# Female body hair - and reflections on being "woman for men" vs. "subject in herself"



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

kindaconfused said:


> Of course, it is all the fault of liberals. Just like everything else.


I actually lean liberal and vote Democratic myself but the far left has some really radical ideas out there.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

PowerShell said:


> I actually lean liberal and vote Democratic myself but the far left has some really radical ideas out there.


The far left and far right both have some really bizarre ideas to the point where I'd call them fringe lunatics rather than liberals or conservatives.


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

Any time you act outside of the 'norm', for any reason, you will receive backlash for it. But if you wanna break the norm, then guess what? You have to break it.

Wishing everyone else didn't think of it as a norm isn't going to get you squat.

Don't wanna shave? Then don't. Will everyone and their mother like it? No. Every choice has a consequence. But the more it's done, the more it becomes an eventual 'norm'. It'll never get there by doing nothing more than complaining on the internet about "should be"s.

For crying out loud, this is the same as getting one haircut over another. Some people will like it. Some won't. Deal with it. And honestly, the people that don't like your hair choice are probably people you don't wanna have around you anyway. Conflicting values and all that.

You're getting up in arms over body hair, people. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to do this or that. But yes, you're right. Everyone should like everything about you and have no preferences whatsoever.

Wanna dress in old worn clothes you found in the dumpster? "Gotta love me!"
Wanna dye your hair rainbow colors? "Gotta love me!"
Wanna wear one shoe and one sandal, one knee high sock and one ankle sock? "Gotta love me!"

Seriously. You can't please everyone. You can only please yourself. Just gotta decide which is more important, I suppose.

No one should conform to you any more than you should conform to them. It goes both ways.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Derange At 170 said:


> Women all over American TV can voice their preference for a circumcised penis with no backlash at all. A woman who makes it known how disgusted she is by an uncircumcised penis is a strong, empowered woman in touch with her sexuality and sticking up for her preferences. Girl power!
> 
> Men who state their preference for shaved women are patriarchal oppressors.
> 
> _Riiiiiiight_


Fortunately, it is becoming increasing unpopular for women to support male genital mutilation, thanks in part to feminism, which has raised public awareness about the importance of bodily autonomy while also being outspoken against sexual violence. Most of the people I know who think parents have a right to decide the permanent fate of their non-consenting children's genitals are men who feel defensive about their own violated genitals or who don't want to have to admit that their parents did something wrong. Judging someone's worth as a mate by what was or wasn't done to him by someone else, without his having any choice, is completely foolish. 

Even if the discussion were limited to only include men whose genitals look a specific way by their own choosing, I have never once heard anyone call a woman empowered for being shallow about such things. 

However, men who talk about how gross they find female body hair tend to be cheered on by their peers who agree wholeheartedly that all women ought to shave or wax everything in order to be considered feminine and attractive.

Personally, I think anyone who would reject someone for either reason, for having body hair or for having a certain penis shape, is shallow, immature, and corrupt. I refuse to shave any of my hair, and if I get dirty looks for it, I delight in knowing that I have caused an unpleasant visual/emotional sensation for some superficial, misogynistic jerk who deserved to be made uncomfortable. 

An empowered man does not passively accept society's ideas about what a woman's body ought to look like, nor does he base his romantic/sexual desires on the standards it dictates.

An empowered woman does not conform to someone else's expectations unless they align with her own preferences.

Likewise,

an empowered woman does not passively accept society's ideas about what a man's body ought to look like, nor does she base her romantic/sexual desires on the standards it dictates.

An empowered man does not conform to someone else's expectations unless they align with his own preferences.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Aya Nikopol said:


> I know but I don't hate them as people, I just find them highly interactive because it makes any sexual infraction even a fantasy feel wrong. They remind me of children. I hate that have chose that but I can't stop them from doing it.


Ok but, as you know, people aren't going to take it that way.


----------



## kindaconfused (Apr 30, 2010)

PowerShell said:


> I actually lean liberal and vote Democratic myself but the far left has some really radical ideas out there.


Do you have evidence of the "all-out-attack" on men by the "liberal establishment". Or is that an opinion? No liberals I know of are anti-men, half of them _are _men.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Ok but, as you know, people aren't going to take it that way.


I don't expect them to.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Derange At 170 said:


> It's more accurately described as an _attempt_ to shame, and female beauty standards are a relatively recent phenomenon in the forefront of the mainstream media. Society needs time to adjust to this development. At present, however, it's more commonly accepted when women criticize men's appearance (as sexually empowering) and men who do the same are considered shallow and oppressive. That women are pressured into shaving doesn't contradict that. I think the theme running in society is that "women should shave, but _men_ aren't allowed to publicly criticize women that don't[/i]. Clearly, some men still do it, but face widespread backlash. Backlash women don't get for the same.


Actually, I don't agree with this. 

In regards to the first part of your statement: you should edit it to "*the current* female beauty standards are a relatively recent phenomenon in the forefront of the mainstream media". Women (and men) have been portrayed in accordance with the ideal at the time for hundreds of years. Since women (and now very recently men) have ended up wearing less and less clothes in media, it has generated more 'opinions' and trends in regards to very intimate details. We all know that women have not only removed body hair for many years now, but also engaged in more extreme modifications, such as breast implants, breast lifts, rhino-plastic surgery, and plastic surgery on labia.

In regards to the second part: women are still judged as much on (and often even more) what they are saying/doing as on how they are looking. Female politicians for example are ripped apart in the media when it comes to looks. The same goes for actresses, rock-stars, stand-up comedians, and on and on. This is an efficient way to both get the focus away from what actually matters and also to efficiently force future generations to conform. The message is, if you don't conform, you will get judged - but the 'choice' is yours. The thing is, it isn't really a choice anymore at that point.

Sadly, this superficial way of judging women by their looks more than by their actions has been more and more transferred over to men as well. Most reasonable men and women think that this is the wrong path towards gender equality. 
However, it would be great for the retail industry if men started to feel as self-conscious about their appearance as most women do/have done at some point in their life. There is a lot of money to be made off people's insecurities.

Beard is not the same. Men have beards in media, ads, power positions, what have you. The beard won't make head-lines. However, female hairy calves or arm-pits will make the news on certain TV stations.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Swede said:


> Actually, I don't agree with this.
> 
> In regards to the first part of your statement: you should edit it to "*the current* female beauty standards are a relatively recent phenomenon in the forefront of the mainstream media". Women (and men) have been portrayed in accordance with the ideal at the time for hundreds of years. Since women (and now very recently men) have ended up wearing less and less clothes in media, it has generated more 'opinions' and trends in regards to very intimate details. We all know that women have not only removed body hair for many years now, but also engaged in more extreme modifications, such as breast implants, breast lifts, rhino-plastic surgery, and plastic surgery on labia.


Female beauty standards have always been in the media.

_The issue_ of female beauty standards haven't. I thought that from the context of my post, that this was clear what I meant. Unless you can point me to many 1970s mainstream media reports, about how women are supposed to live up to unattainable standards, I don't think I'm in the wrong. This is a phenomenon that has mostly been getting discussed since about the 1990s and became more prevalent with photoshop.



Swede said:


> In regards to the second part: women are still judged as much on (and often even more) what they are saying/doing as on how they are looking. Female politicians for example are ripped apart in the media when it comes to looks. The same goes for actresses, rock-stars, stand-up comedians, and on and on. This is an efficient way to both get the focus away from what actually matters and also to efficiently force future generations to conform. The message is, if you don't conform, you will get judged - but the 'choice' is yours. The thing is, it isn't really a choice anymore at that point.


Or because women love gossiping about looks? Becuase men certainly don't gossip about female politicians based on how they look and the media gains nothing from it unless they have an audience to sell that gossip to. Which they do in the form of women.



Swede said:


> Beard is not the same. Men have beards in media, ads, power positions, what have you. The beard won't make head-lines. However, female hairy calves or arm-pits will make the news on certain TV stations.


This is irrelevant to the point. It's not about beards. It's about _women being able to dictate their man's appearance directly_. A woman can publicly state that her man _needs to be cleanly shaven_ with no repurcussions except for some fringe MRAs. If a man were to state this publicly, he'd be scrutinized all the place.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Derange At 170 said:


> Female beauty standards have always been in the media.
> 
> _The issue_ of female beauty standards haven't. I thought that from the context of my post, that this was clear what I meant.


The wording was somewhat vague, to be fair. It's good that you clarified in a subsequent post.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

In regards to American Apparel, it may be a cultural thing, but they recently 'won' Sexist of the Year 2013 in Sweden.
(I apologize in advance for the train wreck that thread turned out to be... sigh.)

This was the motivation for the win:


> *Why did American Apparel win?*
> "I think that many were offended by their images; an imagery that many have linked to child pornography imagery. They have deliberately allowed young models to pose in vulnerable poses in a home environment. In 2013 it was also many exculpatory rape convictions (in Sweden), which further reminds us how vulnerable young girls are."


If one examines the photos posted in this thread closely, one would see that a few of the models are very likely not adults. 
As I hope all of us are aware of, this has been an issue in the fashion industry for many years: using 14-year old (or even prepubescent) girls to advertise adult women's clothing. A 14-year old does generally not have the body of a 30-year old, but is skinnier, has narrower hips, etc.

Some of the photos come across as pure "girls gone wild", which is trashy on many levels, IMO.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Eos_Machai said:


> I don't think it's wrong to have an opinion about looks. I don't think it's wrong to voice your opinion either if you are asked. It's ok to say that you prefer your partner to shave, but it's not ok to call him/her disgusting if s/he choses not to. And it's not ok if you see a woman (or man) whose looks you don't find attractive, on the Internet or on the streets, to shout out that she's disgusting, or even to say that you don't find that attractive. Because no one has asked about your opinion. It's not like politics where everyone has the right to utter opinons, this is about personal matters and then you should be asked.


I think you can't really expect to stop people from saying opinions unless you have some really awesome way of controlling everyone. However, I agree the term 'disgusting' is harsh. 
Happy compromise: State your opinion but learn a better vocabulary so you can say it without offending everyone (speak smart )


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

snail said:


> I refuse to shave any of my hair, and if I get dirty looks for it, I delight in knowing that I have caused an unpleasant visual/emotional sensation for some superficial, misogynistic jerk who deserved to be made uncomfortable.


I love this, and I admire your bravery. It's a shame that it happens though. I mean, it's insane that you can attract so much hatred by doing absolutely nothing wrong. It's a very powerful statement. 



Swede said:


> The message is, if you don't conform, you will get judged - but the 'choice' is yours. The thing is, it isn't really a choice anymore at that point.


Love this too. 



Derange At 170 said:


> This is irrelevant to the point. It's not about beards. It's about _women being able to dictate their man's appearance directly_. A woman can publicly state that her man _needs to be cleanly shaven_ with no repurcussions except for some fringe MRAs. If a man were to state this publicly, he'd be scrutinized all the place.


There's a reason for this. Maybe not a good one, but one that's at least understandable. You have to consider this stuff on a cultural level. I hope I don't need to prove to you that the pressure placed on women to look a certain way is far greater than the pressure placed on men for the same reason. Don't misinterpret me; I'm not saying that it doesn't exist for men, only that there's far less of it. What that means is that one issue is far more sensitive than the other, and we have to be far more careful when discussing it. On an individual level, opinions don't really matter, but when you add context... Consider these two opinions: "I would only ever date a bald woman." and, "I would only ever date a woman who shaves between her legs." Both are equally shallow and ridiculous on an individual level, but only one of them is part of an oppressive cultural standard. And that's the one that I'd cop criticism for (if I actually believed it). Most of the criticisms of men aren't part of an oppressive cultural standard -- at least, not to the same extent. 

That's probably not the best explanation, but whatever. Hopefully you see what I mean. 

Also, OP's post was excellent. Already thanked, but it deserves more than that  @Eos_Machai


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> There's a reason for this. Maybe not a good one, but one that's at least understandable. You have to consider this stuff on a cultural level. I hope I don't need to prove to you that the pressure placed on women to look a certain way is far greater than the pressure placed on men for the same reason. Don't misinterpret me; I'm not saying that it doesn't exist for men, only that there's far less of it. What that means is that one issue is far more sensitive than the other, and we have to be far more careful when discussing it. On an individual level, opinions don't really matter, but when you add context... Consider these two opinions: "I would only ever date a bald woman." and, "I would only ever date a woman who shaves between her legs." Both are equally shallow and ridiculous on an individual level, but only one of them is part of an oppressive cultural standard. And that's the one that I'd cop criticism for (if I actually believed it). Most of the criticisms of men aren't part of an oppressive cultural standard -- at least, not to the same extent.
> 
> That's probably not the best explanation, but whatever. Hopefully you see what I mean.


It's only part of an oppressive culture for women if you presuppose said culture.

There's also this societal and media attention, however, going to women's beauty standards. And as I mentioned before, _increasingly_ more men are getting bodydismorphia disorder and eating disorders, and people aren't even so much as aware of it. My Facebook feed is filled with things about the issue of female beauty standards. Though I'm not arguing we need to see AS MUCH of it being targeted towards men, I would like to see _proportionate_ attention to men as well, since for example, 20% of all sufferers of anorexia are men.

A society that is misogynist and celebrates masculinity would have already shifted its attention towards it to help men, but it doesn't. Though I can already tell what presupposition you will use to disagree.


----------



## Dosto Yevsky (Feb 9, 2014)

Yes to women!
Yes to hair!
Both are welcome at my place.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

tine said:


> I think you can't really expect to stop people from saying opinions unless you have some really awesome way of controlling everyone.


I know a way that works pretty well without actually oppressing anyone. It's about etablishing good norms by reacting when people say bad things and it's commonly known as "political correctness".


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

kindaconfused said:


> Do you have evidence of the "all-out-attack" on men by the "liberal establishment". Or is that an opinion? No liberals I know of are anti-men, half of them _are _men.


So affirmative action doesn't negative the white male negative? How about guilty based on a mere accusation of sexual harassment? What about the over-medication of boys in schools for doing typical boy-like things? There's many more examples but I think you get the picture. Society is becoming more passive aggressive and feminized and it's the liberal establishment leading the way. Most of it is career academics who are overpaid and have no basis in reality that have too much time on their hands to think about minute stuff and blow it way out of proportion.

When I say I lean liberal it's more of I lean Democrat. More of the hard working, pro-union, old school Democrat. Not the sissy boy new age metro-sexual sort of BS that seems all the rage nowadays.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Swede said:


> In regards to American Apparel, it may be a cultural thing, but they recently 'won' Sexist of the Year 2013 in Sweden.
> (I apologize in advance for the train wreck that thread turned out to be... sigh.)
> 
> This was the motivation for the win:


People who paint campaigns such as these as sexist (which they.. aren't) often do this by equating male sexuality to rape and pedophilia. The actual argument, when it comes down to it is "men are pedophile rapists. These advertisements are created to sexually arouse men. Therefore they're sexist for portraying women as infantile rape victims'.

People like looking at pretty people. They also like it when they're not wearing a lot of clothes. Our ideals on what constitutes 'pretty' is based on health and fertility, which is what younger women represent. We get aroused by someone who looks like they'd be good at making babies with. So they will use teenage girls or women in their early 20s, because generally those are considered the prettiest. And for the rest of their lives, women attempt to make themselves look pretty by wearing slimming clothes/working out, using make-up, dying their greying hair, which in effect is women trying to make themselves look younger.

It's not pedophilia. It's not oppression. It's what biology says we should find sexy to ensure healthy offspring.

I wouldn't have sex with 15 year olds, but there are plenty of well developed 15 year olds who could pass, physically, for 20 who _look like_ someone I would have sex. Especially from the way they dress. Could these women in the AA campaigns pass for either 20 or 15? Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with sexism or pedophilia, but the fact that girls get into puberty earlier now than they did decades ago and develop quicker.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> As I explained to someone above, the photos make me think of children because of how closely the poses resemble ones I have seen many times in family albums and the like. The partial clothing, the expression, the rolling/crawling around, doesn't seem particularly sexual to me. I am making different associations based on what I have experienced in my own life. It triggered different memories for me.
> 
> I didn't say they were depressed, I said they don't look particularly happy to me, which they don't. I said they have innocent expressions. I guess I equate innocence with children.
> 
> I don't really care what they intended, the intent was probably for it to be sexual but I don't find it sexy. It really doesn't matter, I am just telling you what I see. I don't think it was an accident they gave them colourful socks and bubblegum though.


It's not about what either you or I find sexy, so I don't see what's constructive in a debate topic to talk about your personal preferences. Since the the original point of the poster was that those photographs degenerate women into prostitutes, as per the systematic oppression of women through the patriarchy.

This is why I brought up intent and audience. Since intent would have to reflect this mindset and culture. And this intent would only work the audience is men are pedophiles who like to abuse submissive preteens.

It's no accident that AA gave them clothes from their own line to model in their ads.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Eos_Machai said:


> I know a way that works pretty well without actually oppressing anyone. It's about etablishing good norms by reacting when people say bad things and it's commonly known as "political correctness".


I can see where youre coming from, but being PC can also destroy freedom of speech. How would you combat that?


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

tine said:


> I can see where youre coming from, but being PC can also destroy freedom of speech. How would you combat that?


You combat this by taking off the kid gloves and telling it like it is. Political correctness is just another example of our society becoming weak.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Oh look an article I stumbled on reading Google News today: How Colleges Could Get Rid of Fraternities - Julia Ryan - The Atlantic

So it's a woman writing this citing other women to end fraternities but no call to end sororities. I wasn't even looking for this article but just saw it on the news feed. This is just yet another ongoing example of the the war against men.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

chicklit said:


> People like you (no offense) are one of the reasons why young girls feel like they need to shave for others to like them.


er... not really, they could just choose to ignore what guys think of it, no need to paint us as victims.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Women who say fuck you to gender norms are the most attractive women.


white knight alert lol


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

PowerShell said:


> Oh look an article I stumbled on reading Google News today: How Colleges Could Get Rid of Fraternities - Julia Ryan - The Atlantic
> 
> So it's a woman writing this citing other women to end fraternities but no call to end sororities. I wasn't even looking for this article but just saw it on the news feed. This is just yet another ongoing example of the the war against men.


I'm sick of this war against men and gender roles. If they want to have the traditional gender roles let them.


----------



## kindaconfused (Apr 30, 2010)

PowerShell said:


> So affirmative action doesn't negative the white male negative? How about guilty based on a mere accusation of sexual harassment? What about the over-medication of boys in schools for doing typical boy-like things? There's many more examples but I think you get the picture. Society is becoming more passive aggressive and feminized and it's the liberal establishment leading the way. Most of it is career academics who are overpaid and have no basis in reality that have too much time on their hands to think about minute stuff and blow it way out of proportion.
> 
> When I say I lean liberal it's more of I lean Democrat. More of the hard working, pro-union, old school Democrat. Not the sissy boy new age metro-sexual sort of BS that seems all the rage nowadays.


So equal rights for non-white males is anti-white male? That's a stretch.
If you are guilty of sexual harassment based on an accusation, you need a better lawyer. So anyone with the power to decide one's guilt of harassment is liberal?
Boys aren't medicated in schools, schools are not allowed to medicate boys. That is solely the decision of the parents, liberal or conservative.
I do not see how society is more passive-aggressive or "feminized". There are MMA and crossfit gyms on every damned corner where I live. Sports are more popular than ever, ultimate fighting is now huge. What is feminized? Anti-bullying in schools? How awful we don't allow kids to act like their d-bag parents in school.
So there are 2 types of Democrat now? Sissy-boy and hard working union? WTF?? I was not aware of that development.
Your talk of this "liberal establishment" attack on white males is straight from conservative white radio/tv conspiracy theory morons who turn progress like anti-bullying or equal rights laws into a scare tactic for Republican votes.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

kindaconfused said:


> So equal rights for non-white males is anti-white male? That's a stretch.


So creating racial or gender preferences that give other groups other than a white male a "leg up" on the competition isn't discrimination? Sure there's past injustices but using a different set of injustices (affirmative action) to "make things equal" doesn't make things equal. It effectively discriminates against white males.



> If you are guilty of sexual harassment based on an accusation, you need a better lawyer. So anyone with the power to decide one's guilt of harassment is liberal?


If you were to compliment a woman that she looked nice prior to a big presentation and she took it the wrong way (even if you basically said the words "you look nice"), then it's instantly harassment and the guy is usually fired immediately. Also, look at rape accusations.



> Boys aren't medicated in schools, schools are not allowed to medicate boys. That is solely the decision of the parents, liberal or conservative.


The schools don't deal with the behavior and allow productive outputs of boys energy so they get restless in class. Then they kick the boys out of class or refer them to disciplinary action. Then the boy is referred to counseling and prescribed ADHD drugs.



> I do not see how society is more passive-aggressive or "feminized".


Someone harasses you. You hit them. Now you're the aggressor and thrown in jail.



> So there are 2 types of Democrat now? Sissy-boy and hard working union? WTF?? I was not aware of that development.
> Your talk of this "liberal establishment" attack on white males is straight from conservative white radio/tv conspiracy theory morons who turn progress like anti-bullying or equal rights laws into a scare tactic for Republican votes.


Talk to your grandparents. There is definitely a big split between Democrats. The Democrats I refer to are called Blue Dog Democrats (conservative Democrats).


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Eos_Machai said:


>


yep, really 'passive'


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

tine said:


> I can see where youre coming from, but being PC can also destroy freedom of speech. How would you combat that?


I think that in the civil spirit that I advocate should also be included values of non-aggression, humility, reason and respect.

And I think it's important to separate between degrading attitudes, hate speak, discriminatory practises, verbal abuse etc that is directed against _human beings_. and the right to criticize political and other _ideas_ and social _structures_. 

I think also sexist, racist etc. ideas should be combatted - within limits - but not subject to laws (including holocaust denial etc). But hate directed against people should in some instances be. 



Norms and sanctions are quite necessary for civilized life. I don't think anyone would like to live in a nihilist society where everything is ok. I have been a member on Internet forums where there's a total "laizzes faire" attitude towars all kind of hate, slander, racism, sexism, mean behavior etc. and I would almost prefer to live in North Korea over such a society.


Good values need to be promoted and bad values need to be fought. And since I don't have much trust for the state I believe it must be up to civil society to define and uphold what is decent and good. 


And I have noticed a very interesting shift here. If we go back only two decades youths were not interested in ethics and morals. Old people and the establishment talked about morals and their morals were often of a conservative kinds. Young people rather had the attitude "fuck morals, we do what we want!". But today young people are _very_ interested in ethics and morals, it's quite hip, while older people don't really care or see it as _private_ and not social matters. 

Sure, some young people _do_ have a kind of "inquisitionist" approach and are out to "purge the sinners" and making everyone conform to the correct standards or else they are evil. But most are much more nuanced. And I think this is an important task. Societies without mutual values and understanding collapses. The values of old did collapse because they did not fit well with the how society has developed. Then followed a postmodernist confusion that gave rise to nihilism and I think people are realizing where this path is taking us and are quite frankly scared of what they are seeing. So thats why I think we are seeing a revival of ethics.

But yes, we must always be one step ahead and also be aware of the problems that might be associated with the changes we are apart of.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Derange At 170 said:


> It's only part of an oppressive culture for women if you presuppose said culture.
> 
> There's also this societal and media attention, however, going to women's beauty standards. And as I mentioned before, _increasingly_ more men are getting bodydismorphia disorder and eating disorders, and people aren't even so much as aware of it. My Facebook feed is filled with things about the issue of female beauty standards. Though I'm not arguing we need to see AS MUCH of it being targeted towards men, I would like to see _proportionate_ attention to men as well, since for example, 20% of all sufferers of anorexia are men.
> 
> A society that is misogynist and celebrates masculinity would have already shifted its attention towards it to help men, but it doesn't. Though I can already tell what presupposition you will use to disagree.


I hate statistics when we're talking about things like this. It's so hard to get ones that are accurate and meaningful. Out of curiosity, I searched around for some other estimates and found some as low as 5% and others as high as 35%, with most being something like 10-15%. But so what? That still doesn't tell me much. How did they define anorexia? How was the data collected? Was the ratio stable as the severity increased? (I actually searched around for some statistics on the mortality rate for each sex but I couldn't find anything). With access to the studies themselves, I might be able to answer some of these questions, but certainly not all of them -- and certainly not the most important ones. I mean, I'd really like to know about the thought processes behind the behaviours, and about the cultural factors that trigger these thought processes. Good luck collecting that information.

I actually found one study that you might be interested in. It claimed that, of the men with anorexia, 42% of them were gay. What does that tell you? Well, it tells you nothing if you choose to believe the other study on the matter -- the one that dismissed the disparity as gay men being more willing to report it. Here's an idea for you: perhaps there are non-gender-specific causes of anorexia that cause it in both men and women. Now imagine if this accounts for 100% of the male cases but only some of the female cases. There would be no reason to target men specifically if this were happening, and your claim that we should do so would be moot. Now don't misinterpret me; I'm not trying to say that I think this is happening, because I honestly have no idea (I actually came up with the idea just then). My only point is that this stuff is just so damn hard to study -- to the point where I rarely think that it's worth trying. 

OK, so with that rant out of the way, let's just accept this 20% statistic for the sake of argument. Now let's also accept that 42% of them are gay, also for the sake of argument. You're now down to 11.6% of anorexia sufferers being heterosexual men. Now, I'm all cool with you speaking out about how this small number of men are ignored -- hell, I might even support you -- but what I see you doing at the moment is _not_ fighting for the rights of men, it's complaining about all the attention that women get, and that's not cool at all (especially considering the fact that, even by your own statistics, they deserve at least five times as much attention as men anyway).


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> I hate statistics when we're talking about things like this. It's so hard to get ones that are accurate and meaningful. Out of curiosity, I searched around for some other estimates and found some as low as 5% and others as high as 35%, with most being something like 10-15%. But so what? That still doesn't tell me much. How did they define anorexia? How was the data collected? Was the ratio stable as the severity increased? (I actually searched around for some statistics on the mortality rate for each sex but I couldn't find anything). With access to the studies themselves, I might be able to answer some of these questions, but certainly not all of them -- and certainly not the most important ones. I mean, I'd really like to know about the thought processes behind the behaviours, and about the cultural factors that trigger these thought processes. Good luck collecting that information.
> 
> I actually found one study that you might be interested in. It claimed that, of the men with anorexia, 42% of them were gay. What does that tell you? Well, it tells you nothing if you choose to believe the other study on the matter -- the one that dismissed the disparity as gay men being more willing to report it. Here's an idea for you: perhaps there are non-gender-specific causes of anorexia that cause it in both men and women. Now imagine if this accounts for 100% of the male cases but only some of the female cases. There would be no reason to target men specifically if this were happening, and your claim that we should do so would be moot. Now don't misinterpret me; I'm not trying to say that I think this is happening, because I honestly have no idea (I actually came up with the idea just then). My only point is that this stuff is just so damn hard to study -- to the point where I rarely think that it's worth trying.
> 
> OK, so with that rant out of the way, let's just accept this 20% statistic for the sake of argument. Now let's also accept that 42% of them are gay, also for the sake of argument. You're now down to 11.6% of anorexia sufferers being heterosexual men. Now, I'm all cool with you speaking out about how this small number of men are ignored -- hell, I might even support you -- but what I see you doing at the moment is _not_ fighting for the rights of men, it's complaining about all the attention that women get, and that's not cool at all (especially considering the fact that, even by your own statistics, they deserve at least five times as much attention as men anyway).


That's an intellectual cop-out, since I'm not seeing you fighting for men or women either, but complaining. But the entire point that you choose to overlook is that if men were advantaged in society, they would get more attention _from_ society for problems that affect them. It's not just anorexia, it's everything from physical health (women's average age increased far more than men's has, because we invest a lot more money in women's health compared to men; an example of this is the disparity between breast vs prostate cancer research), education (increasingly more men drop out of school and don't get degrees), mental health (more men commit suicide than women and aren't given the same levels of love and affection as children, starting when they are babies) and their lives (military conscription).

Simply put. People don't care as much about men as they do about women (hence why there's a disproportionate amount of attention going to anorexic men). So framing these things in a way that makes women look oppressed, through a theory built on presupposition like patriarchy theory, is both intellectually dishonest and harmful to society.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Derange At 170 said:


> But the entire point that you choose to overlook is that if men were advantaged in society, *they would get more attention from society for problems that affect them.*


Exactly.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Derange At 170 said:


> A society that is misogynist and *celebrates masculinity would have already shifted its attention towards it to help men, but it doesn't. *


What a contradiction... masculine means being tough and having the ability to take care of one's self, so they certainly wouldn't want to highlight men's issues, seeing them as wimps or sissies for needing 'help'.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> I don't really care what they intended, the intent was probably for it to be sexual* but I don't find it sexy*.


you're not the target audience, it's suppose to appeal to straight guys, duh.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> white knight alert lol


Or maybe I have an opinion of my own and you do not need to place me under a trope?


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> What a contraction... masculine means being tough and able to take care of one's self, so they certainly wouldn't want to highlight men's issues, seeing them as wimps or sissies for needing 'help'.


Masculine also means male, XY chromosomed. Men aren't systematically _favored_, since society's attitudes towards their wellbeing disfavors them compared to women. What you mostly did is explain the attitudes we teach boys to make them accept their disposability.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Yet another article I saw: A clean start: From real estate exec to laundromat owner - Feb. 28, 2014 "*51%: Her share of the first store. * 
Her partners, both men, each claim 24.5%. ("For government contracts, it could help us to be woman-owned," she notes.)"

So why does the government favorably view businesses that are 51% or more women owned over businesses that are less than 51% women owned? Shouldn't it a matter of best bid\best value that a company contracted out can provide. Why is that even a criteria? Why is the contracting system setup in a manner that favors business women own over businesses men own?


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Derange At 170 said:


> People who paint campaigns such as these as sexist (which they.. aren't) often do this by equating male sexuality to rape and pedophilia. The actual argument, when it comes down to it is "men are pedophile rapists. These advertisements are created to sexually arouse men. Therefore they're sexist for portraying women as infantile rape victims'.
> That's your opinion, but I don't think that your assessment is correct in either case.
> - Most women and men do in fact assume that the vast majority of men (and women) are NOT pedophiles or rapists. As a matter of fact, I would argue that this is a huge part in *why* there are so many victims; you are more likely to be taken advantage of if you are unsuspecting and unaware.
> - However, by idly standing by, or by saying that these photos are not sexist (which they are), or by saying 'I am not a woman, so this type of issue doesn't concern me' you have made a choice and taken a stance in regards to how you choose to see women and what should be acceptable in society. Furthermore, you seem to get upset that women don't speak up on men's behalf or when women shame men - at the same time, you can't see that women are still very much shamed in society. Can't you see the double standard? If not, it is concerning. You are of course not alone; as media's portrayal of women (and men) get more and more extreme, it follows that more and more people are desensitized and/or pressured to conform.
> ...


And you have just made my argument for me! The way media portrays the 'ideal' woman is *not* natural and it puts many girls and adult women as well as boys and adult men in a mindset that is not healthy. 
In addition, there are plenty of older women that could pass for much younger than they are. The difference is that it is often much less easy to dominate or take advantage of a mature woman than it is of a young girl. Many men with self-esteem issues do deliberately go for the younger women because it is less of a challenge.


----------



## chicklit (Feb 28, 2014)

googoodoll said:


> er... not really, they could just choose to ignore what guys think of it, no need to paint us as victims.


Obviously I wasn't talking about every girl, that would be mental.
Oh, so you assume every girl thinks like you do? If you can ignore the opinions of others, happy birthday, but not everyone can. If you feel insecure about something you can't just "choose to ignore" what others think of it. This is ridiculous.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Or maybe I have an opinion of my own and you do not need to place me under a trope?


I don't think she knows what it means. If you had a white knight complex, wouldn't you be attracted to oppressed victims or damsels in distress? Not women who defy cultural norms.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Swede said:


> Thank you!


Was this you after reading my comment?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Though I accept that my preference is also largely a result of cultural conditioning.


This.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Was this you after reading my comment?


Lol - almost! (I wish, she looks rather.. erhm, 'happy'...?)


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Swede said:


> she looks rather.. erhm, 'happy'...?


Oh, she's ecstatic.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

The Straight Dope: Who decided women should shave their legs and underarms?

It appears that it was the change in fashion that drove the push to shave armpits and legs for women. Sleeveless and sheer-sleeved dresses became popular in 1915 or so; before, armpits remained hidden from sight. It's unclear whether men or women (or both) felt that hairless armpits looked better in sheer dress sleeves. Shaving legs became fashionable when skirts lifted and panty hose came into fashion. If you've ever seen leg hair in panty hose...well, it just looks weird.

My opinion...I'm just tired of the freaking patriarchy explanation for everything (equally as tired of hearing about the "friendzone"). There are cultural standards to fashion and beauty that we all conform to in some way or another. Do you think that these ideas and trends come exclusively from heterosexual men? All of the editors from the major fashion magazines are...you guessed it: women. Of course, the editors don't have exclusive culpability; all in the fashion industry are complicit. Designers, agents, photographers, casting directors, and editors (see this article in the Guardian).

As a former Vogue editor put it, "Society is understandably concerned about the issues surrounding body image and eating disorders, and the dangerous and unrealistic messages being sent to young women via fashion journals. When it comes to who should be blamed for the portrayal of overly thin models, magazine editors are in the direct line of fire, but it is more complex than that. The "fit" model begins the fashion process: designer outfits are created around a live, in-house skeleton. Few designers have a curvy or petite fit model. These collections are then sent to the runway, worn by tall, pin-thin models because that's the way the designer wants to see the clothes fall. There will also be casting directors and stylists involved who have a vision of the type of woman they envisage wearing these clothes. For some bizarre reason, it seems they prefer her to be young, coltish, 6ft tall and built like a prepubescent boy."

She goes on to say, "*It is too simplistic to blame misogynistic men*, although in some cases I believe that criticism is deserved. There are a few male fashion designers I would like to personally strangle. But there are many female fashion editors who perpetuate the stereotype, women who often have a major eating disorder of their own. They get so caught up in the hype of how brilliant clothes look on a size 4, they cannot see the inherent danger in the message...I was horrified to hear what the industry was covering up and I felt complicit. *We were all complicit*. But in my experience it is practically impossible to get a photographer or a fashion editor – male or female – to acknowledge the repercussions of using very thin girls."

A couple more points. When it comes to body hair, it is my experience that women are the "hair Nazis," not men. Women have commented more about it, made their own decisions about it, and frankly, even enforced some sort of fashion norm on me rather than the other way around. Oh, shaving beards is the same analogy? What about hairy backs then, ladies?! Lastly, I've been with a couple of women who shaved everything off. They did so, despite my preference for pubic hair to remain; in other words, I had nothing to do with their preference to be clean-shaven.

So, ladies, be my guest and maintain hairy armpits; however, just like those "nice guys" who wear those stylish fedoras, don't whine about the consequences of doing so.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

There are sooooo many attempts to make things look ugly, evil, and trying to make posters look ugly and evil for their opinions, that's not good.

Some people like/dislike things for healthy and unhealthy reasons. It's easy to blame men, but when women see hairy women and complain then why not blame those women? and then trying to be civil avoiding blaming both men and women, why blaming society? *why always looking for someone to blame??*



Many signs of external beauty are programmed as we grow up
Many of those signs come from other people opinions (and regional culture)

Each person can pick what they like/dislike, I mean their own personal taste, per example I like all kinds of women but I have a strong attraction to big women, fat women (don't go there, It doesn't work, "fat" means an insult for many, there are old threads trying to talk about it and people got mad about it, thin is not a compliment as fat is not an insult). 


Hair? I see it as a very diff thing, right here at PC I read a few threads about human studies with proof that men tend to like curves, *I mean, things NOT USUAL on men. *One thread had several posters concluding we men like women who doesn't look like men. If people obsessed with "do with your body what you want" or specially "if you want to have a mustache you have the right to do it so" then don't expect too much. I see it as hair in some ways might relate to the effect of curves on women (one thing absent might be the same beauty appreciation as another one present).


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

I don't get it. I like NOT being the hairy one. Why would it be a problem? Sure it's a pain in the ass but it's also a pain for a guy not to eat like a slob in the same way he can with friends but he still puts on his manners. I think both sexes put up with painful rituals and if they don't want to, they find partners more befitting. It never seizes to amaze me when I've received complaints I'm too uptight. I always respond, well would you prefer a woman who belched, farted and picked her nose or swore and drank like a sailor? I'm all up for being myself , crude humor and all but I would prefer putting on make up in private to maintain the mystery of how I put on my pretty face, along with shaving my legs. 

I guess I don't understand what the problem is. If a lady wants to sport her upper lip stache and fuzzy pits, then more power to her. No one is stopping her no more than anyone is stopping a man from getting all "metrosexual". I could care less if a guy does more than trim his nose hairs. Just that if he goes all out to the point where he's feminized (to me) then I'm just not romantically interested. Same applies for hairy legged women. If that's what makes them happy, great! But we can't force what makes us happy on other people and expect them to be happy about it too. 

And no. I am not reading over 150 pages on this subject. I guess that's why I'm chiming in. Over 150 pages debating what?! Whether people should stop poking fun of bearded women? Lol. If it bothered her that bad, she'd wax.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

MindBomb said:


> As a former Vogue editor put it, "Society is understandably concerned about the issues surrounding body image and eating disorders, and the dangerous and unrealistic messages being sent to young women via fashion journals. When it comes to who should be blamed for the portrayal of overly thin models, magazine editors are in the direct line of fire, but it is more complex than that. The "fit" model begins the fashion process: designer outfits are created around a live, in-house skeleton. Few designers have a curvy or petite fit model. These collections are then sent to the runway, worn by tall, pin-thin models because that's the way the designer wants to see the clothes fall. There will also be casting directors and stylists involved who have a vision of the type of woman they envisage wearing these clothes. For some bizarre reason, it seems they prefer her to be young, coltish, 6ft tall and built like a prepubescent boy."


Or, as my dad told me and my sisters back in the 80s: "Many famous fashion designers are homosexual men who are designing clothes for young boys." 

