High heels won’t help achieve high ambitions

[Desi]

Once again, in history female beauty was not always considered more valuable than male beauty, all of this are cultural constructions that have absolutely nothing to do with the biological differences.

true but when Male beauty is normally held in higher regard to a female's like in historic Japan. It was because he looked....more like a woman. It is kind of funny that even people like the Vikings found that Balder the passive and beautiful god was the equal to Freya in beauty though Balder was nowhere near as manly as say Odin or Thor (though Loki was counted as attractive as well).

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Even if such an event had no dress code, we would still respond much more differently to a woman wearing sneakers than one wearing heels; that too is expectation.
.

But that's exactly The problem with your logic, just because things happen, doesn't mean they should happen. Or that we have to conform to the status quo. If i was in event with no dress code, i would not respond at all differently to a women wearing high heels or a pair of sneakers. It's quite a common situation.

Do I think women look sexier with high heels? Yes, I do. Do I expect women to wear High heels to fulfill an expectation of what a women's role in society should be? Absolutely NOT.
We live in a world where things are expected of us no one can deny it, but expectations solely by gender are very dangerous and pernicious and that is what you have been defending from post one, and as we evolve as society we are trying to filter what is indeed a social convention, or a biological trait.

You may state, fact after fact of cultural and social constructions, but the mere existence are not some sort of proof they are not sexist.
By reading some of your posts and your reinforcement of the biology as some sort of excuse for things that were created by a sexist society, i was reminded of an XVIII study that i had to analyze at Uni that claimed with all the might of medical Knowledge at the time, full of scientific quotations and measurements , that biology was against women being educated because their hips were weaker than men's and they could not be seated for long periods of time, without damaging them.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

true but when Male beauty is normally held in higher regard to a female's like in historic Japan. It was because he looked....more like a woman. It is kind of funny that even people like the Vikings found that Balder the passive and beautiful god was the equal to Freya in beauty though Balder was nowhere near as manly as say Odin or Thor (though Loki was counted as attractive as well).

For what I've learned from History I'm convinced, although with no scientific study to back me up so it's only a personal opinion, that the emergence of beauty has something almost exclusively in the realms of the feminine, it's actually quite a recent idea. Male beauty was extremely valuable in certain societies that's a fact, but if we study documents and books of certain periods, the time devoted to the description of male beauty rivals that of women's, and sometimes even surpasses it. Great beauty in men was in certain periods a ticket to greater things. Societies were so much focused on man that even physical beauty something that we commonly associate with women, was something that if a men possessed it seem to shadow even female beauty. Nowdays male physical beauty per se seems not to be taken seriously, it's seen as superficial, weak, soft, unless is backed up by a strong character, it was not always so.

 

[PinkGoddess]

But that's exactly The problem with your logic, just because things happen, doesn't mean they should happen. Or that we have to conform to the status quo. If i was in event with no dress code, i would not respond at all differently to a women wearing high heels or a pair of sneakers. It's quite a common situation.

Perhaps you wouldn't, but a large majority of people would respond this way. I'm merely trying to make the point that gender-based expectations aren't necessarily indicative of sexism.

Women have the unique ability to use their beauty and sex appeal to their advantage; Why should they forgo this merely to make themselves "equal" to men when they are not equal in this regard? Though I generally don't view the differences between men and women as flaws because they all exist for some purpose, obviously certain characteristics have beneficial aspects where others don't.

Do I think women look sexier with high heels? Yes, I do. Do I expect women to wear High heels to fulfill an expectation of what a women's role in society should be? Absolutely NOT.
We live in a world where things are expected of us no one can deny it, but expectations solely by gender are very dangerous and pernicious and that is what you have been defending from post one, and as we evolve as society we are trying to filter what is indeed a social convention, or a biological trait.

I have already stated that making judgements based on expectations regarding something as trivial as high heels is pointless. However, gender-based expectations are absolutely necessary; whenever two components are different, treating them as though they are the same has negative repercussions.

Why on Earth would you wish to filter out biological traits that each serve important purposes? Has the desire for political correctness brought people so far as to reject what is natural?

You may state, fact after fact of cultural and social constructions, but the mere existence are not some sort of proof they are not sexist.

