Why would I want to contribute to a blog where it is acceptable for anyone to make such a degrading remark about a woman and for it to go unchallenged? The fact that a number of people have said to you in various ways that such a remark is out of line here does not mean that we are all PC, OTT and having hissy fits over nothing. Why do you even see the need to comment on her looks at all? If we tolerate that kind of comment, then it appears everywhere - which is exactly what happens to women politicians in the media. As soon as they show their faces, their policies don't matter, just their looks, boobs, shoes, dresses. I'm sick to death of that, it is a reflection of how our society views and devalues women. If you can't accept that we don't wish to perpetuate that devaluation of women on ET then go somewhere that doesn't give a shit.
The fact that a number of people have said to you in various ways that such a remark is out of line here does not mean that we are all PC, OTT and having hissy fits over nothing.
Why do you even see the need to comment on her looks at all? If we tolerate that kind of comment, then it appears everywhere - which is exactly what happens to women politicians in the media. As soon as they show their faces, their policies don't matter, just their looks, boobs, shoes, dresses. I'm sick to death of that, it is a reflection of how our society views and devalues women.
If you can't accept that we don't wish to perpetuate that devaluation of women on ET then go somewhere that doesn't give a shit.
Do we objectify male politicians?
Yes, to some extent. Their physical traits become objects of caricature. Sarkozy's small stature and high heels are talked about and drawn, for instance.
European Tribune - Comments - Bring the bitches down
Do we subject them to the same type of scrutiny as we give to female politicians?
No. Female politicians are sex objects for men and sexual competitors for women. That's what the narratives are based on. What do they look like, what may be fantasized about their sex lives, that's for the men. What is their dress sense, how much can they spend on accessories, that's for the women.
Female politicians are sex objects for men and sexual competitors for women. That's what the narratives are based on.
Is this something we should challenge and try to change? Is celebrity culture something we want in politics? Bearing in mind that there can be a difference between popularity and celebrity. Ad astra per aspera
That is all tied up with the loss of egalitarianism, as you say. Now we are getting stuck in a vicious cycle of people's expectations and demands, and the need to meet those in order to get into a position where you can begin to do something about it, in order to try to change the narrative, when you've been forced to perpetuate the narrative to get there... Ad astra per aspera
'Solidarity' is the key value defining the "left". En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Why is it somehow ok to reduce female politicians to their looks? To throw gender stereotypes at them? To devalue their worth and role in making a contribution to society?
Two reasons:
Threats must be stomped!
Don't know this is true, consider it as an off-the-cuff analysis, so on with the Pop Neuro-Psychology!
By focusing the message and narrative on Looks they feed into the stereotype of "The little woman, God bless 'er" carrying the connotation of "not to be taken seriously" to men.
For women have to get a little more subtle, i.e. Sex. (OK, not so subtle.) In our species females "display" in order to attract the attention of males: clothes, make-up, stinkumperfumes, & etc. Part of "display" is being seen. (Like, duh.) And a female politician on the 'telly' IS being seen. Further she is being seen under social and cultural imaging conveying High Rank. Moreover this High Rank woman is in HER space -- the living room -- "displaying" to HER mate -- that slob of a husband, boyfriend, etc. The thalamus kicks-in: THREAT! Threat brings anxiety which is appeased by disparagement of the "display."
The new wave of female firebrands striking fear into liberal America
The firebranding is the only reason those new divas exist, indeed. The art of empty politics (as the "needed" opposite of substance politics) is evolving. At first you need an actor, then a chummy beer pal against a wooden "non-charisma", then "outspoken" hero bitches.
As I suggest above, the celebrity spectacle invades all spheres of public life as society becomes more blatantly unequitable. The media are just the means of distribution.
The black and white shots of María Dolores de Cospedal in a smart cocktail suit appeared, to some, to represent sobriety itself. But the photos of one of Spain's leading conservative politicians, which appear in the December issue of Vanity Fair España, have reignited controversy surrounding female politicians who are tempted by the lure of the flashgun. Ms Cospedal, who is Secretary General of the conservative opposition, the Popular Party (PP), is under fire for appearing in the magazine. Critics have accused her of undermining the seriousness of her position by promoting sexist stereotypes of women. "There are more and more politicians who seemed to want their voice heard in fashion and society magazines and ... to become a model for a day," the Spanish daily La Razon said.
