Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    It's big business. The GNP would suffer if it were changed. So it
    won't.

    
    	Jody, I hear what you are saying and agree with most, but
    	(always is a BUT in there isn't there? :^) ) men also have
    	a great deal of social pressure placed on them. For women
    	it does tend to be towards beauty, while for men, it's 
    	success/wealth. While growing up I can't remember how many
    	times I heard in order to get a good woman a man must have
    	a good job with lots of money. Even look at alot of the single
    	ads you see in the papers today. What do you see as one of the
    	most stated requirements of women? "must be "GENEROUS/SUCCESSFUL".
    
    	No matter which way you cut it stinks!!!!!!
    
    	G_B

    re -1.  Oh, I don't know, I'd rather my success be tied to something I
    could do something about, such as getting a good job, rather than tied
    to something I can't, such as being born with the right genetic
    combination.  Therefore I find the pressures unequal.  And they're
    especially unequal these days where a woman is now *also* expected to
    have that good job, too.  No similar "beauty" burden has been placed 
    upon men to equal the career burden women now have in addition to the
    beauty burden they've always had.

Maybe people are lonely.  They feel that if they want a companion they must make
themselves attractive to others.

Maybe someone wants a job.  They won't be able to get that job unless they 
conform to a certain look.  (How many people would go to a doctor who sported
a green mohawk and nosering?)

A very large part of one's life is spent interacting with others, therefore,
the way someone makes themself look probably depends on how that person
wants others to see them.

Lisa

    
    because men are in charge and women are chattel
    

I think it was The Second Sex that talks about women 'being' and men 'doing'.
I'm sure there's lots of glass-chewing feminist tomes about this concept. I wish
I could pull out the name of the definitive one. If anyone else can, I'd
appreciate it.
	Mez

why is it [in my life anyway] that most of the pressure comes from _women_.

when I was skinny -- _really_ skinny -- not one man complained, but women gave
me hell for being scrawny.

when I put on a few pounds, not one man complained, but women told me that I
looked like I was letting go.

I've never experienced a _single_ instance of lack of male company that could
be tied to the way I look -- the glass chewing has chased a few away, though.

Men _have_ indicated that my hair would be more attractive worn loose, but
concede that pulling it back tends to keep it out of my food -- and theirs --
and generally leave it at that.  I must have at least three women a day tell
me to perm it to be sexy or cut it to be professional or put it up to
accentuate my neck or ...

I've had many women call me unfeminine and emasculating -- which really makes me
wonder where the insight is coming from -- but only one man.

Women tell me my fondness for bold colours makes people take me less 
seriously.

Or maybe, I just don't get it and men would rather not face my response ....

  Ann

    re .9 -
    
    maybe he only meant it as a chattelyst for discussion.

    <--(.10)
    
    That's really interesting, Ann!  Maybe it's because you've got "it"?
    
    I spoze it could be that I was just too self-absorbed to notice, but in
    truth I can never recall anyone apart from my daughters putting any
    pressure on me to do this or that in aid of better looks.  I know that
    it happens to other women and I guess I've always assumed that nobody
    bothers with me cuz they figure what's the use...or either they've a
    good sense of self-preservation, one.  :-)
    
    							=maggie

    
    re: .10
    
>>why is it [in my life anyway] that most of the pressure comes from _women_.
    
    Well, I don't know if this is *the* answer, but it's my theory...
    I believe that women are socialized to fit a certain look, role or set
    of behaviours and to teach/pass on and enforce these rules as a part of
    the socialization of young girls.
    
    My mother was the one that told me all the b.s. about how I
    should/shouldn't look, that I should let the boys win when playing
    sports, that I should not appear smarter than boys, that I must shave
    my legs, etc., that wearing make-up would make me look prettier, that
    wearing dresses and skirts would make me look more attractive, and the
    list goes on.
    
    My father quite inadvertently undermined my mother's best efforts at
    "turning me into a lady."  He bought me baseball gloves and bats,
    footballs, golf clubs, and other sports equipment, along with paying
    for the lessons to learn the various sports, and encouraged me to be
    the best that I could be in these endeavors.
    
    I believe my mother would have felt negligent in her duties if she had
    not tried to teach me the litany of rules and regulations for being an
    acceptable women in this society.  And once we've heard enough of this
    sh*t, I think we internalize it.  And sometimes without even thinking
    we repeat it to other girls/women.
    
    Laura
    

Some random, semi-related ramblings...I'll write more when it solidifies into
something more substantive...

Last week, I saw my grandparents for the first time in a few years (at
Dad's wedding - brag, brag).  Within *five minutes* Grandma started in
on my hair.  "Oh my you cut it.  I really liked the way it was.  It's
so short now, it framed your face so nicely before.  I thought you were
a boy when I saw you coming off the plane!  I think you'll have a hard
time finding boyfriends if you look like a boy.  Oh, it looks so harsh,
don't you want it to look gentler?..."

This irritates me (my grandparents, particularly grandmother, irrirate me a lot
this way, and I, unfortunately, can't resist baiting her when she gets that
way.)  First, I tried to explain that her that *I* liked my hair (She says "Yes,
but..." which I don't even listen to.)  and while she is free to tell me her
opinion of how it looks, I resented the implication that I *should* change it
based on her opinion. I assured her that I had no problem whatsoever finding
men, and that more-over, I hadn't decided to have short hair in order to attract
men, I decided to do it because *I* like it!  (She says "Men don't like short
hair", I say "I don't like men who don't like short hair, so this will keep them
away.")

