Kolya on 4/5/2013 at 21:23
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1661[/ATTACH] Excellent points, dethtoll.
Volitions Advocate on 4/5/2013 at 23:26
I don't wear antiperspirant either. Your body needs to sweat when it needs to sweat so it will find a place to do it.
Some sweat in the armpits is better than excessive sweat pouring down your face or copious ballswass.
I'll use whatever so long as it isn't Gel. Lately that's been Old-Spice, but I'll buy whatever deodorant doesn't look like it belongs in a bargain bin for 50 cents. Only go through a few sticks a year anyway, so its not exactly a financial burden to spend an extra buck or two.
Dia on 4/5/2013 at 23:36
Regarding society being allowed to dictate such things:
My mom was born and raised in Germany and came to the States many years ago after having married my dad (Dad was in the USAF stationed in Germany when he met Mom). Until she came to the States she'd never taken a razor to any hair on her body (I remember her telling me that only prostitutes did that sort of thing). My dad seemed to have no problem with the fact that Mom didn't shave her legs, etc. But within one year of arriving in the U.S. my Mom said she felt pressured to start shaving 'unwanted' and 'unsightly' body hair (as the TV ads discreetly put it). It seems some of our neighbors (male and female) were making snide remarks about 'hairy German women' and of course that made my Mom feel pressured to start shaving. My dad remained remarkably neutral; the only reaction he had upon hearing why my Mom had started to shave was to go knock on the neighbors' door and then tell the husband that if he ever made any derogatory remarks about my mom in the future then his ass was grass and Dad would be the lawnmower. He then told Mom that she didn't have to shave her legs anymore, that he honestly didn't care, but the damage had already been done. Mom just said she didn't want to feel like a 'freak' and continued to shave after that.
Pretty much says it all.
faetal on 5/5/2013 at 00:18
Quote Posted by dethtoll
The only vacuum here is the one you think society exists in. Your message basically boils down to "you're only oppressing yourselves!" Wrong.
Assumption - everyone who shaves their body hair (myself included) are being oppressed somehow.
Quote:
The logic does
not go both ways. The expectations placed on men and women's appearances are very different. Nobody expects you to shave your beard because people also recognize that you can generally grow that out as you wish
My gf wants me to shave my beard off because she does not like beards, not because I wish to shave it off. If I want to keep my beard, I can, but I want to be appealing to my girlfriend more. Is this oppression? No, it is placing a value on attracting the opposite sex. It DOES work both ways.
Quote:
But women are EXPECTED to shave their various places, places that aren't even visible to general society, because men (through advertising and social pressure) said that's what's good.
No. Women can do whatever they like. Whether or not men find it attractive is BIOLOGICAL in response to social trends. It is not about anyone being forced it is about following the gradient of what is considered attractive. It is supremely naive to think that anyone is forcing anyone else's hand other than in the social context of sexual INTERCOURSE which flows in two directions.
Quote:
A friend of mine was called "hairy legged vermin" when she was ELEVEN until she relented and started shaving, are you going to tell me she shaved "because she wanted to shave" and not because she wanted to avoid ridicule?
Right, and I started having my back and shoulders waxed because I got tired of being called wolfman by male and female friends alike. Is this matriarchal/patriarchal oppression? No - it is a social trend. My girlfriend loves when I wax because she finds it more attractive, but she is adamant that she loves me regardless. I choose the more attractive route.
Quote:
And of course the advertising biz has spent a shitload of money telling women what to look like. This is not a debatable point, (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWKXit_3rpQ) this is a well-known issue and you don't get to say otherwise.
Of course the advertising exists, but we're as well saying that we're oppressed into eating sugar because haribo advertising exists. Women and men are free to groom themselves however they wish, but socio-biological gradients exist which point to grooming trends. The idea that this is some kind of asymmetrical patriarchal system is absurd and poorly evidenced (other than anecdotes) here I feel.
Queue on 5/5/2013 at 00:41
I just wish women would quit shaving their pubes off. There better be a welcome mat down, or I ain't coming inside. So to speak.
... and for the record, I'm a hairy prick and proud of it. I wouldn't want to be a with a woman who doesn't want a hairy guy. MEN ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HAIRY! Guys, if a woman doesn't want to be with you because you have body hair, then punch her in the throat and move on to someone who actually likes men, not smooth bottomed little boys.
june gloom on 5/5/2013 at 01:52
faetal you have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of patriarchy. It straight up does not work both ways and you need to stop saying that because you are wrong. You shave your beard off because your girlfriend wants you to. Women shave their legs because society wants them to. That is the fundamental difference. Did you even read Dia's post? It provides a clear example of what I'm talking about.
You need to get this through your head. You are telling me there is no double standard when the evidence is plain as day. You seem to think that oppression involves armed soldiers marching into someone's house, holding her down, and forcing her to shave her legs. What is actually happening is much more insidious and subtle. When an entire society through targeted advertising and social pressure shames a given demographic -- one that does not, as a rule, have the same amount of power or privilege as another demographic (and no this isn't up for debate either) into conforming to some idealized version of attractiveness, that is a problem. In this case, we call it patriarchy. And it's not just personal appearance, either, entire subsets of human behavior are affected. It's why prostitutes are considered disposable, it's why rape victims often have to jump through hoops just to get an investigation (let alone a conviction) and will often have to endure shame and blame, and it's why we have the double standard of "girl on girl is hot but dudes kissing is gross." I could go on. None of this shit happens in a vacuum, it's all connected.
