|
rmsusa
Jun 1, 2012, 1:34 PM
Post #26 of 173
(17238 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: "To be blunt: men are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as success objects." You're a guy. Do you believe that?
I think it's true. All males believe it in some way. It's deep, it's internalized and (IMHO) it's biological due to the way sexual selection happens in the human species.
|
|
|
|
|
SylviaSmile
Jun 1, 2012, 2:18 PM
Post #27 of 173
(17230 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 983
|
granite_grrl wrote: cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: I'm a bit surprised that this post has been up for a couple of days, and no-one has commented on it. It sure seems controversial to me, but do you all really feel that the following is such a no-brainer that it deserves no response? drivel wrote: To be blunt: women are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as sex objects. Of men. To me, if the above is really true, it's horrifying, and I would never want to bring a female child into the world in such a society. Needless to say, *I* don't believe it. But I'm not a woman, so I have little insight into the messages you feel society is giving you. GO Unfortunately it IS really true. And these messages are internalized very very early. I obviously am trying to do my best to raise a daughter who doesn't measure her self-worth in terms of how appealing she is to men. BUT... Here is a story from last weekend that made people laugh, and made me cringe while laughing. I was climbing with my two kids and a few friends. Heading out at the end of the weekend, we had a long-ish hike, really hot temperatures, and an uphill walk towards the end of the hike out. Nothing terribly hard, but my daughter (who has made that hike multiple times before, from the time she was maybe 3yo) was feeling tired after diving off rocks and swimming in the lake for hours. So when the trail started going uphill, she was looking for some help. She does know by now, that while I would have offered sympathy, maybe would taken her pack and would have walked slowly with her, there was no way I would be carrying her, 45 pounds and all. So she sidled up to the two guys who were hiking out with us, and made her best pitch for help. Of course, what do you know? In a blink of an eye, one guy was carrying her backpack, and the other one had her riding on his shoulders. I tried to interject, "hey, hey, she can walk, she really is not THAT tired" (we are not talking a little toddler, after all, and there was only a few hundred yards to go, and yes, I am an evil mom, I have had many years to get conditioned against fake whine). To which one guy responded saying "oh, no big deal, really, she hardly weighs anything" and the other one commented, "how can you resist a face like that?" My daughter, riding comfortably on the shoulders of a backpack-carrying guy, is still young enough to innocently add a comment to that discussion, "Oh, I am so glad I am cute!" Everyone laughed. It was one of those candid moments, with a little kid saying something that older person might have kept to him/herself. And really, she is awfully cute. BUT... where did this come from? This concept that she is cute, and she should be thankful for it, that it gives her extra leverage when asking guys for things? I'd like to think that this didn't come from me. But it came from somewhere... And it doesn't exactly make me happy. Your story is funny, and cringeworthy... but it doesn't prove drivel's point. It shows that your daughter knows that being cute is an important factor, and she can exploit it to get her way. No-one would argue that *any* cute kid, whether a boy or a girl, wouldn't learn that lesson. What it doesn't show is that your daughter feels that it's the only important factor, or the only worth she has. And, frankly, little kids really don't have very much else going for them, except their cuteness and the social standing of their parents. As we get older, that changes, and we discover we have other powers. We don't have to always appeal upon our attractiveness to make our way in the world. Yes, I'll buy that for some girls, their transition into womanhood just feels like a transition of one type of cuteness to get their way into a new type of cuteness to get their way. But for many teenagers (and women) that's just not my experience of how they define themselves. GO I have a 7 year old niece. she lives out in Nova Scotia and I don't get to see her much, but I hear all about her from my mother. Oh, she LOVEs dresses, and doing herself all up and making her self pretty. She gets tons of praise for it too, puts on fasions shows for her Grandma (my mother). This makes me mad. At 7 she is strongly building her self worth on how she looks. And this is pretty typical behaviour of little girls because of the VERY typical dehaviour of the adults around them. This is not how " *any* cute kid, whether a boy or a girl" would be treated. When was the last time you heard a little boy be praised because they were pretty?
This just makes me wonder...what's so wrong with playing dress up? Is it fair to conclude that because a little girl likes to play dress up, she is necessarily "building her self worth on how she looks"?
I'm with cracklover on this one--little kids know they are cute and behave accordingly. Boys and girls generally gravitate towards different sorts of games (not always), but the general strategy to ham it up for adults is employed by both.
On the other hand, I think the quote in bold above is key: how adults, role models, and peers react to an adolescent becomes crucial in determining whether she realizes that looks (the notion of which is now morphing into sex appeal rather than general "cuteness" or "prettiness") is not the ultimate location of her value. I hate hate those ridiculous teen magazines that encourage girls who are old enough to be somewhat reasonable to waste their focus and energy on makeup, clothes, and other superficial things like "how to get a guy to like you."
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jun 1, 2012, 2:39 PM
Post #28 of 173
(17226 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
cracklover wrote: So here's a question, actually, I'll pose this one for Lena: Let's say there's a book written for girls your daughter's age. Dust jacket photo of the author. She's a middle-aged sweet looking woman. What is your daughter's reaction? Is it "oh my god, she's ugly, I don't want to read this book"? Or let's say the dust jacket photo of the author shows a young woman in minimal clothes and lots of cleavage. Would her reaction be "Mommy, this looks like a good book, can I get this one"?
