Asa feminist what do you think about the burkha/niqab, liberating or oppressive?

[DarlingDuck]

.

"The choice to wear what you like is the same. Each is pre conceived by the male ideology"

I thought about this for a bit and came to the conclusion that us women are imposing make-up, clothing, and heels on ourselves because we want to continue to look attractive to men. We also diet and try to stay slim like we naturally were in our late teens and early twenties for this very reason.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, it is entirely reasonable for men to be attracted the most fertile women/girls who have the best chance of a healthy offspring. That would be late teens and 20s, where girls have rosy cheeks, slim bodies, perky breasts, etc. This is what men find most attractive, and this is what we try to imitate with make-up, diets, etc.

This is not "male ideology" dictating us how to dress and be. We could stop trying to look younger, and let our age show with gray hair (no hair dye), pale skin and lips (no make-up), wear comfy track suits to go with our figure that naturally gets rounder as years go by. But then we would have no hope of competing with younger women, and most of us just can't let that happen.

Evolutionary viewpoint? Sorry Cote, I seriously don't think we all behave like troops of baboons or flocks of geese. Do you genuinely think it's all about biological determinism that women choose to dress and appear a certain way?

You should be sorry, because you clearly don't understand what evolutionary viewpoint means. It is not about herd behavior.

I was obviously referring to men finding youthful physical characteristics attractive (because those indicate higher fertility) and us women using make-up, creams, diets, hair dye, Botox etc to prolong/pretend them because we want to remain attractive.

My point was that "male ideology" isn't making us do any of this. In fact, if we just let our face get pale and our hair grey, I suspect that men would have no problem with turning their attention to younger women.

So marketing counts for nothing then. All those millions spent trying to make people buy things they don't actually need, completely wasted because we're just doing what evolution dictates.

I am talking about why we out on make-up, heels, go on endless diets, and squeeze into little dressed on nights on.

You are talking about clothing details - exact height of shoes (Kitten heel? Platform?), colors of the season, hair styles (fringe?) etc are indeed determined by the fashion industry including magazines who have a vested interest in all of us continuing to buy different clothes/shoes. EVEN THIS is not "male ideology". Fashion industry is overwhelmingly female dominated, with a high percentage of gays among the male minority. So no, it makes no sense whatsoever to point at fashion as evidence of male ideology.

I am talking about why we put on make-up & heels, go on endless diets, and squeeze into little dresses on nights on, rather. Stupid auto-correct.

Okay, I guess that means that I fundamentally disagree with you as to why women do those things. In many countries and cultures, it's more common for the men to "dress to impress" the women, not the other way round. Even amongst animals and birds, it's the males that have the most colourful and elaborate appearance / displays to attract females.

Imho, the fact that it's reversed in Western societies (i.e. that femininity and female identity is bound up in appearance and being appealing to men,) says to me that this is socialised, not innate.

Oh dear. Yes, I'm sure women starve themselves so thin they couldn't possible have periods .... for 'evolutionary' reasons.

They'll be dead fertile at a size zero, I'm sure.

Regardless who runs the fashion/beauty industries, they advance themselves by playing to the deepest insecurities that have been drummed into females since birth- the fear of being unattractive.

That insecurity comes from the patriarchal set up that made a woman dependent on a man for her livelihood and therefore she'd better be pretty if she wanted to live well.... no doubt there s a male "evolutionary" preference for a bit of young skirt, but the fact that women have traditionally pandered to it for so long is down to economic survival in an unfair system, not nature.

It's interesting that in this day and age, when women have made strides in many areas, the whole "thou-shalt-be-pretty" crap is shoved down our throat harder than it ever was. A world full of happy feminist women wouldn't be good for the economy that's for sure.

Anorexia is a disorder, not normal or rational behavior. It has been diagnosed since 19th Century, way before it became fashionable to be very thin.

Ha ha ha, by the way

messy - I understand where you are coming from re women dependent on men, but what about a large percentage of women who are economically independent in the Western world? Why are they dying their hair, wearing heels, putting on make-up, and some even smoothing out their wrinkles with Botox?

I am talking about these women who have a choice in the matter when I say that men don't make women bend over backwards to cheat time and look younger, it is us women who want to remain in the game, as it were.

KRITIQ - From your last post, I get the impression that you misunderstood what I was saying re "evolutionary viewpoint".

I didn't say that women try to remain attractive for evolutionary reasons, which is what you are arguing against with examples from animal species.

I said men find youthful characteristics like pink cheeks, toned bodies, hair without gray etc attractive and that their attraction to young women in their peak years of fertility is understandable from an evolutionary viewpoint.

It is not a controversial statement, and I suspect you are arguing against because you misunderstood my previous post.

I'm not so sure that feminism is not compatible with world economies. Unless by economy you mean 10%.

The religious view of this thread is a moot point. The only thing that will make the world go around is the same thing that has always made it go around.....money and power (usually in that order).

That individuals chose a religious standpoint is one thing, but ultimately, it's going to be the bankers that write the laws behind everything. Do you really think for one second that they care? It's all about the powerful keeping groups of people divided to sell more munitions so they can control the world population (and divisions based on "sex" have been the really "in" thing for the last 75 years. It's also about keeping those on the bottom rungs of society placated with flashy lights and "self help" devices. All snake oil.

Why not make an issue out of every little thing along the way? They want you to do that.

Organized religions have almost always been used by those in power as a means of control.

While this argument does not disprove the existence of a deity, it certainly sheds light in the dark corners.