Why do feminists like to say that historically, women were sought after because of their looks...

Why do feminists like to say that historically, women were sought after because of their looks? Were women historically valued based on their title? Cleopatra by all accounts is average at best, but ended up with Caesar and Marc Antony, two of the most powerful people in the world.

do you have a specific source for said feminist(s) that claimed "women are sought after because of their looks"

Later in the work, however, Plutarch indicates that "her beauty, as we are told, was in itself neither altogether incomparable, nor such as to strike those who saw her."[64] Rather, what ultimately made Cleopatra attractive were her wit, charm and "sweetness in the tones of her voice."[64]

Cassius Dio also spoke of Cleopatra's allure: "For she was a woman of surpassing beauty, and at that time, when she was in the prime of her youth, she was most striking; she also possessed a most charming voice and knowledge of how to make herself agreeable to everyone. Being brilliant to look upon and to listen to, with the power to subjugate everyone, even a love-sated man already past his prime, she thought that it would be in keeping with her role to meet Caesar, and she reposed in her beauty all her claims to the throne."[64]
>Cleopatra was the original mary sue

Any John Green video
It just came to mind watching some libcuck Phillip DeFranco discuss how we need to move on from treating women as objects and moving past their looks

ya gotta keep in mind
the treatment between lower classes and nobility in regards to differences when talking about historical treatment of women

Her secret was

[spoiler]just b urself[/spoiler]

why can't looks and social capital both be relevant? things don't have to be so black and white, OP.

Feminims is just a way for women to take their own personal problems, project it onto the whole of their gender's history and than asking the whole world to fix it for them.

If you are ugly and cannot get a date rather than working on loosing weight and developing a proper sense of fashion you can just say that the whole of history has been women being evluated based on their looks and men really should stop it. If this happens people wouldn't avoid dating you because you are ugly.

It's especially good if they can get attention which is why women do shocking things like in your OP. It gets women attention so they feel good.

I've met women like that. They're not really that hot, maybe they're 6s or 7s, but then they're really seductive and the way they act is cute and sexy, sometimes enough to want them more than hotter chicks.

cleopatra was like egyptian queen next door

I don't think it's "seeing them as objects" for just their looks, their gripe is more that you should see them for their abilities as humans and not just sex objects.

>historically valued based on their title
I wouldn't say this is true at all. I would say in terms of the upper class, elite crowd it is definitely true, but the elite always consists of a small, miniscule percentage of humanity, increasingly so the farther back you go in history.

If you were a member of the petty nobility, then you would seek out a powerful family to marry into, and if you belonged to a noble family you would seek families of wealth, or families that you would benefit from joining politically. However, the mass populous of peasants and merchants in any society would value beauty very, very highly.

Marrying someone with a title - any title at all, was beyond the means of 99% of humanity. Marrying elders, chiefs, heroes of war, etc. was very desirable and a little more attainable, as was marrying their daughters/family, but I think appearance was generally more important to most people, as was work ethic and skillfulness

Peasants almost never married because of appearance, typically is was because of 1) necessity (you needed a woman around the house and you needed children) and 2) the father of the bride would often offer to build you a home or pay a small dowry to relieve him of his daughter.

These contracts date back for quite a while, of course not to the consequence or intricacies of the nobility.

Right, but if a peasant actually, somehow, got the opportunity to marry someone of nobility and wealth, even if she was awfully ugly, would she be chosen over a 10/10?

>filename

Wow very edge.

I might be generalizing here, but I think there was more potential social mobility through marriage for peasant women. Sometimes Emperors or Kings just got horny and decided they really wanted to fuck some low born peasant or take them into concubinage.

I can think of a few examples of that in Chinese history, and maybe you could argue that Theodora in Byzantine example kinda fucked her way to the top depending on what you're willing to believe. I'm mainly just thinking of Chinese examples, but I'm speculating a little bit that it possibly happened elsewhere.

roasty gettin toasty

She was average, but Plutarch notes that Caesar and Marc Antony fell in love with her because of her mind - she was fluent in like half a dozen languages and could actually hold intelligent discussions about philosophy and science, something most women at the time simply couldn't do.
The feminist lie that women were valued solely for their looks before the 1900s is just that - a myth. It turns out that human nature didn't just fundamentally change in the modern era because of feminism, but that men always have and always will be attracted to willful and intelligent women, even if they aren't the "fairest in the land".

>Implying many women do not see their significant others as a status symbol amongst the other hens based on his looks, and as a bank account.

It's not institutionalized muhsoggyknees, it's just that people, men and women, can be dicks about things.

Women just have a harder time admitting that they can be as big of pigs as men can be, and even more so in many ways.

Just go to any bar or restaurant with a bar on some groups "girrrlz night out" and listen to their screamed conversation over the other patrons. I've heard women reveal things about their boyfriends/husbands that even the biggest scumbag I know at least has the decency to keep to himself.

I don't think there's any hard evidence that women tend to be dicks more often or in wildly different ways than men, user. Vain people are vain, and that's the most definitive objective thing you can say about that.

Most based thing I've read all day.

This.