To think that Personal Beauty Standards/Choice is not "Social Conditioning"

[MammyZ]

Just on the back on the toenail painting thread - my response to that one would be - Of course you don't have to paint them, your feet and toenails really just need to look clean and tidy. However, if your personal standard is that you like your nails painted especially with open-toed shoes, then for a wedding you will probably feel better if you can find the time to do them!

Of course there were many different responses on thread ranging from "you defo need to paint them!' to "why would you bother painting them?". And then there were comments that painting your nails is a result of the patriarchy or social conditioning that women are subject to.

Personally I wouldn't be the very highest maintenance woman but I have highlighted my dark-blond hair since I was 16 (I don't run back to the salon after 6-8 weeks), I love getting shellac on my fingers and toes (I get the toes done about 5 times a year and just clip them in the meantime as they grow!). I also always wear foundation in public but that's because I have rosacea and feel more confident with the redness covered. I am very particular about looking after my sensitive skin to manage this also.

But for a wedding I think that there's an effort that I like to make - whether this be shaven legs (I'm fairly fair so I'm not obsessive about shaving all time but for a wedding it's a minimum in my book), a bit of tan and painted nails if I'm wearing sandals, or tights if closed-toe.

Do some people really think that I and others only do these things because I have been socially conditioned by the patriarchy? Where is the line between grooming - which takes effort and time also - and crossing into doing things because we think it's expected of us?

I personally think it's my own personal standard and choice to do these things because I love the way I feel when they're all done. And I enjoy the time that I put in to and the effort I put into getting ready for an event.

The point is that your 'choice' is not being made in a vacuum.

I can promise you that if you lived alone on a desert island you wouldn't do any of it. It's all for other people. Not necessarily men but because you want to project an image. You feel better about yourself if you feel like you look nice, like you've made an effort.

There's nothing wrong with that at all - we all do it. Even those of us who reject beauty standards are still making a choice about social conditioning.

Are my choices only because I think it's expected of me?

Your choices aren't made in a vacuum but are influenced by the society you live in and want to be a part of.

Do you think if you'd been born in 1850 you'd still darken your legs and lighten your hair?

Do you think it you'd been born in an Amazonian tribe with no outside contact you'd want to paint your toenails?

If you'd been born male would you think shaving your legs for a wedding is a bare minimum?

You should watch the scene in The Devil Wears Prada where Miranda Priestley tells Andy why she chose a blue cardie.

Why do women wax/shave legs etc before a date, if not for the patriarchy

Yes, it is social conditioning. Why do you think painted nails look "nice"? It's because that's what you've been taught. Not necessarily by the patriarchy though, it's other women who have largely created these standards for you.

It's also really obvious that different groups have different norms for grooming standards. e.g the people I went to school with have very groomed/enhanced brows and lashes, the people I work with (teachers) don't, but in either group, whilst exceptions are not unheard of, they do stand out.

You are kidding yourself that it's not social conditioning.

feel more confident with the redness covered. I am very particular about looking after my sensitive skin to manage this also. This is because social conditioning means pressure for you to go out with flawless looking skin.

But for a wedding I think that there's an effort that I like to make - whether this be shaven legs (I'm fairly fair so I'm not obsessive about shaving all time but for a wedding it's a minimum in my book), a bit of tan and painted nails if I'm wearing sandals, or tights if closed-toe. also social conditioning. I'm not suggesting that you attend looking dishevelled and scruffy but you do this because you want to advertise that you made the effort to conform to societal norms like hair removal.

Definitely for the patriarchy. I only bother shaving if I'm in a relationship (or looking) for example.

Other women can be flying monkeys for the patriarchy. The whips are in our own heads now.

Making an effort for a wedding is in itself social conditioning, surely?

Personal beauty standards don't happen in a vacuum. Example is during lockdown, most people relaxed their so-called personal beauty standards (because no one was judging and there was no one to impress because there was nowhere to go), and for many, it completely disappeared.

It's social conditioning that causes what we may think of as personal choice. I'd sooner call something less socially influenced or a personal standard if it goes against social norms. Otherwise, it's not so easy to tell.

Weird. We live in a society. We survived only by being part of a group

Day to day I don't shave, I get my hair done about 3 times a year, usually when it gets too heavy to tie up. I don't wear make up to work, or do my nails.

But for special occasions I'd do some or most of those things. I fully acknowledge that the extra grooming above being clean is social conditioning. I want others to see me look my best by our current cultural standards. And the days when I don't do those things, it's also influenced by social conditioning.

Of course! And we can see from art in history that humans have made an effort for special occasions and celebrations for thousands of years.

And look, this isn't even necessarily about me, and I'm not so naive that I don't think and know that all the things we do are socially influenced.

BUT my point is that I DO recognise that not shaving your legs is an option, and the world won't end if I went out with a bit of visible fluff on my legs. And nowadays there's the freedom to not shave your underarms if you don't want to. If I saw/met someone who didn't do it I have no judgement, I recognise they are making the free choice not to do it. And I'm making the choice to do it (every now and then when I remember!)

My view is that everything we do to our bodies beyond the minimum necessary for comfort, health and hygiene is rooted in our socialisation in one of 3 ways.

1. To comply with societal expectations (patriarchy)
2. To deliberately flout societal expectations (as set by the patriarchy)
3. Because we enjoy looking at our own appearance in a certain way (our tastes will have been influenced by the patriarchy in either way 1 or 2 above)

So, unless you do no grooming other than be clean and weather appropriate you are acting under the influence one way or another. People who are defyers tend to be a bit sniffy about complyers, but it's two sides of the same coin.

Ah but you forget that some people are socially conditioned to turn up on every thread to let women know that they are puppets of the patriarchy.

I agree with you OP . All of the things I choose to do are for me and always has been but I really don't care if other people don't . It makes me feel great !

It's obviously both choice and social conditioning. Nobody makes their choices in a vacuum, uninfluenced by society. If you were a man, painting your toenails would almost certainly not be part of your 'persona beauty standards'. Therefore it is at least partly social conditioning that has led to your choice. The fact that you can choose does not make you automatically independent of social conditioning.

The journalist Jessica Defino is good on this topic, and eye opening in pointing out what's behind the grooming we think is our choice.

Oh and that doesn't make women who paint their toenails 'puppets of the patriarchy'. It makes them human beings who are a product of the society they live in, as we all are.

Referring to it as 'standards' has an implied judgement inherent as well

People who criticise others for conforming to “social conditioning” are odd though. Who are these people who float outside the social ether, utterly unimpacted by it?

This

I don't know why this is a new thread,could all be said on the other one.

Of course it's social conditioning, how could it NOT be?

I mean, I do a lot of it, some stuff I don't. Don't care about whether anyone else does it, but it's absolutely social conditioning

I take your point that it might come across like that yes. I would have personal practices that I would consider my own standards - but I do recognise them as my standard rather than A standard that others should meet. But I take the point on the language, even with my explanation of the context it can have an implied judgment.

Everyone wants to think they are an individually and immune to social conditioning LOL.