Its all one big conspiracy

[yazz21]

Its only after all the transgender threads on here recently, that I've thought about feminism, and started looking into things. The more I read, the more I learn, the more shocked I am.

Its just like one massive conspiracy that I never saw. Now my eyes have been opened to it, I can't stop seeing it. (Not that I'd want to.) I see everything around me so differently. Just little things that all add up to keeping women subordinate.I never realised how much my behaviour, thoughts and actions is not innate, but things I've learned through socialisation.

I really wish I'd seen it all earlier, but for some reason I had this notion that feminism was just men hating women who were probably hairy and/or lesbians I wonder who benefitted from me thinking that.

I'm not sure what my point is really, but I feel really angry on behalf of women and really want to do something about it. However there are no feminist groups/meetings in my area, and I'm not well read enough to start one. Any other angry womenn here? Also if anyone could reccomend some books, so I can further my understanding. I would be really grateful.

Strips of cardboard and an old horse's fly sheet - sadly there are no pictures!

There aren't any pictures of my most epic costumes- I particularly regret my 5 minute Charles 1. But if we had stopped to take pictures we would have missed the train and the costume would no longer have been needed.

Love the wood louse card. I would always go for a woodlouse card over a kitten one.

But it's true that looking cuddly works in your favour in terms of conservation. Fungi that grows on tree roots helping them absorb stuff (scientific term) are endangered and then we would be all fucked, but they are not half as cute as giant pandas...

Sorry for the derail yazz. I do see what you mean and am here in solidarity.

Wow! That sounds pretty good :) very inventive!

Lord I think its that age old thing of subjects that are more at attractive, being more appealing/generating more interest than unattractive things (another scientific term!)

Mammals are well-disposed towards other mammals if they're not competing for resources (or being the resources!) Mammals are particularly well-disposed towards young mammals, which always have disproportionately large eyes compared to adults. Cats and some other mammals, like the slow loris, have very big eyes for their heads so we're inclined to treat them favourably. There's a fair amount of proper research on that :)

Wrt "people have always removed body hair": for one thing it's not true; for another the men in many of those cultures remove/d their body hair as assiduously as the women. And humans have done a load of weird shit to their bodies - those smooth-skinned ancient Egyptians also flattened their babies' heads to make them long & pointy, as did/do various native Americans and other cultures through history.

It is in no way 'normal' for humans of one sex to de-hair their bodies while the other sex stays furry.

I experimented with hairy legs for the last two years. I was a bit shocked that I'd never actually seen my own legs au naturel, and thought I should try & get over it. It took ages to get used to my own legs! Once I could stand the sight of them (and it took some work,) I took them out in skirts & shorts. As it happened, nobody stared much and not a soul said anything. I feel this meant I had internalised a social shame, such that I was self-policing - other members of my society wouldn't take it on themselves to police it for me.

Interesting, but I'm back to waxing this year. I'm afraid I feel more comfortable about it, even though the censure I imagine isn't really happening

I was going to ask about body shaming. It's being presented as a given but outside of sleb magazines who will always find something to pick at does anyone much notice in the real world? Your experience is no they don't.

I see my legs unshaved in winter - what is the point of shaving when I'm wearing opaque tights ? It's not a shock but they look nicer shaved. Five minutes once a week with a Bic disposable razer - not a big deal.

But there is competition on looks in the mammal world too. Cats, big and small , wolves, horses, red pandas are the market leaders. Hippos are nowhere except may be as jokes. Sorry more derail.

"Look nicer". What does that mean?

More pleasing to my eye. Kittens over wood lice. A Chanel suit rather than a track suit from Asda. Ballet pumps rather than trainers.

May be you don't apply any judgements to anything in your life.

I do. I also think about why I do.

Bully for you. I just think the things I listed are nicer for me and are what I like.

Actually that's not entirely true. Most of my clothes are bought from makers who manufacture in the UK and the Netherlands. Better working conditions.

Good for you.

I'm sorry to have got off on the wrong foot in responding to Buffy. As for using 3rd person rather than 2nd ("Buffy said" rather than "You said") its a question of judgment when we respond to a person's message here, are we talking to them directly or addressing a wider group? I feel as if it would be excluding other people to say "You" but maybe that's wrong.

I'm intrigued by the ways we (women and men) are allowed or required to present ourselves in public. Since Buffy apparently won't be answering my suggestion that "women have more freedom" as far as clothing is concerned, I'll answer it myself. Yes, it's obviously true, but maybe it's an odd kind of freedom, where it has to be used. A man can wear the same clothes endlessly (remember that Australian TV presenter in the same suit for a year, and nobody said a word) but a woman has to present a varied appearance. And it can be difficult for a woman to wear something that's "just ordinary", that doesn't make a statement of some kind or other that she'd prefer not to make. For men, it's a lot simpler, just be reasonably neat and the job is done.

