Why I Hate Feminism

[Deliberator]

As a strong female I can't stand certain facets of modern feminism.

In the traditional sense of the word, I am indeed a feminist. I agree that we should have equal opportunity and equal pay for the same kind of work (which we apparently still don't.) I am very glad that we can now go to universities, be soldiers, be doctors, be lawyers, be astronauts, be scientists, etc. But modern feminism has me so riled up sometimes that I don't want to be associated with the term.

The main reason is because they continue to complain when women in the United States have it SO good. Throw in a bit of affirmative action, sexual harassment policies, and government welfare and there's nothing we can't do. Whining about how sexist the system is, to me, is a sign of weakness. The women I respect are the ones who overcome obstacles, not complain about them.

If I were a man in a male-dominated field and a woman wanted to work there, I would ask nothing more of her than I would ask of any man. I also wouldn't ask LESS of her either just because she's a female; in fact I would think doing so to be an insult to her because that would be assuming that she's weak and needs special treatment. Yet many women would complain that putting them up to the same standards is discriminatory, especially if the job is not entirely physical.

In general, I think women have to admit that they will never dominate certain fields. As a group, women are less aggressive, less mathematically inclined, and less abstract. So is it some kind of national crisis that there are fewer women in the fields of military, math, and science?

But the most annoying part about feminism is the liberal feminists that basically say the government should give lots of money to unemployed single mothers. WTF???
My mother-in-law worked long hours, suffered long commutes, and even went without food in order to provide for her children after her divorce. She didn't apply for government aid, and didn't demand her ex pay her alimony, which was dumb of her because she needed it and deserved it. Yet some lazy-ass 26-year-old mother of five has health problems because she sits on her ass all day and then uses the lifestyle-induced disease as an excuse for not working; and she'll get all the freakin' money she ever needs! There's some motivation for responsibility! There's empowering the female! There's encouraging strength and diligence! But I'm sexist for saying that because it's usually the poor woman who gets stuck with the kids. Well, I guess that's what comes of stupid sex and no DNA testing. No responsibility required...

Share your thoughts, by all means. Perhaps it is because I am not intimidated or hindered by sexism that I do not think it is an issue.

[Jakalwarrior]

People on welfare really don't live as well as you would think. They live bottom of the barrel and constantly beg for hand outs. I do agree though it is sickening that our safety net is used as a lifestyle for the lazy. It's that human desire to see children taken care of on matter what. It is a carry over from our tribal days to force us to care for the children of the tribe and not harm them. Now it is just a flaw being exploited.

My INTJ wife constantly says the same things you are saying though, that women should stop screaming for equal treatment only to turn around and beg for chivalry and special care whenever it suits them. Humans do whatever gives them a personal edge though with no regard for the bigger picture and
In general, I think women have to admit that they will never dominate certain fields. As a group, women are less aggressive, less mathematically inclined, and less abstract.
I agree here too.
It is still far to politically incorrect to ever even hint at people being different or less than equal in some areas. It goes far beyond just gender. I'm sorry but my genes instantly decided I couldn't compete with a Kenyan sprinter at running, a lot of people at math, a lot of people at spelling, etc... BUT woe be unto he who ascribes aptitude or interest to genetics.

[Avid]

We are pretty much kindred spirits when it comes to this. I'll make a proper reply tomorrow when I wake up or you can email me if you wish. :) Sweet dreams forum.

[TheLastMohican]

As a group, women are...less mathematically inclined...

Stop being a bigoted male chauvinist. Maybe when you develop some functions besides your hyperactive all-encompassing Se you can be qualified open your mouth without sticking your foot in it. Actually I suppose you can't help this, because you're male to start with, so I guess you can't be blamed for being inherently brain-damaged. If you must go about grunting simplistic insults about women and their math abilities, then you must also mention the shortcomings of your own caste. Try mentioning your utter lack of English abilites (as evidenced by the barely coherent style of your quote), and your inability to think of anything outside your pitiful sphere of influence. Comments like yours are why it is obvious that Lawrence Summers is an appropriate representative for your species.





Oh wait...you're...female?

[invicta]

On the math stereotype

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

The last thing I read indicated that women have closed the income gap. The numbers can still appear off, however, when the fewer years women spend in the workforce isn't factored in. They tend to get out earlier (or more often) to have kids which means fewer years earning and a lower average income.

I'm not sure that feminism is really that big a deal any more. I think the vast majority of women (America) have gotten over it. They realize that it's pretty much on them now to take advantage of the opportunities they have. Just because women tend to freak out every month and get irrational doesn't mean they actually think any of the stuff they say during their random tantrums.

Sometimes people just get irritable and lash out at whatever it was that last irriated them, whether or not it makes any sense. The energy put into the attack tends to overshadow the fact that they don't really mean it.

[Tenacious B]

Most groups, women or otherwise, that clamor for "equality" want nothing of the sort, they want privilege.

[braeden]

I have to agree. Feminism sucks big time. Especially if we are talking about women's studies which is just part of feministic lobby disguised as science.

What comes to the math stereotype, I have the impression that in most researchs, men tend to perform as well or better than women. Men also have more variance in their results than women. Meaning that the very best, and the very worst, people in math tend to be men. This explains why most mathematicians (and other people in fields that are heavy on math) are mostly men.

[zibber]

Women have gained a lot materially in the past century, but it's hard to deny that the beauty ideal has become all the more unrealistic and stringent. I don't know a lot of women who don't have (unfortunate, irrational, UNFAIR) issues with their weight/shape/hair/skin/nails/etc, and I think it's absolutely ridiculous to proclaim that feminism has served its purpose. The beauty industry needs to be dismantled or at least toned down a bit, but it appears as if a lot of women don't even realise that this commercial industry is pretty much the main source in shaping these unrealistic beauty ideals (and conveniently providing the means to approach them, for a small fee). What, do you suppose airbrushing every photo that reaches publication is a perfectly normal practice?

As if this immaterial issue wasn't enough to sufficiently undermine your case, there are many places in the world where there is still grave material inequality (and where the West's immaterial issues are barely existant). What, that should all be resolved internally? That might take a while. Little girls are getting their clits chopped off to hamper sexuality, but I guess that's a legitimate religious practice. Women have to wear outfits where the only opening is a strip for the eyes, but as they're so indoctrinated that they're fine with this, I guess there's no need for action. Same goes for y'all and your beauty ideal; those women I mentioned are quite sure that it's their choice to be obsessed with their appearance, so maybe I should shut up. (Bonne chance :p)

[Sean O]

I think Deliberator's comments were supposed to be about feminism in the US. She did specifically say "women in the United States have it SO good", which to me implies that she recognizes that it's not so good for women in other parts of the world.

An example that sticks out in my mind of feminism gone very wrong is how in Canada (and probably in the US too, for all I know) every firefighting squad needs to have a certain number of female firefighters, according to a feminist-induced legal mandate. However, many female applicants aren't able to pass the physical capabilities test. So, to get around this and meet their precious quota, they give the female applicants a far easier test, and suddenly we have "equality".

The thing that pisses me off about this is that this physical capabilities test is intended to weed out - regardless of gender - the applicants who are not capable of handling the amount of physical work that is required of a firefighter in order to be able to save lives. If I was stuck in a burning building, I would give less than a shit about whether the firefighter who came to get me out was a man or a woman, as long as I could be sure that he/she meets the physical performance standards of a fully qualified firefighter. With this quota in place, you'd better believe I'd prefer to see a male firefighter coming to get me out.

Anyway, I agree that modern feminism in North America (the nature of feminism in Canada seems to be the same as in the US) has basically become reverse discrimination. Equal rights/opportunity is a worthy cause, but absolute equality in every facet of human existence is an illusion. There are some things that men (generally speaking) are better at than women, and there are other things that women (generally speaking) are better at than men. I really wish that the general population would open their eyes, start thinking clearly and rationally about gender differences, and realize that different doesn't always mean good or bad; sometimes it just means different.

[Monte314]

I was a grant evaluator for the National Science Foundation a couple of years ago. I was in Washington, D.C. for the Evaluation Committee meeting; one of the grants we reviewed had been submitted by a female professor at a research university.

As part of the grant application, applicants are asked to enumerate any non-technical benefits that might accrue from their proposed research. This lady pointed out that no women professors in her state had ever received an NSF grant in her research area, and that funding her proposal would address what might be perceived as historic gender bias.

The committee was about 2/3 men and 1/3 women. The gentlemen said, "Well, we can see how this could be considered a valid benefit...."

The women, on the other hand, just about came out of their chairs. I can't express how deeply offended they were by such a suggestion. They felt that the putative "benefit" would be nothing more than reverse gender bias, and even worse, would establish a precedent that would taint the perception of future awards to women researchers.

The lady professor did NOT get her grant.

[stasis]

That the abortion debate is commonly construed as an "unborn rights" issue and, far more egregiously, a men's rights issue, is evidence that feminist philosophy still has value in application. Gender identities in the United States are themselves the gist of the contemporary problem in my opinion, as they continue to have men feeling entitled to attempt control of all externalities and women falling under this purview in a manner similar to that of valued commodities. The PUA fad is another popular example of the sort of thinking patriarchal gender identities encourage. Notice, I am distinguishing identity from roles; the concepts of what a man or woman is as opposed to what a man or woman does. Roles are ritualized or institutionalized culture. Culture is identity.

What feminism has accomplished in the past decades is the gradual erosion of explicitly sexist policies, held by institutions. These policies, however, are symptomatic of the underlying problem, which persists. The way forward for feminists, I think, is less in the vein of protests and agitation and more towards applying their growing institutional power to the cultural problem that is archaic gender identity.

[blueback]

That the abortion debate is commonly construed as...a men's rights issue, is evidence that feminist philosophy still has value in application.

A men's right issue? Just because some crackpots get onto the news doesn't mean their views aren't still crackpot-ish. The only reason most pro-lifers "support" the weirdos who claim the abortion debate is about men's rights is because they really REALLY want to outlaw abortion and they're willing to ally themselves with anyone they think wants to help.

The simple fact that for 100 abortion protesters, only a couple have any idea what the punishment should be for a woman who gets an illegal abortion, demonstrates that they are not good critial thinkers.

Gender identities in the United States...continue to have men feeling entitled to attempt control of all externalities and women falling under this purview in a manner similar to that of valued commodities.

Men treat EVERYTHING like a commodity. At least, as often as they can. There's just no way around that. Evolutionarily we have been rewarded for controlling things. When it comes to knowing whether or not you are raising your own children, and passing on your own genes, women have an advantage. Women know that no matter what dude got them pregnant, they are raising their own children. Men don't know that. There was no way for men to know whether or not the child they were raising was theirs, so it made sense to control access to their women. In a more general sense, the men with more resources got more women, so it made sense to control access to a lot of 'stuff.' Men are evolutionarily driven to control things. It's not going away.

The PUA fad is another popular example of the sort of thinking patriarchal gender identities encourage.

I don't think men need "patriarchal gender identities" to encourage them to try to have sex. Are you suggesting we should give men a new, more feminized, gender identity that encourages them to. . .not have sex?

What feminism has accomplished in the past decades is the gradual erosion of explicitly sexist policies, held by institutions.

True. At least, feminism was around when that happened. However, as in all things, causation is difficult to prove.

The way forward for feminists, I think, is less in the vein of protests and agitation and more towards applying their growing institutional power to the cultural problem that is archaic gender identity.

Good luck.
In my humble opinion, "gender identity" is not "archaic" it's just practical. There are fundamental differences between men and women, which means men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. They also have different desires; different things make them happy. Independantly wealthy (and independant) women, a relatively new invention, actually have more trouble finding a 'mate' because they don't feel comfortable unless the man is wealthier than they are. The Evolution of Desire is a good read about evolutinary biology.

I think the problem most people have when talking about men, women, and subjects like feminism is that they confuse the terms. I think that there are men, there are women, and then there are seperate categories like masculine and feminin. A man can be feminin and a woman can be masculine. The traits are not directly connected to the gender they are commonly associated with.

[stasis]

A men's right issue? Just because some crackpots get onto the news doesn't mean their views aren't still crackpot-ish.
I don't really watch the news. I'm anecdotally drawing from conversations and debates I've had with random people online and in person. Once you cycle through a series of arguments, men seem inclined to fall back upon sentiment such as "Well, what about me? It's my child too, right? Don't I get a say?" And, truly, most men upon the anti-abortion platform feel entitled to vote the issue don't they. Also, you seem to be ignoring the "unborn rights" argument that the others make. What do you think of the argument that even something that might exist later is entitled to overriding rights upon an adult woman that exists now? Since it can't argue for itself, as it doesn't exist, an argument is being made by proxy - by large numbers of men.


The simple fact that for 100 abortion protesters, only a couple have any idea what the punishment should be for a woman who gets an illegal abortion, demonstrates that they are not good critial thinkers.
Anti-abortion laws are ethically untenable and abominable in practice. Regardless of whether these are critical thinkers or not, though, I think the root of the problem is the gender identity which endows them with this sense of entitlement to arbitrarily and authoritatively bend the bodies of women to their will as if they were carving a block of wood.


Men treat EVERYTHING like a commodity. At least, as often as they can. There's just no way around that.
"It is what it is" is axiomatic, not analytical. Why is there no way around that? Are you intimating that these high-order complexities of culture are biologically systemic and not a function of sociology? That wouldn't be consistent with the science I'm familiar with.


I don't think men need "patriarchal gender identities" to encourage them to try to have sex. Are you suggesting we should give men a new, more feminized, gender identity that encourages them to. . .not have sex?
No. PUA is a sexual ritual, predicated upon the idea that women are naturally controlled by men. An idea that resonates with so many males because, I would argue, they feel entitled to perform all kinds of control and so find this sexual ritual that is superficially steeped in the language of systemization exciting and compelling in a fundamental way. Our culture tells them that control over externalities is what they are, and it simultaneously fails to distinguish women from metals. As far as ritual sexuality itself goes, I don't see that PUA is qualitatively distinct from sexualized Furry fandom, the BDSM scene, or any other fetishistic subculture.


There are fundamental differences between men and women, which means men and women have different strengths and weaknesses.
I agree. However, I completely reject any "culture is a biological system" argument because it does not follow from the evidence. In the field (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), culture does not arise (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) without socialization. At best, it's biologically bounded and biologically functional. I have therefore come to see culture as a symbolic technology, no different in essence from language, and so analogously responsive to engineering. The deliberate implementation and widely varying results of differing political systems is an example of a decent argument in support of this.

[Deepdelver]

Deliberator, you made me wonder why a man wouldn't start a thread about why he doesn't like masculism(masculinism).

[Sean O]

Deliberator, you made me wonder why a man wouldn't start a thread about why he doesn't like masculism(masculinism).Because most men are conditioned to believe that there's no such thing as masculism, and that it's only women who "lose" in matters of gender inequality.

[changos]

Deliberator, you made me wonder why a man wouldn't start a thread about why he doesn't like masculism (masculinism).

The equivalent wouldn't be masculism or masculinism but "machism" "macho-behaviour". My guesses are:


Many are not aware of being trapped on the "macho thing"
Many are aware they are trapped there but they won't come out, they see it as weakening themselves. In fact they are comfortable for the benefits.
A man can be rude, in fact many circumstances in society demand us to be like that (on a woman this look awful (yes, on a man too)).
Worst of all, many woman demand us to be "machos"
Yes, you read it clear. I live in Central America and its a thing psychologist state to the girls... there are role problems on what a man should be.

My final guess is... feminism just as machism is a phantom. There is (still) no way to define it objectively (both). So, every girl calls machism different actions, just as many man enclosed feminism with different actions.

I have discussed this with many girls and is surprising how the same thing is considered A MUST with his man, but others consider the same as a bad attitude. But we all enclose what WE DONT LIKE in such concepts.

I read on a book writen by a woman (psycologist), and with many confessionals, that feminism is what keeps them from leeting themselves to be loved. This also applies to man.

"Ohh I'm so strong..., I don't cry" Then when a big problem comes we would act like we do with superman (didn't hurt, hes ok...) and the poor guy ends up alone again.

A philosopher I knew made a direct relationship of machism and feminism with the "HERO" thing. While it might seem crazy, both end up alone.

Waaahhh too much text again.

* It reminds me of a text a woman wrote two years ago on a forum. It stated how trapped we are in such roles and that wouldn't let us be, unless we grow up.

[Avid]

Feminism is a little out of hand. I'm of the opinion that if you want to do a man's job you should be able to do the same work as the man or gtfo. Physical jobs of any sort that have some benchmark shouldn't be nerfed so women can pass. Either they reduce the requirements for the men or they hire less women. This full argument got the feminist group I had been talking to online somewhere pretty pissed off but they were irrational and emotional. SO...I decided to claim the term equalist. But I acknowledge I have physical shortcomings that no amount of training will fix. For some women the physical gap isn't so wide...but meh that is a long conversation.

When it comes to mental things the playing field is a fairly even ground depending on people individually but the smartest/best person should get the job. With time hopefully some of this will even out. While I agree women as a whole aren't aggressive enough I'd consider myself an exception. I'm very competitive and aggressive when it comes to reaching my goals and few things intimidate me anymore. Of course an aggressive man is just being a man but an aggressive women is just being a bitch (not sure I agree with that but someone close to me said that once and it made me think).

There is a lot of gender bias in the fields you mentioned and I experienced it first hand here and there or observed it. But like you said woman...people...should be stronger and overcome obstacles and not bother complaining about it.

Part of the whole beauty thing Zib is the fact that women's cosmetics and beauty products as well as cothes/fashion make up a lot of sales. It is big business. Kinda like in that video I linked somewhere...they throw you product ads and make you feel like crap about your looks. You go out and try to buy things to make yourself feel better about your looks. I agree..women on whole don't even realize what is happening. Men perpetuate it, too. You don't know how many men I have lightly dated that would whine like little babies if I didn't put makeup on and get pretty for them. They didn't last that long. I was trained from birth to worry about how I looked given my very S family but the more people push me to do something the more I refuse them. Some women get confidence from their outer selves and I draw mine from the inner. Makeup is fun from time to time when I feel like "being a girl" but it really is my choice.

In areas other than the US it is the women there who should rise up and challenge, imo. It is their region and their business and while I do feel sympathy for them it is their fault such practices are still in existence.

Abortion is not going to be outlawed anytime soon. Too many politicians use it every time their election pops up to sway the christian votes..or humanitarian votes. Simply too good of a political tool and truth is they probably don't care about it that much. I'll be shocked if it ever does get truly outlawed.

Blueback, it is now possible to have your children DNA tested from birth to be sure they are yours or not. Really I think every dad should have them tested so the issue is never even brought up and in some cases it would help parents be sure they didn't have their babies accidentally swapped. People can adapt though and men have the capacity to change how they wish.

Women don't freak out every month or get irrational every time they have a period. It varies woman to woman and hormones. But yeah otherwise we become crazy annoying hags for about 1-2 days. I'm constantly apologizing when I'm like that too and I really hate my body sometimes. Never affects work though unless I have to deal with other people. Some women have it so bad they have to stay home.

[TheLastMohican]

IAn example that sticks out in my mind of feminism gone very wrong is how in Canada (and probably in the US too, for all I know) every firefighting squad needs to have a certain number of female firefighters, according to a feminist-induced legal mandate. However, many female applicants aren't able to pass the physical capabilities test. So, to get around this and meet their precious quota, they give the female applicants a far easier test, and suddenly we have "equality".


Is the quota appropriately proportional to the percentages of applicants? (That is, is the required percentage of females approximately the same as the percentage of applicants who are females?)

[Ytterbium]

Extremism is never good. Too much of heaven brings you underground and so on. Here where conscription is maintained and it was asked to make it compulsory for women aswell. Guess who's disliked that idea. :laugh: No, not the evil women hating chauvinists but the feminists themselves.

[Sean O]

Is the quota appropriately proportional to the percentages of applicants? (That is, is the required percentage of females approximately the same as the percentage of applicants who are females?)It's been a while since I read about it, but I if I remember correctly it's that a certain percentage of actual hired firefighters have to be female.

[TheLastMohican]

It's been a while since I read about it, but I if I remember correctly it's that a certain percentage of actual hired firefighters have to be female.

Yes, I know...but is that percentage about the same as the percentage of applicants who are females?

[Krazy P]

The laudable goal of feminism has be co-opted by interest group politics -which is actually an indication of how far women's rights have come in the U.S.

Woman's rights are now just one of a group of interest groups vying at the government trough for their share of government dollars. Like corn farmers.

Just one economic example... a woman in the U.S. makes more money than a man in Europe. A college educated woman in the U.S. under 30 makes more than a college educated man in the U.S. under 30 (betcha didn't know that one).

On the other hand, I have three daughters and I can tell you that some things have changed for the better since they were little (they are 20-30 now).

Sports is the big area. Access to competitive sports for woman in the U.S. has been huge in a number of ways - teaching about competition, teamwork, physical activity, etc.

The lessons my daughters learned on the basketball court, volleyball court and football field (soccer) have made a huge difference in their lives.

[blueback]

...men seem inclined to fall back upon sentiment such as "Well, what about me? It's my child too, right? Don't I get a say?"...What do you think of the argument that even something that might exist later is entitled to overriding rights upon an adult woman that exists now? Since it can't argue for itself, as it doesn't exist, an argument is being made by proxy - by large numbers of men.

Riiiiight. . .I thought we were talking about feminism.

Are you basing this argument on an assumption that there are predominantly more men in the pro-life cause than women? Cuz if there are just as many women, or more women, then none of this matters at all. . .and I'm certain there aren't more men than women on the picket lines.

Anti-abortion laws are ethically untenable and abominable in practice.

According to you. The religious types seem to think they're very ethical and somewhat less-than-abominable. Besides, you weren't very specific. Which abortion laws? All of them?

Regardless of whether these are critical thinkers or not, though, I think the root of the problem is the gender identity which endows them with this sense of entitlement to arbitrarily and authoritatively bend the bodies of women to their will as if they were carving a block of wood.

I agree, but for a different reason. No one should get to tell anyone else what to do for their own good. The way I figure it, until the fetus is old enough to survive on its own (no machines), it belongs to the mother. That makes it effectively a piece of her and she has sole custody of it. Once it becomes a baby it's a different story.

"It is what it is" is axiomatic, not analytical. Why is there no way around that? Are you intimating that these high-order complexities of culture are biologically systemic and not a function of sociology? That wouldn't be consistent with the science I'm familiar with.

Well, you're not being very specific, so my answer is "probably."

I think that there are basic biological drives that underly how all cultures form. A culture can't exist without a bunch of people reproducing; it's vitally necessary, so the culture must be structured in such a way that people reproduce. It it isn't, the culture disappears.

The hard thing to do is to seperate all the various forces that shape culture. Good luck doing that "scientifically." The last time I checked sociology was a lame attempt to throw numbers at people until something sticks.

No. PUA is a sexual ritual, predicated upon the idea that women are naturally controlled by men.

"predicated", huh? So, you're absolutely certain that you know why every single person who practices PUA in one form or another does it?

PUA is a technology. Like all technologies, it is just a tool, it has no purpose until someone uses it to accomplish a goal. Actually, the vast majority of PUA techniques focus on self-improvement, not on manipulation. The standard wisdom is that making yourself better makes you more attractive, which is what really does the work. Google it. Every established PUA guru I've ever heard from says the same thing: that if you are consistent/confident you can say ANYTHING and it will have the desired effect.

Our culture tells them that control over externalities is what they are, and it simultaneously fails to distinguish women from metals.

Metals?

What about all the chick-lit and girl-mags that explain, in detail, how to manipulate guys? What about all the bedroom conversations between girls sharing secrets about how to "catch" a guy and mold him? Everyone manipulates; it's just socially acceptable (roughly) for guys to talk openly about it. Guys are SUPPOSED to make things happen. A guy who coasts passively through life is not considered a man. A gal who coasts passively through life can be considered a woman. The standards are different. Again, back to that biological strengths/weaknesses thing I was talking about.

As far as ritual sexuality itself goes, I don't see that PUA is qualitatively distinct from sexualized Furry fandom, the BDSM scene, or any other fetishistic subculture.

Ritual implies religion. PUA would be more accurately compared to science. Besides, you listed a couple "scenes" in which people engage willingly. Are you unconsciously admitting that women who get "picked up" WANTED to get picked up?

At best, it's biologically bounded and biologically functional. I have therefore come to see culture as a symbolic technology, no different in essence from language, and so analogously responsive to engineering.

And this is different from what I said, how?

[Deliberator]

Wow, best response I've ever gotten. I knew the inflammatory title would getcha.


Stasis, I never brought up abortion, and I hoped to god nobody would. As such I am not going to respond to any of your posts.


On the math stereotype

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh I'm so happy to be wrong in this case.





Deliberator added to this post, 4 minutes and 59 seconds later...

Women have gained a lot materially in the past century, but it's hard to deny that the beauty ideal has become all the more unrealistic and stringent.

Unfortunately this is the unavoidable result of our self-obsessed culture, biology, and capitalism. Women will probably always want to be pretty though; it appears to be somewhat ingrained.





Deliberator added to this post, 9 minutes and 2 seconds later...

Of course an aggressive man is just being a man but an aggressive women is just being a bitch.

I have noticed this too. I will have to think about this one a bit more.

[zibber]

Avid, nicely put. The beauty industry alone is more than enough reason for feminism still to be around, I think, I'm kind of scared by this new antifeminist tendency displayed by some women. For someone to say "I wear my make-up proud because it empowers me in my femininity" or something seems completely asinine. Femininity is a construct lately shaped mostly by commercial forces, it is a trap.

Women will probably always want to be pretty though; it appears to be somewhat ingrained.

That's so nonchalantly put and that's a shame.. The related thread in this subforum, about machismo, leans towards men having ingrained bravado. Is that it? Girls pretty, guys tough. As long as there's material equality, that's fine?

(I'll parenthesise this because it's somewhat of a crude, exaggerated argument, but I feel like making it anyway. I can't imagine "cavewomen" spending any time thinking about self-image. Seriously. Don't act like it's genetic.)

[thod]

The problem that I see is that feminism is not about removing stereotypes but replacing one with another. The woman that chooses to stay at home and look after her kids, gaining great pleasure from doing so, is sneered at by the feminists as a traitor to the cause.

The new model feminist has not provided a new model at all. The new model woman is in fact the old model man. The feminists care little for the women they taunt, to them its about making the point "I am as good as any man". This comes from a deep seated insecurity, after all you don't see men saying "I am as good as any woman".

[gadjitfreek]

Isms are bad. Isms are evil. Isms are born out of a desire for personal advantage, or through fear. We would be a better world without isms. Interesting how the use of the suffix seems to change...in sexism, racism and ageism, the suffix denotes prejudice against the "ism"ed group. In "feminism", it is a drive to promote the rights of the "ism"ed group. By all rights, the word "feminism" ought to connote prejudice against all things feminine. It is a misnomer.

I am declaring myself to be an Ismist, prejudiced against isms. Or perhaps for them. Who can tell?

[Sean O]

Yes, I know...but is that percentage about the same as the percentage of applicants who are females?Ah, now I see what you're getting at. I believe there are still more female applicants than there are reserved positions for female firefighters. However, were it not for affirmative action, many of the ones who have been hired because they were given an easier test would not have been considered fit to be firefighters.

[zibber]

The problem that I see is that feminism is not about removing stereotypes but replacing one with another. The woman that chooses to stay at home and look after her kids, gaining great pleasure from doing so, is sneered at by the feminists as a traitor to the cause.

That is the stereotype of old school (material) feminism, ironically.. Still: when you realise that people can be very happy adhering to some archaic, backwards convention, which a lot of women (and indeed an comparable amount of men in their own way) do, those traditional people can indeed be a bit irritating, as they represent a huge roadblock in the eradication of that convention. As many of them can hardly help it, though, I think it is important to focus criticisms on the bothersome conventions (and the people and institutions willfully keeping them in place).

The new model feminist has not provided a new model at all. The new model woman is in fact the old model man. The feminists care little for the women they taunt, to them its about making the point "I am as good as any man". This comes from a deep seated insecurity, after all you don't see men saying "I am as good as any woman".

I really don't even get what you're saying here. Did you just try to explain the root of feminism as insecurity? (As for the latter part of your final argument: men historically have placed themselves above females, so for them to compare themselves to their perceived inferiors would necessarily be an unattractive downgrade.) I think your view is quite direly influenced by broad, old fashioned stereotypes of feminism. Let's just say feminism is the attempt to eliminate and prevent (unnecessary/unrealistic) inequality. Is that so offensive?

In "feminism", it is a drive to promote the rights of the "ism"ed group. By all rights, the word "feminism" ought to connote prejudice against all things feminine. It is a misnomer.


This is true, as is proven again and again in any discussion regarding feminism.. -Ism words lack nuance and seem only to induce offense and aggressive opposition.

[stasis]

Riiiiight. . .I thought we were talking about feminism.
I would've liked to, but it doesn't look like it is going to happen in this thread. So I'll just summarize what my objective was and hopefully clarify a few things.


PUA is a technology. Like all technologies, it is just a tool
That's how people who enjoy PUA subculture see it; these are its trappings, its aesthetic. Obviously I disagree that that's a meaningful description in any other respect. The attractiveness of mating rituals is cultural, not empirical. So it isn't directly subject to mechanistic laws through which one can acquire control. Rather, it is generated socially by the participants and it has meaning only to those participants. Therefore PUA, much like leather whips, bondage collars and period costumes, only "works" amidst people who identify with the aesthetic that it fetishizes, which is a subset of the general population. This makes it sound like saying liking rave music is "a tool" for getting laid. It may be indirectly conducive to laying ravers in that you have something in common with them and an excuse to talk, but that's not listening to rave music as "a technology," even if you do it exclusively to that end. That said, my sole purpose in mentioning PUA in the first place was to help illustrate that the male gender identity I mentioned in my original post is not somehow rare or extinct today.



Guys are SUPPOSED to make things happen. A guy who coasts passively through life is not considered a man.
I don't know what significance this is supposed to have, but I interpreted the recurring sentiment in your posts as something like "things are what they are, thus they can't be targeted for change because [mumbo jumbo], good luck!" Of course, I wasn't saying people should coast or whatever; I was saying that a contemporary feminist objective should be to begin to leverage this newfound institutional influence to the effect of encouraging gender identity in the United States to become more ethically nuanced, and therefore less subordinating of women.



Ritual implies religion.
It can, but I wasn't using it in that sense. More basically, rituals are carefully enacted aesthetic behaviors that have some social importance in themselves. Symbolic acts. Rites of passage, for example, demarcating the transition from youth to adulthood.



Stasis, I never brought up abortion, and I hoped to god nobody would. As such I am not going to respond to any of your posts.
I noticed that you didn't bring up abortion. Without actually getting into an abortion debate, the manner in which the abortion debate manifests - the way it is popularly characterized, whose rights are emphasized and why that's the case - constitutes one of the most prominent examples of the kind of persisting cultural problem modern feminism can be suited to dealing with, which is the reason I brought it up in response to your critique. If instead the objective of your original post was to set up a straw man for "feminism" so that you can make an argument neatly knocking it down, that's fine.

[invicta]

The problem that I see is that feminism is not about removing stereotypes but replacing one with another. The woman that chooses to stay at home and look after her kids, gaining great pleasure from doing so, is sneered at by the feminists as a traitor to the cause.

The new model feminist has not provided a new model at all. The new model woman is in fact the old model man. The feminists care little for the women they taunt, to them its about making the point "I am as good as any man". This comes from a deep seated insecurity, after all you don't see men saying "I am as good as any woman".

The Stay At Home Mom is a recent luxury, growing in popularity along with the growth of the middle class. Up through the feudal era, non-royal (the majority) women worked right along side the men, the children working too. Among the royals, there were wet nurses and other caretakers, and those women led lives in the outside social sphere without the pressures of Stay At Home Mom romanticism.

I see absolutely no reason why early humankind didn't need all the workers and hunters they could get, either. Something I don't see anyone thinking about is that any 'scientific' interpretation of an ancient culture is heavily biased by the mindset of the time of interpretation, and as such, is in large part a Just So Story. When you look at cave paintings, the hunter figures are not all illustrated as male, in some paintings there are penises, but there are not penises on all the figures. Some figures appear to be wearing skirts, and I have seen these interpreted as female figures, which made me laugh! I doubt that skirts were necessarily designated as female garments in those times, that just shows the bias of the interpreter.

I think the whole men are exclusively hunters, women exclusively stay home with babies as a biological dictate idea could seriously use some perspective.

[Deliberator]

That's so nonchalantly put and that's a shame.. The related thread in this subforum, about machismo, leans towards men having ingrained bravado. Is that it? Girls pretty, guys tough. As long as there's material equality, that's fine?

(I'll parenthesise this because it's somewhat of a crude, exaggerated argument, but I feel like making it anyway. I can't imagine "cavewomen" spending any time thinking about self-image. Seriously. Don't act like it's genetic.)

I don't like your supposition that an anti-feminist is all about flaunting her femininity in an asanine way. I've witnessed the behavior to which you are referring but not often. I'll have you know I'm coming from an entirely different avenue that has nothing to do with wanting to wear makeup and high heeled shoes. That's kind of superficial honestly.

But on that topic, wanting to be pretty may not be genetically ingrained but it certainly is natural, especially if people of the opposite sex communicate that "pretty" and "attractive" are strongly associated terms. I'm sure if cavemen said it was attractive to them to smear dirt on their faces the cavewomen would do it in a heartbeat. That's not a cut to women, it's just human nature. (By the way, women have been slathering makeup on themselves for thousands of years, this isn't exactly a new development.) If you were to remove all the commercials and advertising geared toward women you'd suddenly have thousands of women begging for people to tell them what they can do to be more attractive to men.

Regarding the ingrained bravado I think it's more that men have an ingrained desire to impress women, in general of course.

Girls pretty, guys tough. What is wrong with that? Just because there's a stereotype based on a real trend doesn't mean everyone has to follow it! Jeez man, you're not just going to wipe out all social constructs of what makes a woman womanly and a man manly! I kind of like the stereotypes, because then it's more fun to break them.

[Lucid]

I may regret posting in this thread, but...

I think feminism is an outdated term that's still in use today simply because we, as a society, haven't really come up with a better one to describe the desire held by many women to be treated equally to men.

I consider myself a feminist (again, the term is imperfect) simply because I want to be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges that men do. Because I'm a white middle class American female, in many respects I do enjoy the same rights and privileges that white middle class American men enjoy. Whether this is the result of legislation such as affirmative action or simply a more progressive and egalitarian trend in society is certainly debatable, but that's not really the point.

We can't (and probably shouldn't be able to) pass laws that make it so people will respect or value the things a female thinks or says the same way they would a male. We can't pass laws that will change people's minds about what women are capable of, or to enforce the idea that someone's ideas, opinions or actions be considered on their own merit and not on the basis of gender. Will gender ever cease to be a consideration in these things? Probably not. But it's still frustrating to find that one often has to work harder than one's male counterparts to enjoy only a fraction of the respect they do. Not that this is something that happens in all areas of life or that is done by all people, but there does seem to be an assumption in many cases, that unless the topic of conversation is either babies or makeup, a woman doesn't know what she's talking about.

Of course, this goes both ways. I truly dislike being accused of hormonal irrationality or being unable to work a power drill or a lawn mower. Men should (and many probably do) also dislike being accused of thinking only with their sex organs or written off as irrational sex fiends incapable of working a dishwasher or a vacuum cleaner. Society often sells the individuals within it short because of an accident of birth and it would be great if we could stop doing that.

In my opinion, further legislation, protests, etc. are useless. If women wish to be taken seriously (and I think most do), we must make an effort to earn respect. And many do.

To say that the idea of gender equality is somehow nullified because there are some women who wish to use "minority" (I use quotations because women are not a minority) status to get ahead or who want special treatment is as ridiculous as saying that because some men are sexists (and some women too) all men are trying to oppress females.

As usual, a small, shrill minority of extremists has made it more difficult for the majority to even have a reasonable conversation on the subject. It would be nice if people would stop looking at that minority as an excuse to dismiss the entire premise of gender equality.

[Deliberator]

To say that the idea of gender equality is somehow nullified because there are some women who wish to use "minority" (I use quotations because women are not a minority) status to get ahead or who want special treatment is as ridiculous as saying that because some men are sexists (and some women too) all men are trying to oppress females.

I certainly hope you didn't imply there that I was nullifying the move toward gender equality. Perish the thought!

Perhaps I was being too negative in my approach. My hope is in fact to empower women, instead of convincing them that they are underprivileged and oppressed. I can't imagine anything more counterproductive than the latter.

[SeaCzar]

Having read all of this, I can not reach a definition of "feminism". Are not all women, by sheer definition, feminists? I suppose there may be the (demented) few who enjoy male subjugation, but I would think that the same can be said of a few men as well.

Also what, specifically, does the abortion debate play in feminism? Are pro-life women anti-feminists (and, again, if this is by definition, please explain)?

For those wondering why I would ask such questions, I'll say this: I have always considered myself and "equalist". By this I mean that I do not judge others by race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Having in the past owned my own businesses, I would hire/fire people based on ability, employing gays, African Americans, Hispanics, whites, Moslems, etc. (and, indeed firing those who did not work out. My attitude here was always that I would hire someone, but that someone would wind up firing themselves).

I am certainly aware that this is an imperfect world, but am I missing something here?

[Lucid]

I certainly hope you didn't imply there that I was nullifying the move toward gender equality. Perish the thought!

Perhaps I was being too negative in my approach. My hope is in fact to empower women, instead of convincing them that they are underprivileged and oppressed. I can't imagine anything more counterproductive than the latter.

I wasn't trying to imply anything about anyone specific, just making a general statement about society as a whole and many of the statements I've read in other posts on this thread. Unless yours was one of the ones bringing up how one specific woman did blah blah blah and that's why feminism is bullshit you have nothing to be concerned about.

You came off as a little "just shut up and let the men have their way with you!" But I may have misunderstood.

I do agree that women should be empowered to take matters into their own hands as far as equality goes, rather than waiting for some kind of legislation to step in and fix things. Not that such legislation isn't or wasn't necessary (quite frankly I'm not sure whether it is or not at this point).

However, women in our society have been underprivileged and oppressed and some women are still in such a state in many places in the world. Empowerment comes from a desire to change one's situation, not from a lack of feeling oppressed. Those who feel that they are unable to do things because the system has unfairly kept them down are probably seeking outside reasons to justify their own laziness. This is something that some people of both genders, all races, and any religion or sexual preference do. It's just as common to hear some white men complain that they can't get ahead because affirmative action and similar laws have made it so they are discriminated against. They're no different from women who think they need a hand out. It isn't a problem with a particular gender, just with some humans in general. Fortunately, those humans are the minority of any group in my experience. Otherwise nobody would ever get anything done.

[Colette]

But modern feminism has me so riled up sometimes that I don't want to be associated with the term.

The main reason is because they continue to complain when women in the United States have it SO good. Throw in a bit of affirmative action, sexual harassment policies, and government welfare and there's nothing we can't do. Whining about how sexist the system is, to me, is a sign of weakness. The women I respect are the ones who overcome obstacles, not complain about them.


The worst consequence of feminism imo is that women are now expected not only to be 'good wives and mothers', but also career women. Ironically it hasn't created, in any real sense, the kind of freedom and liberation that was envisaged by the early feminists - it's actually placed a huge burden of responsibility on us to be all things to all people, and often our personal needs, and our own growth and developments as individuals, suffers as a consequence. The flip side of this is that men's societal role is now completely murky and unclear. It's not taken for granted as it once was that the man is the breadwinner, and his role in the marriage/de facto relationship, and in his children's lives, isn't as clear as it once was. I think men feel as confused in this 'post feminist' era as women do, and men of my generation and younger seem to have sense of apathy and lack of direction in life, in contrast to their fathers' and grandfathers' generations.

But the most annoying part about feminism is the liberal feminists that basically say the government should give lots of money to unemployed single mothers. WTF???
My mother-in-law worked long hours, suffered long commutes, and even went without food in order to provide for her children after her divorce. She didn't apply for government aid, and didn't demand her ex pay her alimony, which was dumb of her because she needed it and deserved it. Yet some lazy-ass 26-year-old mother of five has health problems because she sits on her ass all day and then uses the lifestyle-induced disease as an excuse for not working; and she'll get all the freakin' money she ever needs! There's some motivation for responsibility! There's empowering the female! There's encouraging strength and diligence! But I'm sexist for saying that because it's usually the poor woman who gets stuck with the kids. Well, I guess that's what comes of stupid sex and no DNA testing. No responsibility required...


That very issue is being debated here in political circles at the moment. Our conservative party here wants single parent women (or men) on the domestic purposes benefit to go out to work at least part-time when the last child is school age. There are many people who also believe a solo parent's benefit should be cut or abated if they have another child while on the benefit. But this is a very difficult issue, because in cutting a benefit, it's actually the child who suffers most. The child hasn't done anything to deserve their mother's choices in life, so should they be penalised? There must be a better way, and I tend to think it's work and training incentives, not punitive measures. I think benefit agencies need to work with these parents to get them out into training and jobs, and persevere until they get a result. This all costs time and money, but in the end I suspect it's worth the investment.

[Antares]

Women only have it "SO good" in the Western World, no? And even in the Western world, we still see traces of male dominance. Dropping your maiden name, taking your father's surname etc. How about phrases like 'man and wife'? Or the existence of 'Mrs. John Doe' (I personally will never become a 'Mrs. Anything', married or not)? Apparently, inequality still exists even in the most advanced societies, and no, it isn't about maths or physical strength. My classmates want to be 'housewives'. Humor me, but they want to be housewives because it's 'womanly' and they 'don't have to do anything'. Many women are expected to be housewives even in North America and Europe. I told my mother that I would only settle to share the role of child rearing equally with my husband and I want to work just as much as he regardless if I become a mother. If certain aspects of our career must be sacrificed for a child, then he loses as much as I do. Just the incredulous look on that damn woman's face disgust me endlessly. Petty expectations of women still exist in the highly educated, it seems. The OP's 'hate' of feminism isn't applicable to anywhere but the civilized world, and it's not entirely so either. See the bigger picture. Just try, please.

[zibber]

(NB: I definitely agree that material feminism has (mostly!) served its purpose, but I don't want the negative portrayal of that branch of feminism to give the impression that immaterial feminism isn't very actually relevant and even urgent.)

I don't like your supposition that an anti-feminist is all about flaunting her femininity in an asanine way. I've witnessed the behavior to which you are referring but not often. I'll have you know I'm coming from an entirely different avenue that has nothing to do with wanting to wear makeup and high heeled shoes. That's kind of superficial honestly.

Sorry if I gave that impression; I did not mean to, nor is that my stance.

But on that topic, wanting to be pretty may not be genetically ingrained but it certainly is natural, especially if people of the opposite sex communicate that "pretty" and "attractive" are strongly associated terms. I'm sure if cavemen said it was attractive to them to smear dirt on their faces the cavewomen would do it in a heartbeat. That's not a cut to women, it's just human nature. (By the way, women have been slathering makeup on themselves for thousands of years, this isn't exactly a new development.) If you were to remove all the commercials and advertising geared toward women you'd suddenly have thousands of women begging for people to tell them what they can do to be more attractive to men.

Well, that's just terribly depressing. The cultural conventions are so ingrained in your mind that they have become completely naturalised.

What you're talking about isn't intrinsically related to gender but the tendency of any human to want to be attractive. My point is that we should let go of all these unrealistic, arbitrary gender associations, this pesky essentialism, and finally move on.

Regarding the ingrained bravado I think it's more that men have an ingrained desire to impress women, in general of course.

Yes, and this is all completly geared at passing on one's genes. We are beyond that phase, I would hope. You mustn't forget that the flipside of this is female docility and total subservience to the species (as females are much more bound to reproductive cycles than males, whose biggest worry are those one or two wet dreams). It's a very sticky topic.

Girls pretty, guys tough. What is wrong with that? Just because there's a stereotype based on a real trend doesn't mean everyone has to follow it! Jeez man, you're not just going to wipe out all social constructs of what makes a woman womanly and a man manly! I kind of like the stereotypes, because then it's more fun to break them.

What do you mean, that it is futile to agitate against these arbitrary expectations?

Of course you kind of like them, you grew up in a world where they were positively reinforced all the time (and their opposites negatively). Obviously no one is physically bound to them in the popular sense, but there is definitely a mental compulsion to fit in.

Also, one of the things I'm trying to get across is that certain stereotypes/conventions aren't known. I'm sure there are plenty of silly quirks in my thinking which I would be best to get rid off, which seem so natural that I can't even reflect on them. They don't even pass my mind. Here is where meditation, close scrutiny comes in, and the feminist movement and (academic) gender studies are no less than vital in this matter.

[blueback]

even in the Western world, we still see traces of male dominance. Dropping your maiden name, taking your father's surname etc.

Ah. . .yes. . .that is horrible. It's amazing that in this day and age, when we have computers and welfare, that we still use cultural conventions like single names. I find it appalling that we haven't advanced far enough culturally to simply address everyone by their social security number. After all, everyone is individually unique and should be free of any connection to the past, and any connection to other people. <-sarcasm

Apparently, inequality still exists even in the most advanced societies,

Yeah. I'm pretty sure that everyone has said that.

My classmates want to be 'housewives'. Humor me, but they want to be housewives because it's 'womanly' and they 'don't have to do anything'. Many women are expected to be housewives even in North America and Europe.

What? That's your argument? You know women that want to be housewives and you get the impression that a lot of women are expected to be housewives? That's it?

If so many women WANT to be housewives isn't it possible that THEY are the ones expecting other women to want to be housewives. After all, you want to avoid being a housewife and you expect other women to want to avoid being a housewife. You haven't provided a shred of support for the idea that women only want to be housewives because their evil, phallic-having fathers and brothers made them want to be housewives. Maybe they're just naturally inclined to want to do the things that are involved with being a housewife.

If certain aspects of our career must be sacrificed for a child, then he loses as much as I do.

Well, of course. We've obviously advanced far enough to where specialization of labor is no longer obviously a good thing. That only applied back when we were cavemen. . .oh, and tribesmen. . .and herdsmen. . .and during the industrial revolution. . .and pretty much every point in time I can think of.

Just because you want to do something doesn't mean EVERYONE should want to do the same thing.

Oh, and feel free to replace "men" in anything I said with "person."

Petty expectations of women still exist in the highly educated, it seems.

So raising children is petty? Sure, why not. It's not like they're our future or anything.

The cultural conventions are so ingrained in your mind that they have become completely naturalised.

Why couldn't the conventions be cultural BECAUSE they are already natural?

What you're talking about isn't intrinsically related to gender but the tendency of any human to want to be attractive. My point is that we should let go of all these unrealistic, arbitrary gender associations, this pesky essentialism, and finally move on.

You are dead wrong about that. Read The Evolution of Desire. Human beings across hundreds of cultures and hundreds of countries all agree on several basic things:

Men: they want women to be attractive
Women: they want men to be decent providers

There are more, but those are the highest rated considerations. Like it or not, humans are controlled by their genes, and the genes want what the genes want.

Yes, and this is all completly geared at passing on one's genes. We are beyond that phase, I would hope.

We are beyond the phase. . .of reproduction? Oh, you just HOPE we no longer need to reproduce. Okay. As long as you qualify it.

You mustn't forget that the flipside of this is female docility and total subservience to the species (as females are much more bound to reproductive cycles than males, whose biggest worry are those one or two wet dreams). It's a very sticky topic.

Ha ha, 'sticky topic.'

Yes. It is terrible that women are burdened with a uterus. How will they ever accomplish anything when the possibility exists that they might get pregnant? Of course, there is that issue of perpetuating the species, but we can probably figure out some way around that if we let the women into the laboratories. They'd better work fast, though, cuz they'll only have about 50 or so years to figure it out.

Of course you kind of like them, you grew up in a world where they were positively reinforced all the time (and their opposites negatively).

Again, you need to provide a shred of support for the idea that the only reason we approve of gender roles is that they existed while we were growing up. Until you do, it is just as likely that we approve of them because we are naturally inclined to.

[Deliberator]

"just shut up and let the men have their way with you!"

lol, that would explain why everyone is so angry and defensive. I've gotten many more emotional responses than I would have expected.

My little world is a world unhampered by other people's opinions or expectations, other than those of my amazing husband. If someone says to me that I'm selfish if I follow a career and have children at the same time I'm not going to be hurt or worried because honestly, I'll be making a hell of a lot more money than they will, mwahaha.

I am at a point in my life where I am not intimidated my any man or woman who might be threatened by me, of which there will be many because as you can see, I am brazenly controversial. The last thing I need is affirmative action giving me the message that the only reason I'm getting anywhere is because I have a uterus. Wow, insulting. As SeaCzar said, I too think of myself as an equalist, wherein things that are not under our control aren't used in judgment of what we can accomplish.

Call me selfish but I really don't give a damn about eliminating society's views and stereotypes; those are people's OPINIONS and not worth much to me. The laws have it in place that their opinions can't hamper me economically, so who cares? Certainly not me. But again, this is coming from someone who hasn't ever been told she can't do something because she's a woman... maybe if I had been raised in a different environment I'd be whining about how things should be different and how screwed up our world is and how things should magically change for the better.

If I want to be a housewife, I'll be a housewife. If I just want to follow a career, I'll do that. If I want to have a career and kids at the same time, I better marry someone who can pick up the slack. So I did. You create your own ideal, and accept the consequences for the kind of life you want to live (I know I'll get pretty busy). If people sneer, prove 'em wrong! THAT's how you're going to change things!!!! OMG that's MY WHOLE POINT!! ARRGGHHHH! *tears out her hair*

All this whining and moping has gotten me all worked up. Coffee time.





Deliberator added to this post, 18 minutes and 0 seconds later...


What do you mean, that it is futile to agitate against these arbitrary expectations?

Pretty much! You take away those arbitrary expectations and new arbitrary expectations will take their place depending on the latest fad.


Of course you kind of like them, you grew up in a world where they were positively reinforced all the time (and their opposites negatively). Obviously no one is physically bound to them in the popular sense, but there is definitely a mental compulsion to fit in.

Zibber! There will ALWAYS be a mental compulsion to fit in!!! It doesn't matter how sensible or how ridiculous the trends are, people will always try to fit in!!!


Also, one of the things I'm trying to get across is that certain stereotypes/conventions aren't known. I'm sure there are plenty of silly quirks in my thinking which I would be best to get rid off, which seem so natural that I can't even reflect on them. They don't even pass my mind. Here is where meditation, close scrutiny comes in, and the feminist movement and (academic) gender studies are no less than vital in this matter.

If you want to take gender studies, be my guest. I think I'll pass; I'm not sure they would take kindly to my "diverse" opinions. Ironically, the opinions of a woman who thoroughly plans to take life by the horns, just like all those previous feminists hoped we would do.

[zibber]

Why couldn't the conventions be cultural BECAUSE they are already natural?

They would be genetic characteristics, then. Not conventions.

Maybe you are trying to point to conventions which are somehow based on genetic matters of fact. I think leg shaving is one of these. Women naturally have a little less hair than men (although their cranial hair somehow needs to be longer, but I digress), so perhaps the leg shaving convention is an exaggeration of this difference. So? It's significantly less ridiculous now?


You are dead wrong about that. Read The Evolution of Desire. Human beings across hundreds of cultures and hundreds of countries all agree on several basic things:

Men: they want women to be attractive
Women: they want men to be decent providers

There are more, but those are the highest rated considerations. Like it or not, humans are controlled by their genes, and the genes want what the genes want.

It's funny that I deleted the line "even if they were proven to be genetic, that would not matter" from my previous post.. Well, read on, if you will.


We are beyond the phase. . .of reproduction? Oh, you just HOPE we no longer need to reproduce. Okay. As long as you qualify it.

