its commonly accepted that men are more predisposed towards risk taking overall

My husband just tld me he saw a documentary about risk that said there is a difference in endorphines produced between the genders.

How can we even say that someone has a high risk tolerance if they're not fulling accepting that there is risk?

One study (80's) seemed to think that In a mixed group women return to traditional gender roles and rate higher in risk taking and competitiveness in a same sex group. (business risks not sport.)

This makes sense to me. It dovetails with the findings that girls both participate more and do better in math classes in girls-only classrooms.

IOW, it sounds like, in the presence of boys, girls are less likely to take risks, such as being willing to either give the right answer and sound egg-headed, or give the wrong answer and sound stupid. Or that some increase in competitiveness in a same-sex environment causes the girls to overcome some of those fears.

I think this is why things like women-only climbing clinics can be so successful. Granted, for some women, the presence of men may not have the above effect (or may even be the reverse). But clearly for some or even most, there is a real and positive effect.

As a side note I'll mention that as pretty typical guy, it's kind of complicated. On the one hand, when girls are around, we can get dosed up on our own internal hormones and do stupid shit. But on the other hand, boys in single-sex settings tend to egg each other on, while the presence of girls (often) provides a more moderating influence.

GO

This discussion is incomplete without at least some mention of the fact that girls' fears of speaking out or other behaviors that we're calling "risky" for the sake of this conversation are not irrational or abstract fears. There is very real gender policing that goes on with respect to how girls are "supposed" to act, and girls who speak out or act out of compliance with this suffer real social consequences.

This gender policing comes from both males and females, but it's not some inborn retiring shyness on the part of girls and women. It is largely learned behavior that has been reinforced while more assertive behavior has been punished.

This discussion is incomplete without at least some mention of the fact that girls' fears of speaking out or other behaviors that we're calling "risky" for the sake of this conversation are not irrational or abstract fears. There is very real gender policing that goes on with respect to how girls are "supposed" to act, and girls who speak out or act out of compliance with this suffer real social consequences.

This gender policing comes from both males and females, but it's not some inborn retiring shyness on the part of girls and women. It is largely learned behavior that has been reinforced while more assertive behavior has been punished.

I wasn't trying to suggest that these fears are irrational. Without a doubt, they are at least as rational as the risks and rewards involved in climbing.


It stands to reason that it can't be inborn, otherwise where would the sudden ability to participate come from when the boys aren't there?

The interesting thing, at least from my perspective, is the fact that this policing into assigned gender roles can potentially break down when boys are removed completely from the equation.

GO

It seems that Risk Perception is greater in women but there is not as much difference in risk taking according to a 2011 Swedish survey.

That surveys show changes in time and racial groups it seems to be influenced by Social things more than biology even though there are some biological differences which may affect it.

One study (80's) seemed to think that In a mixed group women return to traditional gender roles and rate higher in risk taking and competitiveness in a same sex group. (business risks not sport.)

These studies though are on college students and That's very much a time where you are forming your identity and less confident, so more succeptable to conforming.

What to do?
Visualise you're with the girls and kick ass until it becomes programmed you can do it?

Self confidence is one of the most Important Precursors to success. Encourage others, Keep your internal dialogue positive.

To be blunt: women are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as sex objects. Of men.

I'm a bit surprised that this post has been up for a couple of days, and no-one has commented on it. It sure seems controversial to me, but do you all really feel that the following is such a no-brainer that it deserves no response?


To me, if the above is really true, it's horrifying, and I would never want to bring a female child into the world in such a society. Needless to say, *I* don't believe it. But I'm not a woman, so I have little insight into the messages you feel society is giving you.

GO

I'm a bit surprised that this post has been up for a couple of days, and no-one has commented on it. It sure seems controversial to me, but do you all really feel that the following is such a no-brainer that it deserves no response?


To me, if the above is really true, it's horrifying, and I would never want to bring a female child into the world in such a society. Needless to say, *I* don't believe it. But I'm not a woman, so I have little insight into the messages you feel society is giving you.

GO

Unfortunately it IS really true.

And these messages are internalized very very early. I obviously am trying to do my best to raise a daughter who doesn't measure her self-worth in terms of how appealing she is to men.

BUT...

Here is a story from last weekend that made people laugh, and made me cringe while laughing.

I was climbing with my two kids and a few friends. Heading out at the end of the weekend, we had a long-ish hike, really hot temperatures, and an uphill walk towards the end of the hike out.

Nothing terribly hard, but my daughter (who has made that hike multiple times before, from the time she was maybe 3yo) was feeling tired after diving off rocks and swimming in the lake for hours. So when the trail started going uphill, she was looking for some help.

She does know by now, that while I would have offered sympathy, maybe would taken her pack and would have walked slowly with her, there was no way I would be carrying her, 45 pounds and all. So she sidled up to the two guys who were hiking out with us, and made her best pitch for help.

