To want to wear make up and high heels

[WheresTheCat]

Harumph. Have just skimmed through Julie Birchill's article in the weekend papers (I know - I'm running behind!) Apparently women only wear heels and make up as we are slaves to men.

I am so fed up with all the judgements about what women wear. Surely we should wear what we want as long as we're happy. For me it's high heels and make up, for my BF it's trainers and jeans. It doesn't matter.

And, Julie Birchill, it doesn't make me a bad person/anti-feminist/unintelligent if I choose to dress the way I do.

I agree femininity is culturally and socially defined.

We all make an impression through the way we look, to which some will respond and others won't. But what each person is looking for is different.

I have a 'mate' already. Definitely don't want another one. So it will be OK if I just stop trying? Hurrah.

We are more than the products of our hormones - attracting the opposite sex shouldn't be the be all and end all. Most animals spend a fraction of their lives attracting mates and making babies - the rest of the time they are free to do other stuff. Why do human have to spend so much of our lives tied up in knots about it all?

Oops, I think you've grabbed hold of the wrong end of the argument.

I don't think so, its very basic biology. The cultural overlays define what you wear to be seen as atractive in any one culture, not why you wear it (although the underlying rules of displaying health, youth etc stay the same) .

Most animals spend a fraction of their lives attracting mates and making babies - the rest of the time they are free to do other stuff. Why do human have to spend so much of our lives tied up in knots about it all?

Human females are fairly unique among all animals in that they can conceive nearly all the time, hence the attention it gets. If we only came on heat once a year it would be so much less hassle!.

But how many prehistoric women wore makeup and high heels? Yet they still seem to have managed to reproduce!

You should have a quick Google at how long women have been using makeup etc. Stone age Jimmy Choos were a bit impractical though :)

It's not just reproductive health anymore. Wealth and wealth potential are huge factors.

Being very thin is fashionable, so it's not all round bodies made for reproduction. Being thin is a mark of free time and not eating cheap sugar based food.

Being very thin is fashionable, so it's not all round bodies made for reproduction. Being thin is a mark of free time and not eating cheap sugar based food.

Social status markers also signifiy fitness, always has done - like "lily white" skin was when (European) women were all outside and being tanned was when most women work inside and few could afford a Meditteranean holiday.

But the underlying reason for finding it attractive stays the same.

As someone who is naturally thin, I am pleased things have swung my way. Or more importantly for any naturally thin children I might have.

As an aside I am much freer to do what I want now I am married, I wear what I want just for fashion and my own enjoyment.

When I was younger I used to wear all sorts of fashionable anti-attraction devices (studenty stuff, no heels etc). Still got bombarded by men, to the point of irritation.

I like being out of the 'market' these days.

Bombarded by men you say, MarshaBrady. What an awful drag for you.

No really it was! Oi love, oi you, oi how about you sit over here (shouting out of cars). I didn't grow up in UK.

My friends and I hated it, it wasn't just me. Luckily we did some feminism at university at the same time. Taught us that we weren't meant to find it flattering, but intrusive.

Eh? My DP does not like me in heels, but I like them, so I wear them (with his understand ing that i like them THAT much). I don't wear them at home because I don't have many nice things and don't want to wear them out too quickly.

Evolutionary psychology actually has quite a lot to say about why women find different types of men attractive?

There is a load of academic literature out there, but to briefly summarise (and generalise a complex and varied body of work!): Some research suggests that individual women find different types of men attractive at different times of their cycle, i.e. when they're likely to conceive they find men with more typical masculine traits more attractive, and when they're not they find men with less masculine traits to be more attractive. The basic theory behind this is that women prioritise indicators of good genes - high levels of symmetry and very masculine characteristics - more when they are likely to need to use those genes in reproduction, while less masculine traits -indicative of lower testosterone, unthreatening character, less likely to run off with another female, 'good father' - are more attractive when not prioritising conception.

Other work suggests that this also applies to different phases of the female life cycle; so when women are in their prime reproductively they prefer more masculine men, and either side of that phase - when they're younger and when they're older - they prefer less masculine man.

So from an evolutionary point of view, women should prefer 'masculine men' to get pregnant with, and less masculine men as 'life partners'!

But work is also beginning to be done looking at variations among women in terms of the resources they hold; some initial work suggests that women who have greater confidence in their own ability to provide for themselves place less importance on 'stable, long-term provider' traits in a partner, but more importance on good genes.

All this obviously happens in a very variable sociocultural context, so for example the fact that as a rule we tend to think we should settle down with just one partner for life limits our opportunity to express these evolved biological preferences for different characteristics in short / long term partners. Hormonal context is also important - contraception that messes with our hormones could also influence our perception of what is attractive.

Hope that makes some sense; I'm typing on my phone so bit difficult to preview!

Once again I find it depressing that so many women judge other women for their perfectly legitimate life choices rather than celebrating those choices

But work is also beginning to be done looking at variations among women in terms of the resources they hold; some initial work suggests that women who have greater confidence in their own ability to provide for themselves place less importance on 'stable, long-term provider' traits in a partner, but more importance on good genes.

