Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: wilber@aludra.usc.EDU (John Wilber) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Female human aesthetics Summary: Societal Pressures for Having an SO Message-ID: <13122@chaph.usc.edu> Date: 13 Nov 90 17:22:23 GMT References: <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <658245246@lear.cs.duke.edu> Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 115 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu In article smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) writes: >In article <658245246@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: >| In article <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu> (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: >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. If you think that, you must have never met my grandmother. ;-) Seriously though, the reason the media portray the situation as they do is primarily because most people DO want to have a close relationship with a member of the opposite sex. I think you have your cart before your horse. People may be a little more tolerant of single males than single females, but there's still some pressure on both sexes to have an SO. >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. I don't know about scientific proof, but it would seem to me that a beautiful woman would have a much better choice of men than an unattractive one (and of course the same is true in the other direction as well) intuitively. >Why is there an implied need to have a boyfriend/husband at all? >Firstly, some women choose to have a female lover, Because most women aren't homosexuals, silly. Most women I know would find the thought revolting. Lots of people (especially relatives) are interested in the creation of children (especially, potential grandparents). That's pretty hard to do in a homosexual or asexual relationship. >| >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. Yeah, I can't figure out how those things can make any money. I can imagine that a month or two before being married someone might read one to get ideas and information about how to put a wedding together, but some people actually subscribe to the things for years even when they have not intention (or opportunity) to be married. Wierd. >Media, the messengers of society, condition everyone. They also respond to the existing mental condition of the viewers. Why do they use sex in ads so much? Not to encourage sexual feelings. They do it because people want sex and think about it a lot and they want to jump on the bandwagon. The ads are at least as manipulated by the minds of the viewers as the minds of the viewers are manipulated by the ads. >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. Sure they do, but what do you want/expect? Failure and ugliness exist in the world, but do you want to have your product associated with those things? When you come home after a long day at work do you want to spend your free time looking at starving children, drug addicts, spouse abuse, and lonely senior citizens? If not, why should the media be exptected to spend much time on these? If anything, I think the entertainment media spend too much time on unpleasant and painful issues that are best portrayed in the non-entertainment media where they can be examined factually and rationally. Tell me, are you a David Lynch fan? ;-) >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. Since even without media influence the desire for heterosexual mates and physical beauty would exist in a majority of the population (think about the social pressures on women BEFORE TV!) the only way you could accomplish this is with some kind of coercive action. Is that what you are proposing? >This is one of the primary >goals of the feminist movement: acceptance of people as individuals, >and acceptance of individuals' choices. It seems you are breaking your own rule here. Is your opinion of make-up wearing heterosexual marriage-minded woman who wants to stay home and raise children any less positive than a plain-looking homosexual who hates men for being creeps and works on a loading dock? What's wrong with their being allowed to make that choice if they wish to? >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. This "rejoicing in diversity" business doesn't sit well with me because it usually is accompanied by a demand for some kind of public support for an unpopular (or sometimes immoral) activity. The best perspective is that people doing unpopular things that don't harm others should be left alone. They cannot and should not expect that everyone should "rejoice" in their unpopular behaviors. When it comes to immoral activities (and in my view, this means that they DO harm others) we should not rejoice, but condemn them. We should not rejoice in the existence of "gang culture" or "terrorist culture". To do so is to condone their immorality. Since I am a reasonable person, you can expect that if you ask me to tolerate such things as homosexuality or drug use, I will. Asking me to "rejoice" about it is going too far.