Of course, what do you know? In a blink of an eye, one guy was carrying her backpack, and the other one had her riding on his shoulders.

I tried to interject, "hey, hey, she can walk, she really is not THAT tired" (we are not talking a little toddler, after all, and there was only a few hundred yards to go, and yes, I am an evil mom, I have had many years to get conditioned against fake whine). To which one guy responded saying "oh, no big deal, really, she hardly weighs anything" and the other one commented, "how can you resist a face like that?"

My daughter, riding comfortably on the shoulders of a backpack-carrying guy, is still young enough to innocently add a comment to that discussion, "Oh, I am so glad I am cute!"

Everyone laughed. It was one of those candid moments, with a little kid saying something that older person might have kept to him/herself. And really, she is awfully cute.

BUT... where did this come from? This concept that she is cute, and she should be thankful for it, that it gives her extra leverage when asking guys for things?

I'd like to think that this didn't come from me. But it came from somewhere... And it doesn't exactly make me happy.

And these messages are internalized very very early. I obviously am trying to do my best to raise a daughter who doesn't measure her self-worth in terms of how appealing she is to men.

...have fun living in fairy-tale land.

Unfortunately it IS really true.

And these messages are internalized very very early. I obviously am trying to do my best to raise a daughter who doesn't measure her self-worth in terms of how appealing she is to men.

BUT...

Here is a story from last weekend that made people laugh, and made me cringe while laughing.

I was climbing with my two kids and a few friends. Heading out at the end of the weekend, we had a long-ish hike, really hot temperatures, and an uphill walk towards the end of the hike out.

Nothing terribly hard, but my daughter (who has made that hike multiple times before, from the time she was maybe 3yo) was feeling tired after diving off rocks and swimming in the lake for hours. So when the trail started going uphill, she was looking for some help.

She does know by now, that while I would have offered sympathy, maybe would taken her pack and would have walked slowly with her, there was no way I would be carrying her, 45 pounds and all. So she sidled up to the two guys who were hiking out with us, and made her best pitch for help.

Of course, what do you know? In a blink of an eye, one guy was carrying her backpack, and the other one had her riding on his shoulders.

I tried to interject, "hey, hey, she can walk, she really is not THAT tired" (we are not talking a little toddler, after all, and there was only a few hundred yards to go, and yes, I am an evil mom, I have had many years to get conditioned against fake whine). To which one guy responded saying "oh, no big deal, really, she hardly weighs anything" and the other one commented, "how can you resist a face like that?"

My daughter, riding comfortably on the shoulders of a backpack-carrying guy, is still young enough to innocently add a comment to that discussion, "Oh, I am so glad I am cute!"

Everyone laughed. It was one of those candid moments, with a little kid saying something that older person might have kept to him/herself. And really, she is awfully cute.

BUT... where did this come from? This concept that she is cute, and she should be thankful for it, that it gives her extra leverage when asking guys for things?

I'd like to think that this didn't come from me. But it came from somewhere... And it doesn't exactly make me happy.

Just to be clear, we all have the same understanding of the phrase "contingent upon", right? It means that you are a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless you are willing to strut your stuff, and can demonstrate that men find you worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can you have any additional value in society.

So, for example, you feel that no-one would be impressed if you could climb 5.14 if you're not "hot" too? That no-one would recognize your accomplishments in art, literature, science, or business, if you don't have a perky rack, and aren't willing to show it off?

I call BS.

Of course being attractive is a benefit in social standing. For both men and women - but sure - more so for women. But it is not the only determinant to your value as a person in society. Plenty of women who weren't head-turners have had major roles in society, have changed history. And they will continue to do so. To deny it, or to claim that society does not recognize them, is repugnant.

GO

For your climbing example, name one single pro climbing woman who isn't super conventionally attractive. For 5.14 climbers, who doesn't Josune get more press? Why did Lauren Lee get so much?

I'm a bit surprised that this post has been up for a couple of days, and no-one has commented on it. It sure seems controversial to me, but do you all really feel that the following is such a no-brainer that it deserves no response?


To me, if the above is really true, it's horrifying, and I would never want to bring a female child into the world in such a society. Needless to say, *I* don't believe it. But I'm not a woman, so I have little insight into the messages you feel society is giving you.

GO

Your story is funny, and cringeworthy... but it doesn't prove drivel's point. It shows that your daughter knows that being cute is an important factor, and she can exploit it to get her way. No-one would argue that *any* cute kid, whether a boy or a girl, wouldn't learn that lesson. What it doesn't show is that your daughter feels that it's the only important factor, or the only worth she has.

And, frankly, little kids really don't have very much else going for them, except their cuteness and the social standing of their parents.

