Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Female human aesthetics Message-ID: Date: 12 Nov 90 17:06:13 GMT References: <9011012313.AA11775@rpp386.Cactus.ORG> <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <658245246@lear.cs.duke.edu> Lines: 137 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu In article <658245246@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: | In article <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu> (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: | | >I disagree completely. Women are expected to be beautiful so that | >they can win the attention of men. | But they can win the attention of men without being very beautiful. | E.g. some of the net.goddesses are not beautiful (by the usual standards). | Even some of those who mentioned that on the net still have a full | mail-box on regular basis... This is rather troublesome. I think it is disingenuous to suggest that it is OK to be different from society's concept of an Aphrodite or Adonis, while suggesting that this is the case because such people still can get the attention of men, or have large mail files. Women and men should not be judged on how attractive they may be. Yet, Hillel seemingly replies to the previous point by suggesting that no, women need not be beautiful, but they still will be judged on whether or not they attract copious attention. It is not just that women are expected to be beautiful that is harmful. It is the nastier point that women are expected to attract men. We see it in advertising and in popular television programming. We encounter it in the different social attitudes expressed towards independent men and independent women, even in the names ``confirmed bachelor'' vs. ``spinster''. Society condemns women who choose not to have a boyfriend or husband. Society does not condemn men who similarly choose not to have a girlfriend or spouse. | >beautiful as possible is the only chance we have to get a boyfriend/ | >husband. I think that women are taught that `grabbing' a spouse is one of the only things a woman must do, and that she must be agressive and use everything at her disposal, especially "looks". Unfortunately, there are social pressures which dictate that women should also use education, careers, money and intelligence not as ends in and of themselves but as bait for attracting a successful mate. | You have to be beautiful to get a *successful* husband. And this is an example of what happens when the social messages that advertising agencies and most media send out remain unchecked and unquestioned. I think that it is unfortunate that there is a perceived or social need to have a husband of any sort, successful or otherwise. Requiring that the man be successful is merely adding to the problem. Moreover, suggesting that women who are seeking a mate can only find a successful one if she is beautiful is at best insulting, and certainly not proven fact. | If you are not "looking for the gold" (e.g. earn enough) | then you have a good chance to get a boyfriend/husband even if | you are not beautiful. Why is there an implied need to have a boyfriend/husband at all? Firstly, some women choose to have a female lover, or a group of friends with no particular romantic interest in anyone. Moreover, I think that implying that women who are not stereotypically "beautiful" but who are seeking out "successful" partners have no chance is not at all correct. | >your average fashion spread. There are *constant* references to | >how attractive you'll be *to men* if you wear this dress or that brand | >of lipstick. Then there are the ubiquitous wedding magazines. I bridle at some of the suggestions and advice given to women about how they are to demonstrate purity and devotion in what they wear and what vows they take. The romanticism of wedding ceremonies is everywhere in popular entertainment, and seeps into most depictions of inter-personal relationships among adults in film and on telelvision. Added to the ``promise to be together forever'' myth is the social pressure to have children, which invariably accompanies the social pressure to find a mate and marry him. | The fact is that even in a female-only env. (army, jail) most | women still try to look as beautiful as possible... I doubt this "fact", as my own (limited) experience with female-only environments does not support that assertion. Womanspace is sought for a reason, and it is not so that women can be beautiful in private. It is because social conditioning makes it extremely difficult to discuss many issues or to drop certain social masks in the presence of men. Media, the messengers of society, condition everyone. They condition women and men by producing gender-role models, and by presenting the ``perfect'' people. Sadly, the ``perfect woman'' is portrayed as someone who subordinates her own wishes and her own destiny to that of a man she has ``caught'' and married, and who will take care of her and lavish her with gifts, if he is the ``perfect man''. While one could argue that the media do not shape society, but reflect it, it is clear that television and film in particular only reflect certain elements of society, and then only selectively. If they reflect society, the media are a bunch of trick mirrors. It is unfortunate that people grow up seeing nothing but a distorted reflection, or an occasional poster, pasted over the looking glass. Perhaps if the hot media in particular stopped air-brushing reality to suit their advertisers and corporate sponsors, there would be more recognition that there is diversity, and that individual differences are not unusual. Perhaps given more realistic images, the people looking into the mirror will tolerate differences in themselves and others, and not call such differences "flaws". Such a society would not produce a standard model of beauty. Such a society would not run advertisements for anti-blemish creams and pastes and plasters. Such a society would not need doctors to perform cosmetic surgery such as liposuction or tucks and lifts. Such a society would not suffer an epidemic of eating disorders. Such a society would not require women to marry or seek out boyfriends or to be "beautiful", just as the present Anglo-North-American society does not require men to marry or seek out girlfriends or to be "beautiful". Such a society would not condemn women who choose to work outside the home or to condemn women who choose to work inside the home. Such a society would recognize, value and reward everyone's contributions to it, with no thought as to the gender or race of the contributor. Despite the oppostion of corporations who have become rich catering to the women who feel that they must be beautiful or who must seek out a male partner, such a society can be built. This is one of the primary goals of the feminist movement: acceptance of people as individuals, and acceptance of individuals' choices. But such a society can only be built if people strive to rejoice in diversity, rather than fear it, and even rather than just tolerate it. -- Sean Doran also seand@ziebmef.mef.org and /C=CANADA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/ID=ICS.TEST/S=TESTGROUP/@nasamail.nasa.gov