What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

Tere you go, a modernised take on promiscuity:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/anthonybrowne.theobserver

[eFestivals]

I haven't invented a different reproductive process

I see you're as accurate with your biology as everything else.

[eFestivals]

Also, 'natural' isn't always the best option. Else I'd have died in childbirth 35 years ago, and 3, maybe 4, potential lives would never have happened. So I am quite happy to have medicine aiding biology, thank you very much

oh look, a squirrel.

Who said anything about whether 'natural' was good or bad? Just you.

I'm simply pointing out that there is more than the purely social within many of our social constructs.

[feral chile]

oh look, a squirrel.

Who said anything about whether 'natural' was good or bad? Just you.

I'm simply pointing out that there is more than the purely social within many of our social constructs.

 

Of course there is, I'm inclined by my mindset to think we're TOTALLY driven by our biology, but that we repress this in different ways because of various social taboos.

 

I'm absolutely convinced that a lot of mental health problems, and a lot of so called deviant behaviour, are actually responses to an unnatural society (depression/anxiety as supressed fight/flight response to threat, etc.). And some social deviance is actually part of the extreme range of primate behaviour.

 

we're evolved to be competitive AND co-operative, so this is bound to conflict at times.

 

But we do have a tendency to justify what we want by looking to natural drives. And to be selective about it. So, homophobes think homosexuality is 'unnatural', male 'experts' used to think that male promiscuity and female faithfulness could be explained in evolutionary terms, I made up my contradiction of that, to show how stupid it was, but that research I just posted came to similar conclusions. Which proves you can extrapolate from the 'facts' to your heart's content, to 'prove' whatever you want. (that's 'you' in a general sense, we all succumb to this, it's called the expectancy effect).

 

I think I'm confusing you. My way of thinking is to acknowledge my own mindset and then question it. I'm very much a person who believes in biological drives influencing behaviour - when I seem to question this, it's merely to try to challenge my own assumptions. I'm not in disagreement with you as far as my beliefs go, I'm just trying to be cautious and objective.

Edited July 10, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.theloop.ca/woman-goes-without-makeup-for-three-months-and-proved-people-are-assholes/

 

[kaosmark2]

People are arseholes, I just don't understand the mentality that leads to insulting a stranger on the internet over nothing. (over a marginal perceived sleight is completely understandable of course)

[feral chile]

People are arseholes, I just don't understand the mentality that leads to insulting a stranger on the internet over nothing. (over a marginal perceived sleight is completely understandable of course)

 

Nor me. if you're literate enough to post comments, you'd think you'd be literate enough to read about cyber bullying etc.

 

And not so ignorant that you can't consider other people.

Edited July 11, 2015 by feral chile

[russycarps]

9.5% of women have executive roles in the ftse100 companies. Amazing stat. The 25% target that's just been reached is a smoke screen, it includes non executive roles

[zero000]

I thought this article should go here:

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1758-5-things-i-learned-committing-campus-sexual-assault_p1.html

It's written in part, by a university student in America who sexually assaulted someone he knew. It's incredibly balanced and nuanced. The comments section is also worth a read too. 

[feral chile]

I thought this article should go here:

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1758-5-things-i-learned-committing-campus-sexual-assault_p1.html

It's written in part, by a university student in America who sexually assaulted someone he knew. It's incredibly balanced and nuanced. The comments section is also worth a read too.

I'm sure this happens quite a lot. Though I'd have expected a lot more self justification and accusations, as each thought the other was lying.

[feral chile]

getting back to dress code. what do people think of this? Some of the comments miss the point.

 

the gist of this is, she was wearing an outfit that was sold in the careers section of her workplace. but it was against their own dress code.

 

Some of the comments criticise her for being dressed unprofessionally, the whole point is, she bought it from her employer who was marketing it as career attire.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jcpenney-sylva-stoel-shorts_55b7f582e4b0a13f9d1ab2b2?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

[eFestivals]

the gist of this is, she was wearing an outfit that was sold in the careers section of her workplace. but it was against their own dress code.

that line is true, but I read it to mean something different to what it actually means in this specific case.

It suggests that the item was sold as appropriate for that particular workplace, when the reality is its an item that is sold as being appropriate for workplaces in general but without any reference to the clothes rules of any particular workplace.

Putting aside what this woman is saying about inconsistent application of the rules by this workplace, if those shorts are not within that workplace's rules then the employer is perfectly entitled to send her home for being wrongly attired.

 

What is daft tho is that store selling stuff as workplace-suitable clothing when its not suitable for working at that store. If nothing else it's a lack of joined-up thinking.