As we get older, that changes, and we discover we have other powers. We don't have to always appeal upon our attractiveness to make our way in the world. Yes, I'll buy that for some girls, their transition into womanhood just feels like a transition of one type of cuteness to get their way into a new type of cuteness to get their way. But for many teenagers (and women) that's just not my experience of how they define themselves.

GO

"To be blunt: men are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as success objects."

You're a guy. Do you believe that?

I have a 7 year old niece. she lives out in Nova Scotia and I don't get to see her much, but I hear all about her from my mother.

Oh, she LOVEs dresses, and doing herself all up and making her self pretty. She gets tons of praise for it too, puts on fasions shows for her Grandma (my mother).

This makes me mad. At 7 she is strongly building her self worth on how she looks. And this is pretty typical behaviour of little girls because of the VERY typical dehaviour of the adults around them.

This is not how "*any* cute kid, whether a boy or a girl" would be treated. When was the last time you heard a little boy be praised because they were pretty?

So here's a question, actually, I'll pose this one for Lena: Let's say there's a book written for girls your daughter's age. Dust jacket photo of the author. She's a middle-aged sweet looking woman. What is your daughter's reaction? Is it "oh my god, she's ugly, I don't want to read this book"? Or let's say the dust jacket photo of the author shows a young woman in minimal clothes and lots of cleavage. Would her reaction be "Mommy, this looks like a good book, can I get this one"?

The point I'm making is that all girls understand that people have value for what they *do*. And children understand and value the character and personality of adults. Looks factor in, but I doubt it's to near the degree that Drivel is driveling on about.

And Lena, you may not be comfortable with it, but *all* kids are socialized to get the most from being cute. I mean, babies are such a tremendous amount of trouble, if we weren't so incredibly adorable as babies, most of us would have been bludgeoned to death by our parents before our third birthday! Cuteness and love is all kids have got keeping them alive!

You claim that women are being indoctrinated from a young age to think that you must be sexy first and foremost, otherwise you are nothing and no-one.

What if we made a few slight changes:

"To be blunt: men are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as success objects."

You're a guy. Do you believe that?

I have a 7 year old niece. she lives out in Nova Scotia and I don't get to see her much, but I hear all about her from my mother.

Oh, she LOVEs dresses, and doing herself all up and making her self pretty. She gets tons of praise for it too, puts on fasions shows for her Grandma (my mother).

This makes me mad. At 7 she is strongly building her self worth on how she looks. And this is pretty typical behaviour of little girls because of the VERY typical dehaviour of the adults around them.

This is not how "*any* cute kid, whether a boy or a girl" would be treated. When was the last time you heard a little boy be praised because they were pretty?

I am much more inclined to worry that the females on a climbing trip are running out of water, or carrying too much weight, or generally not having a good time, whereas I will delight in the suffering of the other males.

Good point. It's still a looong stretch to go from society sending the message "take pride in how you look, and you will be appreciated for it" to "Being a sex object is your primary purpose in life. If you fail at that, you are nothing."

Look, y'all seem to think I'm claiming that women and girls aren't told by society that being pretty and attracting boys is important. Not only have I never said that, but the thought is ludicrous.

All of you are giving examples of the above. Examples that do not prove Drivel's point. What is at issue is the matter of degree. Drivel would have us believe that the message sent by society is that if you're not a successful sex object, (which presumably you must prove both by both looking the part and by getting boys to have sex with you) you are nothing.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Society tells boys that they should be good at sports, and handy. I could give hundreds of examples. But would any of them prove that men are socialized to believe that their value in society is first and foremost based on how well they can throw a ball or fix a burst pipe? Just because little boys collect baseball cards doesn't mean they don't *also* get the message that Barack Obama or Steve Jobs aren't great men. Society is nuanced, and children work hard to pick up on what it's telling them. And mostly, they get it just fine. I doubt many little boys are asking their daddies if the fact that Obama isn't the best basketball player means he's a bad president.

Anyway, I needed a reality check, since everyone seems to be agreeing with Drivel, so I asked my wife last night. She agreed with me. So at least if I'm in fantasy land, I'm in good company!

GO

That is funny. My husband usually packs our climbing gear because I work later than him and we'll leave for a climbing trip as soon as I can get out of work. I will often put on my pack the next morning and say 'Why is my pack so light? How am I supposed to get in shape if I'm not carrying any weight?' We will then proceed to take things out of his pack and put them into mine.

He is very thoughtful, but I am a climber, a climbing partner, and should shoulder an equal load. I am not in this sport for the sake of being comforted. I get scraped up and dirty, and my body enjoys the hard work.

Gabe, if you have surrounded yourself with good people, and you seem like the type of person who has, it can be easy to forget how the "other half lives".

A large percentage of the male population do infact view the female as adjunct to the male. The wife is viewed as something akin to property and while women are acknowledged to have additional, valuable attributes, they are viewed as sexual objects first and foremost.

