#46795 Sexism

[Katya]

If false expectations set by books should be avoided, we should nix any book with a hero in it.

No, just teach people that the superficial standards set by books and movies aren't reflective of real life, and that's OK.

[vorpal blade]

The "Twilight = Porn" argument is shaping up to be the new Godwin's Law! Ha ha!

I wouldn't say there is anything wrong with reading "Twilight." I've read the first two books in the series.

Whoa, there. Might wanna talk to your Bishop about that, buddy.

LOL. I'm glad now I didn't go with my first response, "But I enjoyed reading Twilight!"

[vorpal blade]

Aw, dang. When I saw that the title of this thread was "Sexism," I thought for sure someone was going to be taking an issue with Polly Esther saying that women need to be lovely but men need to be good enough. It just seemed weird and archaic to say that women only need to be attractive enough (she did emphasize attractive in personality, I'll give her credit for that) for other people to love them, but men need to actually get stuff done. Everyone knows that there are plenty of women who are goal-driven and plenty of men who care more about others' opinions.
And that stuff about how women are driven by loveliness and romance but men are driven by fighting? Stereotype city.

This was, actually, my original intent; to talk about the possible sexism in Polly Esther's response. I'm interested in the differences between men and women (and please don't say, "Who isn't?") As I see it we perceive various differences between the sexes because of:
1. nature (there are some fundamental, eternal differences).
2. nurture (some differences are real, but it is due to the way we are raised).
3. sexism (which I'm defining here as incorrect beliefs about the opposite sex. Not a good definition, but it is the way I see it).

I'd say that the idea that women only need to be beautiful, but men need to get stuff done falls under category 3, for the most part. From what I’ve heard, many women think that beauty is all men are looking for, and some men think that getting stuff done is all women are looking for in a man. I think that is not generally what men and women are looking for, but to the extent that men and women are brainwashed into believing it about themselves, the difference would fall into category 2.

What do you think?

[Wisteria]

Hum. I'm not entirely sure I'm following this as well as I'd like, but it's an interesting idea, vorpal blade. Especially because on days when I don't feel particularly attractive, I subconsciously put more effort into being smart. I suppose it's true that I'd much rather marry someone who knows how to work hard than someone who is nice to look at, if it came down to that choice, but I think I'd also rather have my husband value me for my ability to work hard than my looks- which are satisfactory but not exceptional. Of course, most people fall into that category.

[vorpal blade]

When "annoyed" said that all the wives in the ward's book club "bemoaned the fact" that their husbands were not as romantic as Edward, I could think of several reasons the wives might think so. Edward is romantic in the sense that he is obsessed with Bella, and can't live without her. While he is a dazzling, rich, and handsome person with supernatural powers, he lies prostrate and impotent at the feet of the woman he worships. The author takes pains to avoid describing what Bella looks like, so that you might feel that you too could be a Bella; unaware of your attractiveness, beauty, and hidden talents. But Bella conquers the unconquerable Edward. No wonder that women everywhere find Edward practically perfect and extremely romantic. And no wonder that real men can't compete with the fictional Edward.

It also occurred to me that these moaning wives might not appreciate their husbands, because the husbands don't do the same sorts of things Edward does. They may do many other things which someone else would recognize as romantic, but they fail to see it in their husbands.

I also thought that sometimes wives are responsible for the lack of demonstrated romantic qualities in their husbands. Constant criticism, belittling, sarcasm, and lack of appreciation would kill the romanticism of even an Edward.

But Polly Esther seemed to blame the men for being uninformed or too lazy. I think this is a common stereotype of men, but it is not correct. I think that in our society men are generally raised to be less romantic then many women would like, but men are by nature often much more romantic then women give them credit for. And I think the men know that their wives crave a little romance, but satisfying that craving is much more difficult than the wives realize.

Hmm, I was trying to clarify myself for Wisteria, but I don't know that I succeeded.

[Darth Fedora]

I wasn't really saying that women think they need to be beautiful to be fulfilled. I actually think our society is becoming more and more accepting of "unconventional beauty," just because women are becoming less willing to spend hours a day on their appearances to impress men (not saying that nobody does that anymore, or that most people have never done that, I'm just saying that the typical woman doesn't go to the salon twice a week and starve herself to be thin anymore).
I was saying that I didn't like Polly Esther
1) dragging old-fashioned gender sterotypes into an answer that didn't really have anything to do with it
2) going on about how "every human being comes to earth with a question," and the success of a woman is judged by how nice and lovely she is but the success of a man is judged by the things he gets done. Isn't that the same as saying that a "good" woman sits around and is kind to others, and a "good" man actually makes progress in the world? And if that ain't sexist, I don't know what is.

[bismark]

really? you dont think the typical woman doesn't still spend a lot of time obsessing over looks? i think you only have to look at the magazines in the grocery store aisle to see that isn't the case.

[Wisteria]

since when do magazines in grocery stores accurately reflect what typical people do or think? Usually I end up rolling my eyes at such magazines, even though I do admit that sometimes I am secretly fascinated that people do obsess so much.

[bismark]

"if it didn't sell, it wouldn't exist" seems to be a pretty simple way of gauging whether grocery store magazines reflect general attitudes or not.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

The author takes pains to avoid describing what Bella looks like, so that you might feel that you too could be a Bella; unaware of your attractiveness, beauty, and hidden talents. But Bella conquers the unconquerable Edward.

That is an interesting take on Bella and her role in Twilight... Very interesting.

[Darth Fedora]

really? you dont think the typical woman doesn't still spend a lot of time obsessing over looks? i think you only have to look at the magazines in the grocery store aisle to see that isn't the case.

That's not what I said. I just said that there's a trend towards more physical confidence in spite of imperfections. For example, being overweight is less of an issue now than it was, say twenty or thirty years ago. Our parents' generation of "chubby" girls had to shop in different stores, had to try to hide themselves under baggy clothes, and still faced tons of prejudice from their peers because of their size. Ask anyone who was fat in the 70s if you don't believe me. But now, as women are learning to accept their bodies, we see that being overweight doesn't stop people from wearing cute clothes, carrying themselves with confidence, and being accepted by society (just look at the popularity of stars like America Ferrera and the rise of plus-size models like the last winner of America's Next Top Model).

Forgive me if it sounds like I'm dismissing the problems of sexism in regards to physical appearance. But the more disturbing, prevalent, and harmful side of sexism is really the widespread prejudices about what women are supposed to be like and what they can and can't do. Condescending, limiting attitudes like Polly Esther's are what really prevent women from being equal to men in society and being able to do whatever they want to do (like...running for President. I was going to direct you to a thread about the media treated Clinton last winter, but a lot of the topics in the Soapbox forum seem to have been...cleaned up. Hmm.). That, not just targeted judgment over looks, is the Big Problem of sexism.

[A Mom, but not yours]

Interesting thread here on many topics.

First, coming from your parents' generation, yes, there probably is a little less ostracism in society for the overweight, but there's still enough that women really do feel that overwhelming need to be thin enough, etc. to really be accepted and fit in. Of course, now the siren cry is to be healthier. But it's still the same obsession. The public reason has just changed. Private reasons will always be what they've always been. Private.

Is it sexism that women seem to be judged on appearances more than men and men judged on skills/abilities? Yes, it is. But it's actually promoted by both sexes and has probably eased up some over the years. In general though, it is still true. For good or ill.

Now, Twilight, the swooners, and Edward. I've now read the Twilight books and agree with Jooniper. I don't regret the time spent reading them, but I'll also never consider them the apex of great literature. Personally, Edward would make me nuts. If my husband was that overprotective, domineering, and never left me alone, ever, I'd be more than a little uneasy. I love my husband and love to spend time with him. But I also love doing things by myself or with my friends (as does he). There is such a thing as balance in life. Edward seemed to do most of the things mentioned in this forum as romantic for selfish reasons. He repeatedly tried to protect her - from herself - by placing all sorts of restrictions on her. He regularly tries to force her to do things she doesn't want to do and that she probably won't enjoy, because she'll regret it later. I can only think, right now, of two actual romantic gestures. The CD of songs she'd like, including one he wrote for her, and the helmet and riding jacket for her motorcycle. Both are "little things" that mean he noticed a need and tried to fill in while supporting her in what she wanted to do. Two things in two years. I strongly suspect most boyfriends/husbands can and certainly do equal that sort of a record. I think if these women are obsessing over Edward and want their husbands to be like him, maybe they should work on gaining some perspective.

[orb360]

Being fat is less of an issue today because more people are fat today. Sorry. That's just how it is.

Twilight is not even comparable to porn. Sorry. I read about more graphic incest or beheadings in the Bible and Book of Mormon (respectively).

Men who married women whose opinions of them are changed by reading a mere romance novel chose poorly and deserve it.

Polly Esther is entitled to his/her opinion. If you happened to find it offensive... You need to lighten up.

moaning wives

You win the internet... Gratz!

[bismark]

Being fat is less of an issue today because more people are fat today. Sorry. That's just how it is.

i was about to say the same thing. maybe this is just semantics, but it should never be acceptable to be "overweight." of course neither should it be acceptable to be underweight. obviously the problem is that a lot of men and women have problems knowing the right weight for them.

anyway, eating disorders at both ends of the spectrum are at all time highs, because our society is much more obsessed with looking hot (so people either try too hard or give up completely) than with being healthy.

[Darth Fedora]

Bismark, we're just saying two different things. Of course it's bad for your health to be over- or underweight. But unless your weight is so extreme that you can't function at all, your weight should not interfere with, say, how many friends you have or how easily you can find a job.

