The radical idea that women are people

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2242
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Kewangji » Tue May 29, 2012 2:37 pm UTC

@TGH: Try "Guy comes in dressed in a really snazzy suit, drops down in the seat, folds his arms and just stares at you."

I don't think the clothing communicated much in either of the two cases, and the only difference here would be the projected difference in motivation.
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*

Chen
Posts: 5454
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Chen » Tue May 29, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Its getting somewhat off the gender roles topic, but what about smell? Society tends to have a "don't smell like this" rule attached to it just as much as a "shave your legs" or "don't wear cutoffs in the business office setting" rules. Yet I rarely see people complain about this. Should we not expect people to judge based on that either just like looks? The constraint seems almost as arbitrary as any dress code or other social convention in appearance.

User avatar
KestrelLowing
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:57 pm UTC
Location: Michigan

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby KestrelLowing » Tue May 29, 2012 2:50 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Its getting somewhat off the gender roles topic, but what about smell? Society tends to have a "don't smell like this" rule attached to it just as much as a "shave your legs" or "don't wear cutoffs in the business office setting" rules. Yet I rarely see people complain about this. Should we not expect people to judge based on that either just like looks? The constraint seems almost as arbitrary as any dress code or other social convention in appearance.


The difference with shaving legs is that society has evidently decided that something is 'gross' that is completely normal biologically and that doesn't affect anyone. It would be like saying that if you have brown hair that you have to dye it because it's seen as gross!

Sure, smell is also biologically normal, but if you don't bathe, I'm affected. Clothes are really easy to change and wearing one piece of clothing typically isn't all that different from wearing another, but having hairless legs takes effort opposed to not worrying about having hairy legs. Having hairy legs have NO effect on someone else, as is evident by the many men who have hairy legs and it's completely normal.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7011
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 29, 2012 2:52 pm UTC

Kewangji wrote:@TGH: Try "Guy comes in dressed in a really snazzy suit, drops down in the seat, folds his arms and just stares at you."

I don't think the clothing communicated much in either of the two cases, and the only difference here would be the projected difference in motivation.
Also a fair point; I'd probably make the same assumption in that case as well. I think the sweaty t-shirt image just gave me a notion of 'don't care' that I carried over to my internal presentation of the hypothetical person (i.e., I'm just exposing my unconscious bias against people who aren't snazzily dressed).
Ixtellor wrote:There are probably many Hierarchical structures you agree with. I think your just picking and choosing which ones you like, based on your own beliefs. (Adults having power over children is a Hierarchical structure).
I think it's a good idea to oppose and resist hierarchical structures (maybe not always smash them, but certainly bruise them a bit!). They're necessary for a lot of things, but they're also--pretty much by definition!--prone to abuse. Questioning, poking, prodding, and even punching every hierarchical structure you encounter (even the one you gave!) is a task I think all independent-minded people should actively engage in.
Ixtellor wrote:The last page of posts seems ironic to me that people want to be free by limiting the freedom of others.
How do you get from "I wish people would be more socially permissive about how I and others present myself" to "I want to limit people's freedom concerning how they perceive me"? Do you take a left on "Lack Of Reading Comprehension Blvd" or a right?

Chen
Posts: 5454
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Chen » Tue May 29, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

KestrelLowing wrote:The difference with shaving legs is that society has evidently decided that something is 'gross' that is completely normal biologically and that doesn't affect anyone. It would be like saying that if you have brown hair that you have to dye it because it's seen as gross!

Sure, smell is also biologically normal, but if you don't bathe, I'm affected. Clothes are really easy to change and wearing one piece of clothing typically isn't all that different from wearing another, but having hairless legs takes effort opposed to not worrying about having hairy legs. Having hairy legs have NO effect on someone else, as is evident by the many men who have hairy legs and it's completely normal.


The only difference is that you can actively avoid looking at people rather than actively avoid smelling them. And that isn't always true if you do have to actively speak to people or whatever. I'm wondering why we consider being disgusted by a small and being disgusted by a sight different? Or maybe we shouldn't?

Forget the leg shaving example, imagine something like an eyebrow piercing. If I have to work with someone who I discuss things face to face with or the like I cannot avoid looking at them (well not easily). If I found eyebrow rings disgusting, is there much of a difference between me finding the smell of a person disgusting?

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Elvish Pillager » Tue May 29, 2012 2:56 pm UTC

Chen: Depends. I'm not okay with judging people for their natural body odor. That kind of judging is inextricable from classism and ableism*, and also there are bad health consequences to long-term use of certain products/habits that people use to suppress their natural smell.

On the other hand, if someone wears strong perfume, I'm gonna judge the fuck out of them, because I cannot be near that stuff (I'm very sensitive to smells and dislike almost all of them, probably related to my Asperger's).


* and, although I think it's extricable from racism, a lot of people don't extricate it therefrom
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7011
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 29, 2012 2:59 pm UTC

Chen wrote:The only difference is that you can actively avoid looking at people rather than actively avoid smelling them. And that isn't always true if you do have to actively speak to people or whatever. I'm wondering why we consider being disgusted by a small and being disgusted by a sight different? Or maybe we shouldn't?
Wait, wait. The problem isn't that I might find unshaved legs disgusting. That's totally a thing I might do, and there's nothing wrong with being disgusted by things. Bugs disgust me! Greasy hair disgusts me! People who don't think Big Trouble in Little China is the highest achievement in cinematic history disgust me!

The problem is that I then go on to express that disgust in such a way that demonstrates that my disgust has meaning outside of my personal experience. I.e., I take "this disgusts me" to mean "therefore, you shouldn't do it".

Apply this to smell. Yes, you stink. Horribly. To the point where I'm pretty much gagging in your presence. But, aside from sanitary concerns (which are important given a certain context), the statement 'your smell disgusts me' isn't necessarily followed by 'therefore, you need to stop stinking'.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Ulc » Tue May 29, 2012 3:03 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:Chen: Depends. I'm not okay with judging people for their natural body odor. That kind of judging is inextricable from classism and ableism*, and also there are bad health consequences to long-term use of certain products/habits that people use to suppress their natural smell.

On the other hand, if someone wears strong perfume, I'm gonna judge the fuck out of them, because I cannot be near that stuff (I'm very sensitive to smells and dislike almost all of them, probably related to my Asperger's).


So stinking to high heaven because you haven't showered in two days is okay, but wearing perfume is bad-wrong? What you just posted here is basically "it's morally repugnant if I don't like the smell, but other people making judgments on smell is horrible beings".

Showering, it's a choice as well.

the statement 'your smell disgusts me' isn't necessarily followed by 'therefore, you need to stop stinking'.


No, but it might very well be followed by "if you don't stop stinking, I don't want to interact with you".
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

Chen
Posts: 5454
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Chen » Tue May 29, 2012 3:06 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:Chen: Depends. I'm not okay with judging people for their natural body odor. That kind of judging is inextricable from classism and ableism*, and also there are bad health consequences to long-term use of certain products/habits that people use to suppress their natural smell.

On the other hand, if someone wears strong perfume, I'm gonna judge the fuck out of them, because I cannot be near that stuff (I'm very sensitive to smells and dislike almost all of them, probably related to my Asperger's).


I was referring to natural odor. I agree that perfumes and the like would fall into the same category as clothing. Thing is natural body odor in some cases can be quite offensive to a lot of people. Society has generally deemed this unacceptable. Now, perhaps its because its more universal (if I recall there are some smells that almost everyone describes as "bad") and as such society simply decided it was better to "make" people that smelled like that modify their odor somehow. Like I said it was somewhat off topic since bad smell is not generally gendered so to speak, but we had wandered a bit further in that "someone else's appearance is none of your business". Should "someone else's smell is none of your business" also apply?

The Great Hippo wrote:Apply this to smell. Yes, you stink. Horribly. To the point where I'm pretty much gagging in your presence. But, aside from sanitary concerns (which are important given a certain context), the statement 'your smell disgusts me' isn't necessarily followed by 'therefore, you need to stop stinking'.


Yes except that if it was followed by "you need to stop stinking", it doesn't seem like that would be something people have determined is unreasonable. As per what I posted above, if we're willing to say someone's looks are none of your business should we say the same for smell?

