This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/26/gwyneth-paltrow-media-evolutionary-science
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Gwyneth Paltrow and the media exploitation of evolutionary science | Gwyneth Paltrow and the media exploitation of evolutionary science |
| (5 months later) | |
| Ladies and gentleman, evolution is back – and this time, it's serious. The latest study to invoke natural selection appeared today under a headline in the Times that "tall, slim women have more babies" (paywalled link). Well, if you must know, the actual news – published originally in the less sensationalist Current Biology – was that data collected over 55 years by the UK Medical Research Council in the Gambia suggests new ways in which natural selection may act upon body size. To which the Times said: yawn, as they slapped up an accompanying picture of Gwyneth Paltrow in a transparent dress along with the caption, "Gwyneth Paltrow is 5ft 9in tall and has two children". That's mainstream science for you. | Ladies and gentleman, evolution is back – and this time, it's serious. The latest study to invoke natural selection appeared today under a headline in the Times that "tall, slim women have more babies" (paywalled link). Well, if you must know, the actual news – published originally in the less sensationalist Current Biology – was that data collected over 55 years by the UK Medical Research Council in the Gambia suggests new ways in which natural selection may act upon body size. To which the Times said: yawn, as they slapped up an accompanying picture of Gwyneth Paltrow in a transparent dress along with the caption, "Gwyneth Paltrow is 5ft 9in tall and has two children". That's mainstream science for you. |
| Paltrow, of course, is the perfect figure to illustrate these findings, having been very recently bestowed with the dubious title of "world's most beautiful woman" by the connoisseurs of People magazine. After all, is beauty not in itself an evolutionary advantage? That seems to be the undertone, as she parades across the head of the article on the MRC research, perfect legs sheathed in barely visible fabric. Paltrow isn't just "tall and slim": she's considered uncommonly attractive. | Paltrow, of course, is the perfect figure to illustrate these findings, having been very recently bestowed with the dubious title of "world's most beautiful woman" by the connoisseurs of People magazine. After all, is beauty not in itself an evolutionary advantage? That seems to be the undertone, as she parades across the head of the article on the MRC research, perfect legs sheathed in barely visible fabric. Paltrow isn't just "tall and slim": she's considered uncommonly attractive. |
| So, inevitably, her image subtly hints at those more controversial aspects of "pop science" bandied around whenever evolutionary theory comes in to play: that there is an objectively perfect body and face; that we are programmed to find it, and stumped if we don't possess it; that our personal preferences, romantic lives and sexual nuances are actually simple Darwinian drives that can't be overridden. | So, inevitably, her image subtly hints at those more controversial aspects of "pop science" bandied around whenever evolutionary theory comes in to play: that there is an objectively perfect body and face; that we are programmed to find it, and stumped if we don't possess it; that our personal preferences, romantic lives and sexual nuances are actually simple Darwinian drives that can't be overridden. |
| Of course, there's a reason that wild extrapolation from evolutionary studies is so seductive. Living as a human – in case you hadn't noticed – tends to be horrendously complicated. Meanwhile, evolutionary scientists and the mainstream journalists (who play with their research like a lion with its unwitting prey in order to make it exciting enough for their readership) make everything so much easier. In the past, they've had stabs at simplifying the most complicated aspects of life: domestic servitude (allowed, because men are "hunter gatherers" and women are "natural homemakers"), religion (a false reassurance that arose in our brains once we all gained consciousness and panicked), even the lipstick in your make-up bag (it makes your mouth look tantalisingly like a horny vagina. No, really.) | Of course, there's a reason that wild extrapolation from evolutionary studies is so seductive. Living as a human – in case you hadn't noticed – tends to be horrendously complicated. Meanwhile, evolutionary scientists and the mainstream journalists (who play with their research like a lion with its unwitting prey in order to make it exciting enough for their readership) make everything so much easier. In the past, they've had stabs at simplifying the most complicated aspects of life: domestic servitude (allowed, because men are "hunter gatherers" and women are "natural homemakers"), religion (a false reassurance that arose in our brains once we all gained consciousness and panicked), even the lipstick in your make-up bag (it makes your mouth look tantalisingly like a horny vagina. No, really.) |