Later in the week, I mentioned in her hearing that I was thinking of getting
a crew-cut, and oh, she was mortified.  I explained that I have three criteria
for choosing how to wear my hair (and clothes): Do *I* like the way it looks?
Does it make a statement that *I* want to make?  Does it attract the kind of
people that *I* want to attract?  I pointed out to her that none of those
reasons has anything to do with looking feminine, or what "most men" like,
so arguments relying on those were pointless.  The critereia are based around
*me*.  She found this attitude totally horrifying - arrogant and selfish, I
guess.  I think it reflects a healthy self-esteem (self-identification as 
opposed to other-identification?)

[Oh well, once can't get too upset at Grandma, that's just the way she is.
She was also totally mortified to discover that my new step-uncle had...gasp,
a pony-tail!]

D!

    
    	RE: .3
    
    	Sandy, If you don't think men are also burdened by social
    	pressure I can relate a few for you. I've lost count of
    	how many times I have talked to women on the phone (setup
    	by friends) and they all said they couldn't wait to meet.
    	Soon as they saw this 5' 11" 113 pound man walk in they
    	all lost intesrest. Seems I didn't fit the *hulk* image
    	they thought. Some of them had asked my height, but never
    	my weight (could almost knock over with a feather when they
    	saw me). A few were even bold enough to say it right to my
    	face that they couldn't be seen with a MAN that weighed less
    	than they did. Even around other men I find my ideas alot
    	of the time are taken seriously. I've said things in groups
    	and had it ignored, yet when someone else made the same point
    	a few minutes later all of a sudden it was a major breakthrough.
    	Just goes to show ya, if'n ya don't fit the mold of what others
    	determine you're an un-person!!
    
    	G_B

D!, it reminds me of all the grief Nana used to give my cousin Shelly; "They
won't buy the cow if they can get the milk for free". I have so little overlap
with her plane of reference, I just laugh.
	Mez

There seems to be a pattern here.

When women say, "I am being oppressed or conditioned in this way"

Men react (but not acknowledge what women say) but jump right into
"But men are conditioned/oppressed in another way" or coming up with
some counterexamples and then men and women arguing over who has is
worse, etc if we could leave room for everyone here.  It doesn't have
to be an either/or proposition.

Can't we acknowledge the conditioning/treatment we all get by gender
and just examine it without blaming each other?

john

    
    
>    (She says "Men don't like short hair", I say "I don't like men who
>    don't like short hair, so this will keep them away.") 

    This part in D!'s reply made me smile and also made me think about
    something I wasn't able to word previously (I'll confess I've been
    reading the 'hair' topic with great interest - a couple of times
    the remark was made how this seems less of an issue in Europe and
    I really get the impression reading that string. Must say I've never
    even thought about whether or not shaving legs is a normal routine
    for women until it got mentioned in discussions I had with American
    women. And really - shaving underarms really got me puzzled. :-})
    
    But oh well, on track. It's been mentioned also that a decision
    not to shave legs could be 'career limiting' and there are actually
    interviewers who'd not hire one for that sole reason but be serious...
    would you want to *work* for a company that'd do that? Would you
    give your skills and potentials to a company that looks at your
    legs first?
    
    Eventually someone will have to draw the line between the way 'society'
    expects someone to look and the way one wants to look theirselves, or
    the amount of work someone is willing to go through in order to meet
    that expectation, and it's the person involved who makes that decision.
    It's a balance between what one gets (appreciation, a job, a partner)
    and what one is willing to give up from their own personality. If
    enough people decide the fashion is not something they want to follow,
    the thing will eventually die out whatever the 'norm' is. 
    
    I'm not so sure what I want to say with this, I'm still thinking
    about how far these things really affect people. I'm always fascinated
    seeing people being comfortable with themselves no matter how far
    they look from the accepted standards and in effect just make this
    statement "This is me. Take it or leave it.". They're right, even
    though half the planet doesn't know it yet. 
    
    Ad (a wimp in these things, really :-})

    Re: .0

    Pressure is placed on men also.

    Some examples:

        Bald men are bombard with messages that they should have hair.

        Muscular men are usually the hero in action movies.

        Short men are told that they are inadequate.  Ads for lifts are
        seen in many men's magazines.

        Men are told to shave there faces.

        If I thought I little while I could come up with many more.

    Interestingly enough the pressure comes from other men.

    Martin H.

    
    re:.10
    the best way to keep the oppressed oppressed is to have the oppressed
    do the oppressing.
    

    Wow.  This reminds me of my Mom and Nana.  Be pretty or you won't get a
    husband.  (Men don't like smart women.  Men don't like tall women.)
    Pretty is hair in a certain way, some light pink lipstick but no
    eyemakeup (mascara looks cheap), pretty feminine pastels.  I begin to
    wonder if a lot of it wasn't survival techniques of the older
    generations.
    
    Back then (and now for many women) women's survival largely depended on
    getting a husband because a woman had very limited means of self
    support.   (I won't go into how important a woman was to a man's
    survival as that isn't the topic.)  So our mothers and grandmothers
    dolled themselves up and survived.
    
    But things have changed very quickly in the last few decades. (And
    hardly at all, it sometimes seems.) Pretty doesn't have the survival
    value it used to have.  Pretty is also more elusive and changing than
    ever before.  
    
    To this day my Mom complains about my hair, clothes, makeup -- it's
    never right by her standards.  But I think I'm doing just fine.  I'm
    still here surviving at a quite pleasant quality of living, thank you.
    I look the way I look because of my _own_ aesthetic standards, given the
    genetic and health jumble any one of us contends with.
    
    And yes, it was Germain Greer (among others) who wrote of the
    politicization of feminine beauty and its rituals. 

    
>    And yes, it was Germain Greer (among others) who wrote of the
>    politicization of feminine beauty and its rituals. 

Also, more recently, Susan Brownmiller, in _Femininity_.

	MKV

    RE: .22 Gee, Margaret, me and my friends think you look just great! I
    got nothing against tall, gorgeous blondes. :-)
    
    Tamzen

    Tamzen,
    
    (.24) If I listened to my Mom, I'd believe that I am about as ugly as a
    gorgon, cheap looking, over-educated, bossy, loud, loose, taking a job
    that belongs to a man, unfeminine, unnatural, etc, etc.  Problem is, I
    wouldn't want the kind of life or relationship I'd attract if I looked,
    acted, and was as she wants me to be.
    
    Maybe I'll just have to settle for being a "tall, gorgeous blonde" 
    (gee, thanks!! blush! blush!) and have the friends and lover I've got.
    I've actually not thought of myself in terms of pretty/not pretty. 
    I've worked so damn hard to be MYSELF and not some introjected
    personality with somone else's looks. 
    
       Margaret 

    re: .10
    Ann,
    	Have you ever noticed that when you walk into a public place
    (usually a bar or social gathering) and you aren't wearing the "right" 
    clothes it is the women that give you the funny looks and whisper
    behind their hands.  Most of the men wouldn't even notice unless it was
    particularly outrageous (or revealing :-}).
    I'm lucky, my mum always stressed that clothes should be comfortable
    above all else.  Besides if you aren't comfortable in what you wear it
    shows and then people notice.  I always find it amusing (though I know
    it's not really "nice") when I see women in short tight clothing who
    are continually fiddly with it and pulling it down.  I too have been
    guilty about whispering about another woman but usually when I can see
    she doesn't feel comfortable in the clothes she wears.
    
    		Holly
    		 

    I remember my Mom (just in time for Mothers'Day)yank, pin curling my
    hair, jab.  Plucking my eyebrows, och, ouch.  Making me shave my legs. 
    And sewing the most horrendous all purpose (slacks, shorts, skirts,
    blouses all in variations of red white and blue stripes so they'd mix
    and match).  And the refrain was "You gotta suffer if you wanna be
    beautiful."  I don't wanna be beautiful and I don't wanna suffer for
    anything or anybody!!  Now, Dad was all right.  Bought me levis and
    sneakers.  That's the way to go if I want to get work done.
    
    
    Dondi

re.21 - you could be right.  on the other hand when my reactions range from
irritation to baffled amusement, perhaps the tactic is not so effective after 
all.

re.26 - Aha!  and I always thought they were going on about the unmitigated 
pushy gaul I showed in actually being there at all!  You mean to say that all
this time they just didn't like my clothes?!  What a relief.

  Ann

    I think I've had just as many, if not more, men say mean things
    about my appearance as I have women.  I think I've had just as many
    of each sex say flattering things about my appearance as well.
    
    It amazes me how many women had mothers who tried to tell them how
    to dress, to look feminine, etc.  Many feminists today would be
    quite pleased I think by my mother's attitude towards appearance.
     As far as I can tell she went entirely for comfort without regard
    for anyone's opinion, and apparently didn't care what I looked like
    either since she never passed on any wanted or unwanted tips.  I
    found this very frustrating because I could have used some help
    trying to look like those girls in "Seventeen" magazine!  
    
   Lorna
    

    In looking at the title of this note, I reminded myself that "sociatal"
    includes not only men, but women.  It's a little easy to polarize
    in this notesfile, but on further reflection, I thought "Yes, there
    is pressure by society to conform"--and I believe we've thought
    about this in one form or another.
    
    I am not really certain that women are exclusively the targets of
    "having to look sexy".  Altho there is no where the sheer quantity
    of beauty aids, fashionable clothes magazines, behavior/appearance
    modifiers (weight loss, cosemetic surgery, etc.) aimed at men as
    there is at women, a short study of the ads on TV and in the readable
    media will prove that no one is safe from "making yourself socially
    acceptable"--not even your dog and cat.  
    
    However, men's fashions still tend to be somewhat limited to the
    suit, polo shirt and slacks tree, while we all know women like to
    be clothes horses ;)   I don't know why there are so many kinds
    of clothes for women to wear as opposed to men, perhaps it's because
    you can't just change your shirt and tie and have your dress look
    different everyday, like a suit can.   Also, women have the cosmical
    cosmetic industry--as someone before said, without it, the GNP would
    probably fall off drastically.  (whatta concept.  The Gross National
    Product is driven by Maybelline!)
    
    As for why do women have more alternatives to "looking right" than
    men (clothes, makeup, hair color/applicances/etc.) I don't know.
    However, we aren't all gussying ourselves up to go out with Jabba
    the Hutt either--men are obligated to dress right (usually in some
    GQ sort of way), have just the RIGHT amount of stubble on their
    face (or none at all, depending what year it is), wear the right
    cologne, have the right job (it's becoming fashionable to have the
    "right" upwardly mobile job as a woman, too!), drive the right macho
    car, have the right amount of hair ("I'm not only the president
    of the company, I'm a client!"), look the right physical way,
    and certainly drink the right beer.
    
    Women have to do the same things.  Dress the right way, drink the
    right soda or beer, have their hair the right shade of the right
    color, be not only the right worker, but the right mother as well,
    be the right weight, play the right sports, and wear the right makeup.
    
    What I guess my point is that as a society, none of us are 'safe'
    from our own concepts of what "being the right person" is.  We all
    contribute to these ideas, even though half the time we like to
    blame "society" without acknowledging we're a part of it.  It's
    like when presidents are elected (ie, Reagan.)  He wins by a landslide
    and suddenly, no one voted for him.  At least no one said they did.
    It must have been Someone Else.  THEY voted for him.
    
    It's the They concept in action.  "They", "Them", whoever. But They,
    aka Society, are not a group of mysterious beings who dictate what
    We aka Everyone else, likes.  We do, indirectly or directly.  When
    enough of us like one thing, it's fashionable.  Designers prey on
    this--throw enough things as us (society), coupled with age-old
    mores and ideas of our roles, and we will find something we like
    better than what we used to--the "right thing".
    
    I trust that makes sense in some way ;)  Exactly how the whole process
    works is beyond me at this point.  I would expect some Marketing
    training would help.  But I thought it relevant to point out that
    the very societal factors we often bemoan because "society" imposed
    them upon us is often a product of us--the ones who are just as
    much a part of society as society is a part of us.
    
    ---kim

My uncle works at Macy's.  According to him, the department that makes the most
money, by far, is the Cosmetics dept. 

As one who wears very little makeup, I guess I just don't understand why you'd 
spend $20 on a tube of mascara.

Lisa

    Re .31, Lisa, I've *never* spent $20. on a tube of mascara!  I use
    Revlon which costs around $6.50 at CVS and lasts for 4 or 5 months.
     I buy it and wear it because it makes my eyelashes look longer
    and darker than they would otherwise.  I think long, dark eyelashes
    look more attractive than short, light ones.
    
    It's always difficult to understand why other people spend their
    money the way they do.  People just have different priorities,
    different things they want to own, and do.  I can't understand why
    anyone would pay over $10K on a car, myself.  I wouldn't spend $20
    on a tube of mascara, but I spend $6.50.
    
    Lorna
    

re.26  and walking into a public place ...

I have to laugh.  I get 'the Look' from just about everyone all kinds of places.

Like the time I wore my grey flannel yuppie suit [you know the I'm-a-small-
authority-figure-here-and-you-can-trust-me costume] to make a budget 
presentation and thought I drop by to say 'hi' to a friend on a different floor.
I'm please to annouce that the men & women of NaC or DSE or whatever didn't open
a window an toss me, but they had that Look about them.

Or wandering into the Black Rose in Boston for a pint of Harp with the orchid 
wreath in my hair [I'd been in a wedding] and my white smock & leggings ...

Which is not to say that I'm _never_ dressed appropriately, just that I expect
people to accept me or just not bother

  Ann

    Didn't mean to offend with .31.  I have one tub of mascara (Revlon
    hypoallergenic stuff), one box of eyeshadow (that I got from my Mom),
    a bottle of base and some face powder.  Every now and then I
    wear it, and sometimes I think I look nice.
    
    What I'm talking about is the way some people are, the ones who buy all
    their cosmetics at department store (like Lancome or similar, I could
    see if you had an allergy, maybe you'd want to get a bottle of base or
    something), that have multiple bases, eyeshadow, mascaras, blush,
    lipstick, nail polish etc., for every time of day and every change of
    clothes.
    
    I'm talking about women who must put on full face before being seen in
    public.  I notice this more when I go visit friends and relatives in
    the NJ/NYC metropolitan area.  There seems to be much more pressure to
    look "right" there.  I mean even to go out to 7-Eleven to get milk
    at 1am, they have to look perfect.
    
    One of my friends grew up in Queens.  She was mentioning how it was the
    normal way to go to school in full make-up.  Once she said she didn't
    wear any and people kept coming up to her and asking if she was sick.
    
    I actually feel weird if I have too much make-up on or I have hairspray
    in my hair....it's not natural for me.  And I have too many other
    things I'd rather spend money on.  My opinion has always been that if a
    person doesn't want to be with you if you're not dressed up or have
    make-up on, then that person doesn't care about you, they care about
    the way you look.
    
    Rambling.....
    
    Lisa

I own soooo many cosmetics.  I love them!  And, yes, I own a $20 tube of 
mascara -- after a 4-year search for that quintessential shade of dark mossy 
green, I'd have probably gone as high as $35, but that's not the point.

The point isn't if I do or do not wear make-up or silk or slickery fabrics. It's
in having the ego to do it or not because _I_ choose.  The point isn't whether 
the society and culture that surrounds me would incline me to certain tastes
or even expect them.  It is that I have the freedom and the ego to indulge
myparticular tastes because _I_ choose.

I frankly do not care if men or women find my hair attractive; I like the feel
of it on my back on a warm summer day.  That many find my dress and mode of
expressing myself either too pushy or too passive is hardly surprising because
I ABSOLUTELY refuse to buy into the laughable myth of Political Correctness.

I'm not going to stop doing something I like simply because some man likes it 
too.  Neither am I going to do something I do not like to do because some man
likes it.

Whose life is this anyway?

  Ann

    There seems to be a consensus shaping up here that women eventually
    learn how to dress and look the way we want to dress and look. 
    I say "eventually" because it seems to be the result of process and
    growth and evolving self confidence.
    
    I wonder if the "pretty" message doesn't do a great deal to hurt us and
    to slow our growth when we are not women but girls.  As much as
    childhood and teenagerhood are useful stages, the necessity of "pretty" 
    can subvert some of the other, more important growth we need to
    experience.
    
    As most (all, some?) societal pressures affect kids and teenagers more
    because teens are more vulnerable, more impressionable, more in need of
    mirroring and acceptance, so too is the "pretty" pressure more felt by
    young women and girls.   
    
    I do not believe that pretty is a good pressure.  Boys are pressured to
    excell at sports, science, math.  Boys are pressured to learn skills
    and teamwork.  Boys are even pressured to avoid girls.  (Yes, I KNOW
    many boys like and want girls but it seems to be a yucchy part of
    growing up for a boy whereas, for a girl, having a boyfriend is socially
    important.)
    
    So girls spend a lot of time and energy (and sometimes harm their
    health) in search of elusive prettiness which is so differently defined
    by their parents, peers, magazines, and idols that attaining the goal
    is impossible.  It's a waste of intelligence and effort and the
    constant failure (according to some outside metric) is hurtful to 
    developing healthy self confidence.
    