NO, of course she wouldn't base her decision to get a book based on the picture of the author on the dust cover. And neither would most people. But there is a REASON why the photo of the author is on the inside of the back flap of the book, not on the front.
How about this, go to a bookstore and look at fiction section. How many of the illustrations are displaying a female in some sort of sexy costume or in some stage of undress? How many of those females are NOT good-looking?
Or a more real-life example:
Teenage kids are doing a carwash as a fundraiser. Who is standing there waving the signs? The answer is, girls in short shorts and bikinis. Why not boys in board shorts and ratty old t-shirts?
cracklover wrote: The point I'm making is that all girls understand that people have value for what they *do*. And children understand and value the character and personality of adults. Looks factor in, but I doubt it's to near the degree that Drivel is driveling on about.
The point I am making is that looks factor in for girls way more than they do for boys, and both girls and boys know it from the young age.
cracklover wrote: And Lena, you may not be comfortable with it, but *all* kids are socialized to get the most from being cute. I mean, babies are such a tremendous amount of trouble, if we weren't so incredibly adorable as babies, most of us would have been bludgeoned to death by our parents before our third birthday! Cuteness and love is all kids have got keeping them alive!
Yes, all kids will use whatever they have at their disposal to wheedle their way into something they want. But "cute", while a gender-neutral word in itself, means different things for boys and girls, even at the early age.
AND a phrase "you are so cute" ("you are so pretty", etc.) is hardly ever used as a PRAISE phrase for boys, but it is used quite frequently for girls, and usually the user of the phrase is not praising the girl's smarts, but rather her looks and "cute" girly behaviors.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Jun 1, 2012, 3:00 PM
Post #29 of 173
(17218 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
I believe I have a unique perspective on this, as I am a guy that has raised (is raising) a daughter. She has a mom, a stepmom, and a stepdad, but the majority of her influence (good and bad) has been from me. Being the father of a girl, I believe am more acutely sensitive than most guys to the pressures placed on women.
For example, when she started being more interested in choosing her own clothes (I guess I wasn't picking out very good ones), she wanted to go shopping at the mall more. Some of these "so-called" children's stores were selling clothes to 7 years olds that would be risque for a 27 year-old.
But, as a parent, I am confident that we are more influential in a child's life than ANY societal pressures put on them. It shouldn't surprise us that children want to be more grown up, or pick up things that make us cringe, or want to dress like their favorite movie star. We are there to bring them back down to earth. That is our job.
When my daughter is all grown up, I believe she will understand that she is worth a lot more than her looks. Yes, she is very cute and there is nothing wrong with that either, But she has much more to offer the world than that.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 1, 2012, 3:50 PM
Post #30 of 173
(17215 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
cracklover wrote: You claim that women are being indoctrinated from a young age to think that you must be sexy first and foremost, otherwise you are nothing and no-one.
My personal experience of attempted indoctrination may be on the extreme end of things, but I can relate to what drivel, lena, and others have said.
First off, my name is TIFFANY. I was destined to be a cheer leader rather than the girl skipping gym class and smoking butts underneath the bleachers.
Here are some of the messages that I heard growing up:
You don't need to go to college. You can just get married.
Boys don't want to be with girls who are smarter than them. (In other words, keep your mouth shut and play dumb.)
You'd be pretty if you just put some make up on.
Like I said, my experience may be extreme. I turned out to be pretty resilient. I love and have no resentment toward the family members who delivered those messages. It was ingrained in them and I will not pass that message off to my daughter. The misogyny stops here.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 1, 2012, 4:05 PM
Post #31 of 173
(17210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Khoi wrote: cracklover wrote: I'm a bit surprised that this post has been up for a couple of days, and no-one has commented on it. It sure seems controversial to me, but do you all really feel that the following is such a no-brainer that it deserves no response? drivel wrote: To be blunt: women are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as sex objects. Of men. To me, if the above is really true, it's horrifying, and I would never want to bring a female child into the world in such a society. Needless to say, *I* don't believe it. But I'm not a woman, so I have little insight into the messages you feel society is giving you. GO What if we made a few slight changes: "To be blunt: men are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as success objects." You're a guy. Do you believe that?