Just for reference I'm not necessarily against that. It's just I've seen people be hypocrites in this area (e.g., not shaving legs for the reason posted above and then coming back and telling people how much this other person stinks) and it's a point people may not have considered when making the original argument.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7011
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 29, 2012 3:14 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:Showering, it's a choice as well.
Not necessarily! I know I've met a lot of people who haven't showered for weeks, and it didn't have anything to do with them choosing not to shower.
Ulc wrote:No, but it might very well be followed by "if you don't stop stinking, I don't want to interact with you".
Maybe, and I think that's fair, just as I think the statement 'if you have hairy legs, I don't want to have sex with you!' is totally fair. Heck, 'if you have hairy legs, I don't want to even be friends with you' is probably fair--albeit pretty jerkish.

Context is important, and I think the context we're talking about here is less "I don't want to spend an extended period of time with you" and more "I'm going to actively express my disapproval of how you've presented yourself". I mean, preference is preference; the point is that your preference is not always relevant, particularly as it pertains to strangers or certain types of relationships (professional, for example).

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Elvish Pillager » Tue May 29, 2012 3:21 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:So stinking to high heaven because you haven't showered in two days is okay, but wearing perfume is bad-wrong? What you just posted here is basically "it's morally repugnant if I don't like the smell, but other people making judgments on smell is horrible beings".

No, the difference is that when you wear perfume, you're going to extra effort to create a smell that drives me away.

Ulc wrote:Showering, it's a choice as well.

Depends. Since I'm very sensitive to physical touch, I can't convince myself to take showers very often (I usually do it once every three days). And when I *do* shower more frequently than that, my skin gets uncomfortably dry, which probably isn't healthy for me. And there are other people who have more difficulty than I do (the ones that come to mind are people with PTSD related to the circumstance, and people who are homeless and have no access to shower facilities). You don't necessarily know whether a person has those attributes by looking at (or smelling) them, so judging people for their body odor means you're gonna be judging people especially hard when they already have lots of bad stuff going on for them.

Chen wrote:Like I said it was somewhat off topic since bad smell is not generally gendered so to speak,

Really? My impression is that female-perceived people get a lot more flack for having noticeable body odor.

Chen wrote:but we had wandered a bit further in that "someone else's appearance is none of your business". Should "someone else's smell is none of your business" also apply?

Yes.

Here's, perhaps, a better smell<->clothing analogy: I literally will not stay in a room with a strong smell, so maybe the best comparison is if a person wore a giant, believable imitation spider on their face. (A lot of people have enough arachnophobia that this would be a serious problem.) If they *naturally* had a spider on their face, it'd be inconvenient but I could hardly judge them for that, but if they *chose* to have a spider on their face, they'd be wantonly causing grief to a lot of people. Does this comparison make sense?
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26438
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 29, 2012 3:28 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Ulc wrote:Showering, it's a choice as well.
Not necessarily!
It should also be noted that being unwashed and having strong b.o. are not the same thing. There is a rough correlation, of course, but there are also people who smell almost immediately after getting out of the shower and others who can skip showering for a week and never smell particularly bad.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
KestrelLowing
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:57 pm UTC
Location: Michigan

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby KestrelLowing » Tue May 29, 2012 3:42 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Ulc wrote:Showering, it's a choice as well.
Not necessarily!
It should also be noted that being unwashed and having strong b.o. are not the same thing. There is a rough correlation, of course, but there are also people who smell almost immediately after getting out of the shower and others who can skip showering for a week and never smell particularly bad.


Very true - I tend to take showers every other day, and about every other shower I might wash my hair. I don't actually use soap typically because of my sensitive skin. Thankfully, I can get away with that (although I had to train my hair to be happy with that many washes) just because the luck of the draw.

My BF is not so lucky....

But I think the big thing with shaved legs is that it is a double standard. Males do not need to shave their legs, females do. If it's seen as completely normal and unoffensive with males, why is it not seen that way with females?

