Are we punishing our ladies.

[kvnchrist]

I know I've talked about the sexual double standards to today's society, but I think there is another double standard that effects our society and that is the pay scale between the sexs and also is our society nudging those of the fairer sex to utilize their attractiveness to get to where they wish to be, and condemn those of less beauty to the back burner. Do these, so-called plain women have to be twice as aggressive as their attractive counterparts, and are these women even more scrutinized and categorized as Bitches, because they don't fill our eyes before they take up presence before us. Is it our place to categorize them because they don't fit our ideas of a lady.

 

Does our society press beauty and femininity onto our female children and set them up with unrealistic ideals of beauty. Do we push these young ladies into the world of the adults, by advertisements of beauty products, or sexually provocative clothing, in order to fill our needs as men, for something good to look at. Do we create the next victim of eating disorders and sexual exploitation by what we feed our young ladies, as far as propaganda of lifestyles. Do we create a second class citizen out of those who will not or can not subscribe to our vision of of sexual rolls. Do we condeme ourselves to loose the input of those who live their lives as freely as we wish we could, simply because they don't fit into the small minded box we have constructed for them. Are those who step outside these boxes Bitches, or are we Bastards for trying to confine them to our views.

 

Sometimes we have honored those with spiritual beauty, such was the case with Elinor Roosevelt, but would she have gotten aqs far in our society, if she lived today and weren't the wife of a president. We need only turn on the TV set in America and then turn on the Tele in the UK and see the distinct contrast between the majority of women of beauty shown here and shown there on the TV.

 

Are we nudging our ladies to become beauty queens and then condemning them, when become comfortable in that roll, while secretly desiring them to get more comfortable with us, in private.

[Madcat221]

I always had this nagging suspicion about the methodology behind gathering the statistic that states women are paid less than men. Does it just lump everyone together? Does it factor in women who do part-time jobs or no jobs to raise kids Does it go on a per-job basis and compare pay rates between men and women? The only real way to compare is to control for such factors as best as they can and ideally and compare only on the gender variable. Otherwise the stats are misleading at best, or ulterior at worst.

 

As the quote goes... there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[kvnchrist]

I always had this nagging suspicion about the methodology behind gathering the statistic that states women are paid less than men. Does it just lump everyone together? Does it factor in women who do part-time jobs or no jobs to raise kids Does it go on a per-job basis and compare pay rates between men and women? The only real way to compare is to control for such factors as best as they can and ideally and compare only on the gender variable. Otherwise the stats are misleading at best, or ulterior at worst.

 

As the quote goes... there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

 

I'm sure this question will never be adequately answered by anyone. Those on either side of the argument could probably wallpaper the place with links to studies after studies that seem to support each others views. I think you've taken the wrong idea from my post. I was more interested in the assertion that those women of less outer beauty need to work twice as hard to get noticed, in our society and that once they do so they are looked at as something less than lady-like. All you need to look at the way people see Hillery Clinton, Sarah Pallin, Martha Stewart, and other successful women. How many times have they been spoken about differently than those starlets like Lindsey Lohan, Paris hilton and others who are less constructive in their actions.

 

The crux of my post was that women are bombarded by unnatural expectations of beauty by advertisements from the cosmetic and fashion industries and those who succeed in making a success of themselves are looked at as somewhat less than the ladies they are.

[McclaudEagle]

In today's society, attraction does play a larger role than it ever used to and ever should do. "Plain" women do seem to need to work harder in some places than their "attractive" counterparts, but that's not always the case thankfully. You don't really need a study to prove that sort of thing, it's splattered on the side of buildings, highways, buses, etc. The most common place of work this will likely take place is one either run by a man or an "attractive" woman who thinks herself as superior in appearance. Sadly, the male mind falls prey to what we perceive as attractive a lot more and worse than a woman's mind does, so that will likely explain your point in the cases of male run businesses.

 

On a side note, I think this thread belongs in the Debates section.

[kvnchrist]

In today's society, attraction does play a larger role than it ever used to and ever should do. "Plain" women do seem to need to work harder in some places than their "attractive" counterparts, but that's not always the case thankfully. You don't really need a study to prove that sort of thing, it's splattered on the side of buildings, highways, buses, etc. The most common place of work this will likely take place is one either run by a man or an "attractive" woman who thinks herself as superior in appearance. Sadly, the male mind falls prey to what we perceive as attractive a lot more and worse than a woman's mind does, so that will likely explain your point in the cases of male run businesses.

