This post is from an email I received from my friend Maro today. I think it is well worth sharing:
I am sending you an article that I find very interesting. No, it's not about the world politics, nor the local sale, yet it affects most of our lives and those of the world population (and no, by most I don't mean the merely 50%, but closer to 100).
Here are some quotes from the article:
"However, Basow and Braman (1998) have demonstrated that negative evaluations of women's body hair are not confined to 'excess' growth. In their study, participants, who were randomly assigned to watch a video-recording of the same bikiniclad woman either with or without visible body hair, judged the woman as less attractive, intelligent, sociable, happy, and positive when hairy than when hairless."
"As such, women's depilatory practices not only contribute substantially to the cosmetic industry, but reinforce the view that underpins all the body-changing procedures, from make-up application to cosmetic surgery: THAT A WOMAN'S BODY IS UNACCEPTABLE IF LEFT UNALTERED." (Please pay special special attention to this last sentece.)
"the cultural assumption that a 'properly' feminine woman would not produce facial hair at all (Brownmiller, 1984; Chapkis, 1986) necessitates not only its removal, but also the avoidance of any signs of removal (such as the 'five o'clock shadow' often evident on men's faces). As Freedman (1986) put it: "having 'unwanted' [facial] hair [is] shameful and removing it [is] equally shameful" (p. 222)."
"Feminist critics of normative femininity have long pointed to the ways in which women are socially required to expend time, energy, and money transforming their bodies to better fit the feminine ideal. The present study has documented some of the most taken-for-granted body-altering practices of our time. Our results testify to the work of femininity. The requirements of this work place women in a double-bind: trivialised for taking them seriously; treated as feminine failures for not doing so (see Bartky, 1998). By refusing to trivialise women's 'beauty' practices, then, we question the narrow definition of 'acceptable' feminine embodiment, which maintains--at the most 'mundane,' and, hence, insidious level--the message that a woman's body is unacceptable if left unaltered."
I am sending you an article that I find very interesting. No, it's not about the world politics, nor the local sale, yet it affects most of our lives and those of the world population (and no, by most I don't mean the merely 50%, but closer to 100).
Here are some quotes from the article:
"However, Basow and Braman (1998) have demonstrated that negative evaluations of women's body hair are not confined to 'excess' growth. In their study, participants, who were randomly assigned to watch a video-recording of the same bikiniclad woman either with or without visible body hair, judged the woman as less attractive, intelligent, sociable, happy, and positive when hairy than when hairless."
"As such, women's depilatory practices not only contribute substantially to the cosmetic industry, but reinforce the view that underpins all the body-changing procedures, from make-up application to cosmetic surgery: THAT A WOMAN'S BODY IS UNACCEPTABLE IF LEFT UNALTERED." (Please pay special special attention to this last sentece.)
"the cultural assumption that a 'properly' feminine woman would not produce facial hair at all (Brownmiller, 1984; Chapkis, 1986) necessitates not only its removal, but also the avoidance of any signs of removal (such as the 'five o'clock shadow' often evident on men's faces). As Freedman (1986) put it: "having 'unwanted' [facial] hair [is] shameful and removing it [is] equally shameful" (p. 222)."
"Feminist critics of normative femininity have long pointed to the ways in which women are socially required to expend time, energy, and money transforming their bodies to better fit the feminine ideal. The present study has documented some of the most taken-for-granted body-altering practices of our time. Our results testify to the work of femininity. The requirements of this work place women in a double-bind: trivialised for taking them seriously; treated as feminine failures for not doing so (see Bartky, 1998). By refusing to trivialise women's 'beauty' practices, then, we question the narrow definition of 'acceptable' feminine embodiment, which maintains--at the most 'mundane,' and, hence, insidious level--the message that a woman's body is unacceptable if left unaltered."
12 comments:
The statements seem too strong to me ...
"By refusing to trivialise women's 'beauty' practices, then, we question the narrow definition of 'acceptable' feminine embodiment, which maintains--at the most 'mundane,' and, hence, insidious level--the message that a woman's body is unacceptable if left unaltered."
Let's put it this way, if a guy is left alone in an island that has only one woman, the body hair probably wouldn't make that much difference. Hence the word "acceptable" is used rather incorrectly. The more accurate way would be that the male subject prefers a non-hairy over a hairy female, everything else being the same, i.e the non-hairy would win the competition.
That could have evolutionary roots. Let's not forget that human lost lots of hair when got separated from the other primates thus it could have very close relationship to other evolutionary factors that made the human survival possible. Now, Thousands of years later, and when those factors are not that important anymore still our brains are wired to value them. That is because our brains have evolved much slower than our cultures.
In that sense, removing hair can be seen as a smart way to neutralize an unnecessary choice system.
The article manages to raise the issue but fails to show a more cognitive solution to this problem beyond praising feminism. They could have studied the cultures that the hair is not an important factor and see what makes the difference. (I should say I didn't read the whole article, so I may be missing something).
"The statements seem too strong to me"
Then you probably don't belong to the group of people that this means an almost daily investment in time, energy, and money to them.
"Hence the word "acceptable" is used rather incorrectly."
I think the usage of the word is perfectly correct, since it is also carefully used in quotes (making it be true perhaps not 100% of the time).