I feel as though people just don't want to see our social norms challenged, even in a feminist discussion group! Yazz21 said "women are body shamed if they wear a skirt/shorts/dress and haven't complied with the norm of shaving their legs", but in most places men aren't allowed to show their legs at all--is that not worth noting? Even Scotsmen in the kilt will traditionally wear long socks to cover those awful legs! I think there genuinely is something going on here concerning how we want to see women and men, but I've got no clear answer to what it really is.

Five minutes once a week with a Bic ?! - Derail into S&B territory, but wow! You ain't got leg hair, lady, you've got leg fluff! At least mine keeps them warm

I was going to ask about body shaming. It's being presented as a given but outside of sleb magazines who will always find something to pick at does anyone much notice in the real world? Your experience is no they don't.

Actually, my previous experiences say they do. My work & social environment was extremely appearance-conscious, particularly with women. Somebody was always commenting on how you looked. It wouldn't surprise me if a woman would be reprimanded for having hairy legs.

I don't think that's the sole source of my internalised shame, though - I'm well aware I'm in a different environment now! I simply don't see images of furry-legged women. Since my experiment, I've been noticing this more. Even in the most unlikely situations, the women on TV have silky-smooth legs. War zone, hospital emergency, mountain trek, you name it - never a leg hair in sight. In stills, obviously, legs are all skin & no hair. This sort of thing is cultural pressure.

Tei, you make some interesting points but I'm going to leave them to others for reply. I'm so close to going into massive fashion/media/culture waffle

Going way back up thread, to your point messy about your friend shaming you about your unshaved legs in front of a boy you liked, I once watched a programme about vagina/labiaplasty and there was a girl (about 18) getting some of her inner labia removed, possibly because it was asymmetrical, I can't remember. What I do remember was that the girl's sister would tell the girl's male friends/potential boyfriends about her sister's labia being weird and ugly and lopsided etc. I was

I was posting on the other thread (initially about 10 year old girls being taught how to shave their legs at school as part of sex ed) and it has bizarrely turned into what about the boyz. Not seen that happen quite so obviously before. As the mother of a close in age teenage boy and girl pair I find it quite extraordinary that people seriously think that there is the same type of pressure about appearance on boys compared with girls. To me it seems like willful blindness.

Tei - part of the issue is, that actually, women have had to fight for the right to cover up - previously we were expected to be on display, in the correct manner.

Just look at the threads about girls being required to wear skirts to school - and then, when apparently that's still not enough control, expected to wear modesty shorts/tights. Kids do police each other - I remember other girls being taken to pieces for stubbly legs, or hair under their tights at school, There was no way I wasn't shaving my very hairy legs (at this point Lass once a week! Wow! I get 5 o'clock shadow!)

I've had more than one job which specified I was to wear a skirt, and the date at which I was allowed to stop wearing tights in summer. It also specified the types of shoes (small heel) and tops I could wear. It seems the price of flexibility for women is having more rules.

Meanwhile the boys/men blithely carry on in their practical trousers/shorts with unshaven legs

Thank God many schools now let girls wear trousers, and if a job tried to force me into skirts again I'd be able to tell them to get knotted - but those are rights that people before me fought hard for. If men want the right to wear shorts to work, then they'll have to fight for that too.

I took from Tei's post a rather more practical example which occurs every summer. At work just now the women are wearing a range of summer dresses and skirts, short sleeves or sleeveless, some with bare legs but all well within acceptable office wear standards. The options for men are at most a linen rather than a wool suit. Very few men, in my experience of 30 years plus office work would wear a short sleeved shirt to work.

It seems to me a bit of over- thinking to turn Tei's post about the greater choice women have about what they can wear into something so negative.

As didLordCoppers question about "what does look nicer mean". It's my personal preference, my prerogative -does it really need such inquisition?

Oh, I think Scots wear those socks because it's bloody cold up there in winter - and now they're just a part of the traditional costume, rather than to hide their hairy legs.

I imagine that pre-lycra there'd have been some kind of garter arrangement (perhaps there still is, I don't know much about Scottish men's socks) - and that's easier to do above the bump of your calf.

It's not a negative - it's a positive, that was fought for by the same women that fought to be there at work in the first place.

Lets not pretend that it isn't influenced by the fact that women in offices used to only be receptionists and typists and were supposed to be partially ornamental while doing that though.

Strange that "over-thinking" is a recognised insult but "under-thinking" isn't. I know which I'd rather be accused of!

There is no such thing as over-thinking. If you think you are over-thinking, or someone says you are over-thinking, it means that you haven't thought enough and haven't come to the end of the thinking process to come to a conclusion.