I've spent the majority of my adult life working blue collar jobs and when you get a group of those men together, talking candidly in the security of a male only group, you will hear some disconcerting views being expressed. Sure, some of it is shit talking and bravado but some of it is sincere.

On a personal note: I'm not ashamed to acknowledge that I am, to some degree, guilty of it as well. I am much more inclined to worry that the females on a climbing trip are running out of water, or carrying too much weight, or generally not having a good time, whereas I will delight in the suffering of the other males. I am conscious of it and don't let it affect my interactions with the women because I feel it would be condescending to do so, but it's there, in the back of my mind, hardwired. All in spite of the fact that I am a bisexual male who has slept with more men that women to date, so I don't exactly fall within "normal" gender roles myself.

Biology, it can be a real PITA sometimes.

I respect that and thats as it should be. To be frank, I won't climb regularly with anyone who doesn't have that view, male or female.

The annoying thing is, and what I was trying to express, is thats not how I consciously think or view things. Thats just what my brain does when I'm not keeping an eye on it. I don't know how much of it's nature vs. nurture but it's there, regardless. And I think thats ok, as long as we are aware of it and moderate it appropriately.

NO, of course she wouldn't base her decision to get a book based on the picture of the author on the dust cover. And neither would most people. But there is a REASON why the photo of the author is on the inside of the back flap of the book, not on the front.

The claim was made that society tells girls that they are merely a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless they are willing to strut their stuff, and can demonstrate that men find them worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can a woman have any additional value in society.

Gabe, if you have surrounded yourself with good people, and you seem like the type of person who has, it can be easy to forget how the "other half lives".

A large percentage of the male population do infact view the female as adjunct to the male. The wife is viewed as something akin to property and while women are acknowledged to have additional, valuable attributes, they are viewed as sexual objects first and foremost.

I've spent the majority of my adult life working blue collar jobs and when you get a group of those men together, talking candidly in the security of a male only group, you will hear some disconcerting views being expressed. Sure, some of it is shit talking and bravado but some of it is sincere.

On a personal note: I'm not ashamed to acknowledge that I am, to some degree, guilty of it as well. I am much more inclined to worry that the females on a climbing trip are running out of water, or carrying too much weight, or generally not having a good time, whereas I will delight in the suffering of the other males. I am conscious of it and don't let it affect my interactions with the women because I feel it would be condescending to do so, but it's there, in the back of my mind, hardwired. All in spite of the fact that I am a bisexual male who has slept with more men that women to date, so I don't exactly fall within "normal" gender roles myself.

Biology, it can be a real PITA sometimes.

The claim was made that society tells girls that they are merely a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless they are willing to strut their stuff, and can demonstrate that men find them worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can a woman have any additional value in society.

I think I gave some pretty clear examples within my personal experience. My worth was dependent on my looks and finding a husband. Solely.

I plan on seeing this film pretty soon. Maybe you should check it out, too:

http://www.missrepresentation.org/the-film/

Sometimes we are blind to things when they don't directly impact us. You aren't in it, so you don't see it. No one has pushed this stuff on you.

Here is a recent Hollywood example that comes to mind:

http://jezebel.com/...ed-have-her-own-show

Yes, you gave the most powerful argument in favor of Drivel's point. The one thing I'd like to clarify, though, is Drivel's phrase "women are socialized to believe". Do you feel like all of society was sending you the same message? Because you and I both grew up in the 70s, and I know that the culture I found myself in at the time was a very wild and diverse mix of Sixties empowerment\counter-culturalism, 50s leave-it-to-Beaver, 70s fun, and the nascent "it's-all-about-me" 80s stuff. If the only thing you heard all around you was the 50s stuff from your parents' generation, then how did you figure out that there was something more to your life?

Maybe, partially, you had that different and more liberating experience because you are a male. It's worth thinking about.

I can't tell you exactly why things turned out the way that they did...

Yes, it is worth thinking about.

I'd suggest it's also worth thinking about the messages all you strong empowered women got somewhere along the way telling you that it was possible to think differently than the views you're expressing here in this thread. How about giving a little credit where credit is due? I'm betting you didn't all happen upon your sense of self by inventing it all by yourself. There are those who came before you and created a culture that says that women have meaning as individuals, and their contributions to society matter. And whether you are willing to acknowledge those people and the way they shaped society or not, the fact of their existence is real, and the world we all grew up in was changed in part by them.

Let me ask you - how many of you know who Rosa Parks is? OK, how many of you know what she looks like? Pretty or plain? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that last question, and it makes no difference to me.


Well, it's up to you, but maybe that's worth some thought, too.

GO

I don't even know what it means.

GO

Yes, it is worth thinking about.

I'd suggest it's also worth thinking about the messages all you strong empowered women got somewhere along the way telling you that it was possible to think differently than the views you're expressing here in this thread. How about giving a little credit where credit is due? I'm betting you didn't all happen upon your sense of self by inventing it all by yourself. There are those who came before you and created a culture that says that women have meaning as individuals, and their contributions to society matter. And whether you are willing to acknowledge those people and the way they shaped society or not, the fact of their existence is real, and the world we all grew up in was changed in part by them.

Let me ask you - how many of you know who Rosa Parks is? OK, how many of you know what she looks like? Pretty or plain? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that last question, and it makes no difference to me.


Well, it's up to you, but maybe that's worth some thought, too.

GO

Yes, you gave the most powerful argument in favor of Drivel's point. The one thing I'd like to clarify, though, is Drivel's phrase "women are socialized to believe". Do you feel like all of society was sending you the same message? Because you and I both grew up in the 70s, and I know that the culture I found myself in at the time was a very wild and diverse mix of Sixties empowerment\counter-culturalism, 50s leave-it-to-Beaver, 70s fun, and the nascent "it's-all-about-me" 80s stuff. If the only thing you heard all around you was the 50s stuff from your parents' generation, then how did you figure out that there was something more to your life?


Fair enough.

GO

Yeah, that's what I figured. I've known these kinds of guys, too. And it seems to me very similar to the role that racism holds in modern society. Plenty of people hold such beliefs, most are pretty mild, while some are extreme. Mostly it comes out in subtle ways, and rarely is it spoken of or acted upon directly, except when the person feels safely surrounded by like-minded bigots. Of course that doesn't mean that these beliefs have no effect, or are invisible. It just means that we've reached a stage in society where such beliefs are considered fairly taboo, and so they have a less in-your-face influence on society.

I respect that and thats as it should be. To be frank, I won't climb regularly with anyone who doesn't have that view, male or female.

The annoying thing is, and what I was trying to express, is thats not how I consciously think or view things. Thats just what my brain does when I'm not keeping an eye on it. I don't know how much of it's nature vs. nurture but it's there, regardless. And I think thats ok, as long as we are aware of it and moderate it appropriately.

I spelled it out, and Drivel agreed that's what she meant. So far no-one else has actually touched it. All of you have merely said that yes, there are gender biases in modern society, and yes, women's looks and attractiveness is deemed important, and that this is *one* of the messages society sends girls. None of that lends a whit of credence to Drivel's claim.

GO

because men in our society are not treated as objects.

Oh don't be so melodramatic. I have a pretty good imagination, and I have no difficulty envisioning hypotheticals. I just can't parse his sentence.

GO

because it's an oxymoronical sentence.

I do definitely agree that men in our society have their own struggles with the definition and performance of masculinity- supposed to always be up for/chasing sex, certain pressures about, yes being successful and "alpha," being policed against nonconforming behavior with the ever-present "sissy" "pussy" and "fag" denigrations.

but in all of that, men are regarded as actors and not objects.

I can't get to the far end of the extreme that you want to take Drivel's comment, but if you spend a good amount of time in a place like Brasil then you'd see very clearly what he means.

North American women are incredibly lucky.

We are lucky that women in other countries are more oppressed than those of us in the states? I guess I should be thankful that I earn as much as 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns. Thanks for enlightening me as to how liberated we are.

We are lucky that women in other countries are more oppressed than those of us in the states? I guess I should be thankful that I earn as much as 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns. Thanks for enlightening me as to how liberated we are.

Yes, and the reason is clear: society agrees that for both men and women, the way you look is *not* a prerequisite for the way your work will be judged. Otherwise we *would* see the author-as-model on the front cover.

GO

Yes, you gave the most powerful argument in favor of Drivel's point.

The one thing I'd like to clarify, though, is Drivel's phrase "women are socialized to believe". Do you feel like all of society was sending you the same message? Because you and I both grew up in the 70s, and I know that the culture I found myself in at the time was a very wild and diverse mix of Sixties empowerment\counter-culturalism, 50s leave-it-to-Beaver, 70s fun, and the nascent "it's-all-about-me" 80s stuff. If the only thing you heard all around you was the 50s stuff from your parents' generation, then how did you figure out that there was something more to your life?

I didn't add personal examples earlier, but if you think that WW's examples are closest to proving Drivel's point, then how about this:

-- I was told (by a teacher in sex ed class, who was looking straight at me when she said that): Men do not like women who are smarter than them.

-- I was told (by a teacher in elementary school!!): Nobody will want to marry you if you write with your left hand.

-- I was told, as a kid, by variety of people: you need to wear skirts more, you look like a boy when you wear shorts; Why do you always climb trees? Men don't like girls with scraped knees; If you keep doing that, your nails will never grow pretty; You would look so much better if you put on some make up;

The examples are too numerous to even recall them all. So much of it was along the lines of "behave like a lady, you want to grow up to be a proper lady, so you will find a good husband".





I think this is where you misunderstood Drivel's point. No, of course not ALL of the society is sending the same message. No society is ever that homogenous. And clearly, the women responding to this thread have been able to overcome these sorts of messages.