| A lot of the time, the ones that we end up hearing about have an unfathomable aim and a tendency to scrutinise women – such as the University of Pittsburgh's "curves-for-brains" study, which aimed to "investigate" a connection between cognitive ability and female waist-to-hip ratio. Predictably, the results in this one were so small as to be inconclusive, but that didn't stop widespread international reports that, in the words of a BBC correspondent, "curvy women may be a clever bet". Ho, ho. | A lot of the time, the ones that we end up hearing about have an unfathomable aim and a tendency to scrutinise women – such as the University of Pittsburgh's "curves-for-brains" study, which aimed to "investigate" a connection between cognitive ability and female waist-to-hip ratio. Predictably, the results in this one were so small as to be inconclusive, but that didn't stop widespread international reports that, in the words of a BBC correspondent, "curvy women may be a clever bet". Ho, ho. |
| What's depressing is the way in which scientific research, by aim or by media manipulation, all too often becomes a comment on the female form. Nutrition, BMIs and fertility did get a cursory glance from the newspapers that ran the most recent study from the Gambia, but most emphasised the idea that "tall and slim" women are apparently becoming the norm (short, dumpy girls may quietly remove themselves from the gene pool now.) | What's depressing is the way in which scientific research, by aim or by media manipulation, all too often becomes a comment on the female form. Nutrition, BMIs and fertility did get a cursory glance from the newspapers that ran the most recent study from the Gambia, but most emphasised the idea that "tall and slim" women are apparently becoming the norm (short, dumpy girls may quietly remove themselves from the gene pool now.) |
| The "science" in tabloids is even more barefaced, often outright prescribing what people should look like in a given situation, or why they don't, or why they aren't sleeping with the science correspondent. One infamously bitter Daily Mail article, which ran in 2009 but still worms its way into pub conversations across the country, claimed that women were warping the path of natural selection by taking the pill and, apparently, becoming less attracted to masculine men as a result. That tiny dose of progesterone may have been the single most effective measure in empowering females to enter the workplace, but, dammit, it was leaving a slew of unhappy hairy-chested, square-jawed men in its wake. | The "science" in tabloids is even more barefaced, often outright prescribing what people should look like in a given situation, or why they don't, or why they aren't sleeping with the science correspondent. One infamously bitter Daily Mail article, which ran in 2009 but still worms its way into pub conversations across the country, claimed that women were warping the path of natural selection by taking the pill and, apparently, becoming less attracted to masculine men as a result. That tiny dose of progesterone may have been the single most effective measure in empowering females to enter the workplace, but, dammit, it was leaving a slew of unhappy hairy-chested, square-jawed men in its wake. |
| What's so wrong about this, in red-top-speak, is that taking the pill and its effects are "not natural" and therefore suspect. But it should also go without saying that we have outlawed a huge amount of "natural" processes: rape, murder, thievery, the infliction of grievous bodily harm on another because you want to assert your place at the top of a social hierarchy. The only thing that seems genuinely suspect to me is the reductive, lazy sexism that pervades far too much of our scientific journalism. After all, if I wanted to experience the self-contradictory intellectual equivalent of Nuts magazine, then I'd get into homeopathy. | What's so wrong about this, in red-top-speak, is that taking the pill and its effects are "not natural" and therefore suspect. But it should also go without saying that we have outlawed a huge amount of "natural" processes: rape, murder, thievery, the infliction of grievous bodily harm on another because you want to assert your place at the top of a social hierarchy. The only thing that seems genuinely suspect to me is the reductive, lazy sexism that pervades far too much of our scientific journalism. After all, if I wanted to experience the self-contradictory intellectual equivalent of Nuts magazine, then I'd get into homeopathy. |
| • This article was amended on 26 April 2013. The Current Biology study looked at data from the Gambia, not Ghana, as originally stated. | • This article was amended on 26 April 2013. The Current Biology study looked at data from the Gambia, not Ghana, as originally stated. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |