The terrible news was torn apart by the broken internal knife. Sexualism was found in the World Cup in snow-covered Russia. Everyone was waiting and afraid of racism, but he bombed.
Head of the department of "sustainable development" FIFA Federico Addiaki said that his department appealed to the broadcasters to show less beautiful girls during the broadcast matches of the championship. Well, in general - during any football broadcasts.
Does it follow from this that the broadcasts of women's football from now on does not provide sustainable development or that women's football will now be accepted only by the ugly, not reported.
It is unlikely that the thought of an official extended so far. His job was to say something beautiful in Europe. Denote loyalty to ideals. If you are a European official and you want a career, you need to look appropriate.
(Here, in particular, why Sarah Wagenkneht will never become a German Chancellor, because then she too will have to be shown on TV often, and this is sexism, especially after the current european).
Once in the Soviet Union it was impossible to write an application for a cubic meter of firewood, without backing it with a quote from the only true Leninist teaching (thickening the colors, but to that point), today we see something similar in Europe. The closer the impasse of the historical formation, the clearer it is that "everything is moving in the wrong direction," the fiercerly it clings to the "foundations."
And here I want to understand: what are these fundamentals? After all, if Lenin is quoted at a meeting in the Housing and Utilities Committee, does this not yet mean that his teaching was incorrect? I want to look at the problem of gender equality and the equality of attractive and unattractive (from the male point of view) female images from a scientific, so to speak, point of view.
But first - why the European civilizational model seems to us a dead end. Not because "Russia is on the rise, but they imposed sanctions on us", no. Russia and itself for a fair half is described by this model. That is, it's partly our stalemate.
Our economy and culture, just like the European one, is based on the following foundation: it's good not to the one who produces a lot (things, meanings) but to the one who consumes a lot. Smart people produce smart, but fools consume well, so our material and symbolic culture is fool-proof, reproduces its values, its world view and its way of thinking.
Fools are fed with promises, and the current Western economic model is based on this truth. Its pillars - the bank and the stock exchange - are a loan and a credit (a financial bubble is the appearance of money that is not really there) and futures (promises) that are traded on stock exchanges instead of raw materials and manufactured goods.
An imaginary economy can exist for a long time, as long as it is possible to walk along the street with closed eyes, tea is not a forest. But not always. Sooner or later either you will rest on the wall, or you will hit your head with a forehead.
A fool, driven by consumer culture (the one who is more comfortable vtyuhivat goods, services and beliefs) - is, sadly, "bad genes." And the mechanism of evolution, the biological instinct imposes restrictions on the distribution of "bad genes." Therefore, Western humanity with difficulty multiplies.
It itself (unconsciously, by the hands of the evolutionary mechanism) imposes restrictions on itself: later childbearing (first you need to "live for yourself"), same-sex marriages, the ban on showing beautiful women on TV, that's all. And as a result, there is no one to live and work. Therefore, Europe needs migrants. And they have another civilization model. And then the circle closes, Europe kirdyk.
Well, she, of course, understands this and will flounder; every living creature in response to changes in the environment adapts ... Although not, not everyone. Sometimes it happens that it dies.
Well, let's move on to the promised: what is the "struggle against sexism" from the point of view of ethology, the science of the genetically conditioned behavior of animals and humans.
Sexism is the inequality of the sexes. Darwin also suggested for the first time that gender difference (their inequality) is one of the tools of evolution. In the last century it was unfashionable to talk about it, but scientists always knew it.
The task of the man is the adaptability of the species; a man must actively interact with the environment (so men "break more often" and less live). The task of the woman is to preserve the species; for this, it must be removed from the environment. These are not sexists invented, this is the result of observations of scientists for heterozygous organisms - from plants to monkeys.
Well, we already knew that: a man goes on a hunt - the woman remains at the hearth. It was against this in the nineteenth century that the suffragettes (the then feminists) rose up. The first point in the struggle for women's rights is the right to work, that is, "to interact with the environment".
Okay. Jeanne d'Arc, Sklodowska-Curie, we understand. However, today this point of struggle is irrelevant. Today, women's rights imply just the opposite - the right not to work (for example, on days of biologically conditioned poor health). And feminism switched to another idea: a woman now can not be regarded as a sexual object. Is it reasonable? ..
Yes, the same idiocy, like everything that this idiotic theory generated that contradicts both the cultural tradition and the data of science. Next, I'll forgive some indecent words.
Most animals are able to mate only on certain days of the year. In some animals (for example, in dogs) males are always ready for mating. And only people are just as constant to it, damned, ready, I apologize, and females. This is not necessarily expressed in a biological act. This is also expressed in the desire of women to look good.
There is a hypothesis (not proven and unprovable due to the impossibility of setting up an experiment, but, say, modern theoretical physics is ninety percent unprovable - for the same reason), so there is a hypothesis that constant "sexual preparedness" is one of the most important factors of the human social evolution.
Roughly speaking, when a woman "looks good", the man is in constant tension: on the one hand, he is forced to constantly demonstrate his advantages (in fact the female chooses males with "good genes" - vigorous and successful), on the other - is forced to sublimate unconscious sexual tension in the activity.
Thus, all civilizational accomplishments of mankind are "over the dear ladies". (Even those that are handled by the ladies themselves, because they repeat the cultural model, which is biologically determined.)
And you say you can not show beautiful ... But if you do not show them, then, as the poet put it, "the field of life will die out!" But it seems that it's all the same to the European official and to the European fool ...
In general, there is nothing wrong with the fact that first the symbol of the Russian fans was the pleasant outlines of Mademoiselle in patriotically colored shorts (let the European fools know ours!), And then the "style icon" Pamela Anderson arrived on the Russian stands.
We, of course, stand with one foot while in the European coffin (at least until Trump meets with Putin, on which they, you see, agree that we should not stand), but not to such an extent. We have beautiful girls, yes. So, the future - is.