Also, with the eyebrow piercing - eyebrow piercing does not occur naturally. That is an active choice. Probably not one that someone should be judged for, but a choice. Having hairy legs is not an active choice. You're most likely going to have hairy legs if you're human. Hairy legs are the default - having pierced eyebrows are not.

And while we do expect a certain level of personal grooming (cut hair, brush teeth, clip nails, etc.) most of those are maintaining what you have normally. Shaving legs is completely removing something.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3112
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Ixtellor » Tue May 29, 2012 4:13 pm UTC

KestrelLowing wrote:Having hairy legs is not an active choice


Having un-brushed teeth is not an active choice.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Elvish Pillager » Tue May 29, 2012 4:20 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
KestrelLowing wrote:Having hairy legs is not an active choice


Having un-brushed teeth is not an active choice.

Thank you for making a true statement. You have earned 1 (one) truth point.

(In all seriousness, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.)
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3112
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Ixtellor » Tue May 29, 2012 4:37 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:
KestrelLowing wrote:Having hairy legs is not an active choice


Having un-brushed teeth is not an active choice.

Thank you for making a true statement. You have earned 1 (one) truth point.

(In all seriousness, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.)


One of the main points seems to be that if something is natural, society is a 'dick' if they judge you for it. So I was just thinking of other 'natural' states (like hairy legs) and how it would play into peoples opinions of people making that choice functioning in society, and societies reaction to that 'natural state'.

You seem like a prime candidate, as you seem to loathe gender based societal behaviors, but at the same time can't handle strong smells. (Side Question: you said/hinted earlier you have some form of Aspergers, and a common aspect of that is not being able to recognize social cues --- are you self diagnosed? In a topic that is now all about social cues and interesting twist)
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Elvish Pillager » Tue May 29, 2012 4:49 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:One of the main points seems to be that if something is natural, society is a 'dick' if they judge you for it. So I was just thinking of other 'natural' states (like hairy legs) and how it would play into peoples opinions of people making that choice functioning in society, and societies reaction to that 'natural state'.

You seem like a prime candidate, as you seem to loathe gender based societal behaviors, but at the same time can't handle strong smells. (Side Question: you said/hinted earlier you have some form of Aspergers, and a common aspect of that is not being able to recognize social cues --- are you self diagnosed? In a topic that is now all about social cues and interesting twist)

I still don't understand the point you're trying to make (what am I a prime candidate for?), but I can answer the question, anyway. I was diagnosed by a professional. The way I function socially has changed a lot since my diagnosis - when I was diagnosed, the label of "Asperger's" fit very well, but now (although the label would still help you understand me), it's a lot more complicated. Other than the social aspect, a lot of the other attributes associated with Asperger's (like sensory overload) are still pretty much the same for me.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
KestrelLowing
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:57 pm UTC
Location: Michigan

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby KestrelLowing » Tue May 29, 2012 4:51 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
Elvish Pillager wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:
KestrelLowing wrote:Having hairy legs is not an active choice


Having un-brushed teeth is not an active choice.

Thank you for making a true statement. You have earned 1 (one) truth point.

(In all seriousness, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.)


One of the main points seems to be that if something is natural, society is a 'dick' if they judge you for it. So I was just thinking of other 'natural' states (like hairy legs) and how it would play into peoples opinions of people making that choice functioning in society, and societies reaction to that 'natural state'.

You seem like a prime candidate, as you seem to loathe gender based societal behaviors, but at the same time can't handle strong smells. (Side Question: you said/hinted earlier you have some form of Aspergers, and a common aspect of that is not being able to recognize social cues --- are you self diagnosed? In a topic that is now all about social cues and interesting twist)


I think the main thing that baffles me in particular about the shaved legs thing is that men do not have to shave their legs. It's not universal - and the hair on men's and women's legs are usually pretty much identical (unlike, say hair on the face)

One thing particularly about brushing teeth is that it's a health thing (and also can stray into the body odor issue). There are tangible benefits from brushing your teeth, or even cutting your hair (more manageable, healthier in general, etc.). The only tangible benefits from shaving legs is smooth legs - which can feel nice - but if you don't want smooth legs, why on earth should you shave? There are no health benefits, no real point. Actually, shaved legs can be somewhat detrimental - usually shaving legs can cause dry skin, and shaved legs can get more easily sun burned.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Ormurinn » Tue May 29, 2012 4:58 pm UTC

