Why are so many women hellbent on acting against their own interest?

[thedankness]

From TWAW, pro "sex-work", "kinky sex" and porn, plastic surgery, accepting low standards in relationships with men, being anti-abortion to more trivial things such as wearing heels, and yes, shaving, and so much more, so many women will defend these things to the hilt. They refuse/are unable to see how these things are bad for themselves and/or women generally, even after presented with arguments. Obviously some people will disagree with points made in an argument, but I just don't see men subjugating themselves en masse like I do women.

I feel sad. Why can't we as women just love ourselves and look out for ourselves? I feel like we are groomed into self-hate. Is the notion of female self-acceptance and worth truly so radical that a significant number can't even fathom it as a possibility for themselves?

Why is it so common for women to act against their interest? And can or should we do anything about it?

This is a bit poorly-worded, have thoughts but am interested to hear others' opinions.

Besides, why focus on sex and appearance? Since someone already had an opinion on women who take on their husband's surname, lets see what do you guys think of housewives...because I have a feeling you'd drown each and every one of them in a spoon

I recall being disappointed as a parent when my daughters experienced so much external pressure to paint their faces and nails and so on.

Later one of my daughters tried to wear high-heeled shoes, and tried also (unsuccessfully) to convince me this was just because they made her calves feel nicer. (No, it was about getting and keeping a boyfriend, as she admitted (much) later.)

Now my daughters, grown-up women and mothers themselves, wear as little make-up as possible, and comfortable shoes. (Some professions, sadly, do demand make-up on their female practitioners, but not all: academic women can become Professors with natural faces, for instance.)

But now it starts with grandchildren. One granddaughter was recently belittled and upset by an older girl mocking her for having hair on her arms. (Grr!) And all granddaughters have to have long hair (but only on their head!) and coloured fingernails, it seems. Compulsorily - a new and unexpected turn in sexual politics.

I leave things be. Children's autonomy is very important - particularly girls'. But I do wish such autonomy could be left to develop for itself in a society which did not pressure girls and women to conform to particular (and sometimes seemingly random) stereotypes of feminine beauty, as ours certainly does. And I deplore those women - there are many - who, albeit mainly innocently, so it seems, collude in pressurising girls in this way. (Unsuspecting Handmaidens? Hmm? Possibly so.)

(I'm a man, btw. My wife rarely wore/never wears make-up and never high-heeled shoes, although she did do mini-skirts back when they first appeared. I tried wearing make-up myself a few times back in the sixties, and mostly was pilloried for it. Never since. It made me look odd. As it mostly does these days on women and girls. In my opinion.)

I've been bough Beauty and Misogyny by Sheila Jeffreys for Christmas - it addresses this issue, and why women are so keen to defend these harmful cultural practises. Quite looking forward to reading it.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

@fihawo may I ask if this is in UK? Because I genuinely don't remember this type of pressure from my college days and in secondary school we were given a face full of makeup remover at the reception desk if we came in with eyeliner.

However, in country where my family is from women can expect comments about having unpainted toenails (how well these goes down varies because people there are also known as some of the most angry in Europe)

The two pre series to Yellowstone (1883 and 1923) covered the issue of body hair and female beauty standards quite well I thought and quite purposefully.

Yup.

OP you do not have the right to speak for all women.

I will add one more point that I think will upset some people - the beauty standards were not created in a vacuum. There are people with hourglass figure, or perfect skin, or long legs, or minimal body hair. Even if we all stopped shaving, wearing makeup or high heels, there would still be people who just won the gene lottery.

These people always existed, and others saw them and were envious of their looks so they tried to do "something" to look a bit closer to what these lucky ones looked like...so they dyed their hair, wore makeup, padded their clothes etc...

if you want fight something, fight with how appearance affects judgement of personality, not that people try to look (what they consider) prettier

@thedankness How about some more groups

1. Women who don't like the activity and don't do it
2. Women who do like the activity and don't do it because it might harm others through unintended/systemic consequences

Is it surprising that there may be women from group 1 who resist the idea their actions harm others (who they cannot see and do not know) and feel they are being shamed into moving to group 5? And that some women claim that when others question the dominant narrative it is because they are jealous?