Sorry, I was a bit concise in my formulation. That is not at all what I intended to communicate. I hope we are beyond the phase of blindly accepting evolutionarily decided characteristics as fair/justified.


Yes. It is terrible that women are burdened with a uterus. How will they ever accomplish anything when the possibility exists that they might get pregnant? Of course, there is that issue of perpetuating the species, but we can probably figure out some way around that if we let the women into the laboratories. They'd better work fast, though, cuz they'll only have about 50 or so years to figure it out.

No, no, no.. I was pointing out the dangers of blindly accepting evolutionarily decided characteristics as fair/justified. I named the (evolutionarily decided) female predicament as something you accept when you accept (natural) male bravado.


Again, you need to provide a shred of support for the idea that the only reason we approve of gender roles is that they existed while we were growing up. Until you do, it is just as likely that we approve of them because we are naturally inclined to.

Okay friend, perhaps we are naturally inclined to. This changes nothing about the lack of fairness/justifiability/current relevance of gender roles.

Again. If we signalise gender roles which are skewed towards one gender, show an unspoken bias towards one gender, why should we not strive to streamline them?

Pretty much! You take away those arbitrary expectations and new arbitrary expectations will take their place depending on the latest fad.

&

Zibber! There will ALWAYS be a mental compulsion to fit in!!! It doesn't matter how sensible or how ridiculous the trends are, people will always try to fit in!!!

Okaay.. You refer to the weakness of the masses, or something like that? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to stop being interested in studying and discussing (social) injustices and smoke reefer at home all day, but if you let a general statement like that make you give up on what you stand for, then wow. Respect, you truly live in your own world.

I agree that rapid, truly effective feminist reforms would mostly be put into effect through influencing public opinion, which would mean competing with consumerist industries, which would probably be impossible simply based on financial inequality between the feminist movement and corporations. That doesn't mean that academia needs to give up on feminism, though. Fuck the masses.

If you want to take gender studies, be my guest. I think I'll pass; I'm not sure they would take kindly to my "diverse" opinions. Ironically, the opinions of a woman who thoroughly plans to take life by the horns, just like all those previous feminists hoped we would do.

Hey, congrats. That's not what I meant at all, though. I mean that feminism and gender studies still have a function. Are you familiar with deconstruction? It would be absurd to try to synthesise its ideas in a few lines, but it signalises the encoding of, among other things, power structures (not only male/female, but class-based as well) into natural language, our most basic tool. If you fail to see the relevance of that, I don't know what more to say.

[Deliberator]

Fuck the masses.

Finally, something we agree on.

Anyway, I think I understand where you're coming from. You're an idealist, and you have a picture in your mind of how the world and people should be and think that it really can happen. That's good, it's a noble sort of thing. We're not going to agree though because I'm not an idealist, I'm a pragmatist. I also want you to know that I'm not an anti-feminist. As I said in my first post, I am against some facets of modern feminism. Mostly the overall attitude being "whine whine" instead of "let's go get 'em".

Here, instead of us bantering on all day, tell me what kind of person could benefit from feminism and how. Time to go smoke some reefer.

[Lucid]

lol, that would explain why everyone is so angry and defensive. I've gotten many more emotional responses than I would have expected.

Are people angry and defensive? So far it seems like they're just disagreeing with you (and less aggressively than most of your posts have come off I might add.) Also, you've been using phrasing and language which is rather insulting to opinions other than your own. For example, the "whining" comment you make which I have referenced below. I think that if people are offended by your posts (and I'm not sure that's at all the case) it's probably less because of what you're saying than how you're saying it.

My little world is a world unhampered by other people's opinions or expectations, other than those of my amazing husband. If someone says to me that I'm selfish if I follow a career and have children at the same time I'm not going to be hurt or worried because honestly, I'll be making a hell of a lot more money than they will, mwahaha.

Good for you. Unfortunately, some of the rest of us have to live in society.

The last thing I need is affirmative action giving me the message that the only reason I'm getting anywhere is because I have a uterus. Wow, insulting.

Call me selfish but I really don't give a damn about eliminating society's views and stereotypes; those are people's OPINIONS and not worth much to me. The laws have it in place that their opinions can't hamper me economically, so who cares? Certainly not me.

Wait... I thought you didn't care what others thought of you or your abilities. Affirmative action somehow holds more sway over your opinion of yourself than the actual humans you interact with daily? If you don't care about eliminating these stereotypes (one of which being that women can't be successful without help from either a man or the government), then why are you so upset about affirmative action?
Be selfish if you like, but accept the consequences. If you profess to care only about yourself, I think you will be on shaky ground when criticizing others for doing things that you say don't concern you.

As SeaCzar said, I too think of myself as an equalist, wherein things that are not under our control aren't used in judgment of what we can accomplish.

I agree. Hopefully the rest of the world will catch up soon.

maybe if I had been raised in a different environment I'd be whining about how things should be different and how screwed up our world is and how things should magically change for the better.

What was your intention when starting this thread? I bet it was the same as the intentions of people who you say are "whining about how things should be different and how screwed up our world is and how things should magically change for the better." In fact, it seems like you're even taking the same approach, although whether you want to call it whining or expressing an opinion is probably a matter of whether you agree with said opinion or not.

If I want to be a housewife, I'll be a housewife. If I just want to follow a career, I'll do that. If I want to have a career and kids at the same time, I better marry someone who can pick up the slack. So I did. You create your own ideal, and accept the consequences for the kind of life you want to live (I know I'll get pretty busy). If people sneer, prove 'em wrong! THAT's how you're going to change things!!!! OMG that's MY WHOLE POINT!! ARRGGHHHH! *tears out her hair*

A point that I agree with wholeheartedly, except I don't think I need to marry someone to pick up any slack if I decide to have kids and a career (although it probably makes things a lot easier!). My mom did both all by herself and I have plenty of friends who are doing the same. Although, if you decide you want someone's help to be successful, I won't tear out my hair.

Honestly, I agree with much of what you say, but I don't agree with the reasoning you've used to arrive there, nor do I agree with your tactics in converting others to your point of view. That's cool though. Do your thing.

[Aeroscoper]

Deliberator,

I applaud your honesty, insight and courage. My wife and many of her friends share your views very closely, but have to be guarded on who they express these views to, for the same reasons you've experienced on this thread.

The irony in the "feminist movement", is typically the case with most of the "movements" we've experienced in our lifetime, is that it tends to harm those it intends to help. Not only in the ways you've very succinctly pointed out, but by way of unintended consequences that prevail when such "movements" play out. For example, because of the social promotion and condoning of the single parent household, there is a very large number of single mother households. There are a few very interesting aspects of such a home.

-there's no better indicator of a person growing up in poverty than being born out of wedlock.
-the tendency of women in these situations wanting a father for their child so desperately, they lower their standards on men, leading to abuse and mistreatment.
-the greatest percentage of children abused in this country are by men in the household that aren't their paternal fathers.
-because of women entering the job market, it diluted the value of labor, thus even if a woman wanted to stay at home, they can't.

And so on and so on and so on. The governmental handouts only perpetuate this destructive cycle. To me the greatest tragedy and idiotic notion that helped originate all of this is the concept that being home raising kids is somehow an inferior endeavor. I couldn't think of a job as important, difficult, or noble, as raising kids and keeping a home in order. For women to be convinced that any job, whether it be banker, or lawyer, or even doctor, is more "important" than raising healthy priceless human-beings is downright disgusting.

The classic case of the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of this movement is the feminist reaction to Palin. As others have noted, it's no longer about women, it's about a voting block, being blindly lead by emotional, and incorrect arguments.

Another coincidence is how so many of these movements stemmed from the hippy movement in the 60's and 70's.


Isms are bad. Isms are evil. Isms are born out of a desire for personal advantage, or through fear. We would be a better world without isms. Interesting how the use of the suffix seems to change...in sexism, racism and ageism, the suffix denotes prejudice against the "ism"ed group. In "feminism", it is a drive to promote the rights of the "ism"ed group. By all rights, the word "feminism" ought to connote prejudice against all things feminine. It is a misnomer.

I am declaring myself to be an Ismist, prejudiced against isms. Or perhaps for them. Who can tell?



Gadjit well said and very accurate. If you think about it, the concept of "isms" itself can only exist with those participants having inherent prejudices against society, but that's for another thread. I say we found a group. "Declaring Isms Counterproductive and Killers of Society" (DICKS). heh

Overall the themes and trends when you look at all of the "movements" as a whole are pretty consistent:

-bringing fringe ideals or groups into the mainstream
-using sympathy and victimization as the vehicle to accomplish this

Anyone grounded in reality will realize that the world and mother nature isn't "fair". The one shared misconception by so many is that you can somehow legislate away different aspects of life. Which really points to the jist of it, these folks are generally very upset about life and want a way to get back at it, and have many well intentioned folks championing this destructive mindset.

[Tenacious B]

As part of the grant application, applicants are asked to enumerate any non-technical benefits that might accrue from their proposed research. This lady pointed out that no women professors in her state had ever received an NSF grant in her research area, and that funding her proposal would address what might be perceived as historic gender bias.

The committee was about 2/3 men and 1/3 women. The gentlemen said, "Well, we can see how this could be considered a valid benefit...."

The women, on the other hand, just about came out of their chairs. I can't express how deeply offended they were by such a suggestion. They felt that the putative "benefit" would be nothing more than reverse gender bias, and even worse, would establish a precedent that would taint the perception of future awards to women researchers.

The lady professor did NOT get her grant.
Good to know there are still some reasonably sane people out there.

[Deliberator]

Lucid, I do apologize for my abrasive nature. That's just who I am.

It is funny though how you called me out on whining about whiners. Go figure. :)

[Lucid]

Lucid, I do apologize for my abrasive nature. That's just who I am.

It is funny though how you called me out on whining about whiners. Go figure. :)

I'm really just trying to make the point that the people you're talking about see it differently than you do and to try to show you how their position isn't so different from your own. Your opinions are certainly valid, it's just strange how much you have in common with the people you feel so strongly against. I don't mean that as an insult. I just think it's helpful to understand the other side. Often both sides of any issue have more in common than they'd like to admit.

[Deliberator]

Oh sure, we've got tons of similarities. But we still apparently found rather pressing differences about which to argue... why, it wouldn't be very mentally stimulating to look for all the things that we agreed on.

Looking back I kind of want to clarify how it can be the case that affirmative action bothers me more than do people's opinions of me as a woman, I feel I didn't do that subject justice. Maybe I'll start a new post on that actually, and tell the story of why I didn't go into philosophy.

[Lucid]

Oh sure, we've got tons of similarities. But we still apparently found rather pressing differences about which to argue... why, it wouldn't be very mentally stimulating to look for all the things that we agreed on.

I think you're laboring under a misunderstanding of the difference between my personal ideas about feminism and gender equality and the ones you seem to have such a problem with. But it's probably a moot point anyway. Similarly, I was not offended by your abrasive nature, so I'm not the person you should be apologizing to... if you should be apologizing to anyone for who you are and that's really something you have to decide for yourself. In fact, I'm not sure anyone has been offended... it was just my guess that if they were it wasn't because of your views.

[Allie]

Overall the themes and trends when you look at all of the "movements" as a whole are pretty consistent:

-bringing fringe ideals or groups into the mainstream
-using sympathy and victimization as the vehicle to accomplish this

Anyone grounded in reality will realize that the world and mother nature isn't "fair". The one shared misconception by so many is that you can somehow legislate away different aspects of life. Which really points to the jist of it, these folks are generally very upset about life and want a way to get back at it, and have many well intentioned folks championing this destructive mindset.

I see your point on the general premises. However, I have a need to look at the other side too. Sometimes, it takes consistent actions to bring forward a blighted situation or preconceived outlook to change. Take unwed mothers for example. As recently as the fifties, women having a child out of wedlock was a shameful ordeal. The unwed mother and her family were ostracized by the community and society as a whole (sometimes, this lead to life threatening abortions in the back alleys). It takes the feminist/hippies movement to help break the taboo and move society away from the issue of shame and prejudice against unwed mothers and understand that these things happen. I am referencing the US here only.

Today, having accomplished (to me at least, in the areas that matter) what the feminist movement had set out to do, we are trying to find and maintain the right balance for most everyone. In the process, we swing from one end of the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum, yet continuously trying to find and maintain that middle ground. This is true in most aspects of our lives, from economics, to environment, to education, etc.

The problem is when we politicize these issues. Then, it becomes one group against the other, in the struggle for the voting blocs and power. Today, we associate social issues with legislation and political affiliations.

We used to hear/see the term "war of the sexes" every once in awhile in the media. Now, we don't hear about that much anymore. Is that indication we've moved beyond "feminism"?

[blueback]

we are trying to find and maintain the right balance for most everyone...The problem is when we politicize these issues.

Please explain how we can "find the balance" without politicizing the issue?

[zibber]

Anyway, I think I understand where you're coming from. You're an idealist, and you have a picture in your mind of how the world and people should be and think that it really can happen. That's good, it's a noble sort of thing. We're not going to agree though because I'm not an idealist, I'm a pragmatist. I also want you to know that I'm not an anti-feminist. As I said in my first post, I am against some facets of modern feminism. Mostly the overall attitude being "whine whine" instead of "let's go get 'em".

Here, instead of us bantering on all day, tell me what kind of person could benefit from feminism and how. Time to go smoke some reefer.

Glad you see where I'm coming from. I don't know how we can go get 'em without some spreading awareness ("whining"), though. Your pragmatism reads as "that's just the way it is"-ism. Whether I act on my views has no bearing on the legitimacy of those views.

Who could benefit? Every young black-haired girl anxious about revealing her highly visible leg hair at gym class? Every woman with a love-hate relationship with her scale (and her own body)? Every wobbly high heel wearing woman hilariously stumbling down the street? The thing is that these immaterial problems, however problematic, aren't recognized as problems. That is, they are so naturalised in the minds of the people suffering as a result of them that these people seem virtually unable to view them from above. (Hence someone like Allie a little further down thinking feminism is apparently done.) It is hard to reflect on what one takes for granted.

-there's no better indicator of a person growing up in poverty than being born out of wedlock.
-the tendency of women in these situations wanting a father for their child so desperately, they lower their standards on men, leading to abuse and mistreatment.
-the greatest percentage of children abused in this country are by men in the household that aren't their paternal fathers.
-because of women entering the job market, it diluted the value of labor, thus even if a woman wanted to stay at home, they can't.

Wait.. you're a christian trying to promote christian values, right? Something along those lines? That's just my hunch, I wanted to make sure why this little list felt so offensive to me. Especially the last part; I really hope I'm misunderstanding the point that's trying to make.


Today, having accomplished (to me at least, in the areas that matter) what the feminist movement had set out to do

...

We used to hear/see the term "war of the sexes" every once in awhile in the media. Now, we don't hear about that much anymore. Is that indication we've moved beyond "feminism"?

It is common for people to consider their own time, the now, as the pinnacle of all that has preceded it. It's not. I'm sorry. We haven't moved beyond feminism. Read the thread.

(Not hearing about something in the media is a really bad indicator, by the way. Anyone that follows independent news sources will get a chuckle out of that.)

[Deliberator]

Glad you see where I'm coming from. I don't know how we can go get 'em without some spreading awareness ("whining"), though. Your pragmatism reads as "that's just the way it is"-ism. Whether I act on my views has no bearing on the legitimacy of those views.

Who could benefit? Every young black-haired girl anxious about revealing her highly visible leg hair at gym class? Every woman with a love-hate relationship with her scale (and her own body)? Every wobbly high heel wearing woman hilariously stumbling down the street? The thing is that these immaterial problems, however problematic, aren't recognized as problems. That is, they are so naturalised in the minds of the people suffering as a result of them that these people seem virtually unable to view them from above. (Hence someone like Allie a little further down thinking feminism is apparently done.) It is hard to reflect on what one takes for granted.

They aren't recognized as problems because nobody is forcing women to wear high heels or shave her legs, and it is in fact socially acceptable to refrain from doing either (believe me, I should know). Nobody would openly tell a woman wearing flats that she's less of a woman because she doesn't have heels. Why? Because feminism worked!

It's not that I'm "naturalized" to think that it's normal and fine, it's that we live in a free country and people having certain expectations for others is not applicable to only women, rather to everyone. Take blacks for example. A black person who is openly republican often will get death threats. THAT is f***ed up imo. But some dumb girl wears heels and falls down? Yeah, national crisis.

People's personal battles with their own self-esteem is something that could be fixed more easily by a personal therapist, not by political activism. There is no injustice in a woman choosing to wear high heels or wanting to be thinner. Why? Because men and other groups are exposed to these sorts of things too. That is, silly societal norms isn't a gender-specific issue. It's certainly not something that requires deconstruction.

Let's take the black-haired girl. She feels uncomfortable because she doesn't fit in. Other girls shave their legs, because in our culture, smooth legs are considered attractive. What would you have zibber? Do you really think that feminism should endeavor to change every societal norm? Or perhaps instead we should simply promote self-esteem and individualism among young women instead of trying to make societal norms (which aren't, in fact, anybody's fault) some kind of social injustice.

In any case, I don't think spreading awareness to people who don't suffer these issues is the right strategy; what about spreading your message straight to those girls you mentioned instead? After all, I'm just another citizen; what the hell am I supposed to do about little Ashley and her hairy legs... write a letter to congress?

Wait.. you're a christian trying to promote christian values, right? Something along those lines? That's just my hunch, I wanted to make sure why this little list felt so offensive to me. Especially the last part; I really hope I'm misunderstanding the point that's trying to make.

