Why a Preference is NEVER "Just a Preference"

Every day on social media we see people casually throw around the term preference, but is it really ever just a preference. Whether it's skin tone, socioeconomic status, weight, or height amongst other things, these preferences are usually deeply intertwined with social constructs, and certain privilege (*please note* I'm not saying people are affected by these equally). Is a preference truly ever just a preference?

Before answering that question with my rationale let me say a few things about preferences. I don't think everyone means harm with their "preferences", but there are prejudices deeply ingrained into societies that can make preferences problematic. That is probably a reason why even though people have preferences, it makes them feel uneasy hearing the opposite gender talk about their preferences in partners. Also remember that preferences are influenced heavily by social constructs, and as such they can be affected by nationality, location, and even your own smaller town/community.

So back to my question, of whether a preference is every truly just a preference. As you've already probably surmised my answer is in most situations IT IS NOT. But you didn't come here for the answer, you've came for the reasoning behind the answer and I will try to elicit my thoughts as best as possible. Let's look at skin tone first. It's a no-brainer that it's never just a preference with this. I won't spend much time here because it's a topic that I could spend hours on and still not properly do it justice. Also, most reasonable thinkers are aware of the stigmas that follows different skin tones and the people that don't, won't be swayed by a few paragraphs from me. Colorism has a deep effect on women and men throughout the world. I once read an interesting article about how colorism affects women in the Mexican movie/television industry. Although majority of Mexicans can be classified as mestizo's (mix-raced, an overwhelming majority in Mexican society), novelas usually star white Mexicans despite them being an overwhelming minority. There are tons of examples from all cultures that are similar to that one. So please understand how your "lighter-tone" preference even if it's not malicious in intent is a sensitive issue.

I completely understand the presence a taller man has in a room, which is at the least partially attributed to the confidence he has by being born tall (Look up tall privilege for men & women, it's some interesting research). Short men are not just complaining and being sore losers because you make joke tweets everyday about how men below a certain height threshold "aren't really men". Several studies have shown that shorter men tend to be poorer, advance less in their careers, are seen almost universally as less attractive, and are also seen as less masculine and powerful. And that is just scratching the surface. There are men with socially induced psychological issues based on their lack of height. Some will say "it's just a preference", but like most of them there is a deeper malicious untold story behind it. That's why the "are short men really even men?" narrative, bothers people.

Weight is another one that seems straightforward. Part of the reason people like slim people is because they have been conditioned to see bigger people as less humane ("greedy pigs") and inferior. There can also be slight variances to this and other preferences too. For instance in the black community being "too slim" has been attached with inferiority. I'm not going to go one by one through every single preference and point out how many experience discrimination based on them. By now you should have gotten the gist of my rationale, and that is that there is a bit of prejudice in every preference. There's no reason why it would be preferred unless it was clearly seen as better than the opposite. Of course some preferences contain more prejudice than others, but that's not to say that even the lesser ones can't be hurtful.

Now am I telling people not to have preferences? I am not at all, and if that's your conclusion of my work then you have misinterpreted my message. I understand that people like what they like. Preferences actually make dating less confusing as you're significantly and purposely shrinking your dating pool, avoiding the hassle of actually having to give everyone a chance. I just want people to be more aware of why preferences can be a sensitive issue especially when they involve marginalized groups. Don't be that pretentious person that feels the need to constantly describe your perfect partner. Instead just go out there and date what you like and be happy. Everyone will feel better for it.

This is the sound I hear when I hear preferences

The Curious Case of Rachel Dolezal

By now you've probably heard about Rachel Dolezal, a prominent civil rights activist who happens to be white. Of course that is hardly news worthy, except for the fact that she misrepresented herself as being black. The interesting part is that she is mixed, and her heritage consists of Czech, Swedish, German, and Native American. Allegedly Native American is a small percentage but let's ignore all that right now and get back to the main issue,which is outrage over the fact that Ms. Dolezal identified herself as mixed-raced (including black) in the past. Is this real outrage or just uncomfortableness?

To be honest, personally I have zero outrage on the whole matter. If someone wants to identify as black and spend their life dedicated to promoting and furthering black causes and agendas, I have zero complaints. Now it would be different if someone "misappropriated" a culture to capitalize on a certain advantage but the current facts do not support that here. She's not someone pretending to be Native-American in order to open a casino or any unethical thing like that. I feel like black women have voiced the most outrage on the matter, which makes sense because they feel like their identity is being threatened here. Historically, they have been trivialized by mainstream media, while simultaneously having aspects of their identity misappropriated. That is a very legitimate gripe, I just don't think it applies here. I'm also aware that as a man, my perspective is different, so I understand how black women may feel exploited. I read a tweet that mentioned because of colorism, Rachel Dolezal gained an advantage in the job force by being a fairer complexion African-American. I found that a bit amusing because there's no way that being a lighter complexion black woman could trump putting white and identifying as being white as far as employment opportunities go. Don't over-think this by making up unsubstantiated advantages she may have had. Someone could easily play devil's advocate and counter that with disadvantages, especially if they don't have to actually have happened. Basically don't try to create a reason for being offended. Either you are or aren't based on real information.

Let's talk about race for a minute here. Race is a social construct, meaning that it is determined and differs based on the ideologies of each society. There is no natural world order to race. It exists however we want it to exists in our head. What about the biological aspect of race? That is also just as unclear, as genetic variation is often times higher AMONGST populations (races) than BETWEEN them. I read a story this year about mix-raced twins that are different races, because one appears white, and one appears black which is absurd to me. How can two people that share the same parental lineage be of different races. Another example is that during the Civil War, some white southerners based their right to succeed on the fact that they were a different race than northerners. While both were primarily descendants of Englishmen, the southerners claim they descended from Huguenots and Jacobites (rulers and nobles), while northerners were Puritans descended from serfs. In this example their position of power determined "race". Historically race has been used as nothing more than an instrument to promote superiority and justify discrimination.