But the point is that these messages are pervasive enough, and wide-spread enough that EVERY WOMAN is exposed to them to some extent.

If she is lucky, she is also exposed to other messages that counter the above-mentioned ones. I also heard, growing up, that I could be anything I wanted to be. That I was smart and could accomplish anything I set my mind to. That anything a man could do, I could do, too, and maybe even do it better. Etc. Etc.

Everyone gets judged on how they look, whether you think it gets done or not.

An interesting difference I find is that women spend more time on their looks then men do, and not just with things like hair and makeup. Once guys hit around 30 (or a little earlier) they start to "let themselves go". Get little beer bellies (or big ones), etc. Women at this age are still stressing and striving to diet and keep the weight off.

In society it's far more acceptable for a man to let himself go than for a woman.

because men in our society are not treated as objects.

Of course, everyone is judged on his/her looks, and women more than men. How's that got anything to do with what you just quoted me (above) saying? Do you agree that if a woman doesn't have a sexy photo of herself prominently placed on a book she'd authored, that no-one would ever bother to read the book, because the woman couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to say if she wasn't a sex-object?

GO

I find this conversation incredibly frustrating, but since you're so determined to go with the book author photo, here is an example:

The author of the incredibly popular Twilight books, looks like this:



her author photo on her books looks like this:




why do you think that is?

Of course, everyone is judged on his/her looks, and women more than men. How's that got anything to do with what you just quoted me (above) saying? Do you agree that if a woman doesn't have a sexy photo of herself prominently placed on a book she'd authored, that no-one would ever bother to read the book, because the woman couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to say if she wasn't a sex-object?

GO

Tiff, I'm not saying you should feel lucky compared to men in the US, but yes, you have it much better than than women in other countries, much better. And I'm not saying you should stop fighting. In fact, I was more speaking about Drivel's initial comment. I never said pay or treatment was fair there.

But back to the point of what Drivel was trying to say, here, in Brasil, the ingrained culture is that women exist to make the home a happy place and men exist to provide. Women who speak out against it are often banished from society, not allowed to have friends or visitors, and men are judged by their "trophies," thus giving the men perfectly good reason to keep their women in line (because trophies don't talk, have opinions, work (and no, work in the home isn't considered work here), drive with men in the passenger seat, pass other cars that men are driving if the woman is driving, etc., etc., etc.).

Trophies look sexy; trophies have sex when the man wants to have sex; trophies clean the house and cook dinner; trophies deal with the crying children; trophies wash the dishes and do the laundry; trophies load the groceries onto the belt, bag the groceries after they've passed the scanner, and pay the bill all the while the man stands and the end waiting for the trophy to finish everything; trophies have to ask permission to have male friends (or even to continue long-standing friendships with men that began before the marriage); trophies are only allowed to go out with other men if those men are friends with the husband...I could go on.

I saw this in the U.S. maybe once every few months, if that, and when I did it certainly wasn't to the extreme level that it is here. Here, I see it every single day multiple times per day. The US (and in North America in general) does not have a macho culture. In fact, it's not even close. In the U.S., if a man at work hits on a girl then that man can get fired. Here, the woman gets fired. In the U.S., domestic violence is a problem, but it's also frowned upon. Here, the woman deserved it. In the U.S., rape is a very serious crime. Here, rapists get raped in prison more than other criminals because why would a man need to rape a woman when that's what the woman's role is? I'm not making this shit up.

I'm lucky to have a girlfriend with similar attitudes that you have (in a feminist bull-in-a-china-shop sort of way, as well. In fact, if we ever make it back to Boston I kind of figured you'd be someone she'd latch right on to due to your similarities), but the difference is that I don't really see people shunning you (maybe I don't know you well enough) for being a strong woman. Here, I see this sort of thing all the time. Most of the strong women who I know here can't maintain any kind of long-term relationship as a result of the societal pressures they face to shut the hell up and look pretty. That's their role here. That's how women are valued here. I'm not exaggerating. It's part of the reason why Brasil has an eating disorder epidemic (too many girls want to be like Gisele).

Of all the non-American men I know here, I'm the only one who knows how to use a washing machine. And of the ones who cook on a regular basis, only a few aren't gay.

A good friend of mine, and one of my former students, has been on crutches for the past three years due to a life-long degenerative condition she has. She is co-owner of a company that my gf founded (co-owned with one of my gf's strong-women friends who hasn't had a good, long-term relationship since her divorce ten years ago) and makes good money. Her husband is a music teacher and doesn't make good money. Nothing wrong with that except he doesn't have many friends anymore because they laugh at him for making less money. (again, I'm not exaggerating).

