Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[cullennz]

Not really an essay:







But to answer your question: Because they believe it makes them look better.



Why does this answer matter?

Look better to who?

 

[theprestige]

I'm talking about workplace dress code requirements, not mating selection or more nebulous norms.

It was very common, and still remains in some sectors, for "professional dress" to require much more of women, such as uncomfortable high heels or makeup. Men are generally required to appear tidy, but women have higher expectations that go well beyond being hygienic and into striving towards certain cosmetic standards.

What men or women choose to do in their free time is a separate conversation to whether employers require disparate standards from their employees.

The point is that gender roles in society manifest in different ways for each gender. You're restricting your part of the discussion to one small area of the problem, as if it encompasses the whole problem, or is the biggest part of the problem.

I would say that the biggest part of the problem is the gender disparity in workplace injury and death, not the gender disparity in who's expected to wear makeup to the office.

And honestly? If the most significant example of oppression of women that you can come up with is they're still expected to dress up for work more than men are, then I'd say the problem of oppression of women is about as solved as it's going to get, and you should probably be celebrating, not fulminating.

 

[Olmstead]

Look better to who?

Why don't you just get to the point of this inquiry instead of asking a man why women do something?

Or maybe some of the women that frequent this thread will be willing to answer it.

 

[theprestige]

Why don't you just get to the point of this inquiry instead of asking a man why women do something?

Or maybe some of the women that frequent this thread will be willing to answer it.

Hogwash. Human males and females are more like each other than they are like anything else. We're the same species. We have the same brain chemistry. We have the same capacity for empathy and abstract reasoning.

I do not accept the idea that a woman's motivation and reasoning cannot be understood and explained by men. If a man doesn't understand women, it's laziness and sexism on his part, not a magical inscrutability of "woman brain".

 

[Olmstead]

Seems like one of the few remaining holdouts. I don't think those are conditions most women have to work under.

Something more topical:

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/...o-dress-more-provocatively-for-video-meetings

[...]

In a poll of 2,000 office-based staff working from home during the pandemic, 35 per cent of women reported experiencing at least one sexist demand from their employer since lockdown started in March, with the most common offence being inappropriate comments about the way they dressed for video meetings.

More than a third (34 per cent) were asked to wear more make-up or do something to their hair, while 27 per cent were asked to dress more provocatively.

[...]

 

[Emily's Cat]

Now you could argue out of the people being treated like crap the women had it worse than than the men being treated like crap.

But a bit if realism.

And let's be frank. It is 2020. So who gives a toss

Um... Women care.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why do most women wear make up?

Combination of reasons.

Partly, it's sexual selection - it's the same reason that peacocks have fancy feathers and some fish decorate their nests. It is selected for favorably by the opposite sex. Additionally, a fair bit of make-up mimics the effects of both ovulation and sexual arousal in females. during ovulation, females display shinier 'glowing' skin, shiny hair, smoother and plumper eyelids and lips. During sexual arousal, vasodilation produces flushes in the cheeks and lips making them more reddish.

Partly, however, it's socially reinforced. Women are *expected* to wear make-up as basic grooming, and are *expected* to put a lot of effort into their hair and their face and their looks. So even if a woman looks fantastic without all of the effort, there's a tendency by others - both male and female - to judge her poorly if she doesn't conform with the expected norms for female grooming.

One of the challenges here is that humans are one of the only species where the female is the one who preens and displays to attract a mate. I don't know why that is. In most species, the male is the one with sexually-selected displays and preening behaviors. In humans, all of this - the selection impetus as well as the social expectation - combines to place women into a position where they are expected to make themselves an object for the male gaze. As a consequence, it ends up reinforcing the notion of females primary "purpose" being for reproduction, rather than allowing women to be viewed as a whole being in their own right.

 

[theprestige]

One of the challenges here is that humans are one of the only species where the female is the one who preens and displays to attract a mate.

You make it sound like a biological imperative in humans. It isn't.

Men preen and display to attract mates all the time. They don't wear a lot of makeup, but that's more of a socio-historical moment in human history than anything else. There have certainly been periods in western history (at least) where men have worn All The Makeup.

 

[cullennz]

Combination of reasons.



Partly, it's sexual selection - it's the same reason that peacocks have fancy feathers and some fish decorate their nests. It is selected for favorably by the opposite sex. Additionally, a fair bit of make-up mimics the effects of both ovulation and sexual arousal in females. during ovulation, females display shinier 'glowing' skin, shiny hair, smoother and plumper eyelids and lips. During sexual arousal, vasodilation produces flushes in the cheeks and lips making them more reddish.



Partly, however, it's socially reinforced. Women are *expected* to wear make-up as basic grooming, and are *expected* to put a lot of effort into their hair and their face and their looks. So even if a woman looks fantastic without all of the effort, there's a tendency by others - both male and female - to judge her poorly if she doesn't conform with the expected norms for female grooming.



One of the challenges here is that humans are one of the only species where the female is the one who preens and displays to attract a mate. I don't know why that is. In most species, the male is the one with sexually-selected displays and preening behaviors. In humans, all of this - the selection impetus as well as the social expectation - combines to place women into a position where they are expected to make themselves an object for the male gaze. As a consequence, it ends up reinforcing the notion of females primary "purpose" being for reproduction, rather than allowing women to be viewed as a whole being in their own right.

So you don't think blokes are expected to look good?

 

[Meadmaker]

As a consequence, it ends up reinforcing the notion of females primary "purpose" being for reproduction, rather than allowing women to be viewed as a whole being in their own right.

