june gloom on 3/5/2013 at 09:06
Regardless of whether he was serious or not, it kind of is patriarchy. It's the idea that "real men" work to make themselves look attractive, often in detrimental ways, because "real men" look a certain way. The fact that the supposed desired appearance changes over time with trends is irrelevant. What matters is the apparent expectation and social pressure.
faetal on 3/5/2013 at 09:34
Yeah, but it cuts both ways. The idea that men control how women look may be true in some less enlightened places, but I guarantee you that if you plot average untrimmed body hair area against perceived freedom of women, you'll see a strong positive correlation. Patriarchy assumes that women do this because of some form of subjugation, whereas from what I can tell it is entirely voluntary as some women see it as necessary to be as sexy* as possible.
I'd say that while men have definitely been guilty of pressuring women to look a certain way in the past, the fact is that in our species, women are the restricted sex in terms of availability, for good biological reasons (one shot at successful reproduction means having to be more selective about partners, whereas men have gametes to waste), which means that they hold more cards than men. This is actually noted in some literature as being contrary to appearance, since it would make more sense that men would be more under pressure to "display" (see birds of paradise versus why don't men wear make-up or revealing clothes?). If I had to guess, I'd say that perhaps years of patriarchy reflected in things like wage disparity may have provided men with a limited resource to counter the "precious gamete" held by women.
I digress (understatement), but what I am getting at is that if we reset the clock, made men and women executively equal and told people to do what they like, mechanisms for enhancing sexual disparity to gain advantage in partner selection would still occur. I'm not saying we rule out the historical patriarchal systems completely, but I think laying hair removal at that particular doorstep is a little out-dated. Both sexes remove hair in order to be as attractive as possible to themselves and, probably as reference for the former, whoever they are hoping to get with.
The reason working out is supposed to make you look like a "real man" (entirely subjective, but we'll take a standard deviation from the mean for argument's sake), is because muscle growth is dependent on testosterone, which is a prime ingredient in sexual dimorphism. If something is more associated with being male, then an increase in that value is going to appear more manly by default. An exception to that rule which comes to mind is the body hair thing, but I've not seen convincing evidence that it is 1:1 tied to testosterone levels. Other things which are (strong jaw, large hands, broad shoulders) are considered manly. Not because some shady cabal of dudebros say so, but because evolution has honed our sensory & nervous systems to respond to physical traits in others based on a hierarchy of fitness. Being an animal with our level of self-awareness is kind of fucked up like that.
* - in evolution, which applies similarly to cultural trends, "sexiness" is a positive feedback mechanism, since positive traits make someone appear attractive for purposes of reproductive success (strength, intelligence etc...) but an intertial effect of this is that this "sexiness" in itself becomes more important than the traits it acts as markers for, enabling individuals to gain advantage by enhancing those aspects of themselves to the extent that is possible
(Disclaimer: I'm talking about biological / cultural aspects of species, not how I think things ought to be if I was in charge)
glslvrfan on 3/5/2013 at 15:07
Quote Posted by dethtoll
My my, judgmental aren't we?
You have no idea.
I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that I'm goin straight to hell, coming back as a cockroach, or gonna be buttfucked by Narwhals for the rest of eternity when it's my time to go.
Briareos H on 3/5/2013 at 15:13
@faetal I was indeed being sarcastic.
faetal on 3/5/2013 at 15:25
I did think so, but TTLG tends to surprise me a lot :)
voodoo47 on 3/5/2013 at 15:43
Quote Posted by glslvrfan
I'm goin straight to hell, coming back as a cockroach
personally, I'm hoping for a tapeworm.
june gloom on 3/5/2013 at 18:26
Quote Posted by faetal
Yeah, but it cuts both ways. The idea that men control how women look may be true in some less enlightened places, but I guarantee you that if you plot average untrimmed body hair area against perceived freedom of women, you'll see a strong positive correlation. Patriarchy assumes that women do this because of some form of subjugation, whereas from what I can tell it is entirely voluntary as some women see it as necessary to be as sexy* as possible.
That's not what patriarchy is. It's voluntary, yes, but they do it
because society has told them they must shave their pits or be unsexy. This isn't women being physically or mentally subjugated by the men in their lives or whatever. This is a structured culture in which women (and men) are, through advertising and social pressure, told from almost the moment they are born that they must look and behave a certain way.
I don't have time to get into the rest of your post, but you really need to rethink it.
Mr.Duck on 3/5/2013 at 20:01
Btw....I use mostly nowadays AXE spray deodorant 'cuz I'm lazy and want to watch the World burn.
DEAL WITH IT.
:cool:
SubJeff on 3/5/2013 at 23:10
Actually faetal, many Muslim societies which are very patriarchal will have high levels of female hairlessness because it's religious practice so we can't really correlate perceived freedom with hairlessness. They do it because rules, westerners do it because of society.
Koyla; funny you should mention that but in the 80s I remember a stereotype of East German women being hotter, because of lack of Western junk food, until they took their clothes oh my good God how much hair did she have?
Nicker on 4/5/2013 at 02:43
Sorry to post on topic but as a confirmed Patriarch and oppressor adeptus, my choice for not raising a stink is any "Thai" crystal deodorant. All packaged brands seem to work equally well. Even when you could only get them by mail, they came in an amorphous blob (in a sexy velvet pouch) and cost $15, they were still a bargain.
No residue, no scent, effective for days. And now... CHEAP. Well under $5 for a stick that will last a year, used properly. The trick is to apply it right. Not just a single swipe, you apply it like a base coat of paint, assiduously.
Don't wet the stone, like they say in the instructions, that just dissolves it faster. Wet the target area or use it first thing out of the shower.
It is preventative, not concealing, so it does work as an instant shower. You will need to keep some of that greasy, overpriced gunk on hand for that.
Consider yourself oppressed.