I don't even know what it means.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 1, 2012, 4:37 PM
Post #32 of 173
(17204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
granite_grrl wrote: cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: I'm a bit surprised that this post has been up for a couple of days, and no-one has commented on it. It sure seems controversial to me, but do you all really feel that the following is such a no-brainer that it deserves no response? drivel wrote: To be blunt: women are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as sex objects. Of men. To me, if the above is really true, it's horrifying, and I would never want to bring a female child into the world in such a society. Needless to say, *I* don't believe it. But I'm not a woman, so I have little insight into the messages you feel society is giving you. GO Unfortunately it IS really true. And these messages are internalized very very early. I obviously am trying to do my best to raise a daughter who doesn't measure her self-worth in terms of how appealing she is to men. BUT... Here is a story from last weekend that made people laugh, and made me cringe while laughing. I was climbing with my two kids and a few friends. Heading out at the end of the weekend, we had a long-ish hike, really hot temperatures, and an uphill walk towards the end of the hike out. Nothing terribly hard, but my daughter (who has made that hike multiple times before, from the time she was maybe 3yo) was feeling tired after diving off rocks and swimming in the lake for hours. So when the trail started going uphill, she was looking for some help. She does know by now, that while I would have offered sympathy, maybe would taken her pack and would have walked slowly with her, there was no way I would be carrying her, 45 pounds and all. So she sidled up to the two guys who were hiking out with us, and made her best pitch for help. Of course, what do you know? In a blink of an eye, one guy was carrying her backpack, and the other one had her riding on his shoulders. I tried to interject, "hey, hey, she can walk, she really is not THAT tired" (we are not talking a little toddler, after all, and there was only a few hundred yards to go, and yes, I am an evil mom, I have had many years to get conditioned against fake whine). To which one guy responded saying "oh, no big deal, really, she hardly weighs anything" and the other one commented, "how can you resist a face like that?" My daughter, riding comfortably on the shoulders of a backpack-carrying guy, is still young enough to innocently add a comment to that discussion, "Oh, I am so glad I am cute!" Everyone laughed. It was one of those candid moments, with a little kid saying something that older person might have kept to him/herself. And really, she is awfully cute. BUT... where did this come from? This concept that she is cute, and she should be thankful for it, that it gives her extra leverage when asking guys for things? I'd like to think that this didn't come from me. But it came from somewhere... And it doesn't exactly make me happy. Your story is funny, and cringeworthy... but it doesn't prove drivel's point. It shows that your daughter knows that being cute is an important factor, and she can exploit it to get her way. No-one would argue that *any* cute kid, whether a boy or a girl, wouldn't learn that lesson. What it doesn't show is that your daughter feels that it's the only important factor, or the only worth she has. And, frankly, little kids really don't have very much else going for them, except their cuteness and the social standing of their parents. As we get older, that changes, and we discover we have other powers. We don't have to always appeal upon our attractiveness to make our way in the world. Yes, I'll buy that for some girls, their transition into womanhood just feels like a transition of one type of cuteness to get their way into a new type of cuteness to get their way. But for many teenagers (and women) that's just not my experience of how they define themselves. GO I have a 7 year old niece. she lives out in Nova Scotia and I don't get to see her much, but I hear all about her from my mother. Oh, she LOVEs dresses, and doing herself all up and making her self pretty. She gets tons of praise for it too, puts on fasions shows for her Grandma (my mother). This makes me mad. At 7 she is strongly building her self worth on how she looks. And this is pretty typical behaviour of little girls because of the VERY typical dehaviour of the adults around them. This is not how " *any* cute kid, whether a boy or a girl" would be treated. When was the last time you heard a little boy be praised because they were pretty?
Good point. It's still a looong stretch to go from society sending the message "take pride in how you look, and you will be appreciated for it" to "Being a sex object is your primary purpose in life. If you fail at that, you are nothing."
Look, y'all seem to think I'm claiming that women and girls aren't told by society that being pretty and attracting boys is important. Not only have I never said that, but the thought is ludicrous.
All of you are giving examples of the above. Examples that do not prove Drivel's point. What is at issue is the matter of degree. Drivel would have us believe that the message sent by society is that if you're not a successful sex object, (which presumably you must prove both by both looking the part and by getting boys to have sex with you) you are nothing.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Society tells boys that they should be good at sports, and handy. I could give hundreds of examples. But would any of them prove that men are socialized to believe that their value in society is first and foremost based on how well they can throw a ball or fix a burst pipe? Just because little boys collect baseball cards doesn't mean they don't *also* get the message that Barack Obama or Steve Jobs aren't great men. Society is nuanced, and children work hard to pick up on what it's telling them. And mostly, they get it just fine. I doubt many little boys are asking their daddies if the fact that Obama isn't the best basketball player means he's a bad president.
Anyway, I needed a reality check, since everyone seems to be agreeing with Drivel, so I asked my wife last night. She agreed with me. So at least if I'm in fantasy land, I'm in good company!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jun 1, 2012, 5:42 PM
Post #33 of 173
(17188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Gabe, if you have surrounded yourself with good people, and you seem like the type of person who has, it can be easy to forget how the "other half lives".
A large percentage of the male population do infact view the female as adjunct to the male. The wife is viewed as something akin to property and while women are acknowledged to have additional, valuable attributes, they are viewed as sexual objects first and foremost.
I've spent the majority of my adult life working blue collar jobs and when you get a group of those men together, talking candidly in the security of a male only group, you will hear some disconcerting views being expressed. Sure, some of it is shit talking and bravado but some of it is sincere.
We may be humans but we're still animals and it can often take a conscious act of will not to laps into what feel like, and to some degree are, very natural gender roles. Many people don't see the value in such introspection and conscious action. They see no need to go against what is natural to them. They might not be in the majority, anymore, but they are certainly not an insignificant fraction of the population.
On a personal note: I'm not ashamed to acknowledge that I am, to some degree, guilty of it as well. I am much more inclined to worry that the females on a climbing trip are running out of water, or carrying too much weight, or generally not having a good time, whereas I will delight in the suffering of the other males. I am conscious of it and don't let it affect my interactions with the women because I feel it would be condescending to do so, but it's there, in the back of my mind, hardwired. All in spite of the fact that I am a bisexual male who has slept with more men that women to date, so I don't exactly fall within "normal" gender roles myself.