It's all evolution's fault. From the selfish gene's perspective, that is indeed a female's primary purpose. The male's primary purpose is to provide the sperm, and then make sure the female didn't get eaten before the baby was born, and make sure the babies had enough to eat and didn't get eaten themselves until they could make new copies of genes on their own.

We didn't evolve to be office managers, and sometimes the primitive-brain thinking gets in the way of making intelligent choices for a post-industrial society.

 

[Ziggurat]

You make it sound like a biological imperative in humans. It isn't.

Men preen and display to attract mates all the time. They don't wear a lot of makeup, but that's more of a socio-historical moment in human history than anything else. There have certainly been periods in western history (at least) where men have worn All The Makeup.

"Imperative" might be the wrong word, but there is a difference here which is hard wired. Men are sexually aroused by visual stimulus (ie, attractive women) more than women are, and thus women put more attention into their looks than men. Men still put attention into their looks, but not as much. But conversely, women are more sexually aroused by a male's social status than men are, and thus men spend more time than women trying to achieve and signal that social status. The specific details may be very cultural (for example, the use of makeup), but those cultural details are still targeted at very real underlying motives that aren't going away even if you change the culture.

It's a little hard to say one sex has it worse than the other in this regard. As I said before, the primary inequality in all of this isn't between the sexes, but within each sex. Those at the bottom of either sex's pecking order may end up blaming sexism for their lot, since they might not fare as poorly under the other sex's standard, but the reality is simply that there's always going to be a scale of attractiveness, and some people are going to come out on top and some people are going to come out on the bottom. And it sucks to be at the bottom, regardless of your sex.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you don't think blokes are expected to look good?

There's less emphasis on it.

On the other hand, there's more emphasis on how much money a bloke makes. That's not fair either, but there's no escaping it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You make it sound like a biological imperative in humans. It isn't.

Sexual selection is a pretty strong biological imperative, so I suspect I'm not following your point here.

Men preen and display to attract mates all the time. They don't wear a lot of makeup, but that's more of a socio-historical moment in human history than anything else. There have certainly been periods in western history (at least) where men have worn All The Makeup.

Yes, men preen as well, but the bulk of the display behaviors are presented by women. It's a bit different from most other species, where generally the female is the plain-jane, and the male is the one with exorbitant eye-catching displays.

There's nothing inherently wrong with sexual displays, nor with sexual selection. They're a pretty core element of a sexually reproductive species. It just so happens that in humans, it's become more complex, and the displays associated with selection have, in many cases, become socially imposed requirements and expectation that act as confining barriers.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So you don't think blokes are expected to look good?

I think the spectrum of what constitutes "looking good" is a lot broader and less confining for men than for women, at least within my culture.

 

[cullennz]

I think the spectrum of what constitutes "looking good" is a lot broader and less confining for men than for women, at least within my culture.

I disagree

 

[Emily's Cat]

I disagree

Are you in my culture? Or is it possible that NZ has a bit of a difference in cultural expectations?

 

[theprestige]

Sexual selection is a pretty strong biological imperative, so I suspect I'm not following your point here.

Male peacocks preen because they have a biological imperative to preen, that is not shared by female peacocks. Men and women have different social imperatives in different times and places in human history. In some societies, in some time periods, men do a lot more preening and women a lot less. It's not like peacocks, which are fully constrained by their biology.

Yes, men preen as well, but the bulk of the display behaviors are presented by women. It's a bit different from most other species, where generally the female is the plain-jane, and the male is the one with exorbitant eye-catching displays.

In our society, today, this appears to be the case. It's not a universal biological imperative that applies in all human societies throughout human history.

 

[Tippit]

One of the challenges here is that humans are one of the only species where the female is the one who preens and displays to attract a mate. I don't know why that is. In most species, the male is the one with sexually-selected displays and preening behaviors. In humans, all of this - the selection impetus as well as the social expectation - combines to place women into a position where they are expected to make themselves an object for the male gaze. As a consequence, it ends up reinforcing the notion of females primary "purpose" being for reproduction, rather than allowing women to be viewed as a whole being in their own right.

I think it boils down to male physical strength, cunning, and to a certain degree ruthlessness. Women, throughout history, have basically been unable to compete favorably in warfare, hand-to-hand combat, and as a consequence, military strategy (with some exceptions, notably Joan of Arc, et al.) This necessitated women to seek protection from other men, and being prized for their beauty. While women are undoubtedly capable of excellence in most non-athletic circles of competence, they still rely on protection from men, whether it's a spouse, boyfriend, or, more commonly the state in 2020.

 

[Tippit]

You make it sound like a biological imperative in humans. It isn't.

Men preen and display to attract mates all the time. They don't wear a lot of makeup, but that's more of a socio-historical moment in human history than anything else. There have certainly been periods in western history (at least) where men have worn All The Makeup.

Male preening takes its place in the form of body building and fitness. I grew up in South Florida, and there is a lot of pressure to be fit. Men who otherwise don't have wealth or power can display their capacity to "protect" by being larger, stronger, and more physically fit than their peers. I don't think there is nearly as much pressure for males to be fit as there is for females to wear makeup, but it's still notable.

 

[Ziggurat]

One of the challenges here is that humans are one of the only species where the female is the one who preens and displays to attract a mate. I don't know why that is.

I wonder if it's related to our deprecated sense of smell. Even in species where the male preens, the female may still use sexual signaling through scent.