 

On a side note, I think this thread belongs in the Debates section.

 

 

Well I didn't really think it was a debatable subject. As you say beauty is plastered over every bill board and every sing. I just had a cousin overlooked for a job that was given to a younger girl. My cousins inner beauty is twice that of the other girl and she has kids to feed. I was looking more for others stories. I'm sure there are others who's had family members or friends that has something like this happen to them.

[Vagrant0]

Can't comment on the pressures that girls face since I lack both the biological bits and the upbringing, so nothing I say could really have much validity. But men are hardly the only ones to blame since women too try to out-do eachother and exclude those who are not good looking enough to be worth their time. Shallowness is not restricted to gender or even society.

 

But, about the women in power bit... Both attractive and non-attractive women can be bitches when in a position of power and given this sense of using it because they can... But same goes for men, or anyone. Power corrupts and the few who understand how to wield power correctly rarely ever have power themselves. Blaming society for having to make you into some ruthless, cold hearted *censored* is a poor excuse. They are mean and unwavering because, well, like anyone in power, they can usually get away with it. The only difference is that women in power tend to feel more threatened by those around them, so often feel the need to be more aggressive so that they don't lose their position... But this is more along the lines of a feminine trait (suspicion of envy) than any societal pressure.

 

The problem is really that femininity is connected both linguistically and in most cases, socially with weakness. It is characterized by passivity, dependence, and frailty (while masculinity is characterized by activity, independence, and strength). Can someone be strong, confident and female... yes. Can someone be strong, confident, and still be very feminine... Not really. This is one of the reasons why there really aren't many strong yet feminine characters in history or in fiction, one trait usually prevents or inhibits the other. Those who try tent to appear bipolar (not in the medical way) rather than as a contiguous whole. This applies even in the instance of dominant females or submissive males.

 

Sure, one can be strong, confident, and beautiful, but that is because there is no direct link between femininity and beauty although one usually involves the other on some conceptual level. Likewise, one can be very feminine, but not necessarily beautiful. Beauty is a subjective component of the society and person who is making that observation (beauty is in the eye of the beholder).

 

Why mention this? Because currently I would say that society has denounced the concept of femininity (girl power movement), but still tries to push the same models of beauty which are rooted in some of those attributes which lend themselves to femininity (action heroes in stiletto heels). So there is a conflict and a nearly impossible model which is being impressed on others, eg; enforcing a concept of beauty which is rooted in the concept of someone being hobbled and less able to move about. Clothing is a perfect application of this. There are few jobs out there that could be done in a dress without ruining said dress, beauty without capability. Conversely men's clothing, which is typically durable and inexpensive lends itself well to most labors, capability without beauty. This is why one variety is strictly feminine, while another tends to always lean toward masculine regardless of the sex or the role of the person wearing that garment.

 

 

Beyond that... It's just money. There is a thriving market out there for selling false dreams to those who aren't confident in their own appearance or ability. Look at exercise equipment and health product commercials sometime. Men too are under these pressures to have a lean athletic physique, chiseled (clean shaven) jaw, trim but full head of hair. And likewise nearly ALL of these commercials feature someone with this sort of build and appearance, and this isn't anything new. The difference is that it's much more underplayed and out of social consciousness (going back to the whole men should be strong, who cares about them bit). If there is an angle to exploit for financial gain, people will exploit it with few exceptions.

[kvnchrist]

Is it the power they wield or is it the perception of those who think that they shouldn't have it and be female that brings along the allegations of being something other than a lady. I believe the term used here was " A strong woman" I remember during what was called The Hillerycare debate the conservatives went for the jugular and even before she began her run for President, they attacked her. The same thing happened to Sarah Pallin and Martha Stewart was transformed by the media into this mean antagonist person who when went to jail for inside trading, was vilified for almost anything she did. I'm beginning to think the media sensationalizes and dramatizes those that don't fit into a predestined mold.

 

There are myriads of examples of heroins that are both sexy, strong and vibrant in hundreds of movies. Why are they so acceptable and the real thing not so? Look at Princess Leia of Star Wars for one example.