The point of the last statement is not meant to be offensive. It simply means that the more people that enter the job market, the less money there is for each job. Meaning if a man wants to support his wife it's not as easy as it would've been 75 years ago because he's not going to be paid as much. I'm not saying this is correct, just that it's not sexist.

What I would argue though is that there was some sort of social "promotion" of single-parent households. Rather, during the sexual revolution premarital sex became more commonplace and apparently fathers no longer felt like taking a shotgun to the "perpetrator" to make the guy marry his daughter if she got pregnant. As such when nature takes its course the guy leaves or they divorce, and there are suddenly a lot of single-parent households. There are many arguments you could make as to why these are more likely to be poor families.

[Colette]

Deliberator, I'm not sure I agree with you that it's socially acceptable to be 'unshaven' if you're a woman. Legs perhaps, but not armpits (well, based on my experience anyway, and I'm not going to elaborate on that)..

[Deliberator]

Deliberator, I'm not sure I agree with you that it's socially acceptable to be 'unshaven' if you're a woman. Legs perhaps, but not armpits (well, based on my experience anyway, and I'm not going to elaborate on that)..

Well, back when I didn't shave my armpits I got funny looks during yoga class and some innocuous comments from friends but that's about it. I ended up shaving it because I didn't like how it looked with my more delicate looking tank tops. Now I just trim it with an electric razor every now and then, never shave it entirely though. Perhaps it isn't entirely socially acceptable, but it's not that big a deal even so.

[zibber]

They aren't recognized as problems because nobody is forcing women to wear high heels or shave her legs, and it is in fact socially acceptable to refrain from doing either (believe me, I should know). Nobody would openly tell a woman wearing flats that she's less of a woman because she doesn't have heels. Why? Because feminism worked!

I don't think you should or indeed do know. I hear and see a lot of different things, from people close to me as well as credible writers, and I definitely suspect it's not as "socially acceptable" as you would have me believe. I can't tell you how pained I am to know that women I'm close to constantly worry about what to eat, whether they'll fit into those jeans, whether their skin is "up to par", whether their hair is attractive and so on. It's ridiculous. I think this can change, and if it can it should. "Feminism worked!" is an insane thing to claim right now.

(By the way, really? A woman can go for a nice, undisturbed swim at a public pool with hairy armpits and legs? Really. This is what you think. You even briefly experienced yourself what others experience daily, and you still stubbornly deny it.)

It's not that I'm "naturalized" to think that it's normal and fine, it's that we live in a free country and people having certain expectations for others is not applicable to only women, rather to everyone. Take blacks for example. A black person who is openly republican often will get death threats. THAT is f***ed up imo. But some dumb girl wears heels and falls down? Yeah, national crisis.

I agree! This isn't a problem exclusive to feminism. The high heel example was a bit of a stretch I agree, but walking around the shopping district with my girlfriend yesterday we found that over half the women's shoes at every store had impossible heels. That has to signify something. (It's just a random example, I hope you don't let it weigh too heavily in your assessment of my case.)

("Free" is such a relative term, by the way. There are plenty immaterial barriers in place, as well as actual material barriers. The myth of the "free west" is a topic for another day, though.)

People's personal battles with their own self-esteem is something that could be fixed more easily by a personal therapist, not by political activism. There is no injustice in a woman choosing to wear high heels or wanting to be thinner. Why? Because men and other groups are exposed to these sorts of things too. That is, silly societal norms isn't a gender-specific issue. It's certainly not something that requires deconstruction.

Yes, yes it does. It certainly does. Deconstruction (meditation) can help individuals for sure, and on a larger scale it helps us discover, recognize and understand the (often problematic) quirks of our collective psyche. Again, it's definitely not gender specific, but I don't think I ever explicitly claimed that, nor do I think it makes matters more acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that a small army of therapists couldn't battle the unrelenting social propaganda of the beauty industry and western media. People need to be gifted with patience and insight to rise above (or even be able to recognize the relative nature of) strong conventions that are still firmly in place and reinforced and perpetuated constantly, and far from everyone is that lucky. Why are you so opposed to people already above some conventions trying to battle those generally?

Let's take the black-haired girl. She feels uncomfortable because she doesn't fit in. Other girls shave their legs, because in our culture, smooth legs are considered attractive. What would you have zibber? Do you really think that feminism should endeavor to change every societal norm? Or perhaps instead we should simply promote self-esteem and individualism among young women instead of trying to make societal norms (which aren't, in fact, anybody's fault) some kind of social injustice.

No, I disagree very much on the terms there. They are "considered attractive", but only because the image of smooth, bald legs (as associated with "beauty"/"femininity") is constantly pushed by every magazine, tv show and movie. This is barely problematic for you, apparently, presumably because you aren't very hairy and, well, look pretty good, but such a trend hits the people whose appearance doesn't congrue as much with beauty norms pretty hard.

In any case, I don't think spreading awareness to people who don't suffer these issues is the right strategy; what about spreading your message straight to those girls you mentioned instead? After all, I'm just another citizen; what the hell am I supposed to do about little Ashley and her hairy legs... write a letter to congress?


Of course it is. I agree that it starts with people disadvantaged/troubled by conventions letting go of their attachment to those conventions, but it sure as fork helps if society as a whole recognizes their relative character. You don't have to do anything, which is the point exactly. Don't laugh/sneer/stare at unconventional/nonconventional people. Don't support glossies that photoshop and airbrush every photo. Don't support the beauty industry in general. Be who you are and let others do the same.

Well, I am having a torrent of thoughts and typed this post in quite a nonlinear fashion, but I hope something slightly coherent came out. I feel like a crazy buddhist hermit sometimes.

[Deliberator]

I don't think you should or indeed do know. I hear and see a lot of different things, from people close to me as well as credible writers, and I definitely suspect it's not as "socially acceptable" as you would have me believe. I can't tell you how pained I am to know that women I'm close to constantly worry about what to eat, whether they'll fit into those jeans, whether their skin is "up to par", whether their hair is attractive and so on. It's ridiculous. I think this can change, and if it can it should. "Feminism worked!" is an insane thing to claim right now.

(By the way, really? A woman can go for a nice, undisturbed swim at a public pool with hairy armpits and legs? Really. This is what you think. You even briefly experienced yourself what others experience daily, and you still stubbornly deny it.)

Yes, I agree women are stupidly obsessed with how attractive they are, and I will not deny that I've been affected by this too. However I didn't get over it because the media stopped pushing its deal, I got over it by developing my own sense of self-worth unrelated to physical appearance.

See, if I knew a bunch of females who were always fretting about their weight and appearance I'd first give them the inspiring lecture about it not really being important. Then, if they continued, I'd tell them to shut up about it because obviously their obsession is not stemming from a lack of support. I have quite a few ex-friends who used to whine to me constantly about their weight. I don't have tolerance for those types of self-defeating personalities…. I think it really stems from a psychological desire to place an external blame on an internal problem, ie poor self-esteem. See, it's actually much easier to blame society for your poor self-esteem than it is to develop good character.

I didn’t realize feminism’s goal was to make women unconcerned with their appearance, rather I thought it was to fight for equal rights and equal opportunities to excel and live in the pursuit of whatever they think will make them happy, as well as increase societal tolerance for women who act/dress in unconventional or traditionally masculine ways.

(Oh, my own personal experiences don't count huh? They don't fit your picture of an oppressed society? Believe me, I'm positive that if I didn't shave at all and went to a pool nobody would say anything to me. The worst that would happen is people would snicker or something. Maybe that is what you would call socially unacceptable, but I was thinking more along the lines of something that would get you kicked out of a privately owned restaurant).

Yes, yes it does. It certainly does. Deconstruction (meditation) can help individuals for sure, and on a larger scale it helps us discover, recognize and understand the (often problematic) quirks of our collective psyche. Again, it's definitely not gender specific, but I don't think I ever explicitly claimed that, nor do I think it makes matters more acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that a small army of therapists couldn't battle the unrelenting social propaganda of the beauty industry and western media. People need to be gifted with patience and insight to rise above (or even be able to recognize the relative nature of) strong conventions that are still firmly in place and reinforced and perpetuated constantly, and far from everyone is that lucky. Why are you so opposed to people already above some conventions trying to battle those generally?

No, I’m not. But I would love to ask you how, if you could control legislation, you would propose to control the media without uprooting the very basis of our economy (ie free market and consumerism).

No, I disagree very much on the terms there. They are "considered attractive", but only because the image of smooth, bald legs (as associated with "beauty"/"femininity") is constantly pushed by every magazine, tv show and movie. This is barely problematic for you, apparently, presumably because you aren't very hairy and, well, look pretty good, but such a trend hits the people whose appearance doesn't congrue as much with beauty norms pretty hard.

I have dark-brown hair and light skin! Freakin' monkey hair!
No, the real reason it's not a problem for me is because I don’t give a shit. I don't watch TV, I don't buy glossy magazines, and I don't care what people think of me. I would love for other women to have this freedom, so I will gladly lead by example.

Of course it is. I agree that it starts with people disadvantaged/troubled by conventions letting go of their attachment to those conventions, but it sure as fork helps if society as a whole recognizes their relative character. You don't have to do anything, which is the point exactly. Don't laugh/sneer/stare at unconventional/nonconventional people. Don't support glossies that photoshop and airbrush every photo. Don't support the beauty industry in general. Be who you are and let others do the same.

Well, I'm happy to know I am in fact supporting your dream that women don't fret about their physical appearance. I am the type of person who, when realizing that my male classmate was wearing hot pink nail polish, smiled and told him that I liked the color on him. Oh wait, shit! That means I'm supporting the evils of the beauty industry!

Btw... there is something to be said for the phenomenon of women, without any input from the media, comparing themselves to other real-life women and forming their own preferences about what they think is attractive. Then, looking at themselves, they are discouraged because they don't live up to their ideals. There are two solutions to this: (1) banning the use of mirrors, or (2) distracting women from their appearance entirely by focusing on other factors of self-improvement (ie education, hobbies, skill development etc).

[blueback]

You'll never convince women to stop worrying about their appearance. You would first have to convince men to stop worrying about women's appearance, and that's not going to happen. I could have qualified that, but I think it's close enough to 100% to stand as it is.

Is that you in the picture?

I'm just going to respond as if it is. If it's not, then this just doesn't apply to you in particular.

Attractive women, who tell other women to stop worrying about their appearance, haven't acheived anything they need to be bragging about. The fact of the world (and I do mean globally) is that men want attractive (physically) women. If you're already attractive, and you choose to make the minimum effort to appear more attractive, you're still attractive. Plenty of guys like the natural look. If a woman is unattractive (in one way or another), and makes the minimum effort, she will continue to be unattractive. However, if she makes an effort, she can appear attractive.

The beauty industry exists because there are consistent standards of beauty. Proper hip to waist ratio, clear skin, long shiny hair, rosy cheeks and lips, arched eyebrows, clean nails, long legs, firm butts, etc. If the way people (not just men) interpreted beauty really did vary by individual then the industry wouldn't exist because it would have to focus on each individual woman and how to make her look like a specific man wanted her to look. Men (and women) generally agree on what is attractive, and what is not, so everyone is shooting at the same target.

This doesn't make women sheep, or weaker, or anything like that. It just means that everyone happens to want the same thing. Just because a crowd of people trying to squeeze through one exit LOOKS like a herd of animals doesn't mean they are. They are all individuals, trying to get through the door, not sheep blindly following the backside of the sheep in front of them wherever it may lead.

I, and this is just my personal opinion, look forward to the day when medical science conquers ugliness. I think it would be a good thing if everyone was within the bounds of "physically attractive." I don't think those bounds will change too much; I think they're hardwired into us. I think it's totally possible for everyone to be attractive and still be different enough to be told apart. That will allow everyone to really be themselves. Kind of like school uniforms preclude the possibility of kids judging each other based on how nice their clothes look. Without the obvious difference between physical attractiveness and unattractiveness people will be forced to judge other people on their character. I think that will make the world a better place.

[Allie]

Please explain how we can "find the balance" without politicizing the issue?

When I refer to politicizing social issues, I referred to them being boxed into specific party politics/party identifications such as: extremists groups, conservative, Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, liberals, fringe groups. For example, what kind of image does the phrase "feminist groups" associated with today? From what I have read and heard recently, the first thought for most is of a fringe group of misogynist/radicals/extremists rather than women's rights. Gay rights=Liberal/Democratic issues rather than individual rights in general. Same with immigrations, nationalized/socialized health care, etc. There's hardly balance in this approach except pitting one group against the other rather than focusing on the actual issues; and the messages got lost in the political exchanges.

[Luthor Rex]

When it comes to beauty, feminists are full of shit. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder or any other creepy D&D monster. Our standards of beauty were forged by the hammer natural selection on the anvil of nature.

I am anti-feminist because feminism is anti-science.

Men prefer shaved legs because naturally only young girls have hairless legs, and thus hairless legs are a symbol of youth and youth is a symbol of fertility. This is still the Darwinian struggle, human beings have not stopped evolving, but at the same time we are not adapted to a world of skyscrapers and condoms. We are adapted for a life of cavemen.

Men are not at fault for preferring women with long hair, long hair takes years of good health to grow and good health is another symbol of fertility. Across our species we find the same markers for beauty in every culture because we have one unified human nature that was forged a long time ago in Africa.

Feminism is wrong because Darwin was right.

What do we now live under if not the tyranny of feminism? A woman’s primary mating strategy, that of cuckoldry, is now acceptable. Monogamy and virginity until marriage were beneficial to men because it helped to ensure paternity. Now that it is socially acceptable for women to run around and have multiple babies by multiple men, marriage no long has a benefit for men.

There will be no new feminist woman for the same reason there was no new socialist man: because Darwin was right and human nature will always reassert itself.

Any man who can be a committed and monogamous family man can easily look around himself now and see exactly what kind of outrageous whores the modern woman has made herself out to be. No family oriented man with self respect will hand that creature a wedding ring.

The feminist revolution was successful in the same manner the French Revolution was a success, and now we all live under the feminist Reign of Terror.

All hail the matriarchy.

[Deliberator]

Is that you in the picture?

To whom do you speak?





Deliberator added to this post, 10 minutes and 27 seconds later...


The feminist revolution was successful in the same manner the French Revolution was a success, and now we all live under the feminist Reign of Terror.

Let me get this straight... are you saying that our current state of women's rights is terrifying? That seems a bit harsh.

I've talked to quite a few men who seem extremely happy that most women don't wait until marriage to give it up. Based on the state of our society, it isn't really unreasonable for people to have sex before marriage because we no longer get married at the age of 18. We also live in a very individualistic society which makes marriage a very shaky institution anyway since we can just break it off if we get tired of the person. I don't think it's feminism, rather the sexual revolution of the 60's that brought on the trend.

[TheLastMohican]

To whom do you speak?


Must be zibber.

[Deliberator]

Must be zibber.

I think so. His avatar is hunky.

[TheLastMohican]

I think so. His avatar is hunky.

But he's hunkier.

[Deliberator]

Well yes... since he is 3-D and his avatar is 2-D then that would indeed be a logical conclusion.

[Colette]

Men (and women) generally agree on what is attractive, and what is not, so everyone is shooting at the same target

I couldn't disagree more. Standards of beauty in women vary between societies, cultures, and ethnic and social backgrounds, as well as by age, and a whole lot of other factors. You are also mistaken in equating 'beauty' with 'attractiveness'. 'Beautiful' people (as agreed on by others) usually conform to the male/female ideal proportion stereotypes (for facial features and body profile), whereas attractiveness spans a whole range of body and facial types, and skin colours.

This doesn't make women sheep, or weaker, or anything like that. It just means that everyone happens to want the same thing. Just because a crowd of people trying to squeeze through one exit LOOKS like a herd of animals doesn't mean they are. They are all individuals, trying to get through the door, not sheep blindly following the backside of the sheep in front of them wherever it may lead.


Again, completely wrong. Log onto a dating site for 10 minutes and you'll immediately see the differences in what people are looking for. If you allow movies and magazines to define a female ideal of beauty for you, then you are indeed a sheep. Think for yourself..

[zibber]

Whoa. Enter the chauvinists?


The beauty industry exists because there are consistent standards of beauty. Proper hip to waist ratio, clear skin, long shiny hair, rosy cheeks and lips, arched eyebrows, clean nails, long legs, firm butts, etc. If the way people (not just men) interpreted beauty really did vary by individual then the industry wouldn't exist because it would have to focus on each individual woman and how to make her look like a specific man wanted her to look. Men (and women) generally agree on what is attractive, and what is not, so everyone is shooting at the same target.

Chicken and egg. The beauty industry had to start somewhere, and I think it originally grew out of a natural (ritual) urge of humans to adorn themselves. Right now, though, as with many products of rampant capitalism, the industry has gotten completely out of control. Trying to naturalise the current state of the beauty industry is absurd. We are moving towards a standardised global beauty ideal, consciously fabricated to a great extent (unlike naturally developing cultural norms, not that those are necessarily good), and it is constantly being influenced, readjusted and inflated by commercially minded people. The thinness and hairlessness norms are very new and far from natural, for instance, especially the former.


I, and this is just my personal opinion, look forward to the day when medical science conquers ugliness. ... That will allow everyone to really be themselves.

You are asserting your allegiance to some objective ideal, then go on to logically tie the (oppressive) realisation of this ideal to freedom of subjective sincerity?