"The more accurate way would be that the male subject prefers a non-hairy over a hairy female, everything else being the same, i.e the non-hairy would win the competition. That could have evolutionary roots."
First, 'acceptable' in a society in not necessarily referring to the male part. Second, I'm starting to seriously doubt the field of evolutionary psychology, because everything that we can't explain seems to be ditched in the same hole: "it must be because of evolution." And the field is so vague, virtually anything (even if the world functioned exactly the opposite of how it does today), could find some kind of story therein. If it was indeed evolutionary and served some kind of purpose, women would be naturally hair-free. But they're not. Also, how do you explain women who find hair-free guys attractive? I can point to many women who will find gay guys much more attractive than the straight ones (or metrosexuals to those that are not). And guys who like women au naturel. I know the percentage seems less (don't know the actual figures), but I think men preferring less hair is more a function of media and companies that make money this way rather than evolution (for reasons above).
"The article manages to raise the issue but fails to show a more cognitive solution to this problem beyond praising feminism. They could have studied the cultures that the hair is not an important factor and see what makes the difference. (I should say I didn't read the whole article, so I may be missing something)."
Yes, I would recommend reading it fully. It hasn't studied a different culture, but does have a nice study of its dependence on age (when 'culture' might've been different).
I liked the reference to "evolutionary forces" in the first anonymous comment
Men also spend some time every day shaving and showering ... but at least for me, there is a refreshment and feeling of being alive in these rituals
I agree that society matters, but not to the extent that the article argues ...
I've heard this argument alot that "men also shave everyday". These are not the same. I challenge men to try to pluck their facial hair one by one as a morning ritual and then we talk! Plus men can let their hair grow and nobody would care. If men shave, that's in most cases a personal preference, but for a woman that is not a choice.
I didn't understand why this article is so interesting.
- It's evolutionary thing and none of evolutionary judgments are 100% accurate. People just judge the opposite sex based on signs visible to them.
- Hairless girl is sexier (at least most of guys think so)
the other judgments are by product of this "being sexier". Hence, a sexier girl (who is not a whore, excuse my language) is more likely to be sociable, happy, confident, successful and even more intelligent. It's easy to test this hypothesis. Evolution predicts that way.
- Why some women and feminists so obsessed with "taking seriously" by guys. I never heard of that from guys. If someone doesn't take a guy seriously, he just says: "F them, a**holes". They usually don't blame all the culture, human society, education system, ... for "not taking them seriously".
- Being sexy or beautiful (physically or mundane) is very important to guys. Why? nobody knows.
- To make it clear, I'm not anti-feminism or anything. I do not believe men are better, smarter, more productive, ... than women.
But I do believe in a free society (like jungle) men are happier and more successful and suffer less than women. Why? It's hard to explain. just look at the way lion and lioness live.
demanding sexier girl is only one of things they take advantage of women.
In life, every specie has to compete to stay alive, compete for food, for mate, and other resources. It may be unfortunate or unfair, but it is hard to imagine it any other way
Men also have to compete: weaker, less successful, less intelligent, ... men have less chance of finding a "good" mate ... is it a "social" force, partly, but again, what do you propose to replace it?
As someone said, "life is tough, deal with it" ...
Apparently, it is a very complicated issue like any other socio-cultural phenomena. Here is my further two-cents:
- Their showing of a relation between the higher age and less history of hair-removal doesn't seem a very strong case in favor of cultural factors. They are not considering the contribution of cheaper, more available, and easier to use hair removal technology. Also they don't consider the effect of change in the dressing habits and how the trend toward showing more skin could have an effect.
- As long as I remember, the oldest portraits of women that go back to the earliest ages portray them as hairless. Also, most of the conditions that make women prone to having more hair are hormonal conditions that lower the fertility. Both of these, in my opinion, are more in favor of evlotionary causes in contrast to cultural ones.
- The notion that a social phenomena can have evloutionary causes doesn't necessary mean that it is "right" or it is the only possible altrenative. Evlotionary explaination just describes how the culture could have been shaped as it is, considering the playing forces and their interactive dynamics.
For example, based on the evolutionary view, having a percentage of violent men could actually increase the chances of a society to increase in number by increasing the chance of family formation due to the women seeking protection by other men. This does not mean that violence is "right", or it should be tolerated.
The evloutionary explaination give us a framework to undrestand the important factors. After that it is up to us to take steps to change the society by manipulating the important parameters, if we deem necessary.
Just one thing:
"And who deserves it all?!!"
I am sorry for the last part of the previous comment, it was quite stupid and insensitive. I do not have the right to trivialize anyone's problems. It is like if I am depressed, someone comes to me and says tough it up. It is unproductive to say the least.
In communications, people give comments based on their own internal conversations. If I am concerned with certain issues and questions, they will surface in things that I say even on an unrelated subject.
No plans for an Atlanta trip in Thanksgiving ? :)
من 66 تا 70 هاجر بودم شما کی ندای ازادی بودید ؟
آلوچه خانوم
Cuckoo jan, i appreciate your comment. And what you said before, although not sugar-coated, is true. Life is not supposed to be easy and everyone has to deal with his own problems in the small or large scale. Complaining about those problems is a rather passive way of dealing with them...
Anyways, thanks lots for your invitation. Not for the thanksgiving, but i will plan a trip to your planes sometime this year. I miss you guys alot:)
Post a Comment