KestrelLowing wrote:I think the main thing that baffles me in particular about the shaved legs thing is that men do not have to shave their legs. It's not universal - and the hair on men's and women's legs are usually pretty much identical (unlike, say hair on the face)


Thats not actually true. Womens body hair tends to contain a much higher proportion of vellus hair, and be finer and softer to begin with. Shaven legs are just highlighting a secondary sex characteristic (women having less hairy legs than men) and taking it to an extreme.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5419
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby doogly » Tue May 29, 2012 5:04 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:There are probably many Hierarchical structures you agree with. I think your just picking and choosing which ones you like, based on your own beliefs. (Adults having power over children is a Hierarchical structure).

Oh dear, were you hoping to goad me into lambasting the pitiful state of the rights of the child in the world today, and America in particular? The power of adults over children in general makes me seethe.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
KestrelLowing
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:57 pm UTC
Location: Michigan

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby KestrelLowing » Tue May 29, 2012 5:11 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
KestrelLowing wrote:I think the main thing that baffles me in particular about the shaved legs thing is that men do not have to shave their legs. It's not universal - and the hair on men's and women's legs are usually pretty much identical (unlike, say hair on the face)


Thats not actually true. Womens body hair tends to contain a much higher proportion of vellus hair, and be finer and softer to begin with. Shaven legs are just highlighting a secondary sex characteristic (women having less hairy legs than men) and taking it to an extreme.


Hmm, good point. I've read somewhere that faces with more contrast are seen as more feminine, so that's why women wear makeup - particularly eye shadow and eye liner, etc. But we don't expect all women to wear makeup all the time (I hope) so why do we expect them to shave their legs all the time? Or even any of the time?

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5419
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby doogly » Tue May 29, 2012 5:32 pm UTC

More contrast? Oh noes! I'd rather she looked totally washed out, even toned and rounded features, like a porcelain baby doll. Every woman who reads this should hearken to my whim immediately.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Enuja » Tue May 29, 2012 5:32 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
KestrelLowing wrote:I think the main thing that baffles me in particular about the shaved legs thing is that men do not have to shave their legs. It's not universal - and the hair on men's and women's legs are usually pretty much identical (unlike, say hair on the face)


Thats not actually true. Womens body hair tends to contain a much higher proportion of vellus hair, and be finer and softer to begin with. Shaven legs are just highlighting a secondary sex characteristic (women having less hairy legs than men) and taking it to an extreme.
It is true that, on average, women have lighter leg hair than men. But, if we're being fair here, that should mean that women have LESS of an obligation to shave their legs than men, if hair were "gross" or disturbing (as smells can be, or eyebrow piercings can be). Of course, as you explicitly state, expecting women to shave their legs is starting from a small difference in secondary sexual characteristics, and greatly exaggerating it. I happen to be a woman. My legs happen to me more hairy than the legs of many of the males I know. So expecting me to have hairless legs is expecting a large alteration of my body, which I currently refuse to do. That's one thing if this is just for getting certain people to be attracted to me, but we're talking about expecting me to shave my legs in order to be behaving acceptably while jogging, or at a job interview. The language you use implies that artificial emphasis of small average differences between gender is somehow more acceptable than completely artificial distinctions between genders. As a person who "naturally" sits much closer to the average amount of male leg hair than female leg hair, I completely disagree with that implication. I don't want to have to pretend that I'm "naturally" "feminine." I want to be able to let my hair do its thing, and to spend no time taking care of it.

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby mochafairy » Tue May 29, 2012 5:41 pm UTC

I think the point being made, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that people have a right to find things gross or weird. You don't have a right to be a judgey-mcjudegerson-poopypants about it on either side.

I think everyone finds at least something weird in the world. Just because a person finds something weird or gross doesn't mean that person is evil, and just because someone doesn't find something weird or gross doesn't make that person evil.

We can have discussions about these things, but they should remain respectful and the conversation should be held with all parties' consenting to having the conversation.