PC - maybe not. 
Accurate - yep, I'd say so.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

MindBomb said:


> My opinion...I'm just tired of the freaking patriarchy explanation for everything (equally as tired of hearing about the "friendzone"). There are cultural standards to fashion and beauty that we all conform to in some way or another. Do you think that these ideas and trends come exclusively from heterosexual men? All of the editors from the major fashion magazines are...you guessed it: women. Of course, the editors don't have exclusive culpability; all in the fashion industry are complicit. Designers, agents, photographers, casting directors, and editors (see this article in the Guardian).
> 
> As a former Vogue editor put it, "Society is understandably concerned about the issues surrounding body image and eating disorders, and the dangerous and unrealistic messages being sent to young women via fashion journals. When it comes to who should be blamed for the portrayal of overly thin models, magazine editors are in the direct line of fire, but it is more complex than that. The "fit" model begins the fashion process: designer outfits are created around a live, in-house skeleton. Few designers have a curvy or petite fit model. These collections are then sent to the runway, worn by tall, pin-thin models because that's the way the designer wants to see the clothes fall. There will also be casting directors and stylists involved who have a vision of the type of woman they envisage wearing these clothes. For some bizarre reason, it seems they prefer her to be young, coltish, 6ft tall and built like a prepubescent boy."
> 
> ...


Yes but the concept of patriarchy does not really mean men are the only perpretators of this kind of thought. Women are just as guilty of sharing the same way of thinking in many cases. I don't think people in this thread are trying to blame anything on men in particular, are they? If there's a certain thought that is prevalent it is the result of the community as a whole.



After reading some of the responses to this thread, I'm seeing the assumption that heterosexual men _can't_ truly like body hair on a woman (or at least, not mind it). The thing is this assumption is largely based on our cultural context. And while that doesn't make it wrong (we all live in a particular cultural/social context after all) it means that it's not set in stone. Hell, it was not even an issue in the past. Of course, then there's the question of wether something can be called "objectively attractive".
It seems people are also ignoring how much more often women become the center of criticism on their looks compared to men. It's easy enough to find if you start looking at any kind of media that focuses on things like which girl had a wardrobe accident in X event, what famous actress in her 40s is aging/getting fat and other frivolous stuff. The example the OP gave is simply inexcusable. It's just not on the same level for men usually.

In fact, I think the real issue here is society's expectations on people having to be "attractive" to the public. On someone having to look good for other people if they think of showing a part of their body (not in the sense of purposely showing it to other people). That could apply to both men and women, wether one of them is at a disadvantage or not.


Those are my two cents. I don't personally adhere to feminism or anything, I'm just trying to analyze the situation.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Women usually naturally have less body hair than men. And women who don't shave don't automatically appear to be men. Plus...some heterosexual men are attracted to qualities that might be considered "masculine." We are just people.

I think an appropriate comparison within the "men have hair and women don't" idea, is if men were to add hair extensions, or color the areas where they have body hair with eyebrow pencil to appear hairier. 

If enough men did this, we would get used to the extremely hairy men, and I suppose we would start to consider men with an average or light body-hair distribution "flawed." At least superficially. But probably, no men would ever feel a pressure or resentment towards being expected to spend time working for affording, and applying and caring for the toupees on their chests and arms when they reach puberty (and for the rest of their lives)...right? That would be ridiculous. 


I agree with that shaming people and calling them ugly just because they appear in their natural form is um...disturbing. It's limiting for both the people who are being shamed, and also for the people who would see them beautiful. And, I think, for everyone else too.

Edit:

BUT...I'm not sure about "shaming" right now. I think some people tend to speak in a way that, as was said before, assumes that everyone is responsible for conforming to their aesthetic standards...and they don't take responsibility for their feelings (or maybe they believe in objective beauty). And then...some people more easily accept the "shame" on a personal level.

When I think of my own history of shaving/hairlessness, I remember knowing as a young girl that body hair was not acceptable or beautiful. And I think that the cosmetic industry feeds off of that and that, at least where I grew up, people expect girls to start removing their body hair as soon as they reach pubescence (maybe before, depending on the family). I'm talking about leg hair there. For the undeveloped brain of a pubescent girl, I can also see how someone might internalize this message as suggesting that there is something inherently wrong, dirty, or shameful about basic biological processes like growing and having body hair.

So, I really like to challenge that idea because I want to appreciate nature and come to peace with it more...especially when it really isn't hurting anyone.


----------



## Pachacutie (Aug 27, 2010)

Derange At 170 said:


> Or because women love gossiping about looks? Becuase men certainly don't gossip about female politicians based on how they look and the media gains nothing from it unless they have an audience to sell that gossip to. Which they do in the form of women.


This really seems like anecdotal evidence. Men _and_ women rip apart female politicians. I've seen both to use my own anecdotal evidence. My father is a conservative, I live in a conservative area and the amount of men I've heard call Hilary Clinton unattractive and big-hipped is ungodly. @Swede did not say that only men participated in this. It's not necessarily an us vs them issue, though it may be patriarchal, but you're making it one. It really just shows you're trying really hard to prove a point rather than actually trying to understand these things in a sociological way.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I'm kinda confused about people shaving off public hair and other private hairs. Those hairs were put there to keep the body clean, prevent infections and create a cushion against friction. Personally, I don't like my own skin, I have eczema in my case tiny bumps that look a little like goosebumps but goosebumps can also appear regardless and make my skin look like an unpaved street. It's actually a very subtle part of shyness I have with my body. Maybe nobody realized but I always where a long sleeve sweatshirt in public because I didn't like my own skin when I was young. Now comes in my wonderful new ally, hair. Yes now you can't even see the bumps and it doesn't matter thank you hair I will not shave you off.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Maybe nobody realized but I always where a long sleeve sweatshirt in public because I didn't like my own skin when I was young. Now comes in my wonderful new ally, hair. Yes now you can't even see the bumps and it doesn't matter thank you hair I will not shave you off.


Thanks - I lol:ed, even though I feel your pain. It's just the way you wrote about it. 

I can totally see where you are coming from - I had pretty bad acne as a teen and it lasted waaaay longer than puberty, so if I had been a man with the potential for a good beard, that option would have been utilized, no doubts about it.


----------



## Nothing1 (Jan 22, 2014)

This subject shouldn't even exist. People expose too much of themselves and to people who don't respect their privacy.


----------



## Lesley Drakken (Aug 17, 2012)

I have facial hair. About the time I turned 15 it went from 'okay I'm a girl with peach fuzz' to 'HOLY CRAP I HAVE A BEARD.' I've kept it shaved to a certain extent, but if I let it grow out I would probably have a pretty impressive goatee and sideburns. (On my jaw line where the thicker hair on my head should stop it keeps going down to my chin, so I assume the potential for sideburns is there as well.) This is genetic, my mother has it too, though to a far lesser extent. My dad also has profuse facial hair growth of course but I have no idea if that impacts me as his daughter.

Like all my perceived 'physical flaws', I try to have a sense of humor about it, and then it usually doesn't bother me much. I have to wonder how people would see me differently if I suddenly decided to start growing my beard, though. I'm already not a conventionally attractive female, although I don't care terribly for the way that other people see me anyways.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

I used to go in public in a short dress with very hairy legs just to piss people off hehe. I wish everyone could learn the joys of being a troll and not giving a shit about public perceptions.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

*Why patriarchy fears the scissors: for women, short hair is a political statement*

Choosing to behave consciously as if the sexual attention of men is not my top priority has made more of a difference to how my life has turned out than I ever imagined.




New Statesman | Why patriarchy fears the scissors: for women, short hair is a political statement


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Eos_Machai said:


> *Why patriarchy fears the scissors: for women, short hair is a political statement*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sweet. She can cut her hair how she wants and then effectively use it as birth control since she is no longer attractive to most men. If this is the life she chooses to live, then so be it. Hopefully she enjoys herself and if she ends up an alone 50 year old cat lady, hopefully she is filled with joy on her choices and not emptiness and bitterness.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> Sweet. She can cut her hair how she wants and then effectively use it as birth control since she is no longer attractive to most men. If this is the life she chooses to live, then so be it. Hopefully she enjoys herself and if she ends up an alone 50 year old cat lady, hopefully she is filled with joy on her choices and not emptiness and bitterness.


Made me snicker a little bit (at the post, not at you), because this is also tied to culture IMO.