By the definition of gender-based discrimination, Nature itself is sexist. How we perceive sexism in the negative sense is concerned primarily with ethics, not differential treatment. Don't confuse necessary differential treatment, with differential treatment that crosses ethical boundaries and forces women to fulfill their biological roles.

By reading some of your posts and your reinforcement of the biology as some sort of excuse for things that were created by a sexist society

Please lead me to a direct quote where I in any way, tried to excuse sexism.

i was reminded of an XVIII study that i had to analyze at Uni that claimed with all the might of medical Knowledge at the time, full of scientific quotations and measurements , that biology was against women being educated because their hips were weaker than men's and they could not be seated for long periods of time, without damaging them.

If you're trying to use the existence of bogus studies as some sort of evidence that objective research holds no merit, you might as well discredit every field of science altogether.

 

[michyed]

Oh, you've GOT to be kidding me!

SAYS WHO?!

Karma to you!

 

[Melisande]

Uncomfortably high heels are the corsets of today...sure, a tiny waist and hourglass figure have always been deemed attractive, but corsets are outmoded for a good reason. Now that we know that corsets are uncomfortable and unhealthy and that un-nipped women are just as beautiful, we are more likely to be surprised (perhaps even pleasantly, but nonetheless) when we do see them being worn. Of course they have their place here and there, but it's always a 100% conscious choice where the aspects of comfort, culture and style are carefully considered. Nowadays we laugh at the notion that women are "expected" to wear corsets or that an uncorseted woman is morally loose or just less attractive, which was the generally unquestioned view for a very long time.

Isn't it the same with very high heels?

Heels are way too culturally loaded today. Sure, they are often lovely. But I hope the day will come when heels are a special item, a conscious choice and not the norm, much less the expected. It made me literally sick to the stomach to read of the pregnant women tottering on stilettos. It's really sick. Lives are at stake.

And the idea that a woman may not get promoted because she wears flats is ridiculous... Actually quite funny...it's always our own choice to accept and fall victim to such ideas.

 

[from: sophia]

It made me literally sick to the stomach to read of the pregnant women tottering on stilettos. It's really sick. Lives are at stake.

And the idea that a woman may not get promoted because she wears flats is ridiculous... Actually quite funny...it's always our own choice to accept and fall victim to such ideas.

I agree with this statement but still don't think that the only reason that women wear heels is because of men that's just ridiculous and sexiest to think that women hold that much stock in such ideas.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I've found that women who dress more like men in the workplace can do quite well ... heels are far from a requirement to get promoted anyplace I've ever been.

There seem to be some mistaken views floating around here I would recommend the book Why Him? Why Her? (which btw includes quite a bit of actual science) to anyone who thinks gender and attraction is simple ... right/left, black/white. It is not, and that's true even if you take people attracted to their own gender out of the mix (which of course should not be done if one wants to have any kind of clear picture of the spectrum of expression).

There are many women who are attracted to more 'feminine' characteristics in men (full lips, non-chiseled jaw, etc.) even without the pill.

Women are hardly uniquely capable of using beauty and sex appeal to their advantage; men do it every day, everywhere I've ever been, and there are a boatload of studies documenting the advantage of being goodlooking to either gender.

Additionally, I'd like to be shown a feminist today who doesn't acknowledge differences between men and women. The perspective being touted here as 'feminist' is extremely old school and out of date. Every mode of thinking and movement evolves. There's no point in arguing with a viewpoint that's not really held by anyone to speak of today.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

P

Why on Earth would you wish to filter out biological traits that each serve important purposes? Has the desire for political correctness brought people so far as to reject what is natural?

.

That's not at all what i said, I was saying that you seem to have trouble making distinction between what it is a biological trait and something that is a cultural construction. That's what progress has been giving women, the freedom from the reductive role of what was expected of them as females because society decided from times immemorial, that because apparently more delicate than men, more "beautiful" and the ones that carry babies , our role was solely solely to be ornamental and domestic related. It's not natural for women to wear high heels, the same way it was not natural for man to wear hats and they wore them religiously for centuries. It's simply cultural. You can live your entire life not wearing heels, not wearing a low cut top, never wearing a bit of make up, not having having babies or a husband, and still be a successful interesting woman. Where are those "natural" expectations that you are talking about? Expecting women to fulfill certain roles that society created for her based on nothing , for me it's simply and absolutely absurd . And sexist to an astonishing degree.

 

[The_Ida]

The differences between the races are purely physical, and the racial discrimination that has existed throughout history has not involved either specific races, or specific attributes assigned to races.

Eh? There are biological differences between races, as there is between women and men. You obviously don't get my point. You can't treat someone differently because of their race or gender, and most societies still do.

And hello specific attributes assigned to races...what about the Jews? OF COURSE they were and ARE discriminated against because of the really odd idea of them being rich, greedy, evil...all sorts of strange things. I could go on and on and on.

Same thing with women. I do not have great communication skills. I am not more emotional or sensible than most men. The list goes on. Basically, I don't have any of the psychological or emotional "characteristics" that you claim women to have. It's BS.

It's now more acceptable for women to posses some of what society used to perceived as male characteristics, at least where I live. That doesn't even apply to the rest of Europe. I think Scandinavia are decades further along than most of the Western civilization. It's not perfect, and there are still some very odd expectations towards women, but we're getting there.

When groups are discriminated against, the primary aim is simply to keep them powerless and assign arbitrary negative attributes, which is not at all the aim in a society that assigns women different roles.

Oh really? That is very naive.

Both men and women were not made to wear high heels. Expecting a women to wear high heels, just because she's a women, is indeed totally sexist.

Word.

 

[QUINNSTIL]

The differences between the races are purely physical, and the racial discrimination that has existed throughout history has not involved either specific races, or specific attributes assigned to races. When groups are discriminated against, the primary aim is simply to keep them powerless and assign arbitrary negative attributes, which is not at all the aim in a society that assigns women different roles.

I am utterly stupefied by this statement. Because of skin color, specific attributes were ascribed to specific races. Haven't you heard of minstrel shows? African Americans were characterized as being ignorant, lazy, stupid, superstitious buffoons because they were black. It's impossible and, quite frankly, rather asinine to even suggest that the problem of racial discrimination lies solely with physical differentiation. These prejudices were associated with skin color, just like women were and still are associated with certain set of "natural" attributes that are supposedly innate.

 

[Echoes]

So if a woman for example, wore sneakers to a formal event, you wouldn't be surprised?

Even if such an event had no dress code, we would still respond much more differently to a woman wearing sneakers than one wearing heels; that too is expectation.

Cybil Shepard was known for wearing sneakers with gowns to special events.

 

[PinkGoddess]

I am utterly stupefied by this statement. Because of skin color, specific attributes were ascribed to specific races. Haven't you heard of minstrel shows? African Americans were characterized as being ignorant, lazy, stupid, superstitious buffoons because they were black. It's impossible and, quite frankly, rather asinine to even suggest that the problem of racial discrimination lies solely with physical differentiation. These prejudices were associated with skin color, just like women were and still are associated with certain set of "natural" attributes that are supposedly innate.

I NEVER suggested that the problem of racial discrimination lies within physical differences, I said that physical differences are the only biological traits that differ among the races, and they are. Objective science has never proven otherwise, whereas plenty of reputable primate studies and anthropological studies support gender differences; they simply aren't popularized in most Western nations because they are not politically correct.

 

[PinkGoddess]

That's not at all what i said, I was saying that you seem to have trouble making distinction between what it is a biological trait and something that is a cultural construction.

You said "and as we evolve as society we are trying to filter what is indeed a social convention, or a biological trait." What does that mean, if not that we must reject nature?

That's what progress has been giving women, the freedom from the reductive role of what was expected of them as females because society decided from times immemorial, that because apparently more delicate than men, more "beautiful" and the ones that carry babies , our role was solely solely to be ornamental and domestic related. It's not natural for women to wear high heels, the same way it was not natural for man to wear hats and they wore them religiously for centuries. It's simply cultural. You can live your entire life not wearing heels, not wearing a low cut top, never wearing a bit of make up, not having having babies or a husband, and still be a successful interesting woman. Where are those "natural" expectations that you are talking about? Expecting women to fulfill certain roles that society created for her based on nothing , for me it's simply and absolutely absurd . And sexist to an astonishing degree.

