Sailer\’s law of female journalism

I tend not to have a lot of time for Steve Sailer: the racism quotient is rather higher than I can stomach.

But this is cute:

\”The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.\”

On the more general point of lighter skinned women being \”better looking\”, this certainly has been true over the generations.

Certainly in our own society it\’s been a function of status: not being tanned meant of a status not to have to work outside. This very much switched when being able to go and get a tan was a marher of status, being able to travel to somewhere where there was sunshine. And I think (but don\’t really know, not having lived in the UK for so long) that it\’s now switching back. The orange skin of the tanning booth is a market of low, not high status now.

And this certainly isn\’t something unique to British or even \”white\” society. I recall one (academic let me note) discussion of the Thai market for prostitutes: lighter skinned girls were in demand from Thai males, so those lighter skinned girls went into the low paid domestic prostitution market: the darker skinned were locally less desirable, so they ended up in the higher paid international/sex tourism market.

Weird hunh?

13 thoughts on “Sailer\’s law of female journalism”

  1. Indeed. Similarly, ignorant western columnists frequently suggest that the preference for lighter skin in India reflects British colonialism and/or American TV, rather than the fact that the country was ruled for a thousand years by people of western Asian descent who were paler than the native Indians who ended up forming the lower castes (except in the south, where it’s even more complicated, much darker generally, and also pre-British).

    Tim adds: I’ve seen the Hindu caste system being described as the greatest and longest lasting piece of racial segregation ever. Them Aryans (here, the correct term) lording it over the indigenes for millennia.

  2. My friend, whose parents came from, and have moved back to Jamaica, did a bit of family tree research when he visited there last. He discovered that there is considerable prejudice against members of his extended family who have darker skin. They were looked down upon, and were considered lower class, a bit disreputable. So its seems to be a fairly widespread form of discrimination.

  3. What do you mean by “the racism quotient”, Tim?

    Tim adds: Sailer goes on a lot about how the average IQs of darkies are lower than those of us pink ‘uns all the time. Something about which he’s right, but he seems (and I’ve not read all that much of him, having been put off by what I think he’s saying) to go from there to that darkies are ubermensch, instead of exploring what nutrition, the Flynn Effect and even possible cultural bias of IQ tests themselves might have to do with it.

    Just don’t like the direction he seems to be going in.

  4. Well just for the record, I’ve always fancied dark-skinned women – far more important than skin colour is surely shape of nose, hands, breasts, bottom, ankles and that unquantifiable factor the look in the eye that suggests whether it might be worth having a go or not.

    Let’s face it most white women nowadays are more “the fat slags” than Liz Hurley…

    How’s that for your sexism quotient?

  5. I’m with Tim on Steve Sailer: there’s something a bit unpleasant lurking underneath a lot of what he writes.

    Oddly enough, having a suntan became much less fashionable in Australia fifteen to twenty years ago, and I was a little surprised when I came to England and saw so many woman attempting to get tans. Part of this might be that avoiding a suntan is more difficult in Australia due to the amount of sun, and fashion went with rarity a little. A lot of it, though, was that people became more knowledgeable and concerned about skin cancer, and as a consequence Australians started avoiding the sun rather than seeking it. These concerns have arrived over here a bit now too, so perhaps this is a factor here too, now.

  6. Why would higher demand from Thai men for lighter-skinned Thai women lead to them being more in the low-paid market? If the international market is indifferent to skin colour, I’d expect the law of one price to operate (even if the Thai women themselves are not free agents, I assume that pimps and Madams are in it for the money).
    Or, possibly, there’s non-money incentives on the supply-side to deal only with locals.

  7. Tracy W: I suspect it’s about imperfect access to information, some along the lines of the fairer skinned women living in villages with little visits from tourists and entering prostitution have less incentives to move to places where there are tourists than those of darker skin living in the same place – especially as neither of them is likely to know about the demand and the price level in those places they don’t live in.

  8. “instead of exploring what nutrition, the Flynn Effect and even possible cultural bias of IQ tests themselves might have to do with it”: as you like, but he was the first writer I read to talk at length about the effect (he surmised) of diet deficiencies on the IQ of, particularly, Africans. He alludes frequently to the high average IQs of oriental people (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans) though I’ve not seen him mull over the defects of a rice-intensive diet.

  9. The preference for light skin in Thailand comes from two sources. Firstly, nearly all rich, high ranking Thais are actually of recent Chinese import and have lighter skins. Secondly, the soaps here, which are tremendously influential, all feature light skinned, European looking rich people with dark skinned Thais as servants.

    The result is a huge market for skin lightening cosmetics, which can be found in every corner store, everywhere.

    As regards the sex trade, lighter skinned girls are also preferred by other Asian men, so there are plenty of international opportunities. To the European’s credit, I think, they just see a pretty girl, not a skin tone.

    Feel free to make me your “go to guy” on this subject.

  10. I’ve just picked my mother-in-law up from the hairdressers, where, like most women of her (20s/30s) generation, she’s had a weekly perm to keep her naturally straight hair curly.

    When I told her that I believe that every woman of pallor has an important social and cultural history, that cannot simply be tanned away or denied by the use of hair curlers, she asked me what I was on about.

  11. My two penn’orth: I’m as ecumenical as one can get to when it comes to bed partners. Outside of examples from medical textbooks, they’re all lovely, and they’re all firm in the right places and soft in the right places and they all taste the same and they’re all just people of the distaff persuasion which as far as I’m concerned simply means the more the merrier. Why thin out the talent pool through bigotry? I mean, it wouldn’t matter if Richard Murphy were a black lesbian, he’d still be a cunt. And if my best friend were black, and a lesbian, I’d still love her. But not if she were Richard Murphy. I draw the line at some things.

    And in re Yazzer’s latest pile of cack last week: it’s not that blokes don’t want to shag you ‘cos you’re beige, it’s ‘cos you’re a minger.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *