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?

But why the extremism in the UK? Stubble on legs and heavy duty stubble underarms - perfectly acceptable here. Hair left to dry naturally, especially in Summer - perfectly acceptable. Sweat patches under stubbly arms - normal as it is so fooking hot. In July, arriving at work with sweat patches on back was also the norm.

It just seems so much effort is needed by women in the UK. Waaaaaay more than most other countries. (Huge generalisation, obviously)

florencejon, then I want to live where you live!!

Florence, I do not recognise either the UK or any Mediterranean country (except, possibly, Turkey and Greece) from your posts. You seem to be generalising very broadly indeed, and highly focused on cosmetic appearance. I know, for example, that social expectations on Greek and Turkish women are very rigid in ways other than fashion.

FoodUnit, thanks for your post about two different kinds of conditioning! I realise I haven't consciously thought about this point for a very long time. Although I observe Type 1, it's the Type 2 that causes me self-inflicted shame and I am curious to explore what I could do about it.

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

messy - your username is perfect for my 'problem' - They're only easy to mix up because we live within capitalism. The USSR was as patriarchal as hell. As you implied above, patriarchy will exploit the tools of power, whatever they happen to be.

I dispute your other implication, that patriarchy is a thing of the past.

YY garlic - the USSR is why I dont think they are the same thing!

Bonsoir, your 1332 post is blowing my mind.
Are you actually saying a. that men think more rationally than women, and b. being rational makes them more morally aware, and c. lacking in the morals which hold back men, women do most of the exploiting in this world?
BOGGLE
Seriously?
How do you (rationally, if you can do this without your fanjo closing up) proceed from a to b, even if a has the faintest tiniest glimmer of any sense going for it, which it hasn't? And then, how do you honestly hold c?

Exploitation isn't actually a very good way of getting or staying ahead... Rational thinking is.

Lots of posts using the word 'exploit' atm. To clarify, my use was in the sense meaning "leverage" in business speak. Not the interpersonal version that is more like 'abuse'.

garlicnutty

"I dispute your other implication, that patriarchy is a thing of the past."

Me too garlic I dispute myself on this all the time! Are we in a patriarchy still or just recovering from the legacy of it?

The etymology of exploit is that the word was used to mean 'success' originally. Human evolution was based on the ability to exploit. Over time the word has taken on connotations of abuse.

Exploitation is a very useful skill and shows the ability to adapt to ever-changing circumstances. Whereas rational thinking works only if you have the power to put your plans into force I think.

I am a rational thinker. I am a woman. I have spent far more of my life adapting to the situations I find myself in than I ever had following my carefully thought out 'plans', and not because of lack of foresight, but because of circumstances that 9 times out of 10 could be neither predicted nor controlled by me.

I think Bonsoir might mean something more like "manipulate", rather than "exploit" as it is slightly more possible to create a legitimate dichotomy between rational and manipulative behaviour (though it's not water tight) than between rational and exploitative behaviour.

If I wanted to exploit a gold mine I would use rationality to best do that.
If I wanted to exploit a down-trodden workforce, I would still use rationality to do that. (though arguably using rationality to immoral ends)

I think Bonsoir might be referring to some received idea about women having sort of slimy animal cunning with which they manipulate people into giving them diamonds, rather than the sort of good honest chapliness of mind which would equip them to gain control of a diamond mine. Or something.
Anyway it's nonsense.

garlic - yes, I am focusing on personal appearance as so many younger women spend so much money on it. Much more than where I am. Just take a look at the style and beauty pages here on MN. (Still amazed that you can get your eye lashes permed by the way.) If they are frittering their money on that, then it has a whole range of implications and ramifications.

The social conditioning from culture to culture and country to country varies enormously and is a good starting point on why women feel the pressure to conform. Or at least I thought it was

Culturally, there is massive sexism in many subtle ways. Legally there is not. Having financial independence as a woman makes me stronger to fight the cultural sexism.

Absolutely loving your 15:24 post, Dahlen, though not pursuing it as I'll get too far into philosophee ...

Haha, messy, re patriarchy! Out of ten high-level decision makers, a maximum of two are female. Trace the owners of the products you buy and the services you use on a daily basis. You'll end up on the apex of a triangle, looking at less than ten corporations. Their top-level board members will, on aggregate, feature fewer than 2 women out of 10. That is, almost everything you use is owned by men.

Now think about how and why you consume those things. What proportion has been sold to you on the basis that it improves your acceptability as a woman?

Think about the structure of the companies that made money from you. Why don't they work revolving shifts and flexible hours, supporting men and women equally to shoulder their share of family life? How many of them insist that men take paternity leave? How many feature crèches at the workplace? Why don't they?

You might want to look into the working practices required of high-achievers: how often are they expected to go abroad at short notice, or stay away from home for other reasons? Since a lot of the corporations at your apex are banks, what about the bonding and development rituals carried out over late-night drinking at strip bars? What about the men-only golf and squash tournaments, too?

What's patriarchy again? Oh, yes, the domination of a society by men, in the male interest ....

I am part socially conditioned (I like to look good in the clothes I own and so follow fashion to some extent) but not in others. I shave my arm-pits but have never waxed. There's a lot of fashion you won't get me near and I don't wear make-up much or have my eye-brows done and so on. I would never have Botox, I hope that if I had daughters they wouldn't be conditioned to do the same.

Re fashion, I remember a friend of a friend cornering me at a party once and in a reassuring voice telling me how cool I was for the clothes I wore as they were all so individual. What I think she meant was ' don't worry, we don't like you any less because you're not fashionable like the rest of us'. I don't even think my 'style' is that different, it's just that I don't notice or care if my jeans are not 'in'. In fact, being on mumsnet has made me notice more about what people consider to be the in thing.

I honestly don't think most people I hang a out with care about having regular tans/ the latest handback etc.

Maybe it's a class or age thing.

Bonsoir Tue 18-Sep-12 09:04:30
I think men generally conform a huge amount. Most men I know are less creative than the women I know.

Bonsoir Tue 18-Sep-12 13:32:23
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.

Gross generalisations? Perhaps in both cases?

florencejon I don't think it is relevant to the thread to dwell on the extreme manifestations of 'sex inequality conditioning' that are particular to each culture.

FU I think it's interesting to hear about conditioning in different cultures.

"FU I think it's interesting to hear about conditioning in different cultures."

So do I, but I was speaking about dwelling specifically on the why's of the conditioning into particular grooming habits of British women- since it is not really speaking about conditioning in different cultures, more an examination of British cultural norms.

It certainly seems that we are conditioned to conform especially so when that conformity can only be achieved through consuming the products of someone elses labour. Historical materialism is a way of studying history and the way that I see it is that, capitalism creates products which it must then create a market for. One of the best ways to create a market is to play to peoples natural fears. We are social creatures, always have been, even in the iron age, we would have picked up clues from those around us about how to behave. Behaving and looking a certain way would infer status and therefore convey protection for ourselves and our young. Nothing has changed except that the levers for social change are firmly in the hands of the capitalist. How you look and behave may offer some protection and status but someone is picking your pockets, it's a no win game.

It's striking how capitalism and the forces of materialism shape how we behave, it even shapes how men behave which is why I think that historical materialism offers a better explanation for gender inequality than a simple single focus on patriarchy.

Bonsoir's whole life is a gross generalisation, is it not ?

Or do I mean "cliche"

Whaddeva, none of us believe a word of it

garlicnutty ..your post about two different kinds of conditioning! I realise I haven't consciously thought about this point for a very long time. Although I observe Type 1, it's the Type 2 that causes me self-inflicted shame and I am curious to explore what I could do about it.

I believe we should examine our conflicted feelings and be honest about them. I like the "I'm shaving my legs to conform to patriarchal beauty standards" explanation someone said upthread. By recognising it we can consciously choose which battles we want to fight - and having to explain hairy legs to your partner or a stranger may not be what you fancy for a quiet life. The important thing is to not perpetuate indoctrinating behaviours particular to social rank in our children (avoid saying 'that's not for the likes of you' or words to that effect), and examine the flinchy feelings we get when someone else doesn't conform, such as sporting unplucked eyebrows (and try hold those thoughts back from ever leaving our mouths).

Also I think taking part in threads like this is doing something about it - it raises consciousness and takes away the self-blame.

I'm all for raising consciousness.

Hello mini -

The idea of being "conditioned to conform" sounds a bit circular to me. If we didn't have the urge to conform we couldn't be conditioned in the first place.As you say, we are social animals.

I agree that businesses find ways to play to people's fears and securities about how they look, while making them feel more unhappy about how they measure up against unachievable ideals, in order to sell them stuff. But to me it seems to work more in the way of mindless evolution - responding to as much as actively shaping trends (thousands of companies trying all kinds of things and going with what sells).

I am always about your perception of capitalism as a no-win game, even as we sit in our centrally- heated homes spending time conversing with strangers using handheld computers. I do think it needs reform- particularly the capital markets, but I don't think it is no win at all.

I am reading a book on cultural evolution called "On The Origin of Teepees" at the momment. I think you might find it interesting.