I said it once and I'll say it again, you need to learn to make the distinction between differentiation and sexism, because the latter is not necessary for the former to exist. Facing the facts about the natural distinctions between men and women does not imply the support of unethical treatment of either men or women, and suggesting that it does is putting words in my mouth. We thankfully no longer live in a time where feminine characteristics limit women's freedoms, so repeatedly referring back to this is pointless.

 

[PinkGoddess]

Eh? There are biological differences between races, as there is between women and men. You obviously don't get my point. You can't treat someone differently because of their race or gender, and most societies still do.

Yes, but those biological differences are purely physical; the biological differences between men and women are wide-ranging.

You can treat someone differently if they ARE different. Just because there have been many instances throughout history where differences were either fabricated or imposed unethically does NOT mean we must pretend that actual differences are non-existent, or that the denial of actual differences will somehow eradicate sexism.

And hello specific attributes assigned to races...what about the Jews? OF COURSE they were and ARE discriminated against because of the really odd idea of them being rich, greedy, evil...all sorts of strange things. I could go on and on and on.

Every single attribute assigned to the Jews was negative. Women's roles as nurturing mothers (to give one example of a gender-based characteristic) is a positive and objective one (except of course, to those who see women as inferior). A society that seeks to keep women powerless would either deny that such a characteristic exists, or reduce its importance.

 

[Dego]

Women's roles as nurturing mothers is a positive and objective one .

Are you saying that a woman who never wants to bear a child and never feels the "instinct" to nurse, is a lesser woman?

 

[PinkGoddess]

There seem to be some mistaken views floating around here I would recommend the book Why Him? Why Her? (which btw includes quite a bit of actual science) to anyone who thinks gender and attraction is simple ... right/left, black/white. It is not, and that's true even if you take people attracted to their own gender out of the mix (which of course should not be done if one wants to have any kind of clear picture of the spectrum of expression).

Attraction as a whole is certainly not simple, but physical attraction definitely has many essential components.

Women are hardly uniquely capable of using beauty and sex appeal to their advantage; men do it every day, everywhere I've ever been, and there are a boatload of studies documenting the advantage of being goodlooking to either gender.

Being good-looking is certainly beneficial to both genders, but the majority of ways in which women can utilise their beauty and sex appeal are scarcely available to men to the same extent, when they actually are. The sex industry is a good example of this.

Additionally, I'd like to be shown a feminist today who doesn't acknowledge differences between men and women. The perspective being touted here as 'feminist' is extremely old school and out of date. Every mode of thinking and movement evolves. There's no point in arguing with a viewpoint that's not really held by anyone to speak of today

I'm not acknowledging any viewpoint as typically feminist; I refer to the propagandists who encourage the notion that gender is social construct as 'so-called feminists' because that is what they choose to call themselves (though in reality the opposite is true). These radicals certainly don't speak for all feminists, though sadly they are the ones given the most attention.

 

[PinkGoddess]

Are you saying that a woman who never wants to bear a child and never feels the "instinct" to nurse, is a lesser woman?

Copied and pasted:

Facing the facts about the natural distinctions between men and women does not imply the support of unethical treatment of either men or women, and suggesting that it does is putting words in my mouth.

 

[Dego]

Copied and pasted:

Facing the facts about the natural distinctions between men and women does not imply the support of unethical treatment of either men or women, and suggesting that it does is putting words in my mouth.

Then, what do you mean by:

"Women's roles as nurturing mothers is a [...] objective one."


And, for the sake of discussion here, what do you regard as the major differences between men and women, apart from physiological?

 

[iluvjeisa]

Additionally, I'd like to be shown a feminist today who doesn't acknowledge differences between men and women. The perspective being touted here as 'feminist' is extremely old school and out of date. Every mode of thinking and movement evolves. There's no point in arguing with a viewpoint that's not really held by anyone to speak of today.

You could come to Sweden and talk with feminist groups here. Some of them actually staunchly believe there are no mental differences between men and women.

It seems all of these discussions are quite hampered by the little thing called statistics. You can say that something is more common in one group than in another. This might simply mean that whereas in one group 100 out of 10.000 people have a trait and in another it's 10 in 10.000.

It's perfectly possible to say there are differences, but that these differences do not allow generalization.