Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General The Political Gender Gap:

Then you had a very unusual group of classmates. I attended college in Socal from 9/75 tp 5/79. I joined a sorority and for the first two years, as logan pointed out, for most girls/women, clothes, make-up shopping and boys were top subjects, as was "what parties were going on that week". As we progressed, school and classes became much more important, and discussion of grad school and careers came into play. Also prevalent wre discussions of marriage(many of us were engaged by our junior year) and prospective children. I did notice, as media became more intrusive, that looks seemed to matter more and more. My daughter graduated from the same university as I did, and appearance was considered way more important. You had to have "the right look" as a female, to land the glam/high power/high paying jobs. You had to have the "right look' to join the popular sororities to make the coveted social and business contacts. Even now, a professional dancer on "Dancing With The Stars" was/is being criticized on the blogs for gaining a little weight(which she looks perfectly fine with), but nobody has criticized males for the same thing.

Our culture focuses mostly on the wrapping, and not what's inside. This is true of both genders, but a stricter adherence is expected for and by the females. A case in point-it has been posted here that men should dress as the accepted norm of men, and women as women. But why is that so? Does it really matter if Joe or Jane is wearing a dress or flannel shirts? Make up or no make up? Shouldn't our criteria be: Is that a good person? Am I a good person?

Yes, I like to dress up occasionally, and even wear make up, but it is content and character that is the most important.

I did the bulk of my course work at California State University Northridge before transferring to San Francisco State and finishing there.

I guess one reason why I didn't experience the "traditional" college life is that both CSUN and SF State were "commuter" schools - which means - you came to school that morning, went to class, and left back for home that afternoon.

No one in my seven years of college "lived on campus" or experienced "dorm life" because we all commuted and had lives outside of school.

Nearly every girl (woman) in my classes was already in a relationship - either boyfriend or already married.

For what it is worth, I was trying to follow the forum rules and selected the name of the thread based upon the title of the article I was referencing.

I am certainly open to changing the title of the thread if another title would be more appropriate.

The purpose of the thread has never been to endorse what you rightly criticise. I am puzzled to to try to understand whether we should avoid talking about things with which we disagree? I have tried to make clear, I am not supporting appearance based discrimination. I think it is wrong and wish it would disappear. But in my (possibly incorrect) opinion, disappearance of such things is not facilitated by avoiding discussion of the topic.

We have had several extended discussions that have more or less directly asserted misogyny as a fundamental social problem. We have had discussions about the nature and extent of sexism. We have had discussion about the origin and motivation if the beauty industry.

In all of those discussions there has been a common undercurrent identifying the reprehensible motives and behavior of large segments of society. Contained within that judgement, IMO, has been a fundamental opposition to consideration of the idea that
any of the phenomena that we both deplore has an origin that flows naturally, to some degree, from humanity and society as a whole.

For me, it is a fairly important question as to whether some of these problems are partly a result of human nature... or alternatively primarily a result of sinister conspiracies by consciously ill intentioned individuals.

By the way,
when I say that "something may flow naturally from human nature and society", that statement should not be construed as tacit acceptance of the phenomena any more that I would tacitly accept violence and aggression... which I also consider natural to the human animal.

Mostly I agree. But, if one considers slavery for example... that was not considered "wrong" 1000 years ago. And likewise, societies views on this present topic have changed considerably over time. And again, IMO this is a fundamental point. When one says that "It's always been wrong. it implies that people for thousands of years have been willfully, knowingly evil.

"doctors" who bled their patients to cure them were not willfully evil, they were ignorant. Surely there is a difference. IMO it is completely counterproductive to apply general purpose judgementalism in an attempt to cure something that I sincerely agree is a serious and significant problem.

I was not aware that anyone on this thread, and myself most especially ever made any such suggestion. Could provide a quote in support of the comment... or clarify to whom it refers.

Ardy

I agree with this.

But in agreeing with what you have said, I would like to extend the discussion back to what was for me at least the origin of my interest in this topic.

Let's suppose for the moment that this society is appearance based, and that women are more subject to this judgement than men. I think we have all more or less agreed on that, right?

Then my question is.... suppose that you are a rational adolescent girl (I know that may be a stretch ). So, if you are an adolescent girl, and you know that society is heavily judgmental of women based upon appearance. What would this rational adolescent girl do? My argument is that the normal thing for that girl to do would be to become very concerned about her appearance... because she understands that she will be judged on that basis. And in being concerned about her appearance, she "feeds the monster"... IE she feeds the beauty industry and it's importance... she confirms for her peer group that appearance is a critical for issue for girls.

I am not saying this because I excuse it, or because I think it is a good thing. I am just saying that it is sort of a self re-reinforcing phenomena... IE girls pay attention to appearance because they are reading the values of society. Those girls confirm the importance of appearance to their peers... and eventually they themselves become part of the society that will influence future generations of girls to think that appearance is very important.

Saying that above does not endorse that problem, or excuse it. It is simply an attempt to acknowledge the complexity of resolving this problem... which has already been with us for some good long time.

Cal State Fullerton, where my daughter and I both went, was also a "commuter school" There were no dorms, jst apartments, houses and Sorority/fraternity houses. Most people lived at home. I carpooled with several high school classmates. Lots of us were in relationships, but very few of us were married.

I also agree with what you've said here. I think that when girls/women and boys/men try to be different, conformists try to shame them into submission. Such as "Barbie dolls are only for girls. GI dolls are only for boys. females like shop, males like to take shop. And so on and so on. Judgmental people, who feel a need to control and force conformity, then use negativity to push individualism into their idea of what is "proper".

Sorry, Ardy but here's your quote:


This can very easily be read as "and any woman who knows what's good for her will get with the program."

Making a reasonable effort can sometimes be a sort of code word, after all. To me, a reasonable effort at work means neat, clean, and professionally dressed. It does NOT mean fashionable; it does NOT mean regular visits to a salon, it does not mean expensive facials, carefully styled hair, or tattooed eyeliner (yes, this is not only possible, but fairly common.)

I "get away" with my approach because I am not in sales, I don't deal with the top brass on a regular basis, and I don't deal with the press. If any of those things were true, the standards would be higher (as would, most likely, my heels.)

So "making oneself attractive" is a sliding scale.

And speaking of code (!) how many of us, as rebellious young women, were told by our mothers "Oh, if you would only do something with yourself/your hair/your weight!" (I've also known women who got these remarks from abusive husbands and/or fathers.) When one tells a woman to "make an effort" one is treading on thin ice that is already heavily cracked by a long parade of people who think they have a right to say how she should look. (It's not right. It's just the way it is.)

(Note to other readers: Ardy and I have been discussing this stuff for a long time and we can poke each other pretty hard. There is no personal animosity - and if we feel either of us has gone too far apologies and requests for additional explanation are quick in PM.)

What has your daughter said about the political gender gap? Did she find her fellow students cared about appearances?

No truer words ever written.