There are some instances where things that may be considered different or gross may affect other people (smells seems to be the one being discussed now). There are ways to handle these instances with understanding of both sides to come to some sort of compromise.

(Did we just re-invent the "don't be a dick-douche death star" rule?)
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Ormurinn » Tue May 29, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

Enuja wrote: It is true that, on average, women have lighter leg hair than men. But, if we're being fair here, that should mean that women have LESS of an obligation to shave their legs than men, if hair were "gross" or disturbing (as smells can be, or eyebrow piercings can be). Of course, as you explicitly state, expecting women to shave their legs is starting from a small difference in secondary sexual characteristics, and greatly exaggerating it. I happen to be a woman. My legs happen to me more hairy than the legs of many of the males I know. So expecting me to have hairless legs is expecting a large alteration of my body, which I currently refuse to do. That's one thing if this is just for getting certain people to be attracted to me, but we're talking about expecting me to shave my legs in order to be behaving acceptably while jogging, or at a job interview. The language you use implies that artificial emphasis of small average differences between gender is somehow more acceptable than completely artificial distinctions between genders. As a person who "naturally" sits much closer to the average amount of male leg hair than female leg hair, I completely disagree with that implication. I don't want to have to pretend that I'm "naturally" "feminine." I want to be able to let my hair do its thing, and to spend no time taking care of it.


Good for you! But you're expecting people not to make a judgement about you based on your personal habits, which is unrealistic. In the blue corner, we have the rest of the world, who do make this effort you currently don't feel like doing, and in the red, we have Enuja, who has decided not to. Enuja has good, solid reasons not to do it, but has still broken a social norm, and this can be interpreted in a whole lot of different ways by different people.

It's not unreasonable for a boss to make a snap judgement about you for not shaving your legs, when all the other women have taken the time to. It's not unreasonable for other joggers to find it odd either. It wouldn't be unreasonable for people to make snap judgements about me based on a beard either.

You sound like you want to have your cake and eat it. You want to opt out of a process most other people do, but don't want this to be seen as strange. By definition, this isn't going to happen.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Belial » Tue May 29, 2012 5:59 pm UTC

mochafairy wrote:I think the point being made, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that people have a right to find things gross or weird. You don't have a right to be a judgey-mcjudegerson-poopypants about it on either side.


That's about right. You can find shit gross privately all you want. Taking that out into the world and insulting or haranguing people is bullshit.

But there's also the issue of constructing standards. Which is not a directly hostile act, but creates a hostile environment: it creates a society in which an individual choice to shave or not shave is judged right or wrong by the collective. And that can be seen as bullshit without judging the personal preferences of those who align with the standards.

So it's actually two issues: the "is it okay that I personally feel that hairy people are unpleasant?" issue and the "is it okay that shaving is a societally enforced standard?" issue.

Personally, I find shaved skin much more pleasant in nearly all respects. That said, unless you (for any value of "you") and I are planning to spend a lot of time rubbing each other, I also don't think that matters. The standard, such as it is, is bullshit.

Ormurinn wrote:Good for you! But you're expecting people not to make a judgement about you based on your personal habits, which is unrealistic.


Man, I love/hate language because it allows you to do sneaky shit like this to peoples' thoughts. See, what you're doing here all turns on the fact that "expect" has a couple different shades of meaning. It can mean to hold someone to a standard ("I expect you to show up on time, ready to work, and holding a parakeet") or it can mean to anticipate ("I expect that it will rain"). Enuja expects society not to judge her, because that's what a non-bullshit society would do. But she doesn't expect them not to do so, because she has a brain and is capable of learning from past experience, and therefore knows that people are dicks about this.

But where the goddamn sorcery comes in is when you're saying that because it would be unreasonable to expect society not to judge her, it is also unreasonable for her to expect it. Except instead of actually saying that explicitly, you're just allowing the fact that the same word is used for both concepts to sneak your thesis in under peoples' language centers.