They own a nice apartment paid mostly by her (in all honesty, she can afford it and he can't). That's great for her, right? Who do you think cleans the house? How about cooks dinner? Remember, she's on crutches and can only stand on one leg for a few minutes at a time. So, they hire a cleaner to help her out a couple of times per month. Who pays? Who do you think? And they order out a few times per week because it's hard for her to use her hands while she cooks (because she needs them to stand upright with the crutches). Who pays? Ah, so maybe they'll go to a restaurant every now and again instead of take-out all the time, right? Nope! Because he doesn't want to get his driver's license. Why is this a problem? They can only go to restaurants where there is parking really close to the restaurant due to her not being able to walk very far (i.e. - he won't get his license so that he can drop her off and drive to a parking lot and return to meet her at the restaurant).

It gets better! She has been saving for three years to have surgery so that she can get a new knee. Then her mom has to have an emergency surgery, thus delaying my friends surgery. The mom is in the ICU for about a week and an in-patient for another 10 days or so. Who spends all her time with the mom in the hospital? The son? NO! Because the son "has a job and needs to work." (<-- That's a direct quote.) Remember, my friend co-owns a business (she's the graphic designer in a communications company). The husband complains that my friend is at the hospital with her mother because doesn't want to call the restaurant to order out food because they don't know him as well as they know her.

And now, it's time for her surgery that will finally allow her to start walking again (and doing something she's only dreamed of the past few years, such as travelling where one needs to walk a lot, for example). But does the husband support her? No! He doesn't want her to get the surgery because "she might die!" OK, with all of her health problems, it was a valid concern, but really, that's not why everyone thinks he doesn't want her to get the surgery. Everyone thinks he doesn't want her to get the surgery because it will mean she'll have more freedom and will "need him less" (<-- another direct quote from the brother).

OK, she has the surgery (and she's doing great, btw). But the doctor forbids her from driving for a month to let her new knee heal. Does the husband drive her to work? No, of course not silly. Remember, he doesn't have a driver's license and doesn't need it because she has one. So, her aunt comes to stay with them for a few weeks to help out. The aunt cooks, the aunt cleans, the aunt drives my friend to PT and sometimes to work and back...and drives the husband to his music lessons now because, well, there's someone who can drive him now. And then, when it comes time for the aunt to go back and take care of her family, the husband complains because it means he'll have to take care of some things while my friend continues to recover.

Fast-forward. She's not my student anymore because, unfortunately, the surgery, PT, and all the other expenses of her (and him) having to pay for things they should have been doing on their own the past few years (i.e. - eating out instead of him cooking, etc) have left them financially strapped. They've cut out a lot of things, but the two things he's complaining about? No cleaner and no cable...both of which she paid for.

This is not an exaggerated story. It's NORMAL. Men here are children, and they treat women like servants, and the better looking the servant, the higher the man's standing. And since here it's a man's world, well, why would anyone care about a woman's standing? The answer is that they don't. So since women aren't important, they might as well look pretty.

Again, I'm not making this up. This is how it is here, and I can't tell you how many times I've pleaded with my gf to make her 20 year-old son do the dishes, cook, or do the laundry to help her out around the house (I don't live with them, btw, and can't tell him myself because, well, he has a dad and that's a sensitive subject - a father who, btw, hardly acknowledges the son outside of work because all that lovey-dovey stuff is for the mom, but I digress). She says she's tried her best and she's harder than the vast majority of moms. At some point, he needs to stand up and do things himself. Will he? Who knows? Societal pressures are pretty strong and guess what? He now has a trophy gf he's madly in love with.

So yeah, in some contexts, Drivel's point is spot on.

GMBurns, don't bother - most here are totally convinced that they're living in a beer commercial, despite the evidence all around them every day showing otherwise.

GO

Sexy doesn't have to mean that you're advertising for sex. For me, sexy on a man is flat stomach with a great set of abs, nice lats and generally well defined muscle. For the ladies we should be trim, a nice set of tits and well shapped ass.

I'm just saying you take a sample of 30 year olds in the work place and you'll find that men don't care if they look sexy, women are still very concerned with this (regardless if they're looking for a mate or not). So why do women care more than men? Because we're supossed to and we're judged if we're not.




I think they point that you're missing Gabe, is that the differences in how men and women are precived and the things that we're told are valuable about our sex from society is not blatant. It's a subtle attitude and change can only happen if we pay attention to it and we make effort to change it.

I feel that BEC is aware of it, and he is doing his best to send positive messages to his daughter to combat it. I think the reason why so many people keep jumping on you is that it seems you keep telling us that the problem isn't as bad as we think it is.

Thank you for categorizing some of us as delusional simply because we disagree with you. That always makes it easier to dismiss differing opinions.

You don't have to take my word for it, but here is the perspective of sexualization from a 17 year old blogger from Waterville, ME:

http://www.sparksummit.com/...the-power-of-a-word/

I thought it was interesting and timely that it showed up in my FB newsfeed this morning.

