Post 4/5
As for this statement by Rao again, referring to some plastic surgeon's opinion (apparently he knows all Indian men? Rao clearly hand-selected the soundbytes she was going to quote from/the views she wants coming across to readers as dominant):
1. Fairer people only get the jobs in India's *appearance* industry [which is dominated by anti-Hindus anyway], and which clearly is the only industry that Rao can think of. Everyone else has a real job for which they studied for. And in the west: acting requires going to *drama* school. Like RADA and NIDA. That's why they can act, whereas Indian cinestars just lipsynch and pose - and look real lame doing so too. Must be from their modelling days.
2. As for the allegedly universal "Indian man's" preferences, it's *exactly* the - equally allegedly "universal" - Indian woman's preferences too. Going by the same usual suspects people cite: marriage ads etc. Of course neither stereotype is actually universal, but this preference - at whatever rate it occurs - occurs to the *same* degree among both genders.
But I smell the west via Rao trying to turn Indian women against Indian men here, as they did among E Asians over a long period of time. (Will get back to this in the next post.) As if Indian women are the only ones facing this "oh woe is me life is cruel to [Indian] women onlee" preferential selection. Will get back to this in the next post.
3. I note that none of these twits like Mallika Rao and Anna John and the fembot males (Kushan et al) denouncing Indian society even noticed how western men's preferences and how western societal preferences have impacted their women.
IIRC, in a poll in several western nations on what kind of woman western males found attractive - the choice being between fair-haired (specifically "blonde" in the strict, European meaning of the word) and brunette (which was actually originally a reference to European people alone) and red-heads, the western nations questioned now picked brunette with a slight majority. This was surprising to the ones polling, since before - all through the 80s and 90s and before that too, since the time of European Fairy Tales at least - the selective pressure was for fair-haired women.
My sister had read numerous NL books by NL feminists who were brunettes who had a serious chip on their shoulder against the projection of blonde as the ideal by their parents and society, especially when they had a fair-haired female sibling: they wrote how they were psychologically scarred for life and always held as less worthy/regularly compared adversely against fair-haired sister. [Then there was also that idiot phrase "dumb blonde" that was hurled around by NL men and women - and which got me really riled up, as it was blatantly untrue: no fair-haired woman of my personal acquaintance was ever stupider than me as far as I'm aware.]
But the decades - some explain that it was *centuries* - of preference for blondes over brunettes in NW Europe (at least) wasn't the only trend that created resentment. The current sudden switch over for a large number of WM to prefer brunettes among their own, and especially some movies wih a dark haired western heroine bagging the main male prize over her fair-haired competitor - even has got the fairer-haired taking note, feeling angry and resentful.
You can see the nails coming out in even IMDB. Some activist commenters - clearly fair-haired considering their comments and harbouring a barely-concealed festering resentment for their brunette counterparts - want a "reversal" against this brief pro-Brunette trend in cinema (which they blame on female brunette writers) - a reversal back to the good old days - with Blonde projected as good and with a soul, and the brunette woman as calculating, cunning "intelligent" but soulless. They think the western media is what has caused the current trend of a significant proportion of WM preferring western brunette females over them, so they want the western media to reverse this trend.
E.g. Here are IMDB's boards for the (British) movie Starter For Ten where -oddly enough- American women are whining:
imdb.com/title/tt0477095/board/nest/119051663?ref_=tt_bd_1
(Also the boards for the movie Pretty in Pink have a thread by this type of people, I think)
They start the topic generally, about "good/distant ideal girl" vs "adventurous girl/tomboy/introvert/intelligent girl next-door" and end up revealing that this is actually a blonde vs brunette issue.
The most interesting comment is that it argues that the general natural preference of WM is to find faired-haired women more attractive (which I think has some obvious truth in it), and that the modern media has *unnaturally* turned (many) WM's primary preference away from blonde to brunette. IIRC the comments blamed the brunette scriptwriters conniving to take revenge on fair-haired girls who got all the guys during high school (or something). Interesting psychological basket cases, the christowest.
Anyway, the point was: why no [English-language] articles dissecting the clear societal discrimination for centuries against brunettes in the christowest (yes, Snow White had dark hair, but who else? In every other European version of fairy tales - e.g. even seen in Goldmarie/Maria d'Oro vs dark-haired Pechmarie from Frau Holle - the main good lead was always the fair-haired female, while the western brunette female always had the worst of qualities. Implicitly and unmistakeably this was tied to hair colour.)
Why no such articles on the current western cinema trend for brunette western females often winning over golden haired women, which makes the latter feel discriminated against?
And why no HuffPo discussion on the seriously angry books in Europe - certainly in NL - that delved into the trauma of the anti-brunette discrimination that preceded this? Maybe I should ask my sister to try recollecting the titles.
Yuck. The christowest was always racist and discriminates. It has a preference even among its own. It plays invisible with these preferences. It then projects and exports its own preferences - for Euro features - overseas, onto non-European lands (even via the christo-conditioned sheep who are their primary imitators, imitators of all things western). It *sells* and makes money off this contrived preference. And then has the gall to write about these Asian populations.
Morons of Indian descent who buy into this junk will always be there - it's their sole purpose in life, to be morons/Kingstonian types who believe everything - but not everyone is a moron. And Indians can see that the ground reality is a different experience for themselves than it is for the moronic westernised and christoconditioned elite, who are pathetic wannabes and project their own white-wannabe syndrome onto the rest of the country (which doesn't suffer from it) when they wish to screech at it.