Yes, there is quiet a lot of that work looking in parallel at the impact of mass contraception.

nobody is saying that we don't have the biological urge to attract, and reproduce with, biological partners.

what we're saying is that the definition of attraction is made up by society. we live in a patriarchal society, and the norms and values of that society reflect that.

so, yes, biology prompts us to be attractive.

deciding that a tan = attractive is because of society NOT biology.

There is a lot of 'science' on both sides of the argument, but women being weak & looking for strong men is a realtively modern & western thing.

Examples of women ebing strong, and/or not looking for big, strong men.
The legendary cave dwellers (actually many of them were nomadic or lived in tents etc) - men were expected to be fast, lithe. Women did a lot of planting, gathering etc so likely to be muscular & strong.
Modern non-westernized society - women carry water & tend fields. Manual, difficult work.
Pearl divers - requiring immense stamina to dive (with no apparatus) to depth & hold breath - done by women. Often results in bad scarring of the arms through reaching through rocks to get the oysters.
Fat on women is attractive & they are force fed to gain wieght. Men wear visible wealth and gain weight to be attractive. No muscles to flexx and make the babes swoon.

So, wear whatever you want, I have no judgement to make, except it tells me something about how you like to dress. I won't think you are better or worse for it. You probably just want to feel/be attractive, without specifically trying to attract a mate. You just want it to be known that you could if you wanted to.

But don't claim that biology hard wired you to wear heels & a push-up bra.Society has taught you that. If you had grown up in a different society, you might be trying to look shorter & flat chested.

Sorry - In Mauritania fat on women ...

AHEM!

Kayano! Eye shadow!

:o

what we're saying is that the definition of attraction is made up by society. we live in a patriarchal society, and the norms and values of that society reflect that.

No, the rules of attraction are defined by biology. Young, nubile and high status will always rule for women. It's got little to do with "the patriarchy" and more to do with reproductive fitness.

Society IMO merely defines how this is implemented.

But don't claim that biology hard wired you to wear heels & a push-up bra

No one is arguing that - as I pointed out above, the stone agers struggled with stone Jimmy Choos. What i will claim is that biology defines why a push up bra and high heels work.

I love my comfy combats and t shirts, but love to dress up once in a while, I can't wear makeup so much now as I have allergies to numerous things and I have a chipped bone in my foot so heels are a no no too!
I must say I do miss them!
Balls to anyone who says men rule us if we wear heels... I just wear what I feel like wearing that day

ooooh the law of the thread...if you wait long enough eventually people turn up who agree with you and make your arguments sound better and more reasonable...

On the other hand people have demanded answers to questions they didnt ask me....

To answer one of the ones that was actually aimed at me, no I dont wear bin bags...I dont like the plasticy sweaty thing that happens. Also my current bin bags have some sort of disinfectant impregnation which smells odd.

HTH

kickassangel I'm absolutely with you on the nature/nurture debate!
(It's my understanding that much of 'evolutionary psychology' is a mixture of just-so stories and cod psychology )

What i will claim is that biology defines why a push up bra and high heels work.

And yet there are various societies in various continents and countries (humans, so presumably with the same biological make-up as the rest of us) where turning up for a day's hunting and gathering in a push-up bra would have you laughed out of the village. Where cleavage and gravity-defying breasts simply aren't seen as sexual or desirable at all. Probably just a a big snigger-worthy.

Nobody is saying that humans don't aim to attract other humans, nor strive to look the best they can for a myriad different reasons (only one being to attract a mate - what human women conceiving every month has to do with anything once they've chosen a monogamous partner and maybe even finished their family, I have no idea).

The point is - can't believe it needs spelling out again - the huge gulf in difference between the effort men go to and the demands placed on them compared with women.

Only one side of this debate is presenting a cogent argument for why this is.

The other side is simply saying 'men attract women in different ways than women attract men'. Well, forgive me if I don't simply accept such a basic, unquestioning statement at face value.

Great post kickassangel.

and slinkingoutside

And why do so many features of 'biological' sexual desirabilty make you feeble - tight skirts, high heels, unnaturally big breasts?

And why does something go from being perceived as making you very unattractive to very attractive? Either it's hard-wired biologically or it's not...?

Ante-bellum southern belles went to great lengths with their parasols to avoid any sun at all, keeping their skin as pearly-white and freckle-free as possible to markedly distinguish themselves from slaves working under the hot sun. An indicator of their wealth and position in society.

And then a few decades later, a tan is perceived as desirable, indicating health and an ability to travel to sunny climes and lounge around in the sun. An indicator of wealth...

We're also told a tan is slimming. And yet those same southern belles were out-corseting each other and congratulating themselves for nipping in their waists to circumferences of 16 inches - way slimmer than waists now. Clearly being slim was important to them, and yet they didn't employ one of the methods we do these days to achieve it.

For anyone to seriously suggest this is ALL down to biology is just in denial.

This is just one, obvious, example. There are loads where something deemed to be a way of making one attractive has changed dramatically and even reversed. To deny the impact of society and sociology is just weird.

I think claiming biology is often a cheap rhetorical trick used to try win an argument.
A bit like saying that something is 'just human nature'
Thereby begging the question of whether there is such a thing as human nature