    There's nothing wrong with looking nice, nothing wrong with putting
    effort into personal appearance but there is a great deal wrong with
    pretty as a goal.  

    Re .36, I agree completely.  If I had spent as much time when I
    was 14 trying to pass algebra as I did trying to look pretty....well,
    I might have passed algebra.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .36
    
    Yes!!  Pretty is fine; but it's harmful as a main goal.  Yes!!
    
    My mom didn't pressure me to be pretty.  Looking back, I am so
    grateful...the pressures some people in this file have written about
    (direct pressure to be pretty to find a man to take care of you) are
    shocking to me.  Shows how we are all brainwashed subtly.  When I was a
    kid, we would go shopping and my mom would say in the car, "whoops, I
    forgot to put my face on!" and would put on lipstick.  I always used to
    wonder about how makeup could be her face more than her regular face
    was...
    
    At Mount Holyoke, we wore sweats mostly, and the preppy crowd wore
    corderoys and monogrammed sweaters.  Most did not bother to put on
    makeup, skirts, heels, hairspray to go to classes.  I was always blown
    away when I visited coed campuses, because most of the women took such
    care to look really nice all the time.  What really struck me was the
    curled hair, lipstick, and nylons/pumps.  I remember talking with my
    friends about it, and commenting on how we felt free to be comfortable
    and sloppy with how we looked on our campus. 
    
    Pam

    Pam
    
    I've been down to Wesleyan where my oldest son goes and most
    of the women there appear to be about as 'sloppy' as you
    describe the MHT's as being.
    
    When I was at Holyoke, we wore jeans and sweat shirts but
    had to change to skirts for dinner. I still set my hair every
    night and wore some make up to class. However, I did feel
    that I was *much* less dressed up than I would have been
    at a coed school.
    
    Bonnie

    
    This discussion has given me a lot of insight about attitude
    about beauty in this country. I grew up in Asia where the
    definition of beauty is different. I came form a culture that inner
    beauty is worth a lot more than physical beauty. Make-up and
    pretty clothes can't hide inner imperfection (remember Cinderella's
    step-sisters?). My mother didn't use make-up when she was young 
    but as she matures, she uses a little bit to "fool" the eyes. 
    All she uses are foundation and lipsticks. The way I see make-up is
    - it is used to cover imperfection. I use it when I look awful.
    In Asia, heavy make-up is for the movie stars and prostitutes.
    Well educated women do not "contaminate" their face with chemicals.
    
    I am married to an American and now have a 4 1/2 yr old daughter, 
    I hope I can pass on to her my values. It sounds like it'll be tough!!!
    She has already learnt the value of "beauty" since people comment
    on her "gorgeous" features all the time. Can't people say "Your 
    daughter is so smart." for a change? So far, she is a tomboy,
    I hope she'll stay this way for a while.
    
    Eva. 

Well, Texas A&M was co-ed when I went there. But it was hardly typical.

As we [all 487 of us] the women were outnumbered by about 14 to 1, we were
not pressured to conform to the look-of-beauty-du-jour.  Somehow being female,
being clean, and being disease free was enough.

Yup, right from the convent to a recently co-ed former military school, no
competition either place for vastly different reasons.

Did I miss a part of growing up?  Am I going to regress now?

  Ann

re: 94
I'm with Justine (if her answer is yes as well) and Joe White.
	Mez

    Yup! I agree with Justine. The standards for what's considered
    attractive in a woman are a lot more strict than those for men.
    
    I also see another difference. It's one thing to want your partner
    to look a certain way and another to expect J. random person to
    adhere to those standards. Rarely do I see people talk about how
    ugly a certain male looks. But people do talk about how women look
    ('She needs to do something about hair'; ' she needs to lose some
    weight', 'I mean, really, Jane has no sense of style' etc. etc.)
    It's as though all women are expected to look good all the time.
    
    manisha

    I agree too.  Just a few months ago there was a court case {filed|
    tried|dismissed|decided|appealed|whatever} in which an airline's
    women flight attendants sued for discrimination because while the
    men workers had to come within 10% of their ideal weight (and
    were not often tested against it), the women workers had to come
    within 5% of their ideal weight (and *were* often tested against
    it), and were fired if they exceeded the limits.
    
    							Ann B.

    That is a double standard, and should be corrected.  Something I
    noticed one morning while watching the "Today" show - Willard Scott,
    the weather guy is light years from being attractive, yet he's very
    popular.  If a female was *as* overweight and changed hair styles as
    often (hair today, none tomorrow ..) they'd never get on local news,
    let alone national.  I guess all this business goes WAY back into
    history where men worked outside the home, got dirty, aged quicker, die
    quicker, etc.  While the women were at home, pretty as a picture with
    supper waiting.  Times have changed, unfortunately those roots are
    pretty deep ....
    
    Jerry

    
    
    	"There's not very many years that a woman is a beautiful girl.
    	 Those years - maybe, say, roughly from 15 to 25 - 10 years,
    	 that's not a long time."
    
    				John R. Silber
     		   Candidate for governor of Massachusetts
    
    

Re: .46

I've got news for John Silber. He may (or may not) be right in his assumption
that they are only *girls* for ten years, but that doesn't work for beauty.

An overweight 50 year old woman can be more beautiful and more appealing than a
*sexy* 25 year old. 

wes

    
    
    re .48 Mike,
    
    I think you're comparing two different things here.  I have a sense
    of what societal standards are for female beauty.  I've listed
    them in other replies: youthful appearance, slim, etc.  However,
    I find many women who do not fit that standard attractive.  I don't
    see a contradiction there.
    