Conversation between my husband and myself ~12 years ago:
Him "When we get married, will you cut off your hair?"
Me: "I don't think so, why?"
Him: "Most US women cut off their hair when they get married."
Me: "Huh!? I had no idea - that's odd. I have never noticed that."
Him: "I like your hair long."
Me: "Good - I don't think that I'd look good in short hair."

I just never thought that the short hair would signal 'married' or 'not interested in men', but apparently it does here in the US. I guess long hair is synonymous to trying to be seductive? Is short hair for women a political statement? What about long hair for men?
One of my female hetero friends wears her hair short and I can't even count how many times people have asked me if she is lesbian... It is just so weird to me, but it is because I was not raised in this culture.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Swede said:


> Made me snicker a little bit (at the post, not at you), because this is also tied to culture IMO.
> 
> Conversation between my husband and myself ~12 years ago:
> Him "When we get married, will you cut off your hair?"
> ...


Well I've never heard of that. Must not be a thing in the Midwest.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> Well I've never heard of that. Must not be a thing in the Midwest.


You mean the statement about married women cutting off their hair?

I do live in KY and it is pretty well-known to be culturally conservative/traditional compared to many other US states.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Swede said:


> You mean the statement about married women cutting off their hair?


Yes. I've never heard that before.


----------



## mrscientist (Jul 4, 2010)

This is a great conversation starter! Must...resist...can't...are...you a...lesbian?


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> Yes. I've never heard that before.


You know, I started to think through all my married female friends here at work and I was baffled to realize that most of them do actually have short to very short hair (with the exception of one lady in her 50s). I'll have to ask them about this during lunch today. I may report back, if I find out anything of interest. 

To be a married woman here in KY, I do have unusually long hair (and my legs may also be unusually hairy... I guess both choices can be attributed to being lazy. ) 
I also have seriously sucky hair, labelled Scandinavian hair, which means that I can't do ANYTHING to it - it will be straight, straight, straight, no matter what I do with it. In other words, I would not get any volume even if I cut it short. I don't have delicate features enough or a skull/face shape that is nice enough to pull off really short hair, or I'd probably give it a try. I'm a bit envious of girls who look good in short hair tbh.

Longer hair is also low maintenance (as I already hinted at) and it is practical to me because I always wear it pulled up in a ponytail or a knot here at work. I don't want to get caught in a robot, that would be bad!


----------



## Lesley Drakken (Aug 17, 2012)

Swede said:


> You mean the statement about married women cutting off their hair?
> 
> I do live in KY and it is pretty well-known to be culturally conservative/traditional compared to many other US states.


Hm. I live in the midwest, and my mother cut her hair short when I was born (about a year or two after my parents got married), but it was more about not having time to maintain it anymore. I can see this having roots in tradition, though.


----------



## Lilsnowy (Sep 9, 2009)

Swede said:


> You know, I started to think through all my married female friends here at work and I was baffled to realize that most of them do actually have short to very short hair (with the exception of one lady in her 50s). I'll have to ask them about this during lunch today. I may report back, if I find out anything of interest.
> 
> To be a married woman here in KY, I do have unusually long hair (and my legs may also be unusually hairy... I guess both choices can be attributed to being lazy. )
> I also have seriously sucky hair, labelled Scandinavian hair, which means that I can't do ANYTHING to it - it will be straight, straight, straight, no matter what I do with it. In other words, I would not get any volume even if I cut it short. I don't have delicate features enough or a skull/face shape that is nice enough to pull off really short hair, or I'd probably give it a try. I'm a bit envious of girls who look good in short hair tbh.
> ...


I think long hair may be associated with youth more than with being married. Also, many women in fundamental churches follow the bible example of leaving their hair long. I know several women who would like to cut their hair shorter but they keep it longer because it's their husbands' preference. I had a very short cut when I was 20, but now prefer it long. When I was younger, I hated the feel of hair hanging down my back, but now I love it. And yes, longer hair is low maintenance! I like getting up in the morning and not having to do anything with it. 

I think you can trim a few inches off for your hair's health and for better proportion for your face shape but still call it long. Like anything else, it's individual preference.


----------



## Lilsnowy (Sep 9, 2009)

Swede said:


> Made me snicker a little bit (at the post, not at you), because this is also tied to culture IMO.
> 
> Conversation between my husband and myself ~12 years ago:
> Him "When we get married, will you cut off your hair?"
> ...


I just don't agree that most US women cut off their hair when they get married or that it signifies "married." There is no historical standard for that. I think in the course of marriage, shorter hair may be easier to maintain while caring for small children, but I highly doubt that women get their hair cut short to signify that they are no longer single or because now that they have their husband they don't have to keep up their appearance. It's like saying we are no longer sexual beings because we are married and the opposite is true. A woman's hair is considered sexually enticing and is often associated with sensuality for both women and men and I think men miss it when we cut it shorter, even though they love us with or without it. 

I think most of us style our hair to our own preference and with consideration of our SOs.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Yes but the concept of patriarchy does not really mean men are the only perpretators of this kind of thought. Women are just as guilty of sharing the same way of thinking in many cases. I don't think people in this thread are trying to blame anything on men in particular, are they? If there's a certain thought that is prevalent it is the result of the community as a whole.


This. Why do people think that patriarchy = men decide? No, that's not what patriarchy is. Women and men are both subject to patriarchy and both maintain and uphold certain standards patriarchy defines as being important to masculinity and femininity respectively. 

When mothers teach their girls of how "girls should be" and when mothers teach their boys of how "boys should be", that's mothers aka women carrying over social expectations of gender established by patriarchy. Just because women are less privileged and usually painted as the (sole) victims of patriarchy, it doesn't mean victims can't perpetrate the structure that maintains it. The most insidious kind of power is power through consent where those in a less privileged position start assuming this is how it should be and perpetuate this as the norm. As a more obvious example - it's akin to the slave apologizing for being a slave even though the slave never chose to be a slave. 

I think the real issue is that it seems that people can't separate patriarchy as a social structure from the gender expressions it tries to control. Patriarchy has itself nothing to do with any particular gender identity/role or sex, though one can of course argue that the original thought pattern may have emerged from this at some point. It's merely a social structure that dictates how genders should be in order to be that gender. In such a sense patriarchy is a bit of a misleading word.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> When mothers teach their girls of how "girls should be" and when mothers teach their boys of how "boys should be", that's mothers aka women carrying over social expectations of gender established by patriarchy.


Absolutely - as an example from my own life: BOTH my mother and my mother-in-law told me that "You shouldn't have kids unless you will be a stay-at-home mother". Considering that I make ~100% more than my husband does, this would not make any sense at all.
On the other hand, my father and my FIL have both been extremely supportive (and proud) of my decision and my career - they are both engineers, just and my husband and I are. (But in all honesty, I do not think that my FIL would be supportive of my husband if he decided to be a stay-at-home father.)

I enjoyed your post, so thanks! 


@_Lilsnowy_, I agree. I suspect that most of the women I know that have short hair have it because it is practical for them and because they look good wearing it that way. And it also depends on what we define as 'short'. I have had 'bobs' in the past, latest when I donated hair to Locks for Love. Some probably consider that 'short' while I personally think 'short' is more in line with pixie cuts.

I still find it interesting that some men say things like what my husband said or


> She can cut her hair how she wants and then effectively use it as birth control since she is no longer attractive to most men. If this is the life she chooses to live, then so be it. Hopefully she enjoys herself and if she ends up an alone 50 year old cat lady, hopefully she is filled with joy on her choices and not emptiness and bitterness.


It is interesting also from the perspective that the quote above indicates that being an old single cat-lady is synonymous to being a failure. It seems to me that many people see single people as failures and especially single mature women.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@ephemereality delivers again.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Aya Nikopol said:


> @ephemereality delivers again.


That happens when you a MA degree in the social sciences lol.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> That happens when you a MA degree in the social sciences lol.