[gary1979666]

getting back to dress code. what do people think of this? Some of the comments miss the point.

 

the gist of this is, she was wearing an outfit that was sold in the careers section of her workplace. but it was against their own dress code.

 

Some of the comments criticise her for being dressed unprofessionally, the whole point is, she bought it from her employer who was marketing it as career attire.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jcpenney-sylva-stoel-shorts_55b7f582e4b0a13f9d1ab2b2?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

 

So JCP can only sell items that adhere to their dress code?  They are selling to customers who are not necessarily employees, so have to cater for a variety of codes.

 

Her only defence seems to be that because others broke the rules, then she should.  Not the most sensible approach.  She really has no excuse if there's a proper policy; shout, but the big girls over there are doing it, seems a bit childish.

 

What's your take Feral?

[feral chile]

that line is true, but I read it to mean something different to what it actually means in this specific case.

It suggests that the item was sold as appropriate for that particular workplace, when the reality is its an item that is sold as being appropriate for workplaces in general but without any reference to the clothes rules of any particular workplace.

Putting aside what this woman is saying about inconsistent application of the rules by this workplace, if those shorts are not within that workplace's rules then the employer is perfectly entitled to send her home for being wrongly attired.

 

What is daft tho is that store selling stuff as workplace-suitable clothing when its not suitable for working at that store. If nothing else it's a lack of joined-up thinking.

 

 

Yeah that's what I got out  of it, I found it ironic rather than anything else.

[feral chile]

So JCP can only sell items that adhere to their dress code?  They are selling to customers who are not necessarily employees, so have to cater for a variety of codes.

 

Her only defence seems to be that because others broke the rules, then she should.  Not the most sensible approach.  She really has no excuse if there's a proper policy; shout, but the big girls over there are doing it, seems a bit childish.

 

What's your take Feral?

 

 

Hi gary, what I said to neil really, more ironic than wrong. I didn't really understand the sexism angle. I wouldn't have considered what she wore suitable for work, dress code or not. Since I'm not her employer, I wouldn't personally go as far as to say she shouldn't wear it to work, though.

 

edit: according to her, it wasn't specified in the dress code, though short skirts were. So she thinks it was her gender/sex object status that caused the objection.

Edited July 30, 2015 by feral chile

[gary1979666]

Hi gary, what I said to neil really, more ironic than wrong. I didn't really understand the sexism angle. I wouldn't have considered what she wore suitable for work, dress code or not. Since I'm not her employer, I wouldn't personally go as far as to say she shouldn't wear it to work, though.

 

edit: according to her, it wasn't specified in the dress code, though short skirts were. So she thinks it was her gender/sex object status that caused the objection.

 

I like how you put that - ironic sums it up best, as wouldn't go so far to say it's hypocritical or anything.  Depends what her role is too - if she's customer facing, then a stricter code makes sense.  

 

For the point in your edit, I think the code assumes a bit of common sense - short skirt shows to much leg, so therefore short shorts would also be outlawed.  

 

If there was a sexist angle, would be interesting to know what the code said for men.

[feral chile]

I like how you put that - ironic sums it up best, as wouldn't go so far to say it's hypocritical or anything.  Depends what her role is too - if she's customer facing, then a stricter code makes sense.  

 

For the point in your edit, I think the code assumes a bit of common sense - short skirt shows to much leg, so therefore short shorts would also be outlawed.  

 

If there was a sexist angle, would be interesting to know what the code said for men.

 

I think there's more of a case for a dress code if you're visible to the public, because you're representing your company.

 

And looking at their dress code, 'revealing' clothes seem to be taboo. Her manager only sent her home to change, as well.

 

This one's a bit different - even if this is considered sexist, they could argue that (sexist) public sensibilities had to be considered, to avoid offence.

Edited July 31, 2015 by feral chile

[5co77ie]

I thought this article should go here:

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1758-5-things-i-learned-committing-campus-sexual-assault_p1.html

It's written in part, by a university student in America who sexually assaulted someone he knew. It's incredibly balanced and nuanced. The comments section is also worth a read too.

another I think it should go in this thread post:

 

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/theres-a-rape-epidemic-at-music-festivals-and-nobody-seems-to-care

 

"There's a Rape Problem at Music Festivals and Nobody Seems to Care"

[eFestivals]

another I think it should go in this thread post:

 

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/theres-a-rape-epidemic-at-music-festivals-and-nobody-seems-to-care

 

"There's a Rape Problem at Music Festivals and Nobody Seems to Care"

 

I think that's a little narrow minded.

 

There's a much bigger rape problem with alcohol and drugs, and no one much cares.