(Oh, my own personal experiences don't count huh? They don't fit your picture of an oppressed society? Believe me, I'm positive that if I didn't shave at all and went to a pool nobody would say anything to me. The worst that would happen is people would snicker or something. Maybe that is what you would call socially unacceptable, but I was thinking more along the lines of something that would get you kicked out of a privately owned restaurant).

Oh. I did mean getting snickered at. Actual segregation of unconventional people is FAR behind us, luckily, I'm talking about partial social alienation and the conditions under which it flourishes. (Again: immaterial rather than material issue.)


No, I’m not. But I would love to ask you how, if you could control legislation, you would propose to control the media without uprooting the very basis of our economy (ie free market and consumerism).

Oh. I would, though.


See, if I knew a bunch of females who were always fretting about their weight and appearance I'd first give them the inspiring lecture about it not really being important. Then, if they continued, I'd tell them to shut up about it because obviously their obsession is not stemming from a lack of support. I have quite a few ex-friends who used to whine to me constantly about their weight. I don't have tolerance for those types of self-defeating personalities…. I think it really stems from a psychological desire to place an external blame on an internal problem, ie poor self-esteem. See, it's actually much easier to blame society for your poor self-esteem than it is to develop good character.

Well, I'm happy to know I am in fact supporting your dream that women don't fret about their physical appearance. I am the type of person who, when realizing that my male classmate was wearing hot pink nail polish, smiled and told him that I liked the color on him. Oh wait, shit! That means I'm supporting the evils of the beauty industry!

I see what you mean. What I'm saying is that in our culture, low self-esteem is rife. Don't you think I try to talk "sense" into these women I spoke of? If that worked, I wouldn't be complaining about the issue on some forum; I'd be on the street with a dang megaphone. The direct approach unfortunately doesn't work, however.

I am not saying compliments are bad or that something can't genuinely look good on someone. Complimenting someone is not "supporting the beauty industry". I'm just stressing the ease with which (seemingly "absolute") visual preferences are influenced culturally, and how relative culture is.


Btw... there is something to be said for the phenomenon of women, without any input from the media, comparing themselves to other real-life women and forming their own preferences about what they think is attractive. Then, looking at themselves, they are discouraged because they don't live up to their ideals. There are two solutions to this: (1) banning the use of mirrors, or (2) distracting women from their appearance entirely by focusing on other factors of self-improvement (ie education, hobbies, skill development etc).

I'm so sorry, but not only does this simply not take place, if it did the women you speak of would be at fault. Look: I acknowledge that there is a hole where seemingly absolute cultural norms used to be (like there is some sort of hole where religion used to be, for those without religion), and it is being filled (among others) by the beauty industry. In this sense it serves a function. This doesn't make it exempt from (philosophical) scrutiny.

Again, seemingly absolute visual preferences are actually shaped to a great extent by culture, and culture is currently to a great extent influenced by mass commerce. This financial factor troubles me as well.

When it comes to beauty, feminists are full of shit. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder or any other creepy D&D monster. Our standards of beauty were forged by the hammer natural selection on the anvil of nature.

Right. Explain radical cultural differences, starting.. NOW!

I am anti-feminist because feminism is anti-science.

[here comes the pseudoscientific postrationalisation of the hairlessness myth -z]

Men prefer shaved legs because naturally only young girls have hairless legs, and thus hairless legs are a symbol of youth and youth is a symbol of fertility. This is still the Darwinian struggle, human beings have not stopped evolving, but at the same time we are not adapted to a world of skyscrapers and condoms. We are adapted for a life of cavemen.

Why is the hairlessness norm something of the past century then, though? Why doesn't it exist in some parts of the world (unreached by western media)? We had millions of years to evolve into a species where the females are hairless (since the most hairless women would get the most action and pass their genes on the most), but looking at the current situation it seems like an arbitrary cultural norm. What am I missing that you're seeing?

(ps. Prepubescent girls, the ones with the baldest legs, aren't fertile. Actually, I'm pretty sure any significant leg hair starts to appear while they are becoming fertile. Applying your logic, I have just proven that budding leg hair is a sign of fertility and thus, yes, attractive. Huh?)

Men are not at fault for preferring women with long hair, long hair takes years of good health to grow and good health is another symbol of fertility. Across our species we find the same markers for beauty in every culture because we have one unified human nature that was forged a long time ago in Africa.

Okay, I think this (bold) is called grasping at straws.

And again, we don't find the same markers for beauty across our species.

Feminism is wrong because Darwin was right.

Darwin described historical, natural processes and the "mechanism" driving them. "IS" not "OUGHT". Natural fallacy etc.


What do we now live under if not the tyranny of feminism? A woman’s primary mating strategy, that of cuckoldry, is now acceptable. Monogamy and virginity until marriage were beneficial to men because it helped to ensure paternity. Now that it is socially acceptable for women to run around and have multiple babies by multiple men, marriage no long has a benefit for men.

Cuckoldry? That is an archaic, offensive term. Why do you insist on judging current issues purely evolutionarily? Again (say it with me): "IS" not "OUGHT".


There will be no new feminist woman for the same reason there was no new socialist man: because Darwin was right and human nature will always reassert itself.

There are no socialist men? What am I? Capitalism just comes more naturally to humans, so it's dominant. Anything that comes more natural to us seems to be dominant.

Can you guess what's coming?

"IS" not "OUGHT"!


Any man who can be a committed and monogamous family man can easily look around himself now and see exactly what kind of outrageous whores the modern woman has made herself out to be. No family oriented man with self respect will hand that creature a wedding ring.

Ahh.. the chauvinist comes out. You are going to make one very special girl very miserable some day.


The feminist revolution was successful in the same manner the French Revolution was a success, and now we all live under the feminist Reign of Terror.

All hail the matriarchy.

...


ps.
blueback was addressing Deliberator and no, that is Eric Clapton.

[blueback]

I couldn't disagree more. Standards of beauty in women vary between societies, cultures, and ethnic and social backgrounds, as well as by age, and a whole lot of other factors.

Well, I admit that the practical implementation of the standard varies based on what's practical, but I don't think the standard changes.

For example, because all men want an attractive woman, attractive women become a sort of commodity like jet skis, fine suits, and respect. That happens because there aren't enough of them to go around so the more successful men tend to get them. This also means that men will collect attractive women simply for their "speculative" value, just as all commodities traders do. Anything valuble can be traded. It also means that what is considered beautiful gets tied up in what the successful men consider beautiful, and their standards are tied up in what the people they are trying to impress consider beautiful. Peopl also aren't very creative, so they can only consider beautiful that which they have actually seen, and they tend to form a consensus with their peers.

The Evolution of Desire reports on a study that questioned 10,000 people in more than 100 countries about what they want in a mate. For the men, the number one trait, worldwide, was physical attractiveness. The most consistent measure of physical attractiveness was a 70% hip to waist ratio. that ratio was consistent across all clutures and all body styles. It is probably related to the fact pre-pubesence girls have a 100% hip to waist ratio and that post-menopausal women deposit fat on their waist to bring the ratio back to 100%.

I think that what you pointed out, that the way the human standard of physical beauty manifests itself in different circumstances, is evidence that we can "conquer" ugliness. I think the built-in standards are broad enough for everyone in the world to fit into them.

'Beautiful' people (as agreed on by others) usually conform to the male/female ideal proportion stereotypes (for facial features and body profile), whereas attractiveness spans a whole range of body and facial types, and skin colours.

Semantics. The words are pretty much interchangeable.

Again, completely wrong. Log onto a dating site for 10 minutes and you'll immediately see the differences in what people are looking for.

Riiiiight. I made a couple fake female profiles once to see what my competition was like. I even made one with a "less than totally attractive" chick. It didn't get a tenth of the emails the profiles with pictures of attractive girls got.

If you allow movies and magazines to define a female ideal of beauty for you, then you are indeed a sheep. Think for yourself..

Everyone wants gold because it's valuable. A person who's never heard of gold before can't want it, because they don't know it exists. However, they still want something valuable, because they understand that idea. When a photographer travels the whole world and picks out one girl in a million she will basically be that gold that no one knew existed before.

[zibber]

It also means that what is considered beautiful gets tied up in what the successful men consider beautiful, and their standards are tied up in what the people they are trying to impress consider beautiful. Peopl also aren't very creative, so they can only consider beautiful that which they have actually seen, and they tend to form a consensus with their peers.

I see how you are trying to naturalise one limited concept of beauty. "Success", however, is also quite relative. Try defining it. Evolutionary success? Financial success? Those are the most general notions of success I can imagine, and they are both equally arbitrary to-day.

The Evolution of Desire reports on a study that questioned 10,000 people in more than 100 countries about what they want in a mate. For the men, the number one trait, worldwide, was physical attractiveness. The most consistent measure of physical attractiveness was a 70% hip to waist ratio. that ratio was consistent across all clutures and all body styles. It is probably related to the fact pre-pubesence girls have a 100% hip to waist ratio and that post-menopausal women deposit fat on their waist to bring the ratio back to 100%.

Interesting! Is it currently about ratio, though? Ratio doesn't say anything about actual circumference, which has surfaced as an aspect of the current beauty standard. (I refer to ancient fertility goddess statues, wonderfully plump, as a point of contrast.)


Riiiiight. I made a couple fake female profiles once to see what my competition was like. I even made one with a "less than totally attractive" chick. It didn't get a tenth of the emails the profiles with pictures of attractive girls got.

Yes, some groups are larger than others. If you browse around rather than (creepily) making female profiles and waiting for replies, though, you will see the variety of tastes Colette was referring to.


Everyone wants gold because it's valuable. A person who's never heard of gold before can't want it, because they don't know it exists. However, they still want something valuable, because they understand that idea. When a photographer travels the whole world and picks out one girl in a million she will basically be that gold that no one knew existed before.

You are vaguely referring to some absolute, universal beauty ideal that is best judged by globetrotting photographers? Do you deny the huge commercial interests involved in the media?

ps. Just out of interest, if you dare: what kinds of "ugliness" would you combat, if it were scientifically completely possible?

[Deliberator]

Oh. I did mean getting snickered at. Actual segregation of unconventional people is FAR behind us, luckily, I'm talking about partial social alienation and the conditions under which it flourishes. (Again: immaterial rather than material issue.)

Ahh, alienation. Well, I guess I'm not one to talk... I purposefully alienate myself from mainstream society because I have no respect for average people. I guess this is why there's no point going on and on because in my mind I don't give a flying fart about whether a person is being unwillingly alienated from an inherently retarded society. They're better off in the end as far as I'm concerned!


Oh. I would, though.

Well I guess that's just a huge rift in our philosophies but I'm certainly not going to open that can of worms in this thread.

I see what you mean. What I'm saying is that in our culture, low self-esteem is rife. Don't you think I try to talk "sense" into these women I spoke of? If that worked, I wouldn't be complaining about the issue on some forum; I'd be on the street with a dang megaphone. The direct approach unfortunately doesn't work, however.

*sigh* I really was hoping not to use the "I'm a woman so I know these things" card, but you know it is very common practice for women to insult themselves, not because they are truly that unhappy about their looks but because they want to force compliments out of people, especially anyone male. "I don't like the way my nose is" she'll say, forcing the reply, "oh don't be silly, you're nose is perfectly nice". Mission accomplished!

In my case, in the past, I have insulted my appearance to dispel possible jealousy, fit in with the other girls (most of whom also nitpick about their appearance) and of course so they wouldn't think that I was an arrogant bitch just for being happy with how I look.

I'm so sorry, but not only does this simply not take place, if it did the women you speak of would be at fault.

Oh, it doesn't take place? Really? Because (1) I've never seen it happen and (2) I've never done it myself? Even in old books like "Little Women" Jo talks about her dissatisfaction with her looks and it wasn't because she spent too much time looking at Vogue. It was because she had a very pretty older sister with whom she compared her own looks. That is, I'm saying the women ARE at fault. What's with you and wanting to take all the responsibility off of the individual? Because women are too dumb and shallow to know any better? Because we're too vulnerable and angelic? What, do you think women need YOU to rescue them from the nasty media because they're so weak they may as well be brainwashed? That's the vibe I'm getting here.

In my experience, most women past their mid-20's aren't so bent out of shape about they're looks because they've learned by then that it's not what life is all about.

[Ubervida]

The Kenyans train harder than anyone else. That is why they win. Please try to resist placing your future in the restrictive hands of "genetics." Read about Wilma Rudolph (she had polio as a child, but later became the fastest woman in the world). There are others. You said your wife is an INTJ - I bet you are not. A good INTJ does not let the constraints of an inadequate socialization hinder his progress.





Ubervida added to this post, 17 minutes and 4 seconds later...

Look, the most sinister problem with feminism, as it has been practiced, is the detrimental effect on mothering and family. Anyone who thinks a woman shouldn't be paid as much as a man for the same work is either an idiot or a delusional whack-job. However, any woman (or man) who believes being a CEO is a more important or rewarding use of one's time than being a mother is equally delusional. I completely support a woman's decision to eschew motherhood for some other rewarding vocation, AND I complete disagree with anyone who suggests children who live in a day-care/two-income/material-driven, television-culture home are equally-well served as those who have a mother who values motherhood for what it is: a more-than-full-time, uniquely significant endeavor which cannot be effectively replaced w/ any of the post-feminist, blended-home crap that currently passes for parenting.

[Deliberator]

It has been observed that, on average of course, Africans have a higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers. That doesn't mean that a person of another race couldn't compete, it just explains why there are so many people of African descent who top the bill. I agree that it's defeatist and stupid to assume that just because you don't fit the mold you won't be able to do something if you try.

I too am a little bewildered by the status of parenthood. The really annoying thing is that a hundred years ago it was common practice for families to either live closer together so that mothers had help with the children, or for the family to have a maid or a cook. What the hell happened with that? Too sensible?

But seriously, I think it's pretty workable today if you don't plan on having tons of children. Eventually they will go to school and a mother can work a job, even just part time, to ease financial strain or to pursue a career. I'm expecting to do both; I thought to myself once that having children meant having to stop all my personal goals for 18+ years but now I can see that that's silly. It'll be workable, I just may have to slow my career down at some points.

[Ubervida]

It has been observed that, on average of course, Africans have a higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers. That doesn't mean that a person of another race couldn't compete, it just explains why there are so many people of African descent who top the bill. I agree that it's defeatist and stupid to assume that just because you don't fit the mold you won't be able to do something if you try.

I too am a little bewildered by the status of parenthood. The really annoying thing is that a hundred years ago it was common practice for families to either live closer together so that mothers had help with the children, or for the family to have a maid or a cook. What the hell happened with that? Too sensible?

But seriously, I think it's pretty workable today if you don't plan on having tons of children. Eventually they will go to school and a mother can work a job, even just part time, to ease financial strain or to pursue a career. I'm expecting to do both; I thought to myself once that having children meant having to stop all my personal goals for 18+ years but now I can see that that's silly. It'll be workable, I just may have to slow my career down at some points.
The reason I chose the term 'sinister' is, I really believe there is motive behind the madness. If you can de-stabilize the family as the core authority, you leave more room for state intervention and control. And, all the new bs-crats get piad w/ the new tax revenue collected from all those moms who used to stay at home, but are now in the workforce "fulfilling their god-given destiny." It is quite elegant really. Too bad it also spells the end of liberty, free thought, and a few other attributes of "savage" peoples.

[Colette]

Look, the most sinister problem with feminism, as it has been practiced, is the detrimental effect on mothering and family. Anyone who thinks a woman shouldn't be paid as much as a man for the same work is either an idiot or a delusional whack-job. However, any woman (or man) who believes being a CEO is a more important or rewarding use of one's time than being a mother is equally delusional. I completely support a woman's decision to eschew motherhood for some other rewarding vocation, AND I complete disagree with anyone who suggests children who live in a day-care/two-income/material-driven, television-culture home are equally-well served as those who have a mother who values motherhood for what it is: a more-than-full-time, uniquely significant endeavor which cannot be effectively replaced w/ any of the post-feminist, blended-home crap that currently passes for parenting.

Wow. Incredible post. Point well made, beautifully expressed, and dead right. In fact the best post I've read for weeks...I could have given reputation points, but wanted to publicly acknowledge what a stunning post this is :)

[blueback]

I see how you are trying to naturalise one limited concept of beauty. "Success", however, is also quite relative. Try defining it. Evolutionary success? Financial success? Those are the most general notions of success I can imagine, and they are both equally arbitrary to-day.

Success: achieveing goals
Evolutinary success: passing on one's genes to the next generation
Financial success: achieving monetary goals

Did you have a point?

Interesting! Is it currently about ratio, though? Ratio doesn't say anything about actual circumference, which has surfaced as an aspect of the current beauty standard. (I refer to ancient fertility goddess statues, wonderfully plump, as a point of contrast.)

The fertility statues are called "fertility" statues because they are statues of pregnant women. That is why they are "plump."

Also, just because someone immoratlized a fat chick in a work of art doesn't mean that the general consensus of his contemporaries was that fat chickes were more attractive than non-fat chicks. It is a recent phenomenon in the history of the human race that we don't have to worry about starving to death or being killed in a war. And even now only a certain percentage of the human race gets to not worry about that stuff. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the way you think about the practical aspects of physique is the way people a thousand years thought about them.

Yes, some groups are larger than others. If you browse around rather than (creepily) making female profiles and waiting for replies, though, you will see the variety of tastes Colette was referring to.