As for this statement by Rao again, referring to some plastic surgeon's opinion (apparently he knows all Indian men? Rao clearly hand-selected the soundbytes she was going to quote from/the views she wants coming across to readers as dominant):
Quote:"'When an Indian man looks for a bride, he wants one who is tall, fair and slim, and fairer people always get jobs first,' <declared a london-trained plastic surgeon>"
1. Fairer people only get the jobs in India's *appearance* industry [which is dominated by anti-Hindus anyway], and which clearly is the only industry that Rao can think of. Everyone else has a real job for which they studied for. And in the west: acting requires going to *drama* school. Like RADA and NIDA. That's why they can act, whereas Indian cinestars just lipsynch and pose - and look real lame doing so too. Must be from their modelling days.
2. As for the allegedly universal "Indian man's" preferences, it's *exactly* the - equally allegedly "universal" - Indian woman's preferences too. Going by the same usual suspects people cite: marriage ads etc. Of course neither stereotype is actually universal, but this preference - at whatever rate it occurs - occurs to the *same* degree among both genders.
But I smell the west via Rao trying to turn Indian women against Indian men here, as they did among E Asians over a long period of time. (Will get back to this in the next post.) As if Indian women are the only ones facing this "oh woe is me life is cruel to [Indian] women onlee" preferential selection. Will get back to this in the next post.
3. I note that none of these twits like Mallika Rao and Anna John and the fembot males (Kushan et al) denouncing Indian society even noticed how western men's preferences and how western societal preferences have impacted their women.
IIRC, in a poll in several western nations on what kind of woman western males found attractive - the choice being between fair-haired (specifically "blonde" in the strict, European meaning of the word) and brunette (which was actually originally a reference to European people alone) and red-heads, the western nations questioned now picked brunette with a slight majority. This was surprising to the ones polling, since before - all through the 80s and 90s and before that too, since the time of European Fairy Tales at least - the selective pressure was for fair-haired women.
My sister had read numerous NL books by NL feminists who were brunettes who had a serious chip on their shoulder against the projection of blonde as the ideal by their parents and society, especially when they had a fair-haired female sibling: they wrote how they were psychologically scarred for life and always held as less worthy/regularly compared adversely against fair-haired sister. [Then there was also that idiot phrase "dumb blonde" that was hurled around by NL men and women - and which got me really riled up, as it was blatantly untrue: no fair-haired woman of my personal acquaintance was ever stupider than me as far as I'm aware.]
But the decades - some explain that it was *centuries* - of preference for blondes over brunettes in NW Europe (at least) wasn't the only trend that created resentment. The current sudden switch over for a large number of WM to prefer brunettes among their own, and especially some movies wih a dark haired western heroine bagging the main male prize over her fair-haired competitor - even has got the fairer-haired taking note, feeling angry and resentful.
You can see the nails coming out in even IMDB. Some activist commenters - clearly fair-haired considering their comments and harbouring a barely-concealed festering resentment for their brunette counterparts - want a "reversal" against this brief pro-Brunette trend in cinema (which they blame on female brunette writers) - a reversal back to the good old days - with Blonde projected as good and with a soul, and the brunette woman as calculating, cunning "intelligent" but soulless. They think the western media is what has caused the current trend of a significant proportion of WM preferring western brunette females over them, so they want the western media to reverse this trend.
E.g. Here are IMDB's boards for the (British) movie Starter For Ten where -oddly enough- American women are whining:
imdb.com/title/tt0477095/board/nest/119051663?ref_=tt_bd_1
(Also the boards for the movie Pretty in Pink have a thread by this type of people, I think)
They start the topic generally, about "good/distant ideal girl" vs "adventurous girl/tomboy/introvert/intelligent girl next-door" and end up revealing that this is actually a blonde vs brunette issue.
The most interesting comment is that it argues that the general natural preference of WM is to find faired-haired women more attractive (which I think has some obvious truth in it), and that the modern media has *unnaturally* turned (many) WM's primary preference away from blonde to brunette. IIRC the comments blamed the brunette scriptwriters conniving to take revenge on fair-haired girls who got all the guys during high school (or something). Interesting psychological basket cases, the christowest.
Anyway, the point was: why no [English-language] articles dissecting the clear societal discrimination for centuries against brunettes in the christowest (yes, Snow White had dark hair, but who else? In every other European version of fairy tales - e.g. even seen in Goldmarie/Maria d'Oro vs dark-haired Pechmarie from Frau Holle - the main good lead was always the fair-haired female, while the western brunette female always had the worst of qualities. Implicitly and unmistakeably this was tied to hair colour.)
Why no such articles on the current western cinema trend for brunette western females often winning over golden haired women, which makes the latter feel discriminated against?
And why no HuffPo discussion on the seriously angry books in Europe - certainly in NL - that delved into the trauma of the anti-brunette discrimination that preceded this? Maybe I should ask my sister to try recollecting the titles.
Yuck. The christowest was always racist and discriminates. It has a preference even among its own. It plays invisible with these preferences. It then projects and exports its own preferences - for Euro features - overseas, onto non-European lands (even via the christo-conditioned sheep who are their primary imitators, imitators of all things western). It *sells* and makes money off this contrived preference. And then has the gall to write about these Asian populations.
Morons of Indian descent who buy into this junk will always be there - it's their sole purpose in life, to be morons/Kingstonian types who believe everything - but not everyone is a moron. And Indians can see that the ground reality is a different experience for themselves than it is for the moronic westernised and christoconditioned elite, who are pathetic wannabes and project their own white-wannabe syndrome onto the rest of the country (which doesn't suffer from it) when they wish to screech at it.