Back to Rachel Dolezal; I'm not saying her methods were right, anytime you lie it probably isn't. But it would be contradictory to ostracize someone who has done more work for black causes than most black people.  I don't think the lie itself (as far as how she used it) was damaging per se, but with that said when you lie, you have to lie to keep up that original lie and as that multiplies it can become very damaging. I don't know if that happened or not, but I'm aware of the possibility. So why the lack of fury from me? Well because part of me can understand why she felt she needed to represent herself as black. Now before I finish this rationale, please understand that me understanding the basis of her decision does not equate to me supporting it as being right. It seems to me that very early on, Ms. Dolezal decided that she would dedicate her life to black culture. As a black person, I can say with confidence that we are not very inclusive to white people. That is mostly the result of years of mistreatment by them, but that is a subject for another day. The point is that we don't accept people often. We are even quick to exclude other blacks. Every black person is familiar with the phrase, "You're not really black because _______ (insert almost anything you can think of). We also demand constantly that our people prove their blackness and if they can't the validity of any argument they have regarding our race is null and void. It can be a bit of a hassle at times, and that's for a non-activist.

So you take a white woman wanting to make black culture her life's work and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine the barriers she would face, not because of her work ethic or dedication to black causes but because of her race (ironically this is an issue that black people know too well). Add to the fact that white women and black women have a rivalrous relationship (that's putting it nicely and is another topic that deserves its own post), it's hard to imagine her progressing as far as she has or having the same influence. Maybe she considered representing herself as black as the only way to effectively carry out her work, which apparently she has done a pretty good job of doing. My intentions are not to make her out as the victim here at all, but I can understand why she did it. As an activist, not being in the "in-crowd" does not carry the same weight, it just doesn't. So if her reason for representing herself as black was to be a better civil rights activist and positively impact black lives, I personally don't see any reason for outrage. Now possibly I'm being naive and it could be a less ambitious reason that I don't know of yet, and I reserve the right to change my stance based on relevant and available information. But I'm open-minded. I believe that since race is a social construct, people can chose to identify with whatever they want as long as they are doing "right" by that group and actually accepts that group as their own. And no that does not include someone that dresses or tries to look a certain culture, but switches whenever it is convenient for them or when they can gain an advantage.

BONUS Thought. It's also interesting that Walter Francis White, former chair of the NAACP for over a quarter century, had white skin, blue eyes and blond hair by virtue of mixed European ancestry on both sides (primarily white), but identified completely as being black despite being the great grandson of President William Henry Harrison. Both of his parents were born into slavery though. It just goes to show how peculiar "race" is.

Why Women Hate Men Binge Liking Their Instagram Photos

There's a very effective way to annoy a woman, and you can do it rather quickly too. Go to her Instagram page and like as many pictures as possible in a short time period. Women hate when men do this, especially if they don't really know you. I have heard women mention that they have blocked guys for liking all their pictures, usually followed by some version of "Ewww he's too thirsty/annoying".  Let that sink in for a second. Guys have been blocked, simply for liking all of a woman's pictures on a social media platform designed exclusively for liking pictures. The irony of this phenomenon is not lost on me. I once had a "discussion" with a woman who got offended when I mentioned that blocking someone for liking pictures on Instagram (remember that is the sole purpose) is kind of ridiculous. I simply stated that you're not forced to follow this person back or interact with them, so how can them giving you more likes which she wanted (Let's just say she was a high-end Instagram user), get under her skin so much. Well I have my opinion, and I'm here to give it.

Women wield a certain amount of power on social media, and the more superficial the medium, the more control women have on it. Is there a social media more superficial than Instagram? I can't imagine it. It's the only social media that gets heavy usage despite not being very fun or entertaining. So how does this relate to women hating when men binge like their photos. It's quite simple actually, let's go back to the power women exercise on Instagram. Calling it power, may not be completely accurate. A more accurate description would be "perceived autonomy". In Self-Determination Theory of human motivation, perceived autonomy is an important element. Having control is not as important as thinking you're in control. Usually women's perceived autonomy would rank very high on Instagram. They have creative freedom (at least from what is socially acceptable and popular), and most of the times interactions are one-sided in their favor (following to followers ratio/Likes received vs likes given/etc). Men are simply objects of their amusement that they can usually manipulate through whatever they decide to post.

This changes when males binge like their photos, as it destroys that feeling of control for women. Instead of having creative freedom and controlling interactions, the woman is now being objectified (most likely sexually), and she is now an object of a male's amusement. When women post what men consider "thirst traps", they really believe it is genuine artwork (well some women not all). They had to capture the right angles, the right lighting, etc, but now instead of being viewed as art, it is being viewed simply as sexual attraction and stimulation by that male who mindlessly clicked on every picture without appreciating the art, aesthetics, and the core idea behind the picture. Now, instead of control, women feel as if they are back in our Patriarchal Society and resent that feeling. Their creative freedom has been seemingly turned into a meaningless man's sexual attraction. And because most think that men can't control their sexual urges, it has no significance. A woman who already is so sure that she is attractive gains nothing by men agreeing to it, especially at the price of her "perceived control".

Now I'm aware some could say I'm reaching too far, that binge liking is simply just thought of as being annoying. I'd be willing to believe that if it was a few isolated incidents, but that's not the case. Men binge liking pictures really bothers women. That's my opinion based on my observations and experiences, what is yours?

This is the result of binge liking