Right.
Since apparently you know what Collet was talking about, and I don't, why don't you provide an example.

You are vaguely referring to some absolute, universal beauty ideal that is best judged by globetrotting photographers? Do you deny the huge commercial interests involved in the media?

The media has "huge commercial interests" in selling what is attractive. So what? The only reason they can make a "huge commercial interest" out of it is because everyone pretty much agrees on what they want. Sure, there are chubby chasers, but no main-stream business markets to them because they are few and far between.

I have a hard time with the idea that you are denying that there is a consensus on what is attractive. I see that you are trying to straw-man me by pretending that I defined it more specifically than I actually did, but I'm used to that.

ps. Just out of interest, if you dare: what kinds of "ugliness" would you combat, if it were scientifically completely possible?

"if I dare?" ooooo. . .I got chills.

I would adjust everyone until they were within genetically defined limits. Everyone would have clear skin, shiny hair, strong chins, etc. Also they would be able to regulate their body weight. I'm not sure if that last one is as straight forward as the others, but I think it would be worth the time and effort. Of course, it would be best to acheive those results by fixing whatever the underlying cause was, rather than just layering a "band-aid" on top. I figure "fixing" that stuff would bring everyone within the generally accepted limits of "attractive" and would deny people the opportunity to get sidetracked by superficiality.

[Avid]

Blue- I usually (mostly) agree with your stuff but dude...

There are some standards of beauty according to symmetry but if you look at different cultures..there are different culture influenced beauty standards. Some women wear plates in their lips, some wear neck coils, Japanese women broke/bound their feet, in certain time periods it was fashionable to be fat..etc. I mean look at Marylin Monroe's full figure compared to what women are "supposed" to look like today. Some people call her fat. Anyway, I realize I may "look ok" to some people but the truth is I've known girls (beautiful girls) who still didn't think they looked good enough and were always trying to reach something higher. Ridiculous to me when they were already so pretty. I think concern of our looks is ok but I don't think chasing the beauty standard set by photoshop is very healthy. Those are the images we grow up with so naturally we are "taught" that is attractive. Anyway, carry on.

[invicta]

I don't know how realistic blue's idea is that women exist to be pleasing to men. I am sure some men think this, and I can imagine that the author of his favorite source of information might think this.

In a global study of attractiveness between the sexes, in countries in which women are oppressed, either explicitly or implicitly, it stands to perfect reason that they would chose partners for reasons of survival rather than attractiveness. Men in these environments don't face this kind of decision.
In more progressive environments, the number of women seeking looks as a primary factor of attractiveness is on the rise.

Evo-psych as applied to someone's personal likes and dislikes gets beyond ridiculous when one looks around and sees that people of ALL LEVELS of attractiveness reproduce with great success. That's evolution in progress--reproduction itself determines future humans, not what some humans might find attractive. How preposterous to pretend that evolution has human values!

In addition to all of this, women in free societies do not dress to please men. They dress for status among other women. How many men insist they do not prefer the emaciated waif look? Women do this for status amongst themselves.

[Deliberator]

In addition to all of this, women in free societies do not dress to please men. They dress for status among other women. How many men insist they do not prefer the emaciated waif look? Women do this for status amongst themselves.

This is a very interesting point. I always thought it was funny how the women you'll find in Playboy don't look like the women you'll find in Vogue.

But I disagree that this applies all around. I think there are plenty of women that dress a certain way in order to be attractive to men. Being pleasing to the eye is a rather common technique in courtship.

[blueback]

there are different culture influenced beauty standards. Some women wear plates in their lips, some wear neck coils, Japanese women broke/bound their feet,

Are you saying there's a difference between styling one body part and styling another body part? Contemporary women visciously abuse their hair, cutting it, twisting it, dumping chemicals on it, etc. How is that different from visciously abusing one's lips, neck, or feet?

Just because a form of decoration was in style at one point doesn't mean it has anything to do with the things our genes find attractive. Actually, the simple fact that those "styles" have varied so much across time and culture, while real standards of attractiveness have not, would seem to be evidence that they don't really matter.

in certain time periods it was fashionable to be fat..etc. I mean look at Marylin Monroe's full figure compared to what women are "supposed" to look like today.

I tried to nip this in the bud; I guess I didn't.

Marylin Monroe had a 22.5 inch waist and 35.5 inch hips To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That gives her a hip to waist ratio of 63% which is well below the global average for attractiveness of 70%. The idea that she was "fat" is usually based on the bit of trivia that she wore a size 16 dress, but fails to address that her dress size varied throughout her life and that dress sizes have changed over time. Marilyn Monroe wasn't fat.

...the truth is I've known girls (beautiful girls) who still didn't think they looked good enough and were always trying to reach something higher.

I never said that women were rational. Actually, I never accused people of being rational. The real question is why you're comparing the way women view their own attractiveness to the way men view their attractiveness. It's a well established fact that women think men want them to be thinner then men actually want them to be.

I don't know how realistic blue's idea is that women exist to be pleasing to men. I am sure some men think this, and I can imagine that the author of his favorite source of information might think this.

That's not my idea, that's your idea. All I said was that men like attractive women more than unattractive women. Also, I'm curious who you think the author of my favorite source of informatino is.

In more progressive environments, the number of women seeking looks as a primary factor of attractiveness is on the rise.

"on the rise" isn't very specific. Also, I'm talking about what men are attracted to, not what women are attracted to.

...people of ALL LEVELS of attractiveness reproduce with great success.

Just because our genes have a Plan A doesn't mean they aren't programmed with a Plan B.

People adjust to the fact that they probably won't be able to reproduce with the person at the top of their list. The ability of the human mind to lie to itself is truly breathtaking. All the mind has to do is either convince itself that its partner is beautiful, or convince itself that it doesn't matter. They're both lies and they are both things people tell themselves.

How many men insist they do not prefer the emaciated waif look? Women do this for status amongst themselves.

Women do that because they're crazy.

This is a very interesting point. I always thought it was funny how the women you'll find in Playboy don't look like the women you'll find in Vogue.

TRUTH!
Women don't know what men want any more than men know what women want. The information is out there, but no one bothers to consolidate it.

[invicta]

Blueback,

You were originally proposing that women were concerned about their appearances because women want to please men. This cannot account for the feminine ideal sold by the beauty industry among women not at all resembling that of the feminine ideal pined for by men. Further, how many men have an active disdain for makeup and fashion, claiming they don't like it? This doesn't stop women by any means. It's just not about men and what men want.

I thought that attributing the beauty industry to reproductive selection was an example of using the process of evolution to describe something that is better described as a phenomenon of human minds and attitudes to be taking a bit of a liberty. Evolution does not care what humans like, including men, it is an inhuman process. The babies that survive are the next in the process, that's really all there is to it. Looks entirely notwithstanding.

I see that you probably get what I am saying when you said that the beauty industry does not cater to men's desires when you stated that women are crazy. I find that opinion more accurate, really. :)

The reason I brought up your global attractiveness standards idea was because I assumed you would further your discussion of men preferring attractiveness in women to other factors by contrasting it with women preferring financial stability in men to other factors. Surely you can understand that financial stability would be more important in mate selection for a woman in a society in which she could not support herself or her children. I did not get into specifics concerning how women who do support themselves rate attractiveness higher than financial stability because I just didn't feel like googling it. It is probably not 100% vital to this discussion anyway.

Thanks for your replies, your mind is quite active.

[blueback]

You were originally proposing that women were concerned about their appearances because women want to please men.

Not quite. Women are concerned, primarily, globally, historically, about their appearance because men are. It's not so much, IMHO, about pleasing men as it is about activating the genetically determined attraction switches in men. Men are programmed to reproduce with the healthiest woman they can find because that gives their children the best chance of surviving and growing up. A sick and/or unhealthy woman might not give birth, might not be able to breast-feed, and might not survive long enough to help raise the children.

As humans use technology to shove a larger and larger wedge between their daily lives and the natural world they begin to forget that they are animals. We have razors, but we are still monkeys.

It's like vultures. With the invention of the highway vultures suddenly had an abundance of roadkill to eat. The extra time they didn't spend looking for food (or waiting for it to die) they began to devote to games. They learned to play a primitive version of fetch and tug-of-war. That is behavior that they only got a chance to produce because the desires of their genes were pretty much satisfied and it really didn't matter what they did with the rest of their time. Humans are doing the same thing. Just because we screw around doesn't mean the fundamentals have changed.

This cannot account for the feminine ideal sold by the beauty industry among women not at all resembling that of the feminine ideal pined for by men.

Not quite. The beauty industry sells an ideal, not reality. Few men would claim that they would kick a supermodel out of bed, but they are realistic enough to know that supermodels are few and very far between, so it is stupid of them to expect to ever mate with one. However, that doesn't mean they aren't more attracted to a supermodel, or a photoshopped normal-model, than to an average gal. A really hot chick is "really hot" because the general consensus is that she's more attractive than the average.

The beauty industry focuses on the 1-in-a-million women because they are freaks, just like every other industry focuses on the freaks. The finance industry only talks about the guys who make billions; the sports industry only talks about the guys who make 95 yard touchdowns; the political industry only talks about the people who happen to have said something outrageous last. Average is boring.

Further, how many men have an active disdain for makeup and fashion, claiming they don't like it?

How many people have an active distain for NASCAR, claiming they don't like it? How many people have an active distain for pop music, claiming they don't like it? How many people have an active distain for the oil industry, claiming they don't like it? The active distain doesn't stop the fans of any of those activities, why should beauty be any different?

Evolution does not care what humans like, including men, it is an inhuman process.

However, what humans like is influenced by the genes which survived the evolutionary process. Evolution has a sort of momentum.

Surely you can understand that financial stability would be more important in mate selection for a woman in a society in which she could not support herself or her children.

Absolutely. The reason I didn't compare what men want to what women want is that what women want is less "form" and more "function." Men want hot chicks because a naturally beautiful woman tends to be healthier than a naturally ugly woman. Women want "to be taken care of" which can mean a lot of different things in different circumstances.

I think Sweden actually has the lowest marriage rate of any developed country (too lazy to look up the reference) because they are so socialist. Women don't need a man to help them remain financially stable, so they don't compromise to get one.

I did not get into specifics concerning how women who do support themselves rate attractiveness higher than financial stability because I just didn't feel like googling it.

Actually the Evolution of Desire also reported that the new crop of independantly wealthy women were having a hard time finding mates. It turns out their genes still want them to find a man who can "take care of them" even though they don't need taking care of. They have a hard time because there are so few men who are wealthier than they are.

[Avid]

There is a big difference between cutting your hair (already dead and lifeless) and mutilating your body. I agree that there is a certain standard between people where symmetry is important but can you seriously not acknowledge that some of what people think they "want" isn't just made up and evolving at the whim of society (maybe you sorta did, I'm not always clear what you are trying to say)?

Women in history had no rights. We were cows traded between families and our main "selling point" was our attractiveness (still goes on in some areas). Now we can stand on our own and looking as good as possible shouldn't be such a main part of a woman's life (unless she truly wants it, I'm in no position to tell anyone what they can or cannot focus on).

Women who make a lot of income and mate finding...doesn't mean it is JUST about them "wanting to be taken care of" (I mean in some cases sure, romance has too many variables). It has more to do with the fact that some men are used to being the top earners and are used to being "the man" and they are intimidated by a woman that makes more money. They lose a sense of self worth or something. A woman who is financially set doesn't have to settle and probably has higher standards for a mate anyway. She is able to be picky. Women can live perfectly happy alone with no mate if they choose to.

[schwartzie]

without having read too deep into this thread, I'll just throw out here that blueback and others are offering up pretty much conventional, mainstream thought from the field of evolutionary psychology. It seems straightforward if you keep in mind that the sole criterial is this crude stick of, "does this bloodline exist" as its sole test of success. That is, if someone reproduces and their offspring lives long enough to reproduce, they "succeed," as evidenced by the fact that their genes have been passed on.

Under this theory, the almost exclusive relevant fact, from which all gender differences and sexual behavior flow, is that females gestate the young in their bodies.

Unfortunately, there seems to be some sloppy thinking in the field. For example, conventional theory is that women are less competitive (with one another) than men are (with one another), because the average woman generally will pass on her genes, while the "average" man may not (because males have greater variabilityin reproductive rates--in non-monogamous societies, some men make dozens -- even hundreds -- of offspring, while a relatively large percentage of men have none) which, the theory teaches, leads to greater reward for men to compete, and therefore greater competition among succeeding generations of males.

The conventional theory probably could be much improved by women. or more accurately, by feminists, working in the field. For example, rape would seem to be a successful strategy for men to reproduce, and lack of competition among women could be explained by the fact that women do not need to compete to be raped, and to "successfully pass on their genes." If we assume these facts, then it is plausible that the more successful male will be one that not only is able to rape, (which is a pretty simple act,) but is also able to set up an environment that makes it more likely that his offspring will survive to reproductive age--one in which the young are kept alive and relatively healthy. This would suggest that "community" and marriages are products of evolution--that men, on average, reproduce more successfully if they can capture not just a few moments of a woman's life in which to fertilize an egg, but her entire lifetime of reproductive and "child-rearing" capacity.
I'm not an expert by any means, but have looked for and not found any theoreticians considering the idea that males' competitiveness is the result of successful "community building" by their ancesters. Feminists are needed in the field of evolutionary psychology.

[zibber]

Ahh, alienation. Well, I guess I'm not one to talk... I purposefully alienate myself from mainstream society because I have no respect for average people. I guess this is why there's no point going on and on because in my mind I don't give a flying fart about whether a person is being unwillingly alienated from an inherently retarded society. They're better off in the end as far as I'm concerned!

If it even leads to slight psychosis in people I know to be intelligent, I can't even imagine the ridiculous pseudoreality unwillingly unconventional (blueback's "ugly") people who take conventions to be realistic live in.

You're lucky, if you're as liberated as you believe yourself to be, but you are obviously not average. Feminism worries about average people, in the first place.

Oh, it doesn't take place? Really? Because (1) I've never seen it happen and (2) I've never done it myself? Even in old books like "Little Women" Jo talks about her dissatisfaction with her looks and it wasn't because she spent too much time looking at Vogue. It was because she had a very pretty older sister with whom she compared her own looks. That is, I'm saying the women ARE at fault. What's with you and wanting to take all the responsibility off of the individual? Because women are too dumb and shallow to know any better? Because we're too vulnerable and angelic? What, do you think women need YOU to rescue them from the nasty media because they're so weak they may as well be brainwashed? That's the vibe I'm getting here.

Okay, first off: that's not necessary. That's a weak ass ad hominem that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm just conveying what I've noticed. Bite me.

I'm sure that before mass media, these human tendencies appeared in another form. (I was saying that today, they can hardly be separated from mass media-propagated mass culture.) My point is that (not only are they something to combat in the first place, but) they are being amplified/warped and exploited for financial gain. Hurray capitalism.


However, any woman (or man) who believes being a CEO is a more important or rewarding use of one's time than being a mother is equally delusional. I completely support a woman's decision to eschew motherhood for some other rewarding vocation, AND I complete disagree with anyone who suggests children who live in a day-care/two-income/material-driven, television-culture home are equally-well served as those who have a mother who values motherhood for what it is: a more-than-full-time, uniquely significant endeavor which cannot be effectively replaced w/ any of the post-feminist, blended-home crap that currently passes for parenting.

I'm sorry, but you are partially blaming feminism for problems that capitalism is responsible for. You are also assuming that a father absolutely cannot fill a mother's role, crushing the dreams of homosexual couples all over the planet and reopening a debate that many had already moved on from.

Success: achieveing goals
Evolutinary success: passing on one's genes to the next generation
Financial success: achieving monetary goals

Did you have a point?

To recap: you attempted to naturalise (realistically justify) beauty standards, based on the standards of successful people. I subsequently questioned the absolute value of "success" by listing several competing notions of success.

The fertility statues are called "fertility" statues because they are statues of pregnant women. That is why they are "plump."

I am not specialised in that field of art history, but I doubt that this assertion is true. Well, let's assume it is. Now take a Rubens painting.

(To exhaust the strawman anyway:

Also, just because someone immoratlized a fat chick in a work of art doesn't mean that the general consensus of his contemporaries was that fat chickes were more attractive than non-fat chicks.

No, sorry. "Art" didn't exist back then, these statues are purely cultural, ritual objects that do in fact represent some kind of concensus. (To prevent further confusion: I gave that example to show the relativity of one specific concept of "beauty".)

It is a recent phenomenon in the history of the human race that we don't have to worry about starving to death or being killed in a war. And even now only a certain percentage of the human race gets to not worry about that stuff. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the way you think about the practical aspects of physique is the way people a thousand years thought about them.

Again: I was showing the relativity of your narrow concept of universal Beauty with a parenthesised example.

Do you mean to say that today, we have more time to worry about more trivial things, such as appearance? Fair enough, but what on Earth does that have to do with this or that concept of Beauty?)

Right.
Since apparently you know what Collet was talking about, and I don't, why don't you provide an example.

What do you want to hear? Random examples of people who stray from conventions? (Which would only be sensible if you weren't under the impression that the majority taste holds more "absolute value" than non/unconventional tastes.)

The media has "huge commercial interests" in selling what is attractive. So what? The only reason they can make a "huge commercial interest" out of it is because everyone pretty much agrees on what they want. Sure, there are chubby chasers, but no main-stream business markets to them because they are few and far between.