And please stop using your girlfriend to prop up your arguments -- in fact, why not try asking her how she feels? Matter of fact why not show her this thread!
Vasquez on 5/5/2013 at 08:36
Quote Posted by faetal
The idea that this is some kind of asymmetrical patriarchal system is absurd and poorly evidenced (other than anecdotes) here I feel.
In what dimension do you live in? You do know that what happens today has a lot to do with what's happened before? In most of the western world, yes, men and women are equal
by law, and therefore free to decide for themselves [in theory], but making a law doesn't instantly erase the deep-rooted sociocultural weight of the past. Throughout history women's only way to get up and ahead in life, sometimes even their only means to
survive, has been their ability to attract wealthy and powerful men. Men have had many more tools to be successful, and even though handsome men have been admired, being physically attractive hasn't been the main factor in their ability to find spouse.
Not to mention there still are lots of women who live in places where they are inequal and under the control of men in the eyes of law, too.
faetal on 5/5/2013 at 11:50
I'll try to phrase my point as clearly as possible: not everything which happens in the presence of something is caused by it. Are people saying that without patriarchy, no one would alter their appearance or behaviour as a means to appear attractive? My argument is that it is sexual selection which leads to trends such as removal of body hair, NOT oppression. We're as well saying that patriarchy cured smallpox because that also occurred during a period where women's rights were far below men's. I get how patriarchy works, I'm just not seeing how it is causal to women removing their body hair. Seriously, is the idea here that all women are desperate to stop shaving, but don't because of peer pressure left over from patriarchal pressure for them to do so? Because if so, then it wants evidencing, not thrust down my throat with some implication that I don't understand patriarchy if I won't link these two thing unevidenced (save for a youtube video, which doesn't really do the job).
I'm aware that (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap) wage disparity exists as a result of patriarchy and this has been very well evidenced. There are a multitude of factors which have pushed women into less than ideal conditions simply because men held more of the cards. I'm just not seeing that link between personal grooming habits and patriarchy. Perhaps if someone can show that there has been a decrease in hair removal in line with patriarchy losing some of its grip? Because otherwise, all it sounds like is that everything which women do to attract men is patriarchy, but what men do to attract women isn't, which hasn't been backed up. The fact that peer pressure exists (as in Dia's example) shows that people can be cruel to those who wish to buck trends - and this goes for general bucking of trends - again, is not exhibited as being clearly a result of patriarchy here. Someone show me convincing evidence that there is causality between male dominance of women and women today removing their body hair and I'll concede without a moment's thought.
Also, Dethtoll, I'm not using my gf to prop up my arguments, I'm just using an example, because I definitely feel pressure from society to not have hairy back and shoulders as this is more or less universally deemed ugly by most of society as I have found out repeatedly. I can not even fucking
see my own back hair - but I would occasionally like to use a swimming pool without people pointing and whispering to each other as though which genes decided to switch on my bodily hair follicles were somehow my doing. Am I going to lay that one on the doorstep of patriarchy? Or just accept that sexual selection of traits responds to culture and what is deemed attractive tends to be driven and shaped by consensus? If you have some sort of evidence that consensus of female legs and armpits being more feminine when hairless is exclusively an idea which was formulated by men wishing to demoralise women, then link it up and I'll back off. Because otherwise, you're asking me to accept that men saying "that's more attractive" in enough numbers to drive a consensus is patriarchy, whereas women doing the same is not similar.
So in short, my argument is that sexual consensus on attractiveness is a separate driving force to patriarchal dominance and would happen no matter which sex was dominant simply because sexual selection is a far more powerful driving force for cultural changes.
Vasquez on 5/5/2013 at 12:00
Quote Posted by faetal
Are people saying that without patriarchy, no one would alter their appearance or behaviour as a means to appear attractive?
No, they're not.
faetal on 5/5/2013 at 12:03
Quote Posted by dethtoll
in fact, why not try asking her how she feels? Matter of fact why not show her this thread!
Oh jesus - really? You think I should try TALKING to my fiancée? Would this be the same person I talk to for hours every day? You seem to be conflating me not accepting your point with me being some kind of insensitive male chauvinist pig. Growing up, my
sister was my idol. Upwards of 75% of my friends are women as a result. I totally agree with your points about patriarchy underlining aspects of society and being reinforced by advertising. I also hate how prostitutes are treated as commodities and not people. Sex trafficking makes me sick, wage disparity makes me sick, hearing people try to justify wage disparity by talking about career breaks to have kids makes me sick. My sister managed to have two kids and leapt straight back into her job as a compliance manager without breaking stride (except for her bisected pelvis requiring that she need crutches) and I have to occasionally hear people trying to justfy not hiring women for high responsibility jobs in case they prioritize their family. Yes, patriarchy exists and I hate it. However, attractiveness traits also exist and are also divisive and also get propped up by advertising and propagated by culture and used to make people feel less confident about themselves. As mentioned above, just please show this link to patriarchy. I think it just happens regardless.
Understand that I am just looking at this question academically - I have no axe to grind.
(Apologies for double post)