Basically, I see what you did there.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5419
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby doogly » Tue May 29, 2012 6:16 pm UTC

It is the is/ought fallacy again! Can we please get this bro some Hume?
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
a_fuzzyduck
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:42 pm UTC
Location: Clydebank
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby a_fuzzyduck » Tue May 29, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

I think basically: job interviews should only be permitted using IRC, with preassigned, single digit nicks :P
wkw
"GRAPHICS WERE NOT AS GOOD IN THE PAST BUT WE WERE HAPPIER AND MORE INNOCENT THEN" - every retro gaming review, ever

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Belial » Tue May 29, 2012 6:30 pm UTC

doogly wrote:It is the is/ought fallacy again!


But this time it's wearing snazzy clothes!
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
pseudoidiot
Sexy Beard Man
Posts: 5083
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 pm UTC
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby pseudoidiot » Tue May 29, 2012 6:31 pm UTC

With bad breath and b.o.
Derailed : Gaming Outside the Box.
SecondTalon wrote:*swoons* I love you, all powerful pseudoidiot!
ShootTheChicken wrote:I can't stop thinking about pseudoidiot's penis.

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue May 29, 2012 6:39 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Good for you! But you're expecting people not to make a judgement about you based on your personal habits, which is unrealistic. In the blue corner, we have the rest of the world, who do make this effort you currently don't feel like doing, and in the red, we have Enuja, who has decided not to. Enuja has good, solid reasons not to do it, but has still broken a social norm, and this can be interpreted in a whole lot of different ways by different people.

Have we been extrapolating to the rest of the world this whole time? cause that part is a lie. The rest of the world does not en masse give a fuck about leg hair. Just so's you know.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby natraj » Tue May 29, 2012 6:46 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:On the other hand, if someone wears strong perfume, I'm gonna judge the fuck out of them, because I cannot be near that stuff (I'm very sensitive to smells and dislike almost all of them, probably related to my Asperger's).


this may be true, but i do not see how this makes someone's choice to wear perfume any more or less judge-able than someone's choice of what clothes to wear, which not too many posts before you were arguing against judging people for. some people are sensitive to bright colours; some people have fear of spots. sometimes people's choices are going to come up and clash against other people's sensitivities. your answer has not gotten any closer to answering why do we care when someone's smell intrudes into our personal space with unwanted smells more than when someone's appearance intrudes into our personal space with unwanted sights. the only thing your answer has told me is "because i am more sensitive to smells than to sights" but since there are other people for whom exactly the converse is true i still am no closer to figuring the answer out.

this does seem to extend to sounds too from what i notice of people and their general complaining about other people, though. folks are far more likely to object strenuously to someone having a voice that is too loud/justified/etc for their tastes than they are to someone having an article of clothing that is too bright for their eyes.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Ormurinn » Tue May 29, 2012 6:48 pm UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Good for you! But you're expecting people not to make a judgement about you based on your personal habits, which is unrealistic. In the blue corner, we have the rest of the world, who do make this effort you currently don't feel like doing, and in the red, we have Enuja, who has decided not to. Enuja has good, solid reasons not to do it, but has still broken a social norm, and this can be interpreted in a whole lot of different ways by different people.

Have we been extrapolating to the rest of the world this whole time? cause that part is a lie. The rest of the world does not en masse give a fuck about leg hair. Just so's you know.


Well, thats excellent news! Because if the rest of the world doesn't care about leg hair, then there must not be significant social pressure to shave your legs (since people exerting social pressure would be evidence of them caring.) If that is the case, then concerns about social pressure arising from unshaven legs are illusory, and we don't need to worry about or debate them.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5419
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby doogly » Tue May 29, 2012 6:54 pm UTC

You are framing this obnoxiously and offensively.

It is not Enuja vs "the rest of the world."

The people who balk at this requirement are many, and this includes many women who actually do conform with shaving expectations for a variety of reasons. It is a silencing technique to say that any individual who finds this requirement rude in its implementation and oppressive in its motivation must be alone, abnormal, or dismissible.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue May 29, 2012 6:58 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
Meaux_Pas wrote:Have we been extrapolating to the rest of the world this whole time? cause that part is a lie. The rest of the world does not en masse give a fuck about leg hair. Just so's you know.


Well, thats excellent news! Because if the rest of the world doesn't care about leg hair, then there must not be significant social pressure to shave your legs (since people exerting social pressure would be evidence of them caring.) If that is the case, then concerns about social pressure arising from unshaven legs are illusory, and we don't need to worry about or debate them.

WORDS MEAN THINGS, BRO.
go google 'en masse' for me please. After that feel free to get back to framing this wrong and moving the goalposts. Are they heavy?
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby mochafairy » Tue May 29, 2012 7:00 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
mochafairy wrote:I think the point being made, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that people have a right to find things gross or weird. You don't have a right to be a judgey-mcjudegerson-poopypants about it on either side.


That's about right. You can find shit gross privately all you want. Taking that out into the world and insulting or haranguing people is bullshit.

But there's also the issue of constructing standards. Which is not a directly hostile act, but creates a hostile environment: it creates a society in which an individual choice to shave or not shave is judged right or wrong by the collective. And that can be seen as bullshit without judging the personal preferences of those who align with the standards.

So it's actually two issues: the "is it okay that I personally feel that hairy people are unpleasant?" issue and the "is it okay that shaving is a societally enforced standard?" issue.

Personally, I find shaved skin much more pleasant in nearly all respects. That said, unless you (for any value of "you") and I are planning to spend a lot of time rubbing each other, I also don't think that matters. The standard, such as it is, is bullshit.


Okay. I'm just making sure before jumping in.

I decided to look up some of the history, and this is what I've found:

It seems that hair removal for women became very popular right before WWI, and was from a campaign "to convince women in North America that underarm hair was unhygienic and unfeminine." Source 1 Source 2 Source 3.

It also seems that this practice is very common amongst English speaking women (source 3 again), but not so amongst pretty much everyone else.

Interesting. So, it seems like someone with a lot of power and money decided to either a) make more money by shaming women b) shame women into doing something that they found icky or c) some combination of the above.

Granted, standards change, but what makes our social structure of disliking body hair better than others? What makes our social structure so awesome that we're not supposed to question anything about it, including something so seemingly harmless, like shaving ones legs?

And just because the rest of the world doesn't give a flying fuck about something doesn't mean that there isn't pressure to conform. What it means is that there is proof that the pressure is pointless and people should knock it off.
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Belial » Tue May 29, 2012 7:03 pm UTC

I'm...not sure if you think you're disagreeing with me?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Elvish Pillager » Tue May 29, 2012 7:08 pm UTC

natraj wrote:
Elvish Pillager wrote:On the other hand, if someone wears strong perfume, I'm gonna judge the fuck out of them, because I cannot be near that stuff (I'm very sensitive to smells and dislike almost all of them, probably related to my Asperger's).


this may be true, but i do not see how this makes someone's choice to wear perfume any more or less judge-able than someone's choice of what clothes to wear, which not too many posts before you were arguing against judging people for.

I'm making the distinction based on two things (both of which must be present for me to judge):
1) It's an active choice to do something, rather than a passive choice not to do something, and,
2) It seriously interferes with another person's ability to function in a space, in a way they couldn't just learn to ignore if it were commonplace.

In an earlier post, I noted that I would consider wearing a large imitation spider to be a visual equivalent to wearing strong perfume in terms of how I would view it.

EDIT: It occurs to me that the distinction of "active vs. passive" isn't particularly well-defined. For instance, on the "so-and-so's voice is too loud!" issue, you could view it as an "active choice" to talk at all. On the other hand, it's unreasonable to expect people not to talk at all in a public space, and if you assume they're talking, being loud can be a passive choice of not going to lots of extra effort to regulate your voice. So I'm not entirely sure how to hash out the distinction, but I *feel* like I know what I think it is in any particular situation. Not that that helps me explain my perspective any...
Last edited by Elvish Pillager on Tue May 29, 2012 7:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5419
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby doogly » Tue May 29, 2012 7:11 pm UTC

Moral distinctions between "active" vs "passive" don't really hold up under scrutiny.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby mochafairy » Tue May 29, 2012 7:14 pm UTC

Belial wrote:I'm...not sure if you think you're disagreeing with me?


Who, me?
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests