Social conditioning - a thread for those who admit it impacts on them.

[SomersetONeil]

This topic seems to be so hotly denied on many threads I read on here (MN in general, that is).

Or else, admitted, but denied on a personal level. As in, 'OK sure, societal conditioning happens, but I choose to do X because I prefer it'. Acknowledgement of societal conditioning, but a peronal distancing of themselves from it, as if they're above such things.

We all undertand how marketing works, how social norms and unseen pressures work, and yet so many people insist it doesn't work on them.

Is it because to admit you're affected by it means you're somehow not very smart, don't have much nous, susceptible, gullible? What?

People also say that the accusation of social conditioned is patronising. Why?

I'm intelligent, well-read, educated, and I fully admit to being socially conditioned on so many levels. I'm not in the least bit patronised by the suggestion. Why would I be so arrogant as to believe that I am immune to it?

Anyone else?

Absolutely agree. And more insidious things that I'm realising our dds are conditioned into thinking.

eg, I work from home and do most of the domestic stuff during the week, whereas DH goes 'out' to work and is away a lot, and even though my income is substantial, apparently I don't have a 'proper' job ...

Obv. because I don't dress up in a suit every day and get the 7.20 train it somehow doesn't count.

Of course we are all - men and women - socially conditioned, otherwise we would belch openly in restaurants and fart spectacularly in business meetings.

One thing I really get from this thread is that all of the "conforming" things cost money: make up / regular hair dye / hair cuts / new clothes / shoes / handbags / glossy magazines / keeping up with the latest technology etc.

We are all socially conditioned to keep up with so many supposedly desirable things and it is almost impossible to step back from the advertising / what everyone else looks like, because we can see these items all the time. There is a lot of hard sell associated with the products, because the companies advertising them want us to buy their products obv.

Is it paranoid to assume that the Patriachy (if you believe in it being a conspiracy, not just a by product of advertising / business etc) doesn't want us to save for our own old age as we are too busy primping ourselves when we are young/ getting on a bit and trying to stay looking young etc? Wasting our time / energy on the trivial because that way we do not change the status quo?

How many of us have financial autonomy and have savings for the future, or have we all spent it on "conforming"? This is why the feminism threads can be frightening; the die hard feminists are trying to get us to see the bigger picture, we are all focusing on the focus surrounding ourselves.

BTW I'm using we, you and us in a general way, so am not as coherent as I had hoped, I've not had a chance to read most of the thread yet, so am not commenting on anyone else's personal POV.

Hmm I think that's capitalism rather than the patriarchy. Capitalism uses patriarchy to create product desire and hence spend, perhaps. But it'll happily use any other tools eg fear for our children 's safety (plug guards which I still use though I've read articles stating they aren't any safer than not having them etc).

My DD is 13 and is still very socially non-conforming.

Doesn't shave, or wear make up or nail varnish.

I often wonder if and when she'll cave in.

thedoctrine. You are probably right about it being capitalism not Patriachy. I'm a bit confused about the terms as each Feminist book I've read does tend to muddle them too or admit to crossover, based on the author's personal political stance.

I'm going to read the thread properly before diving in next time.

Green hill don't worry about reading the thread, yours was the first point like that! I do separate patriarchy and capitalism, though each will use the other's strictures, but haven't read many books on it.

Patriarchy and capitalism are inextricable IMO. Both require inequality in society and use the other as a means of achieving it.

Greenhill - yy to the cost, especially for UK women. But the fake tan, hair extensions, gel nail thingies, eye lash perms, eye lash extensions look is so errrrrr fake.

Really think that climate has a huge influence. I cannot imagine having hair extensions in the heat here. It'd be like wearing a wool hat. Make up just slides off in the Summer. Not sure what sea water would do to gel nails but I've never noticed them here. Spray tan not needed as we are outside in the Summer. Actually as we are outside so much, less bombardment by the media, etc from the TV. More realistic body expectations as we see people of all ages in speedos and bikinis from May to October.

Hmmmmmmm, all very interesting.

I think capitalism and patriarchy are easy to mix up because they are so intertwined and capitalism definitely exploits the insecurities left by our patriarchal legacy, eg. our fears about not being pretty enough.

wrt. OP, I'd say that I suffer from stereotype threat a lot. Especially when I'm doing something technical, parking the car, or learning anything that is deemed to be a male area of knowledge. Logically I know I am capable but the doubts always niggle.

Oh, and shaving definitely for exactly the reasons Dahlen mentioned up thread.

Great thread idea BTW

Chandon - my point is that it isn't actually that easy to be non-conformist if you are the boss - people have all sorts of societal expectations of you and how you should behave/dress when you are in a position of authority, including your own team(s). You can only get away with it if you are really, really good at your job!

God yes. I'm socially conditioned to get upset that the house isn't sparkling. I feel responsible for this. DH does not though he should since it's his mess. Having an untidy house makes me feel miserable. This is silly - I know it is. But there you are.

Having a MIL who openly criticises the state of our house doesn't help. Hers is new-pin territory. My own mother (who kept a nice house although not showhouse like MIL) says it's very clean and quite tidy enough and I just don't / can't hear her. I ought to be able to put this into perspective but it pushes a button of mine that society has created iyswim...

The strong will exploit the weak regardless of who the strong happen to be. If you think putting more women in charge will make any difference you're deluding yourselves.

Gosh, I don't think wanting a clean and tidy house is social conditioning. I have tidied my personal space since I was a tiny girl voluntarily whereas my sister's room was always a fleapit. I am naturally tidy and hate clutter - it's got nothing to do with what anyone tells me to do and everything to do with my own tidy mind!

I gave in and had my hair cut today. Couldn/t believe the comments it generated. Hairdresser wanted to know if I'd like some colour to cover my grey. I'm 36 but a couple of grey hairs are aging me.....so what ? Still couldn't bring myself to ever flash a hairy pit at someone. Apparently I now look more professional because heaven forbid I have long hair at my age. And I'm meant to be the boss.

"The strong will exploit the weak regardless of who the strong happen to be. If you think putting more women in charge will make any difference you're deluding yourselves."

Oh absolutely. I actually women are more exploitative than men.

The strong will exploit the weak regardless of who the strong happen to be. If you think putting more women in charge will make any difference you're deluding yourselves.

Disagree. I think me being the boss does make a difference.

Blistory - that's down to your character, not because you are female.

Bonsoir - do you think women are more exploitative because they have been socially conditioned into using less aggressive, less direct methods of achieving their own way? Manipulation and exploitation of circumstances as they present themselves have always been the tools of the less powerful, because those in power can take what they want without having to resort to these methods because they have a social mandate to do so.

Who knows what men and women would be like without any power imbalance between the sexes?

So why do UK women spend so much money on fake tan, fake hair, etc..... It's damn expensive and a huge financial drain. Women who have no financial independence is the first step to dependence, generally on either the state or a man. Yes, social conditioning, obviously but is there any other country in Europe which takes grooming to this level?

I only found out today that you can have your eye lashes permed. Seriously?? Permed eyelashes? Mumsnet is veeeery informative.

I think that women are more exploitative because (gross generalisation) they are, as a group, less well trained in rational thinking that are men. And rational thinking improves people moral conscience.

Is fake hair really a big thing, generally?

Would it be possible to avoid this descending into an antagonistic argument over which sex is the more exploitative out of men and women and just get back on track...

I'd like to add that when on a first date I offer to pay/go halves but don't insist upon it because the singing chorus in my head is going "You'll emasculate him.. do doo do wup"

I'm looking at my baby daughter and thinking there is a lot of conditioning between me and her - right now she is sitting in a cheese sandwich and spreading the crumbs around.

Socialisation is absolutely essential - (though the lack of it in little ones is very endearing).

There are, I believe two types of conditioning:

1. The conditioning that helps us to remain part of a community and function within it without being alienated.
2. The conditioning to preserve the current status quo. This is non-rational conditioning since it can't stand up to reason and just is.

Behaviours such self-policing and policing others to ensure the formalised inequality of the status quo (type 2) is always framed as just being a considerate/decent/dignified person (type 1). And for those who faithfully uphold the status quo like this, it is incredibly threatening to point out its lack of foundation. Its what 'The Emperors New Clothes' is all about.

I think the way you can tell the difference between the two types of conditioning is if they are not universally the same for everyone, and indicate rank. For example 'body hair is shameful' - but only on women. The 'right to sport body hair is according to status' - males only.

We as a gregarious species will always need to be social and function in a way that does not lead to being ostracised, but there is no necessity that the status quo is the way it is.