 

There's no different a rape problem within society at large and no one much cares.

 

From the reports of rape, there's certainly no greater a rape problem at festivals than there is in other places. It's not a festival problem, it's a society problem.

 

But actually, is it even that? From that article, the instances it mentions are proper evil scumbags problems, rather than anything that's a grey area within society's attitudes. Evil-doers will do what evil-doers do.

[feral chile]

Came across this today, the comments underneath are interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-difference-between-a-good-relationship-and-a-bad-one-in-one-comic_55cd21e7e4b07addcb42891f?utm_hp_ref=weddings&ir=Weddings&section=weddings&kvcommref=mostpopular&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

'The reason women shave their legs is not because men liked shaved legs but because women themselves are in sexual competition with each other over men and try to look as young and pretty as possible. It's women themselves that are repulsed by being unshaved. This cartoon is sexist to suggest that men pressure women over such things. Also the cartoon seems to suggest that a good relationship is one in which the man will readily express approval and appreciation for any grooming choices the girl might make. Suppose she had uttered this remark out of the blue! Many a man would utter "eww" if it was unexpected. It's as weird as, say, a man randomly declaring to his girlfriend "honey, I shaved my armpits!" and expecting her to appreciate it. Get over yourselves,feminists'

'I would argue that if she had a problem with his choice to shave his armpits, it would also not be a very good relationship. People are the bosses of their own underpants, AND body hair'

'I don't like hairy women tho'

'I absolutely HATE men's hairy armpits so I would be more than supportive of a guy who made the decision to shave them. Sebastian... I don't like hairy men tho. You gonna shave head to foot?'

'If you don't like hairy women, then don't date one? I'm sure someone out there is passionate about hair removal-- probably lots of people. In the meantime, the rest of us will manage our bodies the way we see fit. Your opinion, though you have a right to it, is not the deciding factor in what other people do or do not do with their bodies'

'I would argue that being able to be honest about disliking armpit shaving is indicative of a "very good relationship'

'You dont name call someone you love or pressure them into doing something they dont want to do. You are supposed to pick up someone you love and if you want to spend your life with them you love them unconditionally.

Its ok to say "Meh, I prefer them shaven" and leave it at that if that is what you like, its ok to be honest with what you like if its something within control just never put it in a hurtful manner.'

Thoughts?

[feral chile]

my favourite comment: "Your opinion, though you have a right to it, is not the deciding factor in what other people do or do not do with their bodies

"

 

I find it all very disappointing how superficial some people seem to be. Men and women. I don't see it as being a feminist issue or otherwise. Some women might be doing it in competition with other women... more fool them (but then I'm not a woman...). I can't believe that a man (worth 'considering') would dislike a woman because she did or didn't shave her hair where that man might want her too.

Yes, the cartoon itself was a commentary on relationships. Some of the comments were more general, but of course, society feeds public attitudes, which in turn influence relationships.

What interests me is the emphasis on men, even in the point made to exonerate men from blame (which didn't actually make much sense).

Men don't want unshaven legs and it's really women competing with each other over men, so women shave their legs to get a sexual advantage...so decide to do what men don't care about in the first place.....where's the advantage?

mmmm......ok then....

???

Edited August 15, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

like the guy who said "I don't like hairy women tho (sic)", as if, to say "that's what I like, and who's to say what I should and should not like". Which, up to a point, is fair enough. One can't help thinking he's not looking for a particularly meaningful and/or rewarding relationship.

 

Which, again, is his choice. I bet he doesn't think of it as a choice though, more likely to be "that's who I am, and there's nothing I can do about it"

 

possibly....?

it's one thing stating a preference, though even that could cause problems. I'm thinking particularly of things like eating disorders caused by criticism, for instance. But thinking natural body hair is gross - that has to be cultural distortion rather than a genuine preference, surely?

Women compete to be 'young and pretty' - how young would you have to be to be naturally hairless?

maybe Barbie has a lot to answer for.

[feral chile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/guy-impersonated-target-on-facebook_55ce8dece4b055a6dab07edc?mtxa8aor=&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

[feral chile]

Back to dress codes again...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ridiculous-dress-code-rule-that-made-teen-outfit-inappropriate_55d34e04e4b0ab468d9e6afa?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

[eFestivals]

Back to dress codes again...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ridiculous-dress-code-rule-that-made-teen-outfit-inappropriate_55d34e04e4b0ab468d9e6afa?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

 

it's all the men's fault when women cannot stick to the rules...?

 

Dress codes are a common thing in society, for both males and females. While I think dress codes are a ridiculous thing, it's only that person's fault if they step over the line and is pulled-up for it.