I used to study sociology in high school while everyone was taking physiology. It was quite interesting and made me more aware of how society actually works.


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


















I'm going to put mascara on my armpit hair.

In Germany I never had to worry about shaving or deodorant. People think it is a little plastic to do things like that over there.


----------



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

You can do what you want but I like shaving my legs and armpits. I love the feeling when you put on pajama pants after you shaved your legs.

As for shaving pubic regions, this is where I think it's a bit too much. The skin and hair there is different so if you shave too often you'll bleed and blister. You have to let the hair grow in a bit and waxing would hurt I imagine so a woman can never be completely clean shaven all the time. I don't know how it is for men though.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

chicklit said:


> People like you (no offense) are one of the reasons why young girls feel like they need to shave for others to like them. There's a difference between saying "I don't think body hair is attractive" and "Women with body hair are disgusting".


I remember a guy asking me if I shaved my pubic area; when I told him I didn't, he compared me to an ape. :crazy:



Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Women who say fuck you to gender norms are the most attractive women.


And that goes double for men.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

While I can understand the philosophy and thinking behind not shaving legs, i.e. I embrace myself, I am not a doll, I am a human being, an animal, and I have hair. Guys aren't pressured to not be human, only females are forced to be something other than human, to not be natural. And while I can understand also that a lot of appearance standards are based on some image of beauty that is a construct of society, ruled by men, what if your guy, the man you love likes your legs to be smooth, not for social status, but because have a fetish with legs? Would it be wrong to shave your legs, if your guy loves it? It doesn't mean he rejects you as a person and doesn't accept you, but that he just have a desire connected to it. 

Personally speaking, I don't have problems with armpit hair and I thought I didn't have a problem with leg hair, until I was in a relationship with someone who had a thick black hair on their lower leg, she had way more hair than me. And I felt bad, because I wanted her to cut it, but at the sametime, I felt remorse, because I did want her to be herself. You learn about yourself in situations when you say certain things, and then find yourself in those situations. its easier saying something than living it.


----------



## Ligeia (Oct 25, 2014)

As humans both men and women have hair. It's a sign of sexual maturity.
Then, there are both men and women who are hairier than others. 
Then, we've got a whole culture that requests women to be able to do everything and look "amazing" (and being greatly underpaid) while doing it. And all this following a fashion. The current fashion is no hair (which shows the influence of certain films into the mainstream culture).

In the 70's and 80's female hair was fine. Now, female hair is not fine. It's just a matter of fashion. And fashions come and go.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

PowerShell said:


> Women with hairy legs or armpits is kind of disgusting. Not going to lie.


I somewhat agree, but I think it applies to both genders.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Eos_Machai said:


> Over the last years where I live there has been quite a few examples of public outcry over women not having shaved some part of their body that many people think that they should shave. For example last year during the Eurovision the camera sweaped over the audience including a woman cheering with her armpit hair visible and this image went viral. All over facebook, twitter and internet forums tens thousands of people - mostly men - let it be known that she was disgusting because she had not been making herself into a "proper women".
> Economical patriarchy has been on the decline for a long time. Women still control less economic resources and earn less wage than men, but for a long time they have had equal right to inherit, equal right to own property, equal right to engage in the labour market etc. Still even though the material basis of patriarchy seems to be slowly withering away, women's bodies are being subject to more and tighter control. In some senses it's starting to look like Saudi Arabia when men on the Internet and the streets are correcting women for not being proper.
> It's not just about hair. It's about looks and sexuality overall. Women are supposed to be attractive for a male perspective and perform their femininity through various everyday rituals (such as removing hair), or else there will be sanctions. Nudity is very appreciated when it's about 'attractive' bodies in a sexual context, otherwise not. It used to be very common here in Sweden just a few decades ago for women of all ages to be naked on the beach but know it's extremely rare. Women are not allowed to show their breasts on the streets and not even in a bathing house - but men can show their breasts in all kinds of environments now matter how ugly they are and it's not percieved as the least controversial.
> I think patriarchy was on the road towards death and then it recieved life support from consumer industry and mass media realizing that exploting patriarchal norms and men's (subconscious) lust to regain control and privilegie as well as exploting female bodies and female insecurity was a great way to sell products and earn money. Thus patriarchy now has largely become a tool for capitalist profit-driven production.
> ...


this is the kind of stuff that makes me take feminism less and less seriously. I agree it's a stupid pressure, but there are plenty of social pressures out there. it doesn't make them "patriarchy". the solution to this problem is simple: stop giving a fuck and do whatever makes you happy. if all you face for not following a societal norm is social rejection, it can hardly be called a pressing social issue


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> this is the kind of stuff that makes me take feminism less and less seriously. I agree it's a stupid pressure, but there are plenty of social pressures out there. it doesn't make them "patriarchy". the solution to this problem is simple: stop giving a fuck and do whatever makes you happy. if all you face for not following a societal norm is social rejection, it can hardly be called a pressing social issue


If this problem is so "simple" then why are the overwhelming majority of people unable to do it? And what advantages does this impossible "solution" have over breaking down patriarchy itself?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> If this problem is so "simple" then why are the overwhelming majority of people unable to do it?


because people are weak. when people had problems, they used to, you know, _overcome them_. these days, they are coddled and feel that they should never have to face rejection or even disagreement and expect people to cater to them. imo, it is infantilizing and far more insulting to women than it's opposition. 
granted, as I have stated time and time again, I am more sympathetic to tangible problems, but if the only issue is "mean people who I don't know are rejecting me :crying: "....they can cry me a river, because that kind of emotional sensationalism hasn't worked on me in a very long time.



> And what advantages does this impossible "solution" have over breaking down patriarchy itself?


frankly, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that "the patriarchy" is anything more than an absurd conspiracy theory used to rationalize people's natural in-group preference for women (both women and men). later, it became a justification for obnoxious, entitled women to claim they are "strong" or "social justice warriors" (which is, again, insulting to women, because it undermines the value of genuinely strong women)


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Intellectually, I think I should grow hair and never shave. I'm hairy but I'm blonde. You can hardly see blonde body hair on a caucasian. But I still don't feel comfortable growing armpit hair or leg hair. I always waxed but recently started laser hair removal. It's supposed to be extremely effective on blondes. My half sister has my Dad's hair too and her body hair stopped growing back after doing laser hair removal every 9 months for a couple of years. It's been four months and no sign of any leg hair yet but not as effective on armpits. Those are much darker than my leg hair though. I suspect it just isn't going to work on that. 

I tried waxing off pubes. I found a number of issues. My skin wasn't agreeable, it's not like waxing legs at all. My genitalia looked like a little girls and that felt creepy. I'm not very curvy to begin with a body that's doing it's best impression of a 9 year old boy. I also got yeast infections and that's just gross. It hurts and I am not going to bring a razor anywhere near my vulva. That's just scary. So I just wax the edges and that doesn't seem to cause any problems for me. I'll keep my pubic hair thank you very much. 

For awhile, it was fashionable to have pencil thin eyebrows. My eyebrows are much darker than the rest of the hair on my head and they are most definitely not thin. Usually I tend to stick with fashion but I kind of like thick eyebrows. I thought they looked good. I always just plucked the strays and left my eyebrows alone. It isn't so unfashionable to have thick eyebrows again and now I have friends who overplucked and can't grow back their eyebrows. I'm really glad I didn't do that. But who's to say that ten years from now leg hair goes into fashion and I can't grow my leg hair anymore because I got laser treatment on them? Some hair just doesn't grow back anymore if you do enough damage to the follicle. I suspect my leg hair has already thinned from waxing them for years. 

I'd prefer to not waste time on eliminating body hair. But it's not important enough to me to make a fashion statement. I like to wear dresses and skirts most days and people see my legs. So, when it comes down to it, I lack principles. Or at least, don't feel strongly enough to stick to my guns and grow body hair. I don't know.


----------