Biology, it can be a real PITA sometimes.
(This post was edited by notapplicable on Jun 1, 2012, 6:07 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 1, 2012, 6:07 PM
Post #34 of 173
(17180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
notapplicable wrote: I am much more inclined to worry that the females on a climbing trip are running out of water, or carrying too much weight, or generally not having a good time, whereas I will delight in the suffering of the other males.
That is funny. My husband usually packs our climbing gear because I work later than him and we'll leave for a climbing trip as soon as I can get out of work. I will often put on my pack the next morning and say 'Why is my pack so light? How am I supposed to get in shape if I'm not carrying any weight?' We will then proceed to take things out of his pack and put them into mine.
He is very thoughtful, but I am a climber, a climbing partner, and should shoulder an equal load. I am not in this sport for the sake of being comforted. I get scraped up and dirty, and my body enjoys the hard work.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jun 1, 2012, 6:22 PM
Post #35 of 173
(17174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
cracklover wrote: granite_grrl wrote: cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: I'm a bit surprised that this post has been up for a couple of days, and no-one has commented on it. It sure seems controversial to me, but do you all really feel that the following is such a no-brainer that it deserves no response? drivel wrote: To be blunt: women are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as sex objects. Of men. To me, if the above is really true, it's horrifying, and I would never want to bring a female child into the world in such a society. Needless to say, *I* don't believe it. But I'm not a woman, so I have little insight into the messages you feel society is giving you. GO Unfortunately it IS really true. And these messages are internalized very very early. I obviously am trying to do my best to raise a daughter who doesn't measure her self-worth in terms of how appealing she is to men. BUT... Here is a story from last weekend that made people laugh, and made me cringe while laughing. I was climbing with my two kids and a few friends. Heading out at the end of the weekend, we had a long-ish hike, really hot temperatures, and an uphill walk towards the end of the hike out. Nothing terribly hard, but my daughter (who has made that hike multiple times before, from the time she was maybe 3yo) was feeling tired after diving off rocks and swimming in the lake for hours. So when the trail started going uphill, she was looking for some help. She does know by now, that while I would have offered sympathy, maybe would taken her pack and would have walked slowly with her, there was no way I would be carrying her, 45 pounds and all. So she sidled up to the two guys who were hiking out with us, and made her best pitch for help. Of course, what do you know? In a blink of an eye, one guy was carrying her backpack, and the other one had her riding on his shoulders. I tried to interject, "hey, hey, she can walk, she really is not THAT tired" (we are not talking a little toddler, after all, and there was only a few hundred yards to go, and yes, I am an evil mom, I have had many years to get conditioned against fake whine). To which one guy responded saying "oh, no big deal, really, she hardly weighs anything" and the other one commented, "how can you resist a face like that?" My daughter, riding comfortably on the shoulders of a backpack-carrying guy, is still young enough to innocently add a comment to that discussion, "Oh, I am so glad I am cute!" Everyone laughed. It was one of those candid moments, with a little kid saying something that older person might have kept to him/herself. And really, she is awfully cute. BUT... where did this come from? This concept that she is cute, and she should be thankful for it, that it gives her extra leverage when asking guys for things? I'd like to think that this didn't come from me. But it came from somewhere... And it doesn't exactly make me happy. Your story is funny, and cringeworthy... but it doesn't prove drivel's point. It shows that your daughter knows that being cute is an important factor, and she can exploit it to get her way. No-one would argue that *any* cute kid, whether a boy or a girl, wouldn't learn that lesson. What it doesn't show is that your daughter feels that it's the only important factor, or the only worth she has. And, frankly, little kids really don't have very much else going for them, except their cuteness and the social standing of their parents. As we get older, that changes, and we discover we have other powers. We don't have to always appeal upon our attractiveness to make our way in the world. Yes, I'll buy that for some girls, their transition into womanhood just feels like a transition of one type of cuteness to get their way into a new type of cuteness to get their way. But for many teenagers (and women) that's just not my experience of how they define themselves. GO I have a 7 year old niece. she lives out in Nova Scotia and I don't get to see her much, but I hear all about her from my mother. Oh, she LOVEs dresses, and doing herself all up and making her self pretty. She gets tons of praise for it too, puts on fasions shows for her Grandma (my mother). This makes me mad. At 7 she is strongly building her self worth on how she looks. And this is pretty typical behaviour of little girls because of the VERY typical dehaviour of the adults around them. This is not how " *any* cute kid, whether a boy or a girl" would be treated. When was the last time you heard a little boy be praised because they were pretty? Good point. It's still a looong stretch to go from society sending the message "take pride in how you look, and you will be appreciated for it" to "Being a sex object is your primary purpose in life. If you fail at that, you are nothing." Look, y'all seem to think I'm claiming that women and girls aren't told by society that being pretty and attracting boys is important. Not only have I never said that, but the thought is ludicrous. All of you are giving examples of the above. Examples that do not prove Drivel's point. What is at issue is the matter of degree. Drivel would have us believe that the message sent by society is that if you're not a successful sex object, (which presumably you must prove both by both looking the part and by getting boys to have sex with you) you are nothing. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Society tells boys that they should be good at sports, and handy. I could give hundreds of examples. But would any of them prove that men are socialized to believe that their value in society is first and foremost based on how well they can throw a ball or fix a burst pipe? Just because little boys collect baseball cards doesn't mean they don't *also* get the message that Barack Obama or Steve Jobs aren't great men. Society is nuanced, and children work hard to pick up on what it's telling them. And mostly, they get it just fine. I doubt many little boys are asking their daddies if the fact that Obama isn't the best basketball player means he's a bad president. Anyway, I needed a reality check, since everyone seems to be agreeing with Drivel, so I asked my wife last night. She agreed with me. So at least if I'm in fantasy land, I'm in good company! GO
I don't think Drivel's initial statement was meant to be read as an absolute, e.i. this is what the women are told, and every one of women who hears it automatically believes THAT, and only that, all the way and with no exceptions.