[bismark]

ok... so what was the point of your original statement again? i still am not convinced that our society is less focused on being "beautiful" than it was 40 years ago.

[vorpal blade]

As I was riding my bicycle to work this morning I was thinking about the problem of determining which attitudes and opinions toward the opposite sex are eternal, and which are a product of our cultural environment. I think that it is very difficult to tell. It made me think of a talk, “Zion in the midst of Babylon,” given by David R. Stone in General Conference, April 2006. So I looked up his talk. Here are a few of his many great thoughts in that talk:

We should not allow ourselves to be engulfed by the culture which surrounds us. We seldom realize the extent to which we are a product of the culture of our place and time.

What an insidious thing is this culture amidst which we live. It permeates our environment, and we think we are being reasonable and logical when, all too often, we have been molded by the ethos, what the Germans call the zeitgeist, or the culture of our place and time.

Because my wife and I have had the opportunity to live in 10 different countries, we have seen the effect of the ethos on behavior. Customs which are perfectly acceptable in one culture are viewed as unacceptable in another; language which is polite in some places is viewed as abhorrent in others. People in every culture move within a cocoon of self-satisfied self-deception, fully convinced that the way they see things is the way things really are.

Our culture tends to determine what foods we like, how we dress, what constitutes polite behavior, what sports we should follow, what our taste in music should be, the importance of education, and our attitudes toward honesty. It also influences men as to the importance of recreation or religion, influences women about the priority of career or childbearing, and has a powerful effect on how we approach procreation and moral issues. All too often, we are like puppets on a string, as our culture determines what is “cool.”

Seduced by our culture, we often hardly recognize our idolatry, as our strings are pulled by that which is popular in the Babylonian world.

The interesting question to me is, how much of what Polly Esther says is influenced by the spiritual Babylon around us, and how much is eternal? For example, Polly Esther says “Every human being comes to earth with a question. Women are driven by loveliness, adventure, romance: their question is, ‘Am I lovely?’”

My first question is: is the statement true; is this what drives women?

My second question would be: if it is true, is it because this is the eternal nature of women, or is it because the culture around us makes us think it is true? When Polly Esther says that when women come to earth they have this question it makes me think that at least she believes it is the eternal nature of women. But is it? Will women in the Celestial kingdom be driven by loveliness, adventure, and romance? Or is it spiritual Babylon? I don’t think the answers are obvious.

[vorpal blade]

Personally, Edward would make me nuts. If my husband was that overprotective, domineering, and never left me alone, ever, I'd be more than a little uneasy. I love my husband and love to spend time with him. But I also love doing things by myself or with my friends (as does he). There is such a thing as balance in life. Edward seemed to do most of the things mentioned in this forum as romantic for selfish reasons. He repeatedly tried to protect her - from herself - by placing all sorts of restrictions on her. He regularly tries to force her to do things she doesn't want to do and that she probably won't enjoy, because she'll regret it later. I can only think, right now, of two actual romantic gestures. The CD of songs she'd like, including one he wrote for her, and the helmet and riding jacket for her motorcycle. Both are "little things" that mean he noticed a need and tried to fill in while supporting her in what she wanted to do. Two things in two years. I strongly suspect most boyfriends/husbands can and certainly do equal that sort of a record. I think if these women are obsessing over Edward and want their husbands to be like him, maybe they should work on gaining some perspective.

When I first read the question in the 100 Hour Board my initial reaction was, "Edward is romantic? He seems like such a self-absorbed jerk." But then I thought about the women I know who think Edward is great, and I tried to think about what would make him romantic in their eyes. It seems to me that Edward is the epitome of the guy who falls head over heels for a girl. He tries to fight it, but his "love" for her is just too great. You could look at everything he does as an attempt to protect Bella and serve her interests. I agree that there is an element of selfishness in his actions, but I think most romantic lovers in literature are mostly in love with the idea of love, or what love does to them. But you aren't supposed to think down to that level; just enjoy Edward's surrender of his life to serve the woman he loves. He literally can't live without her. That's pretty powerful, heady, romanticism, even if in practice it would drive us nuts.

There is also a practical side to such romanticism. It ought not to be too difficult to get Edward to put the toilet seat down after he uses it so it will be in the right position for Bella. Such control and the ability to train a husband can be very useful later on. And it might be a reason so many wives bemoan the fact that their husbands are not as romantic as Edward.

[Cognoscente]

...you know who ELSE loved romantic gestures in the springtime?

[SWKT Parachuter]

really? you dont think the typical woman doesn't still spend a lot of time obsessing over looks? i think you only have to look at the magazines in the grocery store aisle to see that isn't the case.

it should never be acceptable to be "overweight." of course neither should it be acceptable to be underweight.

Sounds like you're part of the problem, sweetheart!