Beauty...

From LiveScience.com.... i still think most men are shallow :). But, no need to cry...that is how nature wired you.

Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.comThu Apr 10, 11:25 AM ET

Women seeking a lifelong mate might do well to choose the guy a notch below them in the looks category. New research reveals couples in which the wife is better looking than her husband are more positive and supportive than other match-ups.

The reason, researchers suspect, is that men place great value on beauty, whereas women are more interested in having a supportive husband.

Researchers admit that looks are subjective, but studies show there are some universal standards, including large eyes, "baby face" features, symmetric faces, so-called average faces, and specific waist-hip ratios in men versus women.

Past research has shown that individuals with comparable stunning looks are attracted to each other and once they hook up they report greater relationship satisfaction. These studies, however, are mainly based on new couples, showing that absolute beauty is important in the earliest stages of couple-hood, said lead researcher James McNulty of the University of Tennessee. But the role of physical attractiveness in well-established partnerships, such as marriage, is somewhat of a mystery.

The new study, published in the February issue of the Journal of Family Psychology, reveals looks continue to matter beyond that initial attraction, though in a different way.

Supportive spouses

McNulty's team assessed 82 couples who had married within the previous six months and had been together for nearly three years prior to tying the knot. Participants were on average in their early to mid-20s.

Researchers videotaped as each spouse discussed with their partner a personal problem for 10 minutes. The tapes were analyzed for whether partners were supportive of spouses' issues, which included goals to eat healthier, to land a new job and to exercise more often.

"A negative husband would've said, 'This is your problem, you deal with it,'" McNulty said, "versus 'Hey, I'm here for you; what do you want me to do?; how can I help you?'"

A group of trained "coders" rated the facial attractiveness of each spouse on a scale from 1 to 10, with the perfect 10 representing the ultimate babe. About a third of the couples had a more attractive wife, a third a more attractive husband and the remaining partners showed matching looks.

Trophy wives

Overall, wives and husbands behaved more positively when the woman was better looking.

The finding "seems very reasonable," said Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at MIT's Program in Media Arts and Sciences and Sloan School of Management. "Men are very sensitive to women's attractiveness. Women seem to be sensitive to men's height and salary," said Ariely, who was not involved in the recent study.

In couples with more attractive husbands, both partners were less supportive of one another. McNulty suggests wives mirror, in some ways, the level of support they get from husbands.

"The husband who's less physically attractive than his wife is getting something more than maybe he can expect to get," McNulty told LiveScience. "He's getting something better than he's providing at that level. So he's going to work hard to maintain that relationship."

Men who are more attractive than their partners would theoretically have access to partners who are more attractive than their current spouses, McNulty said. The "grass could be greener" mentality could make these men less satisfied and less committed to maintain the marriage.

Physical attractiveness of husbands is not as important to women, the researchers suggest. Rather, wives are looking for supportive husbands, they say.

So it seems the mismatch in looks is actually a perfect match. "Equitable is unlikely to mean the same on every dimension," Ariely said during a telephone interview. "It just means that overall two people make sense together."

Now THAT is an African Film...

I have two comments on one post. The first is from the question of what is an African documentary, and the second is about the lecture last Wednesday.

What is an African documentary? I would have to say it is a documentary which portrays Africans, about Africa, by an African. So what about those African films which weren't produced and narrated by Africans; are they African films? No they are not. They are films about Africa...that is all;without understanding the language, the history, the culture and the people, these films are therefore not African. Ali Mazrui's film “The Africans: A Triple Heritage”, was a perfect example of an African film. Produced, and narrated by an African about Africa.

There was one scene in the film that made me conclude that this is truly an African film produced by an African. There was a scene where a tribe was sharing the over-abundant meat that they had which showed a cow's neck being cut, and so on. Although cringing was my initial reaction, I realized to that particular group, they wouldn't have a problem with the slaughtering of a live cow...if it was a film produced by a westerner, I wondered if they would've shown that scene especially with animal right laws and such that would prohibit that action. So in a sense, we are able to get more and understand more about Africa from a film that is produced and directed by an African about Africa.

Dependability-"De-Colonizing the Mind through Image"

View number one:


View number two:



These two views are what have led to colonialism as well and neo-colonialism. View number one is where you see Africa as an "unconquered terrain" that is very attractive to the explorers. the second view is where we see the consequences of view one; a meddling of an untouched and innocent terrain. The introduction of 'modernism' has led to the inability of Africans to "conquer" their habitat and has therefore increased their dependability to this new kind of 'modernism' that is to feed, clothe and provide shelter to them. This dependability has backfired leaving these once strong independent nations become hungry, naked and homeless. A great example is shown in the film "The God's Must Be Crazy" that we watched two weeks ago where a community that was 'untouched' lived peacefully without dependence, but when modernism came in the form of a Coke bottle, their lives became absolutely dependent on this thing that was all too familiar to the 'modern' world.

Altogether, an African film about Africa does not take into account why these people we are filming are hungry all the time, never have proper clothing and forever roaming trying to find shelter--Ali Mazrui explains that because of the dependability of western modernism, we have these consequences, and what happens when the only way to 'save us' is to send more Coke bottles to this innocent, untouched continent.

Bah Hambug!

Time is the only excuse I have for not posting...but as we asked ourselves two weeks ago, what exactly is time? ...my first grade in the class...excellent....
to be continued...

"Third World"

So I do have to apologize for my delayed postings. I have to say, this class is truly exercise for your brain. The last two weeks, I've left the class mind boggled but yet learned a lot about myself and others.

"Third World"

This term stuck out to me during the last lecture on re(presentation) because first of all I didn't know that the term came from the Cold War Era (most newly independent countries didn't want to associate themselves with neither capitalism nor socialism rather non-aligned with neither--therefore were called the Third World countries; it just happened to be that these developing countries were poor).

So as I was listening about when we re(present) something we take out or leave out something about what we are presenting. So I tried to think about how I present myself and my culture to others. I am Rwandese by blood, although I claim Kenya and the United States. You see, I was born in Rwanda, moved to Kenya after a year, lived in Kenya for about ten years and now I live in the United States...you can see how my eager yearn for cultural understanding comes into play.
People would automatically say I am Rwandese because I was born there, although I do not know anything about Rwanda other than the knowledge my parents have passed on to me or what I have read or seen. Others would say I am Kenyan since I was raised there and know the language but it is hard to consider myself as Kenyan since I am not a native to the country. Then others would say I'm American or rather "americanized" because of perhaps my presentation and having lived here for most of my adult life but I know that even being influenced by the American culture, I am not American.

Recently I've come into understanding the wholistic approach to what exactly I am and what about my culture will I pass on? This can be a scary thought considering that even the culture my parents passed down to us was lost because of their (re) introducing it to us. So I have to embrace this new culture that has been made for me....I am in a sense a third culture kid; I neither belong to this group nor that one. In a sense, I have the best of Three worlds.