Genetic diversity within a single family (biology, DNA, ethics, philosophy, politics, Betty Friedan)

Writer Emily Bazelon was on The Colbert Report last night. She is related to feminist icon Betty Friedan, a cousin or something (I didn’t bother to read the Wikipedia page or even to do any basic research.) Betty Friedan resembles Helen Thomas, both women look like the popular conception of the evil stepmother who morphs into the old desiccated ogre who serves Snow White that poisonous black magic apple.

Emily Bazelon is very cute:

http://renegadechicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/emilybazelon.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/bankstreet_web/media/filer_public/filer_public/2013/03/27/0313-bazelonnyc.jpg
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wnpr/files/styles/card_wide/public/201310/emily%2520b_1.jpg
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/C0yc_Jp6auM/maxresdefault.jpg
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/caf/life/parenting/article9524379.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/bully25lf1.JPG
http://colbertnation.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/colbert_report/videos/season9/09120/cr_09120_04.jpg
http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/21/61/75/4661119/3/628x471.jpg
http://colbertnation.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/colbert_report/videos/season9/09077/cr_09077_02_16x9.jpg
http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/emily-bazelon.jpg%3Fw%3D620

She’s beautiful. If you appreciate more mature, intelligent socially conscious conscientious (con science) types, she identifies as ‘feminist’ in the sense that most liberals do, but she’s not a fire-breather wack job or anything like that.

Nothing says “I appreciate intelligent women” like implying that her feminism is a shallow groupthink posture. Perhaps you meant to have this conversation on your LiveJournal?

…what?

I guess people don’t care about this issue.

What, the way he dismissed two women as old hags while praising another for her beauty didn’t convince you that what he really cares about is a woman’s mind?

How physically attractive journalists and scholars are to a person who cannot be bothered read a Wikipedia page, or, at the very least, to do basic research?

No, no we don’t.

There was an issue somewhere in here?

Second cousins twice removed share around .781% of their DNA. The ladies in question are second cousins twice removed.

Which is why I’ve got some dead-set gorgeous second cousins (removed or otherwise) and I’m an ugly old crone! They got the good bits of the DNA…I got the slops.

:smiley:

Damn! Curse those gorgeous cousins and their superior bits of the DNA!

Yeah. It’s the issue that, no matter what a woman produces in her lifetime, no matter what she’s achieved, and no matter the value of her contributions, the only thing that really matters to some people is whether she’s pretty.

Geez, the OP’s just remarking on the variability of looks among family members. Can’t he consider a person’s looks regardless of his or her accomplishments?

I’ve seen Bazelon on Colbert before and I find her appealing based on her looks and the way she came across on the show. What she’s done with her life has nothing to do with it. And based on her looks, I am surprised to hear that she’s related to Betty Friedan, though I suspect they share the same intelligence genes.

Obviously, s/he can.

If s/he wished to do so without being excoriated, I would recommended eschewing references to “the evil stepmother who morphs into the old desiccated ogre”.

It is, in fact, not a very popular conception these days.

Honestly, the fact that an intelligent and articulate woman is related to Betty Friedan inspired a comment on their looks? If you don’t understand why that might annoy some, you might want to review some mid to late 20th century history.