Lisa Morales4 said:Those aren't feminists; they're more like "unlucky attractive" lesbians,
A true feminist is more like a femme fatale—someone fully aware of her femininity, someone who enjoys it and values it enough to step outside modern norms just to highlight and truly celebrate it.
In my eyes, feminism has been embodied by figures like Mother Mary, Mother Teresa, Lady Diana, and Joan of Arc.
They were all goddesses of love in their own right through their femininity—strong, standout, original, and avant-garde women who, in their own unique ways, through exceptional spirituality drove unconventional historical shifts in the evolution of human society.
They were spiritual, I think, because they used their psyche to push back against physical limitations. Lady Diana struggled with bulimia before she became a humanitarian icon; Angelina Jolie had a complicated relationship with Eros due to past trauma, and now she cares for vulnerable children globally; Joan of Arc wanted to be one with God, even if her physical presence was quite wild and unruly 😬; and Mother Teresa wanted to live in poverty alongside the most vulnerable, even though, genetically speaking, she might have been predisposed toward the kind of social climbing and wealth-seeking seen in many common folks, like some politicians in the Midwest... for example, people like Kerum or Bandić... 😁
Nemruth Dagi said:Instead, let's talk about pollination. We used to brush this topic aside back in college because it seemed funny.
If we look at it biologically, every woman possesses what we call a maternal instinct, which she can realize, but doesn't necessarily have to. This doesn't just mean giving birth and raising children, but caring for the weak, the helpless, other people's children, and things like that.
That is partially true, but it isn't a rule. There are women who don't want to be "pollinated" just to fulfill some innate biological trait.
Looking at it from a different angle through the lens of our social structures (since we have essentially subordinated our biology to our sociality 😉)—women often hold a weaker position within the community (I don't really need to explain this, considering everything from education levels to lower wages and poorer job prospects... statistically, women are more frequent victims). It is often assumed she must be passive, that her life role is centered on the family.
She might use her appearance to attract a male "pollinator," but also to resolve her worries and secure her future, ensuring that through this pollinator, she gains security, a home, and children as a permanent guarantee, along with social status.
So, pollination isn't just about biology; it has a social purpose too. That's why the cult of female beauty works so well, making the "valuation" part of a social ritual rather than strictly a biological one.
Read: The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine.
We are merely carriers of our genes. Whether we choose to be pollinated or not depends on the forces of evolution, which sometimes make certain genes more attractive than others. Genes largely dictate physical appearance, but the psyche isn't solely determined by genetics. The mind can differ greatly from physical looks. Edith Piaf wasn't physically stunning, but psychologically, she was a femme fatale. And that was purely on a spiritual level. She had plenty of love and lovers, so she could be pollinated as much as she wanted. In humans, the psyche is often a stronger erotic motivator than physical appearance, and there's a higher probability that genes will be passed on through people who are attracted to one another psychologically, rather than just physically.
The theory that women who dress in ways that don't attract a massive crowd of men (or perhaps just attract other women 😁) aren't looking to be "pollinated" doesn't really hold up, I guess. It might be more accurate to say they want to be pollinated, but by very specific pollinators who appreciate that particular style... which makes them more selective. A woman’s way of presenting herself can clearly signal how much she values quick pollination—you know, how "easy" she is—versus how much she wants to vet the value of the pollinator. Regardless of their genetic makeup, those who psychologically resist their physical nature seem more spiritual to me, because they are essentially rebelling against their genetics. Whether that means becoming a nun despite being physically stunning, or acting like a femme fatale despite being plain (sort of like Edith Piaf, I suppose). I think more spiritual people are those who seek self-expression over obeying their genes, and genes really just want to pass themselves on to the next generation. We call the genes that fail at that "recessive." So, maybe someone like Taylor Swift doesn't have recessive genes but wishes she did, while someone like Pamela Anderson might have some recessive ones she'd rather not have, which is why she opted for the breast and lip enhancements. Why did the genes for smaller features become recessive? Maybe because large lips and breasts highlight secondary sexual characteristics more, signaling higher reproductive potential. Therefore, those like Pamela, who use their looks to emphasize these traits and associate themselves with sex, want less self-expression and more focus on being pollinated, boosting social status and reproducing. Meanwhile, those like Edith Piaf or Taylor Swift, who don't emphasize those traits, likely want a partner who loves them for their psychological and spiritual (non-genetic) selves, seeking fulfillment without necessarily needing to reproduce, building their own social status through hard work and merit.
As simple as that. Can we consider breast augmentation "spiritual"? Well, maybe, since the psyche is resisting the body (the genes). In a similar vein, things like bulimia or anorexia are sort of expressions of a spirit fighting against the flesh. Such behaviors eventually lead to a greater spirituality, though usually through painful transformations and suffering. I don't think Pamela Anderson had a conscious desire to increase her spirituality when she went under the knife, but in the end, she had to endure so much more in life—including bankruptcy—to find a deeper spirituality through that suffering. Radical feminists, however, reject any kind of "primping" intended for pollination, but in doing so, they actually diminish rather than increase women's spirituality. That's my thesis, anyway—radical feminism failed because it proved to be unspiritual. I think feminism needs to be redefined to be more spiritual, making feminists more feminine and erotic, but in a way where their femininity isn't "othered" in relation to masculinity. Such feminists would be attractive to men by highlighting certain recessive genes, but wrapping them in a cloak of spirituality and psychology, which would make those recessive traits erotic and attractive to the opposite sex.