[Vagrant0]

Is it the power they wield or is it the perception of those who think that they shouldn't have it and be female that brings along the allegations of being something other than a lady. I believe the term used here was " A strong woman" I remember during what was called The Hillerycare debate the conservatives went for the jugular and even before she began her run for President, they attacked her. The same thing happened to Sarah Pallin and Martha Stewart was transformed by the media into this mean antagonist person who when went to jail for inside trading, was vilified for almost anything she did. I'm beginning to think the media sensationalizes and dramatizes those that don't fit into a predestined mold.

 

It is the minority factor at work... There are relatively few women in power and the public spotlight, so when one of them has shady dealings or whatever, it becomes sensationalized by the mass media... who, well, let's face it, have no soul and would exploit anything they could for ratings. This is not just the reason why they were attacked as also the reason why men who do similar things aren't.

 

But if you exclude sex from the equation, the things these people did were as justifiable for the attacks made than anything. If there is a weakness, people will exploit it, that is politics, that is debate. It is lost when one lets those attacks influence their actions.

 

There are myriads of examples of heroins that are both sexy, strong and vibrant in hundreds of movies. Why are they so acceptable and the real thing not so? Look at Princess Leia of Star Wars for one example.

First... They are idealized beings who do not have to answer to criticisms for their actions, past, or role. They can do their actions without being susceptible to any of the normal human frailties. And likewise, when someone decides to toss in something to conflict with this idealized depiction, it usually ends up ruining that character.

 

Second, these beings are often written by men and limited to those contexts that other men would agree with. In the real world, women are defined by other women and judged based on how that person acts or appears. These characters also, in being written by men, do not possess a woman's heart, emotions, and background, so there is little deep subtext.

 

Third, again, most of these heroins have to step outside their femininity to exert that sort of power. Power is usually defined in masculine terms, so female characters usually have to be cold to consequences and do things directly, independently, and on their own merits (masculine qualities) or else fail.

 

A classic example of this would be the Xena series. Xena, a woman who is strong, independent, sexy, and vibrant often ends up being rather "butch", often solving problems in the series as a man would, by fighting, or threatening; as opposed to using subtly, diplomacy, or other feminine traits. Those few moments of the series where she is placed in a helpless position are met with absolute defiance and aggression (typically masculine response). The few times she shows any sort of feminine reactions are to the brief encounters with Aries, which are usually just an interlude for some sort of more masculine response. Her counterpart Gabrielle, is the exact opposite. Through most of the series she is passive, dependent, resolves problems though talking, seduction, or subtly. Those few moments in the series where she exhibits real aggression, she is reprimanded or made to regret her actions. Both are sexy, well developed characters, but the striking difference is how they respond to conflict and to being outside their element. One continuously responds in a masculine manner, the other in a feminine manner.

 

Except here's the thing. Someone like Xena, placed in real life would undoubtedly come off as a *censored* due to how she solves conflicts with aggression. And someone like Gabrielle, despite any proactive tendencies, would be criticized for being too weak.

 

 

Let me clarify though, this does not mean that women cannot be in power, or even be in power without being an outright *censored*, as there are many powerful and capable women in both the government and in the corporate world who do their jobs capably.

 

The problem is that we qualify that capability in masculine terms and praise women for showing these qualities while condemning their feminine ones. This association of masculine = strong and utilitarian, feminine = weak and beautiful, is not a recent invention, or even limited to just a handful of cultures, but is almost world wide and deeply embedded in the language. And likewise those things which we describe as being related to some masculine or feminine aspect are often described in that way. English does not have feminine and masculine verbs or nouns, so this aspect of language is not easily explained. Offhand, the most gendered thing in the English language is cars. Often we describe cars not as powerful or resilient, but as beautiful, agile, graceful, curvaceous, and likewise, we usually attribute the pronoun "she" to a car (atleast among those who have a bond with their vehicle). A car is often framed with women, or paired with some suggestion of sex to further exploit the connection. Beer too does this, but stops short of being referred to as a "she", and mostly because, again, marketing people will use any tactic to sell a product. But I digress. The point is that we as a culture are trying to work towards this concept of "gender doesn't mean anything", but are in denial of our own attitudes toward gendered actions or concepts. In those few instances where we are aware of some bias, it's usually only one way.