    Re Mark a few back... I didn't mean to compare mere attractiveness to
    beauty.  I think that the standards of attractiveness are different for
    men and women.  I think men can be considered attractive even if they
    look their age and are overweight.  I don't think that's true for
    women.
    
    Justine                   

    Lately I have read a few notes from men talking about how women find
    men with money more attractive, and this is a common stereotypical
    view.  I think that when men notice other men who are not very physically
    attractive being successful with women they attribute it to the money.
    
    I don't think that's it. I think in general that what attracts people
    to each other (with the exception maybe of Hugh Hefner and
    Donald Trump, who are soul dead, IMO) is metaphysical. Successful men
    are likely to have other characteristics that make them attractive.
    I think that both Aristotle Onassis and Woody Allen were/are very
    attractive, and it is not the money or power that makes me think so.
    
    Eileen
    
    

    re: .52 Mike
    Well, the real issues to me are:
    
    1) "prefabricated" by WHO and WHAT and is there a reason WHY?
    2) howcome men have more items on their checklist for women
       than women have on their checklist for men?
    
    Why do you want to make this "effort for appearance" question appear
    equal for women and men?  You've personally stated several times that
    you prefer women who make more effort over their appearance than you
    would be prepared to make for them.  (Leg-shaving for one.)  Clearly
    you *realize* that women put in more work and clearly you *appreciate*
    the results of that work; all that is being said here is that it is
    *UNFAIR* that women are *expected* to do that work when men are not.
    
    Yes, both men and women make an effort to look attractive so they will
    attract others.  No big surprise there.  What you seem to think is just
    hunky-dory, though, is that women are EXPECTED to do a lot more than
    men are EXPECTED to do.  For instance:
    
      A woman puts on makeup for a date.  (5 min-1 hour.)  EXPECTED.
      A man does not.  (no time.)  EXPECTED.
      (A man does:  shock.  But that's for another topic, I guess!)
    
    Pam

    I agree with Ann in .10 that most of the pressure to 'be beautiful'
    seems to come from women.  I for one am 100% more likely to put on
    makeup to meet a female friend for dinner than a male friend.  No
    male in memory has *ever* told me I should put on makeup or shave 
    my legs (although a doctor I 'shadowed' on a high school 'career day'
    chided me for not wearing a skirt), but women have.  Sure, I tend 
    to get more positive reactions when I look more perfectly groomed, 
    but I wouldn't say I feel a societal pressure to do it on a regular 
    basis.

    This was true of my parents too.  It was generally my mother who'd 
    make comments about my clothes, telling me I _should_ wear higher 
    heels or a different combination of fabrics or a different color 
    of nylons.  My father's comments tended to be more general and less
    obligatory-sounding, along the lines of "you'll probably want to wear 
    something dressier than that to this restaurant", or "Your hair looks 
    nice curled".

    As for men's and women's "lists" of what they want in an SO of the 
    opposite sex... I know plenty of women who, when you talk to them, 
    are very particular about how they want a man to look ("tall, thick 
    dark hair, cheekbones, a prominent chin, and bedroom eyes with long 
    eyelashes.  A nice smile, clear skin, and no facial hair.  Big 
    shoulder muscles and big hands with long, elegant fingers.  No beer 
    belly, and no flabby legs.  A muscled chest with a fair amount of 
    chest hair, but no hair on the back.  And his voice shouldn't be 
    too nasal or too high-pitched...") ...and yet, they seem to scrap 
    these physical 'requirements' in their real life choices.  (After 
    all, how many men do *you* know that fit the above description?)  

    In other words, I'm saying, in effect, that it's a version of supply
    vs. demand.  Immaculately groomed, fashionably dressed men are in 
    short supply, so very few women, realistically, can "require" this.  
    Immaculately groomed, fashionably dressed women are much more prevalent,
    so a man can stick to such requirements without severely restricting 
    his choices.

    The other reason that women's grooming may have been emphasized to 
    such a degree is that traditionally, men were supposed to make the 
    advances in dating situations.  So a woman, to be "noticed", had to 
    resort to indirect means such as superior grooming, whereas a man 
    would stand out from the crowd by virtue of expressing interest.  
    What I think has happened is that those grooming standards haven't 
    grown lax as quickly as the convention of the man's always asking the
    woman for a date has.  So perhaps it's not so much an issue of the 
    men *requiring* the extra primping per se as *appreciating* it, and, 
    since the grooming standards for women are so pervasive, it's just 
    easier for men to meet women they like that also fit their 
    physical/grooming ideal.

	Sharon
    

    re:.55
    
>    In other words, I'm saying, in effect, that it's a version of supply
>    vs. demand.  Immaculately groomed, fashionably dressed men are in 
>    short supply, so very few women, realistically, can "require" this.  
>    Immaculately groomed, fashionably dressed women are much more prevalent,
>    so a man can stick to such requirements without severely restricting 
>    his choices.

    i believe that this is not coincidental and is a function of oppression
    (q.v.)
    

    Elaine Walster & her husband [I think it was they, anyhow, but she's
    the biggest name in the field so maybe that's why I think so...it's
    been awhile] did some research that supports Mark's contention that
    there are tradeoffs that can be made (eg, a homely woman/man with money
    is just as attractive as someone smashing but poor), and that the
    reason it looks like the physical standards are higher for women is
    that traditionally women have had access to fewer "compensators" and
    thus have had to rely harder on their looks, grooming, etc.
    
    						=maggie

.55>>    In other words, I'm saying, in effect, that it's a version of supply
.55>>    vs. demand.  Immaculately groomed, fashionably dressed men are in 
.55>>    short supply, so very few women, realistically, can "require" this.  
.55>>    Immaculately groomed, fashionably dressed women are much more prevalent,
.55>>    so a man can stick to such requirements without severely restricting 
.55>>    his choices.
>
.56>    i believe that this is not coincidental and is a function of oppression
.56>    (q.v.)

