I’ve held off for a few weeks. Actually a few months now. But I can’t keep silent any longer, despite the fact that my blogging partner advised me not to address this important-to-women issue. I mean, sure, her advice was sound: “We don’t want people coming to our blog after doing a google search for women with big but(t)s.”
I could see her point.
So back when it was published, I didn’t speak out about the recent Oxford study claiming not only that women with big posteriors are smarter, but babies who pass through the well-padded birth canals of these women are smarter too. Because how could I express my outrage over a study that links intellect to a woman’s physical attributes (thereby once again objectifying women) without mentioning the very topic of the study… big but(t)s?
Then I realized I could speak my mind, without using the word we don’t want popping up in search engines! After all, I was raised by a genteel southern lady who considered the aforementioned word just as vile as any curse word in the urban dictionary. We were simply not allowed to use the double t version of but in our house. So of course as kids, we developed giant arsenal of synonyms to use in front of my mother, all of which she pretended to like better than the forbidden four letter word: derriere, bottom, rear end, bum, fanny, booty, caboose, backside, hiney, behind, posterior, tuckus, and my grandmother’s favorite: hunkus. They all work. And since I seriously doubt perverted types are doing searches for “huge hunkus” here we go…
I have not read the Oxford study itself, so I am not arguing against the validity of its results. What I find offensive, is that there even was such a study. Was there a corresponding study of men with big bums? I don’t think so. Why not? If it’s important to know the anatomical advantages of hefty hineys for women, why isn’t it just as important to understand these for men?
I guess I always hope that scientific research will move humanity forward in some way. But what good does it do us to know that a tremendous tuckus is a trait of intelligence? We aren’t to the point where we can genetically control whether or not we have a big bum or a flat fanny. So I can’t see what purpose it serves for us to know that children born of narrow-hipped mothers are intellectually disadvantaged?
Unless…. unless the study helps men pick their mates in a way that insures their offspring have the best chance of having bigger brains! That’s it! Survival of the fittest! Thanks Oxford!
Still don’t think this is another excuse to objectify women? Google the study. What kind of images are paired with this scientific research? Huge hunkuses covered in chocolate. No, I’m not kidding. Close ups of short-short clad derrieres too rotund for garment coverage. Wow. Those images really help me take the study, led by male researcher Konstantinos Manolopoulos, seriously.
Before we know it, colleges are going to have a much easier time selecting female applicants. But look at the bright side, girls. No more stressing over SAT scores. You can just submit your measurements!
2013 was indeed a year of scientific advancement. We learned that drinking coffee reduces suicidal tendencies in adults, that exercise can actually cause your brain to grow, and there were major breakthroughs in cancer immunotherapy.
But were these studies plastered all over Facebook and the blogosphere? Nope. Not like the study of colossal cabooses was. This, is my entire gripe with the study. It offers little more than another excuse to objectify women. I have friends with all body types, those with well endowed hips, and those who are rail-thin. Body type is never a consideration when I am choosing a friend, a colleague, an instructor, nor should it be.
For years, females have struggled to earn equal pay for equal skills – to be noticed for what they can accomplish, rather than who they are physically. This backside study takes us backwards. My rant is over.
After all of our advancements in science and society, did Queen have it right all along?