The black and white shots of María Dolores de Cospedal in a smart cocktail suit appeared, to some, to represent sobriety itself.
But the photos of one of Spain's leading conservative politicians, which appear in the December issue of Vanity Fair España, have reignited controversy surrounding female politicians who are tempted by the lure of the flashgun.
Ms Cospedal, who is Secretary General of the conservative opposition, the Popular Party (PP), is under fire for appearing in the magazine. Critics have accused her of undermining the seriousness of her position by promoting sexist stereotypes of women.
"There are more and more politicians who seemed to want their voice heard in fashion and society magazines and ... to become a model for a day," the Spanish daily La Razon said.
Just saw this - and it seems that one problem is that some women politicians play along and are willing to pose for glitzi magazines. I guess it is a small path for making onself heard and getting recognised and playing along in the game that objectifies women.
The way men and women derive status from clothes differs - men get a lot from the way their partners dress, for a start.
Cospedal is increasing her personal status with this bit of showing off.
How often do you see women competing to be as unsexy as possible? It's not all that hard for anyone to make themselves look like a sack of potatoes, but - outside of a few radical feminist groups - women who are competing purely for the approval of other women inexplicably don't seem to do this.
It may not be conscious, but it's a bit of a stretch to pretend that attraction is irrelevant.
As far as I can see, most of the effort is made for the benefit of other women, who can appreciate all the nuances of what's going on. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
Fashion shows are a special case, because they're there as art that glorifies the designer, not the model - who's usually anonymous, and literally just there as a walking showroom dummy.
but I am saying that sexual signifier are a core driver
I'm not disputing that point.
However, it seems to me that the point of showcasing sexual signifiers through clothing is (usually) only secondarily to be attractive to men - it's sheer overkill for us simple male souls - and primarily to assert/maintain status with other women. Haute couture is the extreme form of this clothing arms race (as are, presumably, stupid hats at Ascot), but even on the H&M level, there is far more going on in women's fashions than most men are capable of recognizing. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
Most of it looks like overpriced shit on hangers to me
Now seriously, it would seem safe to assume you don't feel inadequate for not keeping up with that kind of fashion?
Why, then do you say upthread you sometimes feel inadequate for not wearing make-up? What is the difference between fashion and make-up? And, given the bewindering variety of make-up, both in intensity and in style, does your reaction depend to the average amount and style of makeup around you? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
I can be smart when I need to be and look professional when it is required and I accept that as something I should comply with when I work. Sometimes I like knowing that I look smart. When I feel like it I'll dress up for a night out.
Most of the time I prefer to be warm and comfortable and that rules out most fashion fads for me. I'm not going to wear something that I'm uncomfortable in and look stupid in. I know I am not going to find much to identify with on any level with others who are serious about wearing silly shit, mostly.
But make up is slightly different. Some make up goes with the associated fashions and I couldn't care less for that. But some make up when subtlely done is meant to make women look prettier or more feminine and smarter. I'm not pretty or photogenic or especially elegant and the fact that I don't wear make up seems to compound that and make me feel like I am not feminine enough to meet other people's standards. Fortunately I have plenty of good friends who like me just the way I am so I am not (usually) subject to any pressure from them, it is just that broader feeling of being judged on how I look that I find hard to come to terms with.
My dislike of make up actually stems from a childhood phobia and even if I felt brave enough to put make up on I wouldn't know how to and nor would I be comfortable with it. Ad astra per aspera
Now, places that dress "casually" usually also have a dress code. If you show up in a suit at a physics department meeting, people will probably assume that you are Up To Something...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I'll grant physicists, unlike baboons, won't mob, bite, and drive the intruder away.
(If there is anybody watching. :-)
These conclusions are based on swedish physics departments, but might hold for western physics departments in general. Heard there are lots of indian women in physics, so they might have other norms. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
photos of one of Spain's leading conservative politicians, which appear in the December issue of Vanity Fair España, have reignited controversy
Ho hum. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Last week we had the Liz Truss affair, and this week we have
Rock 'n' roll romance for Cameron Cutie | Mail Online
When Elizabeth Truss found herself threatened with de-selection by South West Norfolk Conservatives - dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' - because of her affair with a married MP, she had the support of another of David Cameron's A-list favourites, chick-lit author Louise Bagshawe. The pleased-with-herself writer declared it was outdated to suggest 'your love life has a bearing on your ability to do a job'. But some might now wonder if Ms Bagshawe's comments might owe more to her own circumstances - for I learn the perky blonde has, of late, also been busy with distractions in her love life.
When Elizabeth Truss found herself threatened with de-selection by South West Norfolk Conservatives - dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' - because of her affair with a married MP, she had the support of another of David Cameron's A-list favourites, chick-lit author Louise Bagshawe.
The pleased-with-herself writer declared it was outdated to suggest 'your love life has a bearing on your ability to do a job'. But some might now wonder if Ms Bagshawe's comments might owe more to her own circumstances - for I learn the perky blonde has, of late, also been busy with distractions in her love life.
It is odd sometimes how reflex can lead even me to jump to justify some inequalities without even thinking about it.
As an example a (male) friend of mine was saying how it isn't fair that you can get a 'men's haircut' very cheaply, yet for women with short hair getting a similar cut in terms of length of time or complexity, can easily pay three times more for it.
I started off with yes but... and then realised actually, why should I pay more given that what used to be a men's cut was bog standard, quick and easy but now a men's cut can be more elaborate and styled than a woman's. Yet there is still a price differential because women are often willing to pay for it and men aren't.
I tend to find that chatting over a cup of tea draws out lots of such issues, finding the political in the day to day. Ad astra per aspera
Yet there is still a price differential because women are often willing to pay for it and men aren't.
Despite being fairly self confident, willing to challenge norms and having good self esteem I frequently find myself feeling inadequate as a woman because I don't wear make up. Why should that make me feel inadequate? Why should I feel pressured into fitting what society deems to be a suitable way for me to look and behave in order to be a proper woman?
Many people probably don't much question why a woman would pay more for a haircut that is no more complex than a man's, or why woman feel pressured by others to fit a certain model of femininity. Price differential in haircuts is just one example of a consequence of inequality in gender roles, assumptions and stereotypes.
You can argue that if the market is there then there is no link to inequality - as you appear to imply but I'm questioning how that market has arisen in the first place.
The rise in 'metrosexuals' ie men who take as much as care over their appearance as some women do, has led to a market for 'male grooming' products and services. But you can still get men's cuts which are cheap and no equivalent cheap cut for women.
There's still a distinction between men who like to look after their appearance and are willing to pay silly sums of money for it, and men who aren't so bothered about that. Yet the assumption about women is that we should all be looking after our appearance and paying silly sums of money to do so. Ad astra per aspera
Price differential in haircuts is just one example of a consequence of inequality in gender roles, assumptions and stereotypes.
I'm referring to price differential for what is basically the same level of service. Of course if people want highlights or haircuts that take 90 minutes it should cost more, whichever gender. Ad astra per aspera
For instance, might a pink electronic gadget be cheaper than a black one, on purpose? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Would it be this confusing if a taxi company established a price differential between rides for whites and rides for blacks? They could argue that blacks having a harder time to get a cab, are thus willing to pay a higher price. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Success is always defined in terms of earning potential and sexual access to attractive women.
In the same way that at least half the male population judges women purely on appearance, maybe half the female population judges men purely on 'success.'
But there are equivalent, but not identical, pressures on men - specifically to 'be successful.'
Of course. Are these inevitable consequences of the human condition or are they largely socially constructed?
If a man wants to be seen as being 'successful' he is expected to work long hours and prioritise his career over his family. Many men don't want to do that but don't really have much choice. Just as women don't have much choice often to share caring responsibilities more equally if they wish to.
Can we hope to evolve a little way beyond the present state? Ad astra per aspera
Are these inevitable consequences of the human condition or are they largely socially constructed?...Can we hope to evolve a little way beyond the present state?
...
Can we hope to evolve a little way beyond the present state?
You can probably modify them, but I doubt it's possible to eliminate them altogether - at least not without a deliberate breeding program to select for valued emotional characteristics.
With a deliberate breeding program you could probably make significant changes within ten generations or so.
This might not be a popular option, however.
a deliberate breeding program to select for valued emotional characteristics. With a deliberate breeding program you could probably make significant changes within ten generations or so.
Belyaev believed that the key factor selected for domestication of dogs was not size or reproduction, but behaviour; specifically amenability to domestication, or tamability. More than any other quality, Belyaev believed, tamability must have determined how well an animal would adapt to life among human beings. Because behavior is rooted in biology, selecting for tameness and against aggression means selecting for physiological changes in the systems that govern the body's hormones and neurochemicals.
Soon afterward, tuberculosis, a disease that moves with devastating speed and severity in nonhuman primates, broke out in Garbage Dump Troop. Over the next year, most of its members died, as did all of the males from Forest Troop who had foraged at the dump. (Considerable sleuthing ultimately revealed that the disease had come from tainted meat in the garbage dump. There was little animal-to-animal transmission of the tuberculosis, and so the disease did not spread in Forest Troop beyond the garbage eaters.) The results were that Forest Troop was left with males who were less aggressive and more social than average, and the troop now had double its previous female-to-male ratio. ... This unique social milieu did not arise merely as a function of the skewed sex ratio (with half the males having died); other primatologists have occasionally reported on troops with similar ratios but without a comparable social atmosphere. What was key was not just the predominance of females but the type of male who remained. The demographic disaster--what evolutionary biologists term a "selective bottleneck"--had produced a savanna baboon troop quite different from what most experts would have anticipated. But the largest surprise did not come until some years later. Female savanna baboons spend their lives in the troop into which they are born, whereas males leave their birth troop around puberty; a troop's adult males have thus all grown up elsewhere and immigrated as adolescents. By the early 1990s, none of the original low aggression/high affiliation males of Forest Troop's tuberculosis period was still alive; all of the group's adult males had joined after the epidemic. Despite this, the troop's unique social milieu persisted--as it does to this day, some 20 years after the selective bottleneck. In other words, adolescent males that enter Forest Troop after having grown up elsewhere wind up adopting the unique behavioral style of the resident males. As defined by both anthropologists and animal behaviorists, "culture" consists of local behavioral variations, occurring for nongenetic and nonecological reasons, that last beyond the time of their originators. Forest Troop's low aggression/high affiliation society constitutes nothing less than a multigenerational benign culture.
This unique social milieu did not arise merely as a function of the skewed sex ratio (with half the males having died); other primatologists have occasionally reported on troops with similar ratios but without a comparable social atmosphere. What was key was not just the predominance of females but the type of male who remained. The demographic disaster--what evolutionary biologists term a "selective bottleneck"--had produced a savanna baboon troop quite different from what most experts would have anticipated.
But the largest surprise did not come until some years later. Female savanna baboons spend their lives in the troop into which they are born, whereas males leave their birth troop around puberty; a troop's adult males have thus all grown up elsewhere and immigrated as adolescents. By the early 1990s, none of the original low aggression/high affiliation males of Forest Troop's tuberculosis period was still alive; all of the group's adult males had joined after the epidemic. Despite this, the troop's unique social milieu persisted--as it does to this day, some 20 years after the selective bottleneck. In other words, adolescent males that enter Forest Troop after having grown up elsewhere wind up adopting the unique behavioral style of the resident males. As defined by both anthropologists and animal behaviorists, "culture" consists of local behavioral variations, occurring for nongenetic and nonecological reasons, that last beyond the time of their originators. Forest Troop's low aggression/high affiliation society constitutes nothing less than a multigenerational benign culture.
I've, occasionally and idly considered the question: did the rise of the EU and the whole European social welfare states didn't spring-from the slaughter of a goodly chunk of the men during WW2 after the slaughter of a goodly chunk of the men during WW2 and the women saying, "Enough of this nonsense"?
Trümmerfrau (literally translated as ruins woman or rubble woman) is the German-language name for women who, in the aftermath of World War II, cleaned up the bombed cities of Germany and Austria, removing all ruins. This was the prerequisite for both the preservation and reconstruction of the inner cities.
Be darned. So there may be an existing answer.
Anyone who thinks economics is about money really han't been paying attention.
People who 'fail' economically have an interesting habit of removing themselves, and sometimes their own offspring, from the gene pool.
Yup.
For most men, hair style is not a status marker.
As for the argument, it seems to me we're talking about complex interplays of sex and status, and, as far as politics is concerned, the special degree of status that is spectacular celebrity. That women are willing to pay more for a haircut than men (and less for a car) may have apparently little to do with equality, but when that sex/status competition formats political representation, I'd say it clearly does.
I said sex/status competition as currently magnified by celebrity pressure in the political arena poses a problem of gender equality. How's that?
Despite being fairly self confident, willing to challenge norms and having good self esteem I frequently find myself feeling inadequate as a woman because I don't wear make up. Why should that make me feel inadequate?
Why should I feel pressured into fitting what society deems to be a suitable way for me to look and behave in order to be a proper woman?
(proper woman) = (average woman around me) = (look and behaviour of average woman around me)
so, if you don't look and behave like the average woman around you you'll feel "unwomanlike". Since you consider yourself an average woman, this dissonance feels like pressure to conform.
The interesting thing about this is that all it takes to change the way the "average woman" looks and behaves is for enough women to look and behave differently. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Gender bender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gender benders may self-identify as transgender or genderqueer, feeling that the gender assigned to them at their birth is an inaccurate or incomplete description of themselves; some are transsexual and desire to change their physical sex through hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery, while others were born intersexual. Others may identify as Two-Spirit or members of a third gender.
If we accept the assumption that we all have a strong need to fit group norms, hanging out exclusively with persons defining themselves as third gender would put a lot of pressure on any of us to redefine in that direction. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
And let me retract "impossible" to substitute "highly unlikely to the point of approaching impossible."
Once a person has self-identified as to gender, defined as 'everything but physical attributes,' that person will almost certainly modify by Adjectives rather than Noun: GENDER +/- {Modifiers.} This is commonly communicated by, "I'm a {MAN/WOMAN} but {Modifier(s), Qualifier(s)} in a process of collapsing the totality of social Gender constructs/expectations into a Singularity -- the speaker. This self-identification has a low-to-high weighting, dependent on the individual.
Including the physical attributes, it is readily apparent that, for unknown reasons, an individual's neuro-epistemology (psychology plus cognition,) for unknown reasons, cross-identifies with respect to Gender. This cross-identification has a low-to-high weighting, dependent on the individual.
Thus we can say any individual 'Gender-Bends' to some extent but only within Gender Self-Identification.
To that I have no objection :) A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
:-)
a human's wish for social conformity which stems from our predilection for compliance with the perceived group consensus. The ubiquity of tendency towards compliance was discovered in the early 1950s (IIRC,) a basic study of Social Psychology found a person underwent stress when the test subject thought their answer to a question was unique among the test population; the researchers found the statistical likelihood of this was 1 -- meaning: always.
Getting rid of the concept of competition altogether is rather harder.
And it is all about reproductive status. Traditional bitchy queen bee devalue their competitors in public to reduce their status, increase their own status, and reduce the reproductive prospects of their victims, by reinforcing self-hatred and group contempt.
The mechanism is (inside your head) (proper woman) = (average woman around me) = (look and behaviour of average woman around me)
Smith - The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part III Ch. I [my emphasis]
The principle by which we naturally either approve or disapprove of our own conduct, seems to be altogether the same with that by which we exercise the like judgments concerning the conduct of other people. We either approve or disapprove of the conduct of another man according as we feel that, when we bring his case home to ourselves, we either can or cannot entirely sympathize with the sentiments and motives which directed it And, in the same manner, we either approve or disapprove of our own conduct, according as we feel that, when we place ourselves in the situation of another man, and view it, as it were, with his eyes and from his station, we either can or cannot entirely enter into and sympathize with the sentiments and motives which influenced it. We can never survey our own sentiments and motives, we can never form any judgment concerning them; unless we remove ourselves, as it were, from our own natural station, and endeavour to view them as at a certain distance from us. But we can do this in no other way than by endeavouring to view them with the eyes of other people, or as other people are likely to view them. Whatever judgment we can form concerning them, accordingly, must always bear some secret reference, either to what are, or to what, upon a certain condition, would be, or to what, we imagine, ought to be the judgment of others. We endeavour to examine our own conduct as we imagine any other fair and impartial spectator would examine it. If, upon placing ourselves in his situation, we thoroughly enter into all the passions and motives which influenced it, we approve of it, by sympathy with the approbation of this supposed equitable judge If otherwise, we enter into his disapprobation, and condemn it. Were it possible that a human creature could grow up to manhood in some solitary place, without any communication with his own species, he could no more think of his own character, of the propriety or demerit of his own sentiments and conduct, of the beauty or deformity of his own mind, than of the beauty or deformity of his own face. All these are objects which he cannot easily see, which naturally he does not look at, and with regard to which he is provided with no mirror which can present them to his view. Bring him into society, and he is immediately provided with the mirror which he wanted before. It is placed in the countenance and behaviour of those he lives with, which always mark when they enter into, and when they disapprove of his sentiments; and it is here that he first views the propriety and impropriety of his own passions, the beauty and deformity of his own mind.
Were it possible that a human creature could grow up to manhood in some solitary place, without any communication with his own species, he could no more think of his own character, of the propriety or demerit of his own sentiments and conduct, of the beauty or deformity of his own mind, than of the beauty or deformity of his own face. All these are objects which he cannot easily see, which naturally he does not look at, and with regard to which he is provided with no mirror which can present them to his view. Bring him into society, and he is immediately provided with the mirror which he wanted before. It is placed in the countenance and behaviour of those he lives with, which always mark when they enter into, and when they disapprove of his sentiments; and it is here that he first views the propriety and impropriety of his own passions, the beauty and deformity of his own mind.
the assumption about women is that we should all be looking after our appearance and paying silly sums of money to do so
There are lots of men who spend silly amount of money enhancing their appearances depending on their subculture. Some people like grooming themselves, some other buy expensive watches, expensive clothes, expensive electronic gadgets... En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Migeru:
The "marketplace" has a way of magnifying tendencies in this way.
Where do these tendencies come from? Are they 'natural' tendencies or are people feeling the pressure to conform to societal norms that have been constructed over long periods of time? Why were norms constructed so, what are the roots? By unpacking it all, which is what I am trying to do, can we go back far enough to see that there is perhaps a link to inequality? Gender roles and stereotypes manifest themselves in different and often subtle ways.
I am purely trying to explore this. I don't believe that anything is set in stone. Ad astra per aspera
Why should [not wearing make-up] make me feel inadequate? Why should I feel pressured into fitting what society deems to be a suitable way for me to look and behave in order to be a proper woman?
Because you are a female descendant of a bi-pedal, forward vision, pack-hunting, band of primates consisting of two in-group hierarchies based on gender where rank within a gender specific hierarchy, and band rank as well, is displayed by social signaling. Being "well groomed" is one such signal. Thanks to multi-billions of dollars, pounds, euros being spent on propaganda advertising by the cosmetic companies, et.al., being "well groomed" means wearing make-up.
Can you, or can you not, become a Martian?
(LOL)
Our genetic inheritance is strongly indicative but it is NOT determinative. At the molecular biology level environmental and mental processes affect and effect our behavior. The way we "feel" about things releases hormones (proteins) that changes the way the axion hillock and axion terminals ... uh ... "work" giving the potential to eventually changing the way we "feel" about things. Psycho-and-neurological pharmaceuticals are all about affecting this directly; clinical psychology is all about affecting it, from a molecular biology POV, indirectly.
The human Central Nervous System is plastic but it's not a bunch of goo to shape anyway we wish. Further, analysis and description(s) of the "average" human CNS, including the brain, is "average" thus indicative, but not determinative, of any individual.
As I've written before, and Mig has quoted elsewhere in this diary, individual humans seek group acceptance thus group compliance and undergo stress when either is frustrated, for some individually assigned value of "frustrated." And frustration leads to stress which leads to a whole bunch of things, one of which can be a feeling of inadequacy roughly approximate to their assigned value of frustration.
OK, anyone "feeling" inadequate long enough, with a high (enough) weight assigned to the "feeling," implies that person will "become" - personal sense of Being of - inadequate roughly approximate to the weight assigned to the frustration level. This the general outline of the process and WILL vary according to the individual, their psycho-epistemology, gender, biology, previous social stimulus, what degree of acceptance of previous social stimulus, & so on and so forth blah, blah, yadda-yadda-yadda.
In the light of current knowledge -- which ain't all that great.
Despite that, it IS possible to firmly, completely, and irrevocably state: You HAVEN'T failed nor are you a failure.
You're differently normal.
;-)
Perhaps it's because I'm an old Geezer, closer to the finish line than the start, but I head over to the Sac State Library almost on a daily basis to do my tutoring biz, wearing sweats and a stocking cap. I don't give a rat's ass what I look like and I only judge myself based on how well I tutor, how well a student does on quizzes, tests, exams. Of course, at my age, I'm out of the reproductive pool and I feel sorry for all the passerby students who are right in the thick.
Don't know where I was going with this. Contemplating not posting. Oh, just ignore it. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
So who am I, and what is my role in society? Does my gender have any bearing on my likely outcomes in life? Certainly not, because we've won the battle for gender equality.
Ascribed identity - Introducing social work practice - OpenLearn - The Open University
Ascribed identities can be thought of as the identities other people, or society, might impose on you. These include, for example, gender and age-defined identities `which are rooted in very early social experience' (Jenkins, 1996, p. 142). There may be conflict between the two kinds of identity. Many social work service users, for example, find that their view of themselves (self identity) differs from society's view of them (ascribed identity) and that frequently the latter is negative and based on a stereotype. Stereotyping is a process through which we assign a set of attributes to a person based on their presumed membership of a particular group. It also involves simplifying information about complex situations. For example, many older people find that their identity is seen only in terms of one attribute, their age, and the traits that are assumed to accompany that age, while their individual characteristics and experiences are ignored. Stereotypes represent society's view in a rigid and simplistic way. It can be all too easy for individuals to absorb or internalise stereotypes so that they come to believe they are true.
Ascribed identities can be thought of as the identities other people, or society, might impose on you. These include, for example, gender and age-defined identities `which are rooted in very early social experience' (Jenkins, 1996, p. 142).
There may be conflict between the two kinds of identity. Many social work service users, for example, find that their view of themselves (self identity) differs from society's view of them (ascribed identity) and that frequently the latter is negative and based on a stereotype. Stereotyping is a process through which we assign a set of attributes to a person based on their presumed membership of a particular group. It also involves simplifying information about complex situations. For example, many older people find that their identity is seen only in terms of one attribute, their age, and the traits that are assumed to accompany that age, while their individual characteristics and experiences are ignored.
Stereotypes represent society's view in a rigid and simplistic way. It can be all too easy for individuals to absorb or internalise stereotypes so that they come to believe they are true.
But if you identify as a "woman" you will naturally compare yourself to others who you identify as "women" and you will feel pressure to conform to their norm.
It would lead to an entirely different kind of argument (and different kinds of feelings), for instance, if a man criticised you (or another woman) for "not being womanly" than if a woman did. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
I believe Jessica Valenti documented some of this in her book "He's a Stud.. she's a slut ... ", but I don't think she actually went into why society might have developed this way.
there are many areas where women's contribution is rendered invisible under the George Bernard Shaw dictum "It's not so much she did it well as why she did it at all". women have always found being a staund up comedian difficult. Not because, as Martin amis so charmlessly put it, women aren't funny, but because the default profile of comedian is male and so women are immediately seen as different, therefore wrong, therefore challenging, therefore uncommercial. a self-fulfilling prophecy which women are only just beginning to overcome.
And thats before she steps onstage. where there will always be those who want to insult her for no other reason than she's female. Which gives her a choice to attack and become one of the guys or ignore and appear defensive. What she can't do is go out and own the stage simply for the heck of being funny as any guy would.
Any female who runs their own blog will tell of the misogynistic bs that comes their way if they dare venture an opinion. Which means they tend to lower their profile a bit; most famously,the awesome digby remained anonymous for years simply to avoid her gender becoming the issue instead of her opinions.
Why is that ? Why is it that young women aren't just ignored for having opinions, but are mercilessly attacked. It's as if young men are afraid of a woman having her own opinion. I've always noted that many heterosexual men are far less comfortable with their sexuality than homosexual men. Far more likely to go into elaborate rituals to demonstrate that they aren't gay .. no homo they. Terrified of what they see as the "feminine"; not in women but in themselves. and the only way they can defend themselves from that "shadow" within is to shut out the voice without. So they shout down women in the public sphere, trivialise them because somehow, if they go la la la and keep their eyes screwed shut and fingers in their ears, maybe they can assert their maculinity, f... the b!tch and show everyone, everyone yea, that they are not a pussy.
which is another way of saying I don't know really. keep to the Fen Causeway
Condition: the house is a move-in mess.
Elaine started it off by saying, "I would like to practice but there's no good place to."
"I'm sorry," I replied.
"Well, it's not your fault."
To which I said, "Yeah I know, but I feel inadequate because I'm not providing a proper, secure, environment for my mate."
(Shoot me now.)