 

For example, you have two potential applicants for a job, both with similar qualifications.

 

Applicant A comes off as being friendly, is clean and well dressed, but isn't as outwardly confident of their abilities.

 

Applicant B comes off as being solitary, isn't dirty, but doesn't have that "crisp" appearance, but expresses their own confidence vocally.

 

Which one would you hire if sex, or even race was not taken into consideration? Now look at it again if one A is a male, and B is a female. Look at it again if A is a male and B is a female (can do it again for white/black for fun).

 

 

Most employers would hire applicant A in all cases. They would overlook the lesser confidence as the person being humble and put more credibility on the fact that the person makes that extra effort in how they present themselves and their willingness to communicate with others. Applicant B would be less likely to be hired because their expressed confidence could be seen as being boastful when they don't take the time to make themselves presentable or associate with those they are speaking to. Here's the kicker, if applicant A was female, it would be written off as her using sexual charms to get the position. But that's exactly the thing, they are. Even if applicant A was male, it would still be one using their own beauty to get a leg up over another because humans, all humans, favor beauty over utility. But we only consciously acknowledge it in one direction.

 

 

The other reason for this is that most office and business activities are more in line with feminine qualities than masculine ones. There is a strong dependence on communication, presentation, following the directives of your superiors, and being friendly to potential and existing clients, as well as subtly, use of information, reliance on others, and using others. So naturally, those who exhibit more typically feminine qualities are more likely to be hired for or remain in these positions. Except at the upper management level, where the requirement of the work is more dependent on masculine qualities, such as self-reliance, confidence, activity, competition, and communicating only what is necessary to your wishes. This is not to deny the fact that there is a glass ceiling, but rather point out that the ceiling probably exists because the two jobs require decidedly different traits and that unlike men (who are raised with this duality while still being praised for decidedly masculine activities), women have not had much call to balance them (who are condemned for being too masculine, criticized and abused for being too feminine, and who have decidedly few responsible role models that exist in the middle (pretty much just Oprah)).

 

This is not to say that there isn't also this whole aspect of sexual division of labor, notion that women are best seen and not heard, and of the male breadwinner. But rather that one cannot be resolved without acknowledging the other and giving it enough time and consistent effort to change. Change is coming, it's just slow change.

[BlackBaron2]

I think that people put too much emphasis on looks and that the mainstream media objectifies all people. We're all people and, to put it bluntly, my colouring, gender, who I might possibly fall in love with and my body shape don't determine the totality of my being.

 

By objectification, I mean that we're reduced to our base components and ridiculous stereotypes. It happens to absolutely everyone, not just women and girls, though admittedly men and boys are portrayed with greater diversity. We need to stop forgetting the people who aren't thin, white and stereotypical. :)

 

As an example of my frustration with the objectification of people in media, I find the pink products aimed at women to be demeaning because that's saying "all women love pink and are super-girly and giggle and can't handle tough colours like black and white". I don't mind pink as a colour choice , I mind that it's always the same old stereotype that pink=female-specific. It's just a colour. Why are all colours except pink and pastels seen as gender-neutral? It really bugs me.

[kvnchrist]

I think that people put too much emphasis on looks and that the mainstream media objectifies all people. We're all people and, to put it bluntly, my colouring, gender, who I might possibly fall in love with and my body shape don't determine the totality of my being.

 

By objectification, I mean that we're reduced to our base components and ridiculous stereotypes. It happens to absolutely everyone, not just women and girls, though admittedly men and boys are portrayed with greater diversity. We need to stop forgetting the people who aren't thin, white and stereotypical. :)

 

As an example of my frustration with the objectification of people in media, I find the pink products aimed at women to be demeaning because that's saying "all women love pink and are super-girly and giggle and can't handle tough colours like black and white". I don't mind pink as a colour choice , I mind that it's always the same old stereotype that pink=female-specific. It's just a colour. Why are all colours except pink and pastels seen as gender-neutral? It really bugs me.

 

 

You know what would freak out a lot of people was that if they looked back in history. in the early 1900's boys wore pink and girls wore blue. It wasn't until the 1940's that it changed.

 

history of gender specific colors