    Sure, but so what?  The fact that society systematically denied 
    "good girls" (sic) the active role in the initiation of dating 
    relationships is a form of oppression.   And those oppressions
    become norm, to the point that they are no longer forms of oppression
    but also _expected_modes_of_behavior_.  Men are expected to have
    "showcase" beautiful wives, and society scrutinizes their choices
    of women in a way that it does not scrutinize women's choices of
    men.  So while the initial mode of oppression (= denying women the
    power to initiate relationships without paying a societal price)
    may no longer be in effect, the forces it engendered still are.

    But this in itself is not universally a form of oppression.  When
    it extends to inequities on the job (stewardesses being fired because
    of a 5 lb. weight-gain, for example, when stewards are not), then
    it is oppressive.  But forms of oppression and functions of oppression
    are not the same thing: one is an *ongoing reality*, whereas one is
    a result; a present-day fact that does *not continually recreate itself*.

    However, these things are two-edged swords.  Gender-based societal 
    norms box in members of both sexes (i.e., anyone who is not naturally
    inclined in the direction society would like them to go is pressured
    to conform).  This is not (only) a women vs. men issue, but ultimately
    an issue in the best interests of anyone interested in living according
    to choices they themselves make, and not those society dictates.

	Sharon

Sharon>I know plenty of women who, when you talk to them, 
Sharon>    are very particular about how they want a man to look

Doctah> Me too.

So tell us, Doctah, what *are* the particulars of how you want your men
to look?

:-)

D!

    
    re:.58
    for some people it is.
    
    re:.59
    i'm sorry, i can't quite figure out what you're saying. could you
    try again?
    

    
    .59> I disagree.  I think men have fewer things on their checklist.
    
    but ...
    
    how many of the things are physical, and how many are mental and/or
    insubstatial?  something that would take a while to learn, as opposed
    to seeing and hearing in the first five minutes?  (this is referring
    to men's checklist on what they are looking for in a GIRL)
    
    

Joe,

    Something is a _form_ of oppression if it in itself is oppressing.
    Although many women might contend that they find the social pressure
    to be "beautiful" oppressive (= "harshly, tyrannically, or unjustly
    burdensome", to paraphrase my desk dictionary), I personally would
    consider that an overstatement of the pressure I've felt.

    If f(a) = b, we say that b is a function of a.  This is, loosely, the 
    sense in which I assumed you were using "function of oppression":
    oppression is the input to the equation, and social pressure on women
    to change their appearance is one of the direct results. 

    I think that women today are less oppressed than they were, say, 60 
    years ago.  Yet the pressure to change one's appearance is still strong.
    In a sense, I agree with you; I think that the pressure to groom oneself
    elaborately began because of the oppression of women: a women's "power
    of attraction" was one of the few powers society allotted her.  But what
    I was trying to say in .55 is that I think there's another force at work.

    Perhaps "this is not conincidental and is a function of oppression" would
    have worked as a blanket truism 60 years ago, but if we are to take that
    as the case today our notion of who the oppressors are and who they are
    oppressing must change.  Although the pressure to appear "young, thin, 
    firm, and exqusitely groomed" comes from men in some sectors (network 
    news, for example), I think the most pervasive pressure comes from women 
    themselves.  That is my personal experience, and every newsstand in 
    America will provide you with a measure of corroboration for it.

    Pick up a copy of Cosmopolitan, Ladies' Home Journal, Glamour, Seventeen.
    Are the editors male or female?  Who is writing the articles?

    The politics behind network news anchors and airlines are not the real
    influences on the impressionable minds of the next generation.  Mom, Dad,
    and peer pressure are.  Peer pressure comes from what's being said and
    done in "other peoples' houses", and what's seen in movies and magazines
    and on TV.

    To put it differently, ask a girl who bought her her first lipstick, or 
    who first polished her nails or curled her hair, and 10-1 she's not going 
    to say 'my Dad'.  If she bought it herself, or did it herself, ask her
    why.  Chances are it had something to do with "the girls at school".  
    And if you ask them I'll bet it didn't have much to do with _their_ Dads, 
    either.

	Sharon

    re .65 -
    
    What difference does it make whether the writers/editors of those
    magazines are male or female? Plenty of women buy right into the
    dominant, male point of view. Women were the ones who got their
    daughters to bind their feet in China, and I believe clitoridectomies
    and infibulations tend also to be performed by women. But who are/were 
    these things being done *for*?
    
    Dorian

    All I'm saying, Dorian, is that you can't look at the group that
    is not being oppressed and say that they, by definition, are doing
    the oppressing.

    I think a lot of people perpetuate things because they're insecure.
    They want their children (and anyone else, for that matter) to be 
    "just like them" because otherwise they might have to face things 
    that "might have been".

    That is not at all the same thing as saying that men *require* women
    to wear makeup and shave.  If the bulk of the pressure to do so comes
    from *women*, not men, you can't then double back on the men and insist
    they *require* it!

    Reminds me of that commercial for Stove Top stuffing where the woman
    was *positive* that her husband would prefer potatoes with chicken.
    Why is it so threatening to think that most men really *don't care* too
    awfully much whether their lovers look like Christie Brinkley or not?

	Sharon

    re .66 Who are these being done for ?
    
    My opinion, most fashions are for young singles, in pursuit of
    other young singles. Face it, once you're married, you're not
    buying fashions, you're buying furniture. The silly part is that
    all the singles are being bombarded with images of what they
    should look like, how they should act, what they should own,
    *none of which* prepares them for what life is like after they've
    attracted a mate. Like for instance, "Shop for real value" and
    "Be yourself". How can you be yourself when your trying to be
    someone else's dream ? (Remember the movie, "Perfect" ?)
    