What you describe is absolutely horrible and I believe every word of it. However, you would probably agree that there are even worse atrocities imposed upon females in other parts of the world (genital mutilation / widow burning). I would never say that Brazilian women are 'incredibly lucky' for not living in those areas. Anyone who is oppressed is not lucky, and you can always find someone who has it worse.

As far as being described as a bull in a China shop feminist, I tend to think of myself as someone who just wants to be treated as a human being. What's so radical about that?

I'm sorry you're frustrated. That can happen when you stand behind hyperbole as fact.

Ha! Those photos are awesome! Um... because the books are written for a shallow audience?

GO

I just wanted to repeat that, because you've said something more clearly that I have apparently been able to.

I would also like to point out that while it's nice that Gmburns thinks rape is treated as a very serious crime in the US, the fact is that it's grossly underreported and has a frighteningly low conviction rate when it is. And when it is, the victim is put on trial, because any display of sexuality under her own agency (look what she was wearing, she's into BDSM and is a freak, she made out with a girl at that party!) it is treated as license for men to do whatever they want. And if they can make the vicim look like a slut, no conviction. So yes, we have a long way to go there as well.

my sister, the one who got called a dyke all through high school for wearing loose/boys clothes? she's a tough chick. she is told, laughing, by a frightening number of people that they're sure she could kick somebody's ass and they're not worried about her walking alone at night because she'd never be raped. Which is cruel every time, because her first penis-in-vagina experience was, in fact, rape. Which she never reported because what was the point? She was underage drinking at the guys house late at night.

I keep coming back to one simple and yet very telling difference: girls are praised for their looks, from early age. Boys are usually praised for their actions.

I have one of each, boy and girl. They are reasonably good-looking, they looked very much like each other when they were little, and they both were absolutely adorable toddlers/young preschoolers.

It is really quite ridiculous.

I remember a woman gushing over how smart my 3yo SON was when he counted some apples in the cart out loud in the grocery store.

Several years later, my daughter got complimented by another random stranger for the exact same thing. Except this person didn't say, oh, look how smart you are. She said: oh, how CUTE you are, so precious!!!



I've heard time and time again, directed at my daughter: You are so pretty. You are so cute. Aren't you a precious little princess? What a pretty outfit you have! Look at that cute face!

I've heard time and time again, directed at my son: wow, you are so smart. Wow, you read a lot. Wow, that is an impressive vocabulary.

The thing is, they both have the same IQ. They both qualify for gifted programs. And they are both reasonably good looking. So why the difference in treatment from complete strangers and random people? If this is not representation of "societal attitude", I don't know what is.

@ GG - I'm sure you're right (that the reason I'm getting flack is that folks here think I'm saying there is no discrimination based on gender in our society). The funny thing is, I've said quite the opposite numerous times. I think there is pervasive gender inequality and a wide variety of biases based on gender.

What I don't think is that Drivel's statement of blunt fact is the whole story in our culture. I see many different threads in modern American society telling girls and women a wide variety of things they're supposed to be (including the always helpful "be yourself"). And what I see is that not all of the messages say that you need to be sexy before society will allow you any other place of importance.

@ Lena - that sucks, plain and simple. And yes, that's a great example of the gender bias I keep saying I agree is prevalent in our society.

GO

^^That was heinously oversimplified on my part, I'm just too hopped up on benadryl to put much more effort into anything.

What you describe is absolutely horrible and I believe every word of it. However, you would probably agree that there are even worse atrocities imposed upon females in other parts of the world (genital mutilation / widow burning). I would never say that Brazilian women are 'incredibly lucky' for not living in those areas. Anyone who is oppressed is not lucky, and you can always find someone who has it worse.

As far as being described as a bull in a China shop feminist, I tend to think of myself as someone who just wants to be treated as a human being. What's so radical about that?

I keep coming back to one simple and yet very telling difference: girls are praised for their looks, from early age. Boys are usually praised for their actions.

I have one of each, boy and girl. They are reasonably good-looking, they looked very much like each other when they were little, and they both were absolutely adorable toddlers/young preschoolers.

It is really quite ridiculous.

I remember a woman gushing over how smart my 3yo SON was when he counted some apples in the cart out loud in the grocery store.

Several years later, my daughter got complimented by another random stranger for the exact same thing. Except this person didn't say, oh, look how smart you are. She said: oh, how CUTE you are, so precious!!!



I've heard time and time again, directed at my daughter: You are so pretty. You are so cute. Aren't you a precious little princess? What a pretty outfit you have! Look at that cute face!

I've heard time and time again, directed at my son: wow, you are so smart. Wow, you read a lot. Wow, that is an impressive vocabulary.

The thing is, they both have the same IQ. They both qualify for gifted programs. And they are both reasonably good looking. So why the difference in treatment from complete strangers and random people? If this is not representation of "societal attitude", I don't know what is.