“You seem to take her video, in which she basically surgarcoated the message that beauty in fact means almost everything (unlike what the talk’s misleading title implies) and use it as evidence of your(or PlayerHerMan’s) theory of women’s solipsism.
But there’s one problem here, Cameron is wealthy. She herself can’t fit this theory. She does not now nor she will ever need men to depend on.”

The need from men is biologically rooted. 40 years of feminism, women’s lib and financial independence isn’t going to overshadow millions of years of evolution. Women evolved to try to obtain resources and protection from men. Yes, she has money, but money is only useful in a very civilized, advanced society that has a high degree of trust in its governing instituions. Her power rely’s on her trust in the enforcement agents of our society protecting her (i.e. the legal system, which is backed up physically by the police and military). It’s the same reason why women are still attracted to tall, built men. You can be a 5’0″ man with no muscle development and still be successful in today’s society, but it’s only because society has protections in place for this individual. On a more primal level, said gentleman might not fare so well (who knows though). Basically the point is the recent blurp in human history that is modern society won’t offset the drives that got us to this point in the first place.

I’m not a feminist (not an “anti-feminist” either), but these overarching evolutionary psychological analyses of women(and men), while not bothering me as much as some feminist generalizations, still strike me as a bit too dismissive of individual variance within our species, regardless of gender. But anyway, my opinions could change, I feel that I need to reflect more on those issues before opening my mouth again.

Interestingly enough, now that I am divorced and single with a vasectomy – I am much more open to different women – all still slender and attractive, but not as absolutely rigid. They can vary from my previous “must haves” as to height (tall!), race (upper white only, blue or green eyes) and physicality (med. to narrow hips, long legs, med. breasts, tending toward broad but not overly muscular shoulders, high round ass – basically a white girl version of a female african-american track star.) I have my aristocrat aryan super children – so mission accomplished and now I can play. (discretely of course, I have aspirations for who my children will marry/procreate with – genetically speaking).

Could it be called a genetic lottery if you have intentionally sought to selectively breed/marry to advance your family brand with desirable traits?

She’s not very intelligent and her talk’s moronic. It feels like a class presentation where the professor asks students to see how what they learned in class applies to their lives. This chick’s decided her good looks makes her one of life’s victims. The world keeps giving her stuff and treating her nice because of her looks, not because of who she really is.

She talks as if it never occurred to her that if she weren’t a hot chick, she would never have been invited to TED.

Although she comes across as upper class-/rich girl-entitled as much hot-chick-entitled. I googled her — her mom’s one of the founders of zip car. Which suggests she’d be just as entitled-acting if she weren’t a hot babe.

Vids like hers should come with a warning.