    The whole fashion industry isn't aimed at women, or at men, 
    but at the insecure, those who don't know who they are, or aren't
    comfortable with themselves. Don't know if more men or women fit
    in that category, or why. However, the belief that "If you don't
    have a perfect mate, you're nobody" sells a lot of merchandise.
    
    *If* women are raised to lower standards of self-esteem, 
    might they not be more susceptible to such sales pressure ? Thus
    accounting for the much larger marketing effort for women's
    fashions ? 

    
    re. 68
    
    Very well said.
    
    I notice that once I had a family, I started not to care too
    much about fashion (not having time and $ to care). I have a
    lot more confidence about myself than when I was single. (I
    probably look ok if my husband married me!!! My kid doesn't 
    care how I look, she'll always love me!!!)
    
    But, I think it is nature to try to look nice to attract.
    Others animals do that, we are just spending a whole lot
    more. 
    
    
    Eva.

re .67 -

>    All I'm saying, Dorian, is that you can't look at the group that
>    is not being oppressed and say that they, by definition, are doing
>    the oppressing.

Not by definition; but by golly, you can look around you and figure out
that they are. 


>    If the bulk of the pressure to do so comes from *women*, not men,
>    you can't then double back on the men and insist they *require* it! 

You can double back and say that men strongly pressure them into it; and 
one of the ways they do this is to make women internalize this pressure so 
that women apply it to themselves and to their daughters. 

Suggest you take a look at Susan Brownmiller's book Femininity... 

Dorian

    
    re:.65
    thanks for clarifying.
    
    i certainly agree with you that the issue is more complex than the
    mere vagarities of fashion. and, frankly, my observations tend to
    corroborate yours that it is as often as not women giving each other
    flak, rather than men. the complexity i posit here, however, is that
    women as a class, while- agreed- in an improved situation from 60
    years ago, are still in many regards a vast 'underclass'. and, like
    many underclasses, become instruments of their own oppression due
    to the incredibly deep, yet subtle, messages of unworth that pervade
    our society. 
    
    i don't know whether that means 'appearance tyranny' is oppression
    in 'form' or 'function'. i do know that it is wrong.
    

    in re .71

    I would definitely agree that women do give each other a good deal
    of flack about dress etc., and talk about women behind their backs
    who don't dress well. However, it is my impression it is because
    they regard each other as competitors for male attention and they
    put down or scorn those who chose not to compete or fail to compete.

    Remember the relatively unfashion conscious egalitarian (and engineering?)
    types that inhabit womannotes are not terribly representative of
    the world at large.

    Bonnie

    
    re:.73
    in so far as men in general seem to be doing relatively little
    to change our society such that men and women are more equally
    valued and in general might be considered to profit in some ways
    from this state of affairs, i would say, yes, men are ultimately 
    responsible. but the only point i was trying to make (which,
    incidently, contradicts neither bonnie nor sharon) is that
    undervalued people do what might be considered, out of context, 
    to be odd things to compensate for their sense of unworth. 
    our society values men and undervalues women.
    

	I am not sure if this is relevant or not - 

	The pressures I received as a young girl and into my early
	twentys was from males not females.  I dressed as I pleased
	to some extent and received flack from the boys my age about
	it (to the point of extreme insults).  At school the teachers
	and the administration people insisted on dress codes that
	I tended to try to get around (this was in the days before
	one could wear jeans to school).

	If a woman is not attempting to match the "ideal" image of
	femaleness she is likely not to get positive feedback from
	the males around her - this does not mean that she is told
	to wear certain clothes or act a certain way.  No, it is 
	much more subtle - lack of attention or notice of her even
	being female.  This is oppression.

	Being told to wear nylons and heels is telling one how to
	behave to keep the "master" happy.  This is like telling
	someone who wishes to be a software engineer to not admit
	to knowing or using COBOL.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Out of step and out of tune

Referencing: 108.75


                           HUH????????????????

                                                   -Robert Brown III

	re .76 to clarify .75 ... what didn't you understand?

	Dan

    I would have to agree wholeheartedly with .72 - mothers teach their
    daughters to wear makeup in order that they can COMPETE for the
    attentions of males.  It's competition that keeps women striving to be
    beautiful.  Because that is what has worked for many generations.  This
    is not rocket science - women strive to be what is the current model of
    beauty in order to attract men.  Because it works.  
    

    Hmmmmm I don't wear make-up at all and am trying to instill in my now
    7-year old (going on 27) daughter that she is beautiful the way she is
    and doesn't need to wear make-up.  Guess I'm one of the 'ugly' women of
    the world.

    Kristy
    
    rather 
    
    you are one of the very beautiful women of the world
    
    much love
    
    Bonnie

    I just received two catalogs in the mail; one called Together, from
    Spiegal, and another from a French clothing company whose name escapes
    me right now.  I was struck by the natural appearance of all the models
    used in both catalogs.  I think most of them wore a little bit of
    makeup, but it was very subtle.  The women were also not as
    "traditionally" beautiful as most catalog models.  They actually looked
    like real women to me.  I found it such a refreshing and wonderful
    change.  I plan on ordering some of the clothes, and hope that more
    ads follow suit.
    
    Karen.

    I love makeup and I love fashion.  The main reason is because I can be
    original.  I do not want to be like everyone else, therefore I play
    with makeup and go 'conservative' some days, 'punk' others, etc. Clothing
    and makeup are so much fun and versatile that you can have your own
    style and look like no one else in the world!  To me being individual
    is beautiful.
    
    Judy