I have a hard time with the idea that you are denying that there is a consensus on what is attractive. I see that you are trying to straw-man me by pretending that I defined it more specifically than I actually did, but I'm used to that.

Herein lies your biggest mistake. You have completely misunderstood consumerism as a whole, not just the beauty industry's part in it. The "mainstream taste" can be influenced greatly by commercial industries, as it is simply their job to sell and nothing more. (Not catering to public needs or anything noble like that, which I very much hope you'll acknowledge.) Looking at the history of advertisement, it is clear that the tendency is to move towards a kind of promotion of products that doesn't rely on the actual products. Do you think commercial industries are actually conretely filling specific needs? Do you deny my suggestion that niches can be created or at the very least, as I said earlier in this post, amplified and exploited?

Oh, I wasn't trying to "straw-man you" in the slightest.

"if I dare?" ooooo. . .I got chills.

I would adjust everyone until they were within genetically defined limits. Everyone would have clear skin, shiny hair, strong chins, etc. Also they would be able to regulate their body weight. I'm not sure if that last one is as straight forward as the others, but I think it would be worth the time and effort. Of course, it would be best to acheive those results by fixing whatever the underlying cause was, rather than just layering a "band-aid" on top. I figure "fixing" that stuff would bring everyone within the generally accepted limits of "attractive" and would deny people the opportunity to get sidetracked by superficiality.

Do you realise that with this paragraph, you are showing your own intense superficiality? You are truly a poster boy for plastic surgery; it's too bad that even intelligent people still cling to such notions. (I'll admit that I was fishing for some concrete example of your chauvinism, for my own satisfaction.)

[invicta]

Not quite. Women are concerned, primarily, globally, historically, about their appearance because men are. It's not so much, IMHO, about pleasing men as it is about activating the genetically determined attraction switches in men. Men are programmed to reproduce with the healthiest woman they can find because that gives their children the best chance of surviving and growing up. A sick and/or unhealthy woman might not give birth, might not be able to breast-feed, and might not survive long enough to help raise the children.

As humans use technology to shove a larger and larger wedge between their daily lives and the natural world they begin to forget that they are animals. We have razors, but we are still monkeys.

It's like vultures. With the invention of the highway vultures suddenly had an abundance of roadkill to eat. The extra time they didn't spend looking for food (or waiting for it to die) they began to devote to games. They learned to play a primitive version of fetch and tug-of-war. That is behavior that they only got a chance to produce because the desires of their genes were pretty much satisfied and it really didn't matter what they did with the rest of their time. Humans are doing the same thing. Just because we screw around doesn't mean the fundamentals have changed.

Oh you mentioned birds.

This reminds me of another book about sexual selection in evolution, The Red Queen, and a problem I had with it. I liked the book, but I think the author had a hard time seeing around his own preconceptions about sexuality and family structures in his interpretation of data. I think he was so excited about his line of thinking that he lost some objectivity. For example, he used sexual behaviors of a single species of bird as a correlation to human sexuality as it relates to what he called cuckoldry. I think you've used that term as well. The author, Matt Ridley, spends a a good portion of his time theorizing that women will marry a mediocre mate for stability, then find a sexy man to cuckold him with by evolutionary dictate. Certainly men have a great fear of this under the current patrilinear family structure. What the author made no mention of is that during the prehistoric era nobody knows whether family structures were exclusively patrilinear or not. It's more likely that they weren't, given the much more obvious connection of women with childbirth. Many of the earliest family structures were matrilinear, leaving definite paternity as more or less an irrelevance. The social structure is not divorced from evolutionary theory in Ridley's interpretation. I find this to be an unintentional distortion on his part. The author of your information source may have some thoughts on this, if so I'd like to hear them.

Another thing to consider is that it likely took a long while, evolutionarily speaking, before humans even discovered the mechanics of fertilization. Sex itself requires no knowledge, of course, but paternity assignment and its resulting responsibility certainly does. If men had no great fear of cuckoldry, as they would have no responsibility to care for another's offspring, these theories could use some revisiting.

The point of this is that data itself is entirely neutral, and factual data may be taken as such. The interpretation of the data always requires rigorous examination if the interpretation is to be taken as fact.

Not quite. The beauty industry sells an ideal, not reality. Few men would claim that they would kick a supermodel out of bed, but they are realistic enough to know that supermodels are few and very far between, so it is stupid of them to expect to ever mate with one. However, that doesn't mean they aren't more attracted to a supermodel, or a photoshopped normal-model, than to an average gal. A really hot chick is "really hot" because the general consensus is that she's more attractive than the average.

The beauty industry focuses on the 1-in-a-million women because they are freaks, just like every other industry focuses on the freaks. The finance industry only talks about the guys who make billions; the sports industry only talks about the guys who make 95 yard touchdowns; the political industry only talks about the people who happen to have said something outrageous last. Average is boring.


How is this explaining, in evo-psych, the difference between the beauty industry's standard of beauty and the male fantasy standard? Supermodels and porn stars do not have the same beauty standard. I understand that men like 'really hot chicks', but I am wanting to know what this has to do with the female-centered standard of beauty.

How many people have an active distain for NASCAR, claiming they don't like it? How many people have an active distain for pop music, claiming they don't like it? How many people have an active distain for the oil industry, claiming they don't like it? The active distain doesn't stop the fans of any of those activities, why should beauty be any different?


I'm not claiming NASCAR exists for the enjoyment of, or to 'push the evolutionary buttons' of women. Do you think this would make a good book? Why NASCAR Gets Babes Hot, An Evolutionary Tale

Actually the Evolution of Desire also reported that the new crop of independantly wealthy women were having a hard time finding mates. It turns out their genes still want them to find a man who can "take care of them" even though they don't need taking care of. They have a hard time because there are so few men who are wealthier than they are.


This premise is based on assumption. Paris Hilton doesn't sleep alone.

This book you have mentioned so many times, and are using as your filter of sexual reality, sounds mildly interesting. Have you read The Red Queen? If so, how does it compare? I might want to read it, but am hesitant to spend money on it just yet.

[zibber]

Get Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, it's great if only for statistics. (Her theses could be a bit extreme/off-putting to some.)


Not quite. The beauty industry sells an ideal, not reality. Few men would claim that they would kick a supermodel out of bed, but they are realistic enough to know that supermodels are few and very far between, so it is stupid of them to expect to ever mate with one. However, that doesn't mean they aren't more attracted to a supermodel, or a photoshopped normal-model, than to an average gal. A really hot chick is "really hot" because the general consensus is that she's more attractive than the average.

This reminds me of what I've been studying in relation to a course on the history of the concept of the "masterpiece" (the ideal work) in art. This, as the beauty ideal, is in a constant state of flux. Historically, there has always been some kind of untouchable ideal that turned out not only to be unrealisable, but not really to exist in the first place. (This is very relevant, because (marble/painted) "idealized" female nudes were seen (in the 18th century) as one of the few subjects able to approach that ideal. (Those nudes weren't very congruent with today's standards, by the way, just to rub my earlier point in some more ;))) That's the danger of naturalising the (alleged) ideal of one culture at one moment in time: creating something that isn't really ideal, that never existed and can never be touched/materialised. Obviously, this will lead to some frustration.

(Just to reiterate: this is a general tendency humans have. Women sure do seem a lot more susceptible to idealisation, though, "lately" (last couple of centuries). Why is that? Patriarchy? (I know most idealised women in art from the Renaissance until the modernist era were created by (older, wealthy) men, which may be interesting to mention.) Is it the other way round in matriarchal societies?)

[Antares]

Ah. . .yes. . .that is horrible. It's amazing that in this day and age, when we have computers and welfare, that we still use cultural conventions like single names. I find it appalling that we haven't advanced far enough culturally to simply address everyone by their social security number. After all, everyone is individually unique and should be free of any connection to the past, and any connection to other people. <-sarcasm

That was some wonderful sarcasm, but I noticed you do not deny the male-favorism in our society. And why should women be connected to the husband? Isn't the husband as connected to the wife as the wife is to the husband? Then why the husband's surname?
Yeah. I'm pretty sure that everyone has said that.
Then thanks for pointing out the obvious.
What? That's your argument? You know women that want to be housewives and you get the impression that a lot of women are expected to be housewives? That's it?
I know for a fact that a lot of women are expected to be 'homemakers' not just in my society, but in many areas of the world.
If so many women WANT to be housewives isn't it possible that THEY are the ones expecting other women to want to be housewives. After all, you want to avoid being a housewife and you expect other women to want to avoid being a housewife.
Aren't those dreaded 'THEY', namely other women are a part of society? I'm talking about society, not men specifically.
You haven't provided a shred of support for the idea that women only want to be housewives because their evil, phallic-having fathers and brothers made them want to be housewives. Maybe they're just naturally inclined to want to do the things that are involved with being a housewife.
And I never said women only want to be housewives because their "evil, phallic-having fathers and brothers" made them that way. I was talking about gender roles. Way to put words into my mouth.
Just because you want to do something doesn't mean EVERYONE should want to do the same thing.
Notice the first person singular and first person plural pronoun.
So raising children is petty? Sure, why not. It's not like they're our future or anything.
Raising children isn't petty, but expecting the woman to give more than the equal share is petty. If the children is THEIRS and not HERS, then logically they should have equal, or as practically equal roles in the child's life.

[dogwoodlover]

The main reason is because they continue to complain when women in the United States have it SO good. Throw in a bit of affirmative action, sexual harassment policies, and government welfare and there's nothing we can't do. Whining about how sexist the system is, to me, is a sign of weakness. The women I respect are the ones who overcome obstacles, not complain about them.

While I understand the adversity to "complaining" and "cashing in on discrimination," there is always room for improvement. Women are treated as inferiors in more subtle ways than they used to. Look at the advertising industry, the modeling industry, or better yet the porn industry for instance.

In general, I think women have to admit that they will never dominate certain fields. As a group, women are less aggressive, less mathematically inclined, and less abstract. So is it some kind of national crisis that there are fewer women in the fields of military, math, and science?

I think the reason for the "outrage" is not that women should do all of the exact same things that men do, but that women have the same potential as men do (except for perhaps in the physical realm), and if that potential is not being utilized it is due to social conditioning that still encourages "gender roles" based on times long past. For instance, it has been demonstrated elsewhere that women have the same aptitude for mathematics as men, but it is classroom-socialization that holds them back; teachers call on them less, tend to patronize them when they get answers wrong, and in general have lower expectations for young girls when teaching math. This is just a brief example of socialized roles.

[blueback]

There is a big difference between cutting your hair (already dead and lifeless) and mutilating your body.

Not if you place the same value on them. YOU think there is a big difference, but if you'd grown up around people that styled other parts of their body you wouldn't think that.

...some of what people think they "want" isn't just made up and evolving at the whim of society

Absolutely. The core attraction switches inform the whole process but we have all sorts of extra brain power left over to confuse the issue.

It has more to do with the fact that some men are used to being the top earners and are used to being "the man" and they are intimidated by a woman that makes more money. They lose a sense of self worth or something.

Yeah, I agree. The same way women commonly develop an unhealthy obsession with being attractive men commonly develop an unhealthy obsession with bread winning. However, the fact that the flaw is common would seem to indicate that it is inspired by something biological, would it not?

That is, if someone reproduces and their offspring lives long enough to reproduce, they "succeed," as evidenced by the fact that their genes have been passed on.

As opposed to the "success" of being a much better compromiser and failing to pass on one's genes? It is hard to call extinction success. . .that's pretty much failure in anyone's book.

Under this theory, the almost exclusive relevant fact, from which all gender differences and sexual behavior flow, is that females gestate the young in their bodies.

That is the only significant difference between men and women. The other differences would seem to be side effects of that primary difference. Men are more athletic because women spent a significant amount of time unable to be athletic, so men took up the slack. Women are better at language because men spent a significant amount of time out being athletic and women took up the slack back at camp.

This would suggest that "community" and marriages are products of evolution--that men, on average, reproduce more successfully if they can capture not just a few moments of a woman's life in which to fertilize an egg, but her entire lifetime of reproductive and "child-rearing" capacity.

I'm not sure how you got from rape to civilization, but team work definitely has more advantages than isolation.

I'm not an expert by any means, but have looked for and not found any theoreticians considering the idea that males' competitiveness is the result of successful "community building" by their ancesters.

I have seen theories that revolve around the evolutionary advantage that success brings to a man's children. A man who can ensure that his wife and kids have all the material things they need is more likely to pass on his genes. Getting material things requires a certain kind of competition and cooperation, which is easier to do in groups, which need rules, which need people to make and enforce rules. A man who can become the leader of a group is more likely to pass on his genes. Therefore men who lead people are more attractive than men who don't lead anything. That creates competition to reach a limited number of leadership positions, which creates an incentive to increase the number of leadership positions, which leads to many levels of organization.

Do you mean to say that today, we have more time to worry about more trivial things, such as appearance? Fair enough, but what on Earth does that have to do with this or that concept of Beauty?)

Yes. The more free time we have, and the less practical effect on our lives physicality has, the more useless differences we worry about. During our evolution an unhealthy person was far more likely to die then they are now. That meant that markers of bad health were practical ways to choose a mate. Now they have less significance because people can live despite having obvious health problems.

Looking at the history of advertisement, it is clear that the tendency is to move towards a kind of promotion of products that doesn't rely on the actual products.

Granted there is a certain herd mentality and the science of exploiting it has become relatively well defined. However, there are biologically imposed limits. Our genes don't tell us whether or not we should want a new TV. They do tell us whether or not we should want a beautiful girl or an ugly girl. That is why the "mass media" never tries to sell us ugly girls; it just wouldn't work.

Do you realise that with this paragraph, you are showing your own intense superficiality? You are truly a poster boy for plastic surgery;

Yeah. . .I'm pretty sure if you go back and read again that you'll find I said: "Of course, it would be best to acheive those results by fixing whatever the underlying cause was, rather than just layering a "band-aid" on top" Since our genes instruct us to avoid ugliness because it is a sign of ill-health it makes sense that we should be able to fix the healthy issue and get more attractive people.

Oh you mentioned birds.

Yes. Yes I did. You noticed that but you missed the entire content of the post. Cool.

This reminds me of another book about sexual selection in evolution, The Red Queen, and a problem I had with it.

Yay. You had problems with something else.

he used sexual behaviors of a single species of bird as a correlation to human sexuality as it relates to what he called cuckoldry. I think you've used that term as well.

I don't think I did. But I am aware of the theory.

...women will marry a mediocre mate for stability, then find a sexy man to cuckold him with by evolutionary dictate.

It does sound like an effective strategy. Only women know for sure that the child they are carrying is theirs; men don't have that assurance. Also, data indicates that women are most attracted to men-other-than-their-mate during the most fertile period of their cycle. So, you know, whatever gets the job done. It's probably better for our species anyway.

Supermodels and porn stars do not have the same beauty standard.

So. . .are you saying that men who had a choice would watch a pornstar have sex rather than a supermodel? I disagree. I think that women as attractive as supermodels can get paid at least a living wage just for showing up; they don't have to take a dick. Women have a hard enough time convincing themselves to have sex with one guy, let alone several, let alone in front of a camera. A chick who is above average on the hottness scale is likely to become a waitress before a pornstar.

I'm not claiming NASCAR exists for the enjoyment of, or to 'push the evolutionary buttons' of women.

You said: "Further, how many men have an active disdain for makeup and fashion, claiming they don't like it?"
All I was doing was pointing out that just because it is popular to have "distain" for something doesn't mean that something isn't still popular.

This book you have mentioned so many times, and are using as your filter of sexual reality, sounds mildly interesting.

I don't live in a bubble. The book just provided emperical evidence that supported and informed my understanding of the logic underlying the issue.

[invicta]

Yes. Yes I did. You noticed that but you missed the entire content of the post. Cool.


I didn't miss it, I just was more interested in what I wanted to talk about. Sure, we have time for frivolities when the work is done. Animals too. It was an interesting idea, crows also have a more advanced learning capacity than other birds. I wonder if scavenging is 'smarter' than hunting in that it offers more free time. I didn't respond at the time because it just wasn't part of my focus.

It does sound like an effective strategy. Only women know for sure that the child they are carrying is theirs; men don't have that assurance. Also, data indicates that women are most attracted to men-other-than-their-mate during the most fertile period of their cycle. So, you know, whatever gets the job done. It's probably better for our species anyway.

Yes I am aware that men don't carry babies. I was using this theory for an illustrative example. Some women might simply be attracted to more than one man as some men are attracted to more than one woman. Some people may not achieve everlasting love with a single person in every relationship. The patrilinear and monogamous framing of the theory carries too much social baggage, and perhaps personal subconscious fears of the author--unrelated to evolution, an inhuman process without our current social values. This distortion is where fact becomes extrapolation. This is what I was getting at with a large part of my conversation with you.

You said: "Further, how many men have an active disdain for makeup and fashion, claiming they don't like it?"
All I was doing was pointing out that just because it is popular to have "distain" for something doesn't mean that something isn't still popular.

You were saying the beauty industry existed for women to attract men. Men report a dislike for makeup and fashion. Surely, if the industry existed to help women attract men they would have caught on to this by now.

You could have bolstered your theory though--you could have said 'men dislike makeup because they think it is trickery, making a woman appear more attractive than she really is', which would carry the implication that the industry existed to attract men to women. Extrapolation is flexible like that.

I don't live in a bubble. The book just provided emperical evidence that supported and informed my understanding of the logic underlying the issue.


I think I'll go ahead and read it sometime.