Of course not!
It is indeed a matter of degree. I don't think anyone here disputes that.
And it is, indeed, as blueeyedclimber pointed out, a very important part of a parent's job to make sure the little girls and boys hear more than just the superficial nonsense and grow up with good role models, etc. etc.
But the societal pressure, the difference in attitudes towards girls and boys, and the different expectations for behavior, are absolutely there, and they affect kids.
I think you have misread that initial post and read more into it than was there.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jun 1, 2012, 6:30 PM
Post #36 of 173
(17170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
wonderwoman wrote: notapplicable wrote: I am much more inclined to worry that the females on a climbing trip are running out of water, or carrying too much weight, or generally not having a good time, whereas I will delight in the suffering of the other males. That is funny. My husband usually packs our climbing gear because I work later than him and we'll leave for a climbing trip as soon as I can get out of work. I will often put on my pack the next morning and say 'Why is my pack so light? How am I supposed to get in shape if I'm not carrying any weight?' We will then proceed to take things out of his pack and put them into mine. He is very thoughtful, but I am a climber, a climbing partner, and should shoulder an equal load. I am not in this sport for the sake of being comforted. I get scraped up and dirty, and my body enjoys the hard work.
I respect that and thats as it should be. To be frank, I won't climb regularly with anyone who doesn't have that view, male or female.
The annoying thing is, and what I was trying to express, is thats not how I consciously think or view things. Thats just what my brain does when I'm not keeping an eye on it. I don't know how much of it's nature vs. nurture but it's there, regardless. And I think thats ok, as long as we are aware of it and moderate it appropriately.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jun 1, 2012, 6:46 PM
Post #37 of 173
(17164 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
notapplicable wrote: Gabe, if you have surrounded yourself with good people, and you seem like the type of person who has, it can be easy to forget how the "other half lives". A large percentage of the male population do infact view the female as adjunct to the male. The wife is viewed as something akin to property and while women are acknowledged to have additional, valuable attributes, they are viewed as sexual objects first and foremost. I've spent the majority of my adult life working blue collar jobs and when you get a group of those men together, talking candidly in the security of a male only group, you will hear some disconcerting views being expressed. Sure, some of it is shit talking and bravado but some of it is sincere.
While I have worked in a white-collar environment for my entire adult life, it is also a male-dominated environment. And there are definitely things I have overheard, in situations where guys thought nobody else was listening, that would agree with you.
For the most part, I have not had any of them behave that way when I was around and they were aware of it. Nor were any of the things I had overheard directed at me specifically. I am talking more about how the guys have described their wives/girlfriends, the tone, the jokes, that have sometimes communicated a very much ingrained feeling of male superiority.
notapplicable wrote: On a personal note: I'm not ashamed to acknowledge that I am, to some degree, guilty of it as well. I am much more inclined to worry that the females on a climbing trip are running out of water, or carrying too much weight, or generally not having a good time, whereas I will delight in the suffering of the other males. I am conscious of it and don't let it affect my interactions with the women because I feel it would be condescending to do so, but it's there, in the back of my mind, hardwired. All in spite of the fact that I am a bisexual male who has slept with more men that women to date, so I don't exactly fall within "normal" gender roles myself. Biology, it can be a real PITA sometimes.
And I can say that I am guilty of the female version of the same.
The expectation that a guy would carry a heavier pack, for example. Sure, I don't usually think of it is as so much gender-related, more weight/size related, b/c a 100lb woman carrying 20 pound backpack is carrying 20% of her body weight, while a 150lb guy could be carrying 25-28 pound pack and still not get to 20% of his body weight.
BUT-- two guys wouldn't divvy up the weight based on the fact that one of them is 130 lb, and the other one is 190lb. And two women climbing together don't step on the weight scales to decide who is carrying the rope, so it does show gender bias in my attitude. But it is so very tempting, when a guy says, "here, let me carry the rope bag" to say sure, thanks!
And on a flip side of it, several of my male climbing partners routinely assume that I will have extra food packed for them. that I will have toilet paper, and wipes, and trash bags, and sunscreen, and band-aids, and all those other things that they never really thought to pack, but are in need of, NOW. I don't mind it, not at all. But the expectations are there, and it begs to question, why they are there?
