell you that their only function is to describe the most popular parts of the language, not to prescribe any particular rules. Telling people how they should speak doesn’t actually work.
I could say the phrase “abso-fucking-lutely” and you understand it, even though it’s not in the dictionary. That’s still language, it’s still English.
And I don’t know what you mean by a “‘hard’ contradiction” or why that matters. My point is that both language and gender are forms of communication that rely on socially constructed signifiers and they are both fluid to a similar degree, so the analogy is good. If you want to argue with me, that’s the point you should be dealing with.
Language isn’t objective though. It wasn’t handed down from some deity.
Language is a constantly evolving negotiation of new and remixed communications, performed through billions of interactions every single day. It’s collaborative and unpredictable and sometimes someone comes up with something cool and the next day everybody is copying them.
In short, language is socially constructed.
I think it’s a great analogy for gender in that respect.
It’s Buddy the Christ.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg
Oh but I bet that other person is 14 then. That’s obviously the substance of my critique, you win.
Translation: “I have no way of arguing with this obvious and simply stated fact, so I’ll pretend they’re 14 and think it’s deep and then attack them for that. I’m 28 and this is a worthwhile use of my time.”
Holy shit, what an opener, and then the second paragraph is the perfect punchline. I think the wiki editors knew exactly what they were doing.
Men can lactate, specifically when they are severely malnourished, but I have heard it’s possible to induce it in various ways. This would aid the survival of a tribe when food was scarce by keeping the babies alive for longer, but some mammals can do it under normal circumstances as well.
This is all potentially true.
I would be very happy to provide an alternative face.
women are not your enemy and are not even theoretically automatable
I also just learned of it.
This example shows how arbitrary beauty standards are.
Like yeah, your observation is correct, studies have been done on this, but it doesn’t mean that the beauty standard is good or natural or correct. If anything it means it’s wrong.
Also, today’s relative abundance doesn’t mean that size is entirely a matter of personal responsibility. Fast food and cheap processed food are often people’s only options when they can’t afford the time or money to cook meals properly. That food is worse in nutrition so they have to eat more of it, and it’s full of junk that capitalists have figured out will be useful in addicting people at the expense of their health, usually a mix of excessive salt and sugar.
There are literal scientific studies about how to make the ideal food that is moreish but doesn’t sate hunger, so people will eat lots of it. It takes willpower and resources to fight against that. No wonder there is an obesity epidemic.
So ultimately the beauty standard is still about classism, about wanting someone who is wealthy instead of poor.
If it only exists due to structural inequality where you can have a clear distinction between rich and poor, then it stands to reason that in a world where people generally could expect to thrive and not struggle to make ends meet, so that anxiety about it wasn’t commonplace, then a wider array of body types would be generally accepted.
Edit: I hope this comment doesn’t read too argumentative. Nothing you said was wrong, I’m just adding to it, and I’m aware that people reading your comment could use it to justify or attack beauty standards, and I’m using it to attack.
My dreams have been crushed. I may never recover. I DON’T KNOW HOW ELSE TO GET TO SPACE
Wait, are you saying he didn’t just pulverise a bloody trail through the university and NASA, stealing a PhD certificate and then a Rocket?
I mean, this is still a cool story, but I’m also kinda disappointed.
You can with a sub-wavelength antenna like a nintendo joycon has, it’s less than 10mm in X and Y axes. It will just have terrible reception, like a nintendo joycon has.
Also it could be a higher frequency which would allow a smaller antenna.