Why are men attracted to women with a wiggle?
Novelist Todd White, whose participation has been enlivening VFR lately (here is his website), has a comment in the “HBD’er on traditional conservatism” thread you should not miss. It’s an amusing and on-point example of how Darwinists, or evolutionary psychologists, or sociobiologists, or whatever they’re calling themselves this week, have a Darwinian explanation for every human behavior, even if the answers flat-out contradict each other. The question at issue, discussed in a Darwinian book called Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blonds, is, why do men prefer women with large pupils and a wiggle in their walk?
Speaking of human female characteristics, could there be any idea more clueless about the nature of reality than the Darwinian belief that the female human form, the most beautiful thing in the universe, is the result of some kind of accretion of accidents chosen by survival advantage, rather than the expression of an essence, namely the female essence? Again we see how the author of Genesis is more scientific than the supposed scientists who despise him. In the second chapter of Genesis, God creates man, Adam, out of the dust of the ground, and then, seeing that the man is incomplete and lonely by himself, God proceeds to create woman out of a part of the man’s body. While feminists of course complain that this makes women subordinate to men, the feminists—of course—miss the whole point, which is that the woman is made out of higher stuff than the man. The man is made out of mere dust; the woman is made out of the human body. Further, as the last thing God creates in the process of creating the world, the human female is the crown of creation. In this way and in other ways, Genesis expresses the truth of human existence, which Darwinism with its lame fairy tales does not express at all.
Rich T. writes:
Your recent posting about the essence of femaleness is by far the most ridiculous thing I’ve yet seen posted at VFR.LA replies:
Your comment is one of the most off-base and clueless criticisms I’ve ever received at VFR. Your argument is that since femaleness has existed in its most rudimentary form for a billion years, therefore the existence of human femaleness doesn’t need any particular explanation, it’s already been explained. Talk about reductive thinking! It’s clear you haven’t the slightest concept of what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the distinctiveness of human femaleness, which infinitely transcends its closest “relatives,” ape femaleness. And it’s something for which science doesn’t have the slightest explanation, unless one considers Darwinian fairy tales to be explanations.Lydia McGrew writes:
I was struck by the oddly unscientific sound of your commentator Rich T’s statement, “All embryos begin as female and some become male later during fetal development.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 01, 2009 10:26 AM | Send