Of course women in group 1 don't have to accept someone else's analysis either.

I think it's helpful for people to share their stories. I can't really judge group 1 women because personally I've moved from group 2 to group 4 as far as makeup and heels are concerned. And I suppose that I believe that people are making the best decisions they can for their circumstances. If we share data and stories then that can change the basis of our decisions. But you only have to look at something like breastmilk/formula discussions to see that any open exploration can get shut down quickly because of blame, shame and projection. All things being equal, breastmilk is better than formula but all things are not equal.

I'm not sure I agree.
I've been attending a women's camp annually for about ten years.
Beauty standards soon get redefined there.
If anyone emulates anything it's not the women that are attractive by conventional standards it's the women who look so comfortable and happy in their own skin.

But how will that increase the number and quality of your options for a (male) mate? (I.e. the main driver in looking healthier and more fertile).

@PaintedEgg Of course, in context, school making girls remove make-up reinforces the pressure on them to wear it. You do realise that's part of the societal pressure I was talking about, rather than a negation thereof?

Complicated business, sexist stereotyping? Not really. But a lot of it remains determinedly implicit, like much contemporary social control (such as advertising, which I'm sure you nevertheless remain generally uninfluenced by).

@Fynetanksfather maybe its nit really the main driver and just one of many theories as to why people decorate their bodies?

@OceanicBoundlessness but the standard does get redefined, not ceases to exist...and there is another can of worm to open about copying people who are comfortable in their own skin in hopes of being equally comfortable in yours

whether we define beauty as appeal to men, looking healthy or being confident, there always will be people who won't feel that great in their bodies for various reasons

and there always will be people who will feel both comfortable in their own body and yet choose to decorate it somehow

I think you could argue that a lot of things that individual women do are damaging to women as a whole. For example, women who engage in casual sex or FWB situations. I'm sure that some women enjoy this, but most end up feeling hurt and used.

However, films and tv shows like sex and the city have taught women that they should be able to 'do it like a man' and be cool with this, so there is now more social pressure for young women to have sex outside of committed relationships. It's mainly men who benefit and take advantage of this.

However, I don't think it's reasonable to judge individual women or tell them that they can't have casual sex if they want to.

@fihawo but in this context you have two opposing social pressure - one to not wear makeup and one to wear it

also, I believe advertisement is more of manipulation than control - if an advert takes it too far, people will resist whatever it is promoting. The trick is to make product appealing, not say its required...and a lot of advertisements plays off already popular social trends (eg greenwashing). It's a two way street

for example: shapewear adverts. They used to focus on looking thin because that was the trend and goal of women at the time. The shapewear came into existence to satisfy the demand, then enhanced the preexisting trend. It was an opportunistic money grab, but not the origin of the standard

Now shapewear is promoted as something to highlight the existing curves, because being thin in 90s sense is no longer in fashion, so advertisers had to adapt. So now shapewear is supposedly showing off our curves or something (I dont know, my main curve is on my stomach).

I was brought up in a remote rural setting where a lot of the social norms simply were not imparted. As I got older and moved to big city I observed and took on some of these norms but in a kinda half hearted way. I don't really shave (do sometimes), don't wear high heels (do sometimes), rarely pluck eyebrows but do pluck chin hair ( funny that). As I get older the time I spend doing the expected stuff diminishes.

What is interesting I notice my DD also doesn't do a lot of the expected stuff but does sometimes. It's like as if we are sorta influenced by society but it hasn't fully taken hold.

Don't forget the role of capitalism in all of this. A lot of money is made from the beauty industry.

I wonder too if there are some beauty norms we all accept e.g. teeth straightening. There is also the post from someone here with vitiligo and what she does to blend in. I think it's definitely worth thinking about and challenging ourselves about but recognise we probably all conform in some way.

I am interested in clothes and style, have been since a young child. I can remember researching Victorian clothes when I was at primary school. I admire people with style whatever that maybe. To dismiss such interests as being anti feminist is not feminist. To dismiss such interests as not worthy is not feminist. To dismiss them as frivolous is not feminist.
The issue with some of the anti-make up posts is that they insinuate some sort of superiority of those who have no interest in appearance. I don't accept that, taking care of one's appearance is common to many species. If you don't care at all about your body, style or appearance, I think that is a bit unhealthy.
I like clothes, I like a bit of make up, I go to the gym 6 days a week (because I love it and how it makes me feel and I like how I look). I do these things because I enjoy them and have an interest in them.
Most people who exercise a lot do it partly for vanity, health benefits and enjoyment. As I admire people's style, I admire people who really go hard at the gym.
The moral superiority posts about make up and clothes take away from the better points about women being pressured by porn to accept what should be unacceptable and other women being terrible to other women. I have experienced the latter since a young teenager and I can't believe any adult doesn't realise those women to do it to control others and increase their own power and social standing.

I don't really think you can lump all those things together OP.
Firstly, things like women liking make up; there are many different reasons women wear make up- it's not one identical "slave to the Patriarchy" reason.
I love make-up. I am happy to go out and about without it, but when I paint on my eyeliner or my bright lipstick I do it with the intent of exaggerating my features, to go into battle, to look a bit more colourful and defined. It's war paint for me, and I'm glad to be able to play with that.
I have tons of pairs of high heeled shoes and boots, but they are all comfy and quite chunky. I don't need them, but I might wear a heel when I want to be noticed, to walk a bit taller, to take up more space. They make me level with most men. Heels can also be an excellent weapon if needed.
Men used to wear heels, humans have always, in all cultures, painted themselves, exaggerated features and fetished certain body parts.
If a man tried to strangle me I would knee him in the balls, and my kids have my name. I'm have never had sex that made me feel bad, I like sex too much to bother with bad sex.
My grown son thinks it's gross that I don't shave my armpits, and he shaves his, so men do feel pressured to remove hair these days.
Things are not so cut and dried as you seem to think.
I also agree with PP that feminine things are denigrated, and to be masculine is considered better. On this board women boast about how they only wear trousers and have short hair and never wear makeup. I am feminine, I embrace the feminine. It doesn't make me weak, or scared or stupid.

These are interesting questions, people shouldn't be taking offense it's just a debate.
The short answer is that humans have always been community based and will do whatever it takes to not be thrown out of the fold, in this case women going along with things listed in the OP.

I wouldn't feel comfortable with a big hairy bush, hairy legs and a tache... Future generations might though.

I'm not anti abortion or many of the other things on your post though. It's not all or nothing.

Thanks for the question OP. I think that there's a mixture of nurture and nature for beauty standards and let's face it, the vanity that can come in womanhood - I'm always checking myself out in the mirror. 🤣🤣

I think the gender wars have shown the conservatism of the younger generation in terms of style. Girls with long mermaid hair, boys masculine. I for one welcome the conversation that women are NOT beauty treatments. We've become addicted to them and I wish we had more punky androgynous women of old. It would be better for women, I agree with that.

I like what you've said.

Perhaps people take offense because they feel like the OP is trying to set up a new social order which puts them at risk of being thrown out of the fold? Which is fascinating since we're mostly imaginary to each other on this type of forum. And also because it seemed to me like a good faith attempt from the op to warn others about risk of harm.

I also took the OP as genuinely 'thinking out loud', welcoming debate and alternative views. I agreed with some if it,was in two minds about other bits, but I can't see how, in the round, it could be taken as dogmatic or offensive. It provoked an interesting debate.

I don’t know if the kind of comment I wrote on first page is referenced here! Maybe, maybe not :)

I answered OP’s Q in good faith just pointing out that how you approach conversations with people can make all the difference in how they respond and how open they are to considering your ideas. OP seemed genuinely frustrated and baffled as to why people didn’t seem to accept her ideas ‘even when the arguments are presented and explained clearly to them’ (paraphrasing)

I think sometimes if people feel someone who considers themselves a better thinker is trying to ‘educate’ them, they will pay no attention because they find you irritating and would prefer to wind you up than have a genuine exchange of ideas. It might not be the ideas they object to at all so much as the way they are being approached.

I thought OP is trying to understand why people resist when she explains these things to them, and seemed to have missed this point

Definitely no offense taken (and I hope none in turn)