I did want to add, partly in response to cracklover, that just because we are pointing to the examples of gender bias that conform to traditional gender roles, it doesn't mean that things are all bleak and bad.
Several of my male partners are very good cooks, for example, and do an excellent job of meal planning and packing everything for a trip, as well as cooking, cleaning, etc. etc. I definitely like the fact that my regular partners don't automatically assume that I would be in charge of meals, just because I am a female. I am happy to cook, and usually do, too, but not having that as a tacit expectation is really great.
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 1, 2012, 6:55 PM
Post #38 of 173
(17160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
notapplicable wrote: wonderwoman wrote: notapplicable wrote: I am much more inclined to worry that the females on a climbing trip are running out of water, or carrying too much weight, or generally not having a good time, whereas I will delight in the suffering of the other males. That is funny. My husband usually packs our climbing gear because I work later than him and we'll leave for a climbing trip as soon as I can get out of work. I will often put on my pack the next morning and say 'Why is my pack so light? How am I supposed to get in shape if I'm not carrying any weight?' We will then proceed to take things out of his pack and put them into mine. He is very thoughtful, but I am a climber, a climbing partner, and should shoulder an equal load. I am not in this sport for the sake of being comforted. I get scraped up and dirty, and my body enjoys the hard work.I respect that and thats as it should be. To be frank, I won't climb regularly with anyone who doesn't have that view, male or female. The annoying thing is, and what I was trying to express, is thats not how I consciously think or view things. Thats just what my brain does when I'm not keeping an eye on it. I don't know how much of it's nature vs. nurture but it's there, regardless. And I think thats ok, as long as we are aware of it and moderate it appropriately.
What I was trying to say is that the man who I married - who I consider to be a feminist - falls victim to that, too. He is forgiven for it. I am sure it is not a conscious thing, but it happens.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 1, 2012, 7:41 PM
Post #39 of 173
(17150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: So here's a question, actually, I'll pose this one for Lena: Let's say there's a book written for girls your daughter's age. Dust jacket photo of the author. She's a middle-aged sweet looking woman. What is your daughter's reaction? Is it "oh my god, she's ugly, I don't want to read this book"? Or let's say the dust jacket photo of the author shows a young woman in minimal clothes and lots of cleavage. Would her reaction be "Mommy, this looks like a good book, can I get this one"? NO, of course she wouldn't base her decision to get a book based on the picture of the author on the dust cover. And neither would most people. But there is a REASON why the photo of the author is on the inside of the back flap of the book, not on the front.
Yes, and the reason is clear: society agrees that for both men and women, the way you look is *not* a prerequisite for the way your work will be judged. Otherwise we *would* see the author-as-model on the front cover.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 1, 2012, 7:52 PM
Post #40 of 173
(17145 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Yes, there are gender biases in society. That's not really much of a point of disagreement. Where this argument came from is the claim about one such bias. The claim was made that society tells girls that they are merely a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless they are willing to strut their stuff, and can demonstrate that men find them worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can a woman have any additional value in society.
I spelled it out, and Drivel agreed that's what was meant. So far no-one else has actually touched it. All of you have merely said that yes, there are gender biases in modern society, and yes, women's looks and attractiveness is deemed important, and that this is *one* of the messages society sends girls. None of that lends a whit of credence to Drivel's claim.
GO
(This post was edited by cracklover on Jun 4, 2012, 2:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 1, 2012, 8:02 PM
Post #41 of 173
(17142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
cracklover wrote: The claim was made that society tells girls that they are merely a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless they are willing to strut their stuff, and can demonstrate that men find them worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can a woman have any additional value in society.
I think I gave some pretty clear examples within my personal experience. My worth was dependent on my looks and finding a husband. Solely.
I plan on seeing this film pretty soon. Maybe you should check it out, too:
http://www.missrepresentation.org/the-film/
Sometimes we are blind to things when they don't directly impact us. You aren't in it, so you don't see it. No one has pushed this stuff on you.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 1, 2012, 8:13 PM
Post #42 of 173
(17139 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
notapplicable wrote: Gabe, if you have surrounded yourself with good people, and you seem like the type of person who has, it can be easy to forget how the "other half lives".
True dat. But neither am I entirely cut off from society. And as you point out, a lot of this seems to be hardwired. I've seen plenty of smart and wonderful people send different messages to girls and to boys. And, frankly, I don't think that's 100% inappropriate.
In reply to: A large percentage of the male population do infact view the female as adjunct to the male. The wife is viewed as something akin to property and while women are acknowledged to have additional, valuable attributes, they are viewed as sexual objects first and foremost.
OK, maybe so. But do you think this message is something these men would try to impress upon their young daughters, or is it more the kind of private secret that some men "know", but would not consider appropriate to share in mixed company?
In reply to: I've spent the majority of my adult life working blue collar jobs and when you get a group of those men together, talking candidly in the security of a male only group, you will hear some disconcerting views being expressed. Sure, some of it is shit talking and bravado but some of it is sincere.
Yeah, that's what I figured. I've known these kinds of guys, too. And it seems to me very similar to the role that racism holds in modern society. Plenty of people hold such beliefs, most are pretty mild, while some are extreme. Mostly it comes out in subtle ways, and rarely is it spoken of or acted upon directly, except when the person feels safely surrounded by like-minded bigots. Of course that doesn't mean that these beliefs have no effect, or are invisible. It just means that we've reached a stage in society where such beliefs are considered fairly taboo, and so they have a less in-your-face influence on society.
In reply to: On a personal note: I'm not ashamed to acknowledge that I am, to some degree, guilty of it as well. I am much more inclined to worry that the females on a climbing trip are running out of water, or carrying too much weight, or generally not having a good time, whereas I will delight in the suffering of the other males. I am conscious of it and don't let it affect my interactions with the women because I feel it would be condescending to do so, but it's there, in the back of my mind, hardwired. All in spite of the fact that I am a bisexual male who has slept with more men that women to date, so I don't exactly fall within "normal" gender roles myself. Biology, it can be a real PITA sometimes.
Ha! I guess my poor wife really got the shit end of the stick marrying me. She usually has to carry the rope, since her bag has a wider aperture! If I'm packing, I'll give her the rope every time. 
To be honest, though, when the loads get really heavy (trips to IC for example), I'll gladly shoulder the heavier load. It's simply practical, as I'm bigger and stronger than she is.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 1, 2012, 8:23 PM
Post #43 of 173
(17135 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
cracklover wrote: The claim was made that society tells girls that they are merely a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless they are willing to strut their stuff, and can demonstrate that men find them worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can a woman have any additional value in society.
Here is a recent Hollywood example that comes to mind:
http://jezebel.com/...ed-have-her-own-show
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 1, 2012, 8:33 PM
Post #44 of 173
(17132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
wonderwoman wrote: cracklover wrote: The claim was made that society tells girls that they are merely a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless they are willing to strut their stuff, and can demonstrate that men find them worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can a woman have any additional value in society. I think I gave some pretty clear examples within my personal experience. My worth was dependent on my looks and finding a husband. Solely.
Yes, you gave the most powerful argument in favor of Drivel's point. The one thing I'd like to clarify, though, is Drivel's phrase "women are socialized to believe". Do you feel like all of society was sending you the same message? Because you and I both grew up in the 70s, and I know that the culture I found myself in at the time was a very wild and diverse mix of Sixties empowerment\counter-culturalism, 50s leave-it-to-Beaver, 70s fun, and the nascent "it's-all-about-me" 80s stuff. If the only thing you heard all around you was the 50s stuff from your parents' generation, then how did you figure out that there was something more to your life?
In reply to: I plan on seeing this film pretty soon. Maybe you should check it out, too: http://www.missrepresentation.org/the-film/ Sometimes we are blind to things when they don't directly impact us. You aren't in it, so you don't see it. No one has pushed this stuff on you.
Fair enough.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 1, 2012, 8:43 PM
Post #45 of 173
(17130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
wonderwoman wrote: cracklover wrote: The claim was made that society tells girls that they are merely a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless they are willing to strut their stuff, and can demonstrate that men find them worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can a woman have any additional value in society. Here is a recent Hollywood example that comes to mind: http://jezebel.com/...ed-have-her-own-show
It's a damn shame. But... thank god we don't get all our messages from Hollywood and the fashion industry! If it's about selling a product, you can be sure they don't have your best interests, or the best interests of society to heart.
Edited to add - an even better example would be the messages we get from the likes of Chris Brown and Rihanna.
GO
(This post was edited by cracklover on Jun 1, 2012, 8:47 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 1, 2012, 8:57 PM
Post #46 of 173
(17125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
cracklover wrote: wonderwoman wrote: cracklover wrote: The claim was made that society tells girls that they are merely a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless they are willing to strut their stuff, and can demonstrate that men find them worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can a woman have any additional value in society. I think I gave some pretty clear examples within my personal experience. My worth was dependent on my looks and finding a husband. Solely. Yes, you gave the most powerful argument in favor of Drivel's point. The one thing I'd like to clarify, though, is Drivel's phrase "women are socialized to believe". Do you feel like all of society was sending you the same message? Because you and I both grew up in the 70s, and I know that the culture I found myself in at the time was a very wild and diverse mix of Sixties empowerment\counter-culturalism, 50s leave-it-to-Beaver, 70s fun, and the nascent "it's-all-about-me" 80s stuff. If the only thing you heard all around you was the 50s stuff from your parents' generation, then how did you figure out that there was something more to your life?
Maybe, partially, you had that different and more liberating experience because you are a male. It's worth thinking about.
I lived under that roof for 18+ years and felt pretty awful about myself at times during my life. It wasn't just a message, but sometimes deliberate road blocks placed in my path. I can't tell you exactly why things turned out the way that they did, but I don't think I snapped out of it and woke up until I was 25 or so and made a conscious choice to only surround myself with people who made me feel good. I think that a lot of people just don't ever snap out of it because they are engulfed in it and have accepted oppression as the norm.
Also, I would not change a thing about my life. Even crappy stuff that I could not control made me into the person who I am. I am happy with my life.
|
|
|
|
|
clee03m
Jun 1, 2012, 9:09 PM
Post #47 of 173
(17121 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 785
|
For whatever it is worth, my mon has said these things to me.
"How would you meet an ivy league husband if you don't attend an ivy league college?"
"Unless you get into Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, or MIT, don't bother thinking about leaving the state for college. You are a girl."
"Now that you got into medical school, just get a doctor husband. You don't need to bother finishing."
"Why do you suffer through calls and long hours. You could have married well."
To be fair my mom is 1st generation American from Korea.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 1, 2012, 9:33 PM
Post #48 of 173
(17117 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
wonderwoman wrote: cracklover wrote: wonderwoman wrote: cracklover wrote: The claim was made that society tells girls that they are merely a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless they are willing to strut their stuff, and can demonstrate that men find them worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can a woman have any additional value in society. I think I gave some pretty clear examples within my personal experience. My worth was dependent on my looks and finding a husband. Solely. Yes, you gave the most powerful argument in favor of Drivel's point. The one thing I'd like to clarify, though, is Drivel's phrase "women are socialized to believe". Do you feel like all of society was sending you the same message? Because you and I both grew up in the 70s, and I know that the culture I found myself in at the time was a very wild and diverse mix of Sixties empowerment\counter-culturalism, 50s leave-it-to-Beaver, 70s fun, and the nascent "it's-all-about-me" 80s stuff. If the only thing you heard all around you was the 50s stuff from your parents' generation, then how did you figure out that there was something more to your life? Maybe, partially, you had that different and more liberating experience because you are a male. It's worth thinking about.
Yes, it is worth thinking about.
I'd suggest it's also worth thinking about the messages all you strong empowered women got somewhere along the way telling you that it was possible to think differently than the views you're expressing here in this thread. How about giving a little credit where credit is due? I'm betting you didn't all happen upon your sense of self by inventing it all by yourself. There are those who came before you and created a culture that says that women have meaning as individuals, and their contributions to society matter. And whether you are willing to acknowledge those people and the way they shaped society or not, the fact of their existence is real, and the world we all grew up in was changed in part by them.
Let me ask you - how many of you know who Rosa Parks is? OK, how many of you know what she looks like? Pretty or plain? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that last question, and it makes no difference to me.
In reply to: I can't tell you exactly why things turned out the way that they did...
Well, it's up to you, but maybe that's worth some thought, too.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 1, 2012, 10:01 PM
Post #49 of 173
(17110 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
cracklover wrote: wonderwoman wrote: cracklover wrote: wonderwoman wrote: cracklover wrote: The claim was made that society tells girls that they are merely a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless they are willing to strut their stuff, and can demonstrate that men find them worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can a woman have any additional value in society. I think I gave some pretty clear examples within my personal experience. My worth was dependent on my looks and finding a husband. Solely. Yes, you gave the most powerful argument in favor of Drivel's point. The one thing I'd like to clarify, though, is Drivel's phrase "women are socialized to believe". Do you feel like all of society was sending you the same message? Because you and I both grew up in the 70s, and I know that the culture I found myself in at the time was a very wild and diverse mix of Sixties empowerment\counter-culturalism, 50s leave-it-to-Beaver, 70s fun, and the nascent "it's-all-about-me" 80s stuff. If the only thing you heard all around you was the 50s stuff from your parents' generation, then how did you figure out that there was something more to your life? Maybe, partially, you had that different and more liberating experience because you are a male. It's worth thinking about. Yes, it is worth thinking about. I'd suggest it's also worth thinking about the messages all you strong empowered women got somewhere along the way telling you that it was possible to think differently than the views you're expressing here in this thread. How about giving a little credit where credit is due? I'm betting you didn't all happen upon your sense of self by inventing it all by yourself. There are those who came before you and created a culture that says that women have meaning as individuals, and their contributions to society matter. And whether you are willing to acknowledge those people and the way they shaped society or not, the fact of their existence is real, and the world we all grew up in was changed in part by them. Let me ask you - how many of you know who Rosa Parks is? OK, how many of you know what she looks like? Pretty or plain? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that last question, and it makes no difference to me. In reply to: I can't tell you exactly why things turned out the way that they did... Well, it's up to you, but maybe that's worth some thought, too. GO
Sorry, Gabe. I can't relate to the environment that you think I grew up in. I don't think I met a feminist until I eventually made it to college & I was a late bloomer. If you want to know what else I was surrounded by, I challenge you to watch some YouTube videos of Warrant, Poison, Van Halen or Lita Ford. When you're done with that, you can go listen to 18 years of Catholic sermons. Have fun!
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jun 1, 2012, 10:42 PM
Post #50 of 173
(17103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
cracklover wrote: Khoi wrote: cracklover wrote: I'm a bit surprised that this post has been up for a couple of days, and no-one has commented on it. It sure seems controversial to me, but do you all really feel that the following is such a no-brainer that it deserves no response? drivel wrote: To be blunt: women are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as sex objects. Of men. To me, if the above is really true, it's horrifying, and I would never want to bring a female child into the world in such a society. Needless to say, *I* don't believe it. But I'm not a woman, so I have little insight into the messages you feel society is giving you. GO What if we made a few slight changes: "To be blunt: men are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as success objects." You're a guy. Do you believe that? I don't even know what it means. GO
because men in our society are not treated as objects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
