Is Popular Culture Destroying Women?

reply to post by chasingbrahman


Ah man, that line about flaming women over their hips was very much worthy of a star lol. That is a sad truth. Most Women love to rag on other women.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by chasingbrahman

 

I do agree with you concerning human nature and such, but I don't think your view of women is entirely correct. I don't hate beautiful women personally. I'm fairly unattractive as well so if anybody has a reason to be hateful toward pretty ladies it's me. I think it's because I haven't lost my weight from having my son and I have a rather unattractive face, but I don't have my beautiful neighbors. I'd be lying if I said I didn't envy them from time to time, but I think it's best to take the time to appreciate good looking people and not get stuck on your unluckiness in the genetic crapshoot.

I think it's also pertinent to know just how much of "erotic capital" is socially driven. Symmetry says quite a bit, but research has shown that the longer you have a friendly relationship with someone the more physically attractive you find them. there are other psychological factors to consider i think.

I think you're thinking of the proximity reflex, where the human need for efficiency and companionship trumps everything and determines it's best to love the one you're with.

And you're right - I over-generalized the scenario of the new neighbor. Not all women despise another women based simply on how attractive she is. Many women have evolved beyond this, or at least believe that, were the man poached, she at least would survive. But many women become focused on the potential for mate-poaching by a new and beautiful woman, which is typically driven by the fear of losing a partner or potential partner. And we have all met women like this.

On a personal note, the majority of my friendships are with men, whether I'm romantically involved with someone or not, because they're task-oriented, what you see is what you get, and if I don't return their call for two days he doesn't verbally flay me or start rumors in my absence while drunk. As a woman, I've been on both sides of the fence, blessed by genes I had nothing to do with establishing, and then on the opposite side, having the same face/body, but with horribly painful cystic acne that took eight years to irradicate plus another two years to erase the scars. I have extensive field experience in how well or poorly I was received in a female-dominated social circle and can undoubtedly say I was invited to do things with other women much, much more often when I was quite obviously out of the dating pool because I looked like a Chernobyl victim. All this despite the fact that during that time, my self-esteem was at an all-time low as would be expected, and I appeared about as happy to meet new people as I would have appeared while being flogged in the public square. My female friendships seem to fizzle when they begin competing with me, and I refuse to watch my back around someone who should be a trusted confidante. The handful of friendships I've maintained are with women who see this dynamic in a way that meshes well with my perception and analysis. They're confident for many reasons, and it shows in their interactions because they aren't petty or jealous.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by chasingbrahman

 

Ah man, that line about flaming women over their hips was very much worthy of a star lol. That is a sad truth. Most Women love to rag on other women.

I know! And then after four hours of it, they whine about how unfair it is that men have all the power. Ever read Lysistrata? Women, after being tired of their husbands leaving every day to fight a war, decided to deny them sex until the war was over. And the war ended a few days later.

I can't say I recall a man flaming another man as soon as he left the room. I'm sure it's happened, but I really can't remember when. But when a woman leaves the room, and I'm there with at least one other woman in her absence, I think 3...2...1 and like clockwork the whispering commences. Maybe I have a future in prophecy.

Women are stronger than you know, sir, or than they themselves even know. They go through a period of conforming, and sometimes seem almost narcissistic in their grooming rituals, as both genders do. (Yes, they do).

To single women out in this is a mistake. You don't know them (us).

reply to post by chasingbrahman

My major point WASN'T really about the beauty aspect, that was mostly a side-point, but since you mention it, the standards of beauty in the west 60 years ago were indeed very different from what they are today, much more attainable, and definitely much healthier.

Originally posted by chasingbrahman
Tina Fey
Oprah Winfrey
Barbara Walters
Madonna
Martha Stewart
This is just off the top of my head, but oh wait...
Kathy Bates
Meryl Streep

You realise that aside from maybe Kathy Bates, all the rest of these actresses/entertainers entered the industry when they were young and relatively much more beautiful (well, except Tina Fey I'm not sure she belongs on that list at all. She's not really unbeautiful). And Kathy Bates, well...her breakout role was an evil villain, she's rarely ever the protagonist, except when she's also a murderer, and she's known for playing weird and disturbing characters.

reply to post by antonia

I was actually approaching all these things from an academic perspective, so that my numbers were less sullied with excuses like "it is the men stopping them from reaching the top". So I was more interested in how many women try and enrol for business school, to have an indicator of how many WANTED to go through with that field. And the numbers for that are pretty clear: even those places that advertise the highest female enrolment don't have it more than around 30% of the total enrolment.

Originally posted by antonia
Ever consider that maybe a lot of women don't share you priorities? There is nothing wrong with not wanting to be an engineer. Frankly, I'm not smart enough to do that. I suck at math.

Perhaps this slightly touches on the US public education system, but that is a whole other topic, which should probably be addressed elsewhere. I promise this is not a dig at you, but more at the public perception that math isn't important. Plus, it is pretty funny
Math doesn't suck (WARNING: some foul language)

But see, antonia, my point is, that when a large percentage of females in society attach such a vastly greater importance to something like entertainment, or acting, than to something like engineering or business, I'd say yeah, that is wrong and needs to change.
The entire point of my thread is that exact point: Now that we are coming closer and closer to a society where women are totally capable and allowed to do everything they want, why are they skipping out and not caring for fields like engineering, politics, business, etc.?

reply to post by babloyi


I think treating women like perpetual children is what is really harming them. They are human beings, and as such are capable of higher thought. Now if you want to talk about the toxicity of Popular Culture in general, that may be an interesting venue of dialog. But such condescending drivel as found in your opening statement has no place in civilized discussion.

I've known plenty of males who want to be musicians. So I don't get that it's only women who want to do entertainment like careers. It seems every young man and his dog is a wannabe singer, drummer, hot lead guitarist, bass guitarist etc.....Or a rap artist, DJ in a club or something similiar.
Can't say I've heard of any guys under 19 proclaiming wanting to be engineers and all these other things the O.P is saying....Most young males I know would rather join a band and get chicks than do boring Engineering if given the choice......

My point being that it's both sexes who seem to be preoccupied with entertainment careers in one form or another rather than it just being a female preferred option.

Originally posted by babloyi
Now I hope you don't mind too much if I indulge my superiority complex a little

, but it is fields like Politics, Law, Engineering, Business and Sciences that usually lead the way of advancement and progress as a whole. Literature and art and such are certainly important, of course, and are often of greater cultural significance in
retrospect, but it is those other fields that lead the way.

Why aren't women flocking to these fields in at least equal numbers to men?

Because female neurology is only compatible with said fields, in terms of either being interested or good at them, in maybe 10% of cases. One girl will be born autistic, or as a less intense manifestation of autism, with above average aptitude for mathemetics or science, for every ten boys. Although there are exceptions, as mentioned, male neurology is generally left brain dominant, with female being right brain dominant.

Female neurology specialises more in social interaction. Who's doing what to who, who's marrying who, who's wearing what, who knows who...that kind of thing. Femininity also lends itself a lot more to being artistic, rather than mechanical; it is more organically and intuitively based. Technological stuff is more the left brained side of things.

You can call me a sexist pig if you want, but the statistics don't lie.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by chasingbrahman

 

Originally posted by chasingbrahman
Tina Fey
Oprah Winfrey
Barbara Walters
Madonna
Martha Stewart
This is just off the top of my head, but oh wait...
Kathy Bates
Meryl Streep

You realise that aside from maybe Kathy Bates, all the rest of these actresses/entertainers entered the industry when they were young and relatively much more beautiful (well, except Tina Fey I'm not sure she belongs on that list at all. She's not really unbeautiful). And Kathy Bates, well...her breakout role was an evil villain, she's rarely ever the protagonist, except when she's also a murderer, and she's known for playing weird and disturbing characters.

No, what you don't understand is there is an OBJECTIVE standard of beauty and it's very old. The idea that this has changed is also false. Yes there are certain cultural variations, but for the most part what makes someone "good looking" to others is pretty well established. Facial symmetry, clear skin, female curvature, etc. This is a well researched subject. The other poster suggested a few books for you to look at and they are good ones. As for these women, no they are not traditionally good looking. I will post photos of some of them so you can see why.

Madonna


Note the complete lack of curvature. This is not standard good looks.

Oprah



Is obviously overweight, I don't think we need to argue about that. She's struggled with her weight her entire career.

All of the examples posted were correct. You may not look at these people as "ugly" or "unattractive", but that's not what is being said. They are not the standard version of what in attractive. They are outside of the norm. You want to see the ideal?



Ms. Hendricks, look at that waist. That's an hourglass figure. She is bigger than your average hollywood lady, but that's the general ideal people have chased and painted for centuries.

reply to post by antonia

 

I was actually approaching all these things from an academic perspective, so that my numbers were less sullied with excuses like "it is the men stopping them from reaching the top". So I was more interested in how many women try and enrol for business school, to have an indicator of how many WANTED to go through with that field. And the numbers for that are pretty clear: even those places that advertise the highest female enrolment don't have it more than around 30% of the total enrolment.

Except most people who go into business do not have degrees in that field. Most of them just open a business. You don't need a degree to open a business nor do you need to have a M.A. in Business to do it. You are looking at it from the standpoint of the "executives" and that's not fair.

Perhaps this slightly touches on the US public education system, but that is a whole other topic, which should probably be addressed elsewhere. I promise this is not a dig at you, but more at the public perception that math isn't important. Plus, it is pretty funny
Math doesn't suck (WARNING: some foul language)

This has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say math sucks, I said I suck at math-So why did you bring that why?

But see, antonia, my point is, that when a large percentage of females in society attach such a vastly greater importance to something like entertainment, or acting, than to something like engineering or business, I'd say yeah, that is wrong and needs to change.
The entire point of my thread is that exact point: Now that we are coming closer and closer to a society where women are totally capable and allowed to do everything they want, why are they skipping out and not caring for fields like engineering, politics, business, etc.?

Again, plenty of women do run for office and you don't need a degree in politics to do that. As for engineering, more women will join the field in time, but why are you so hung up on other people sharing your priorities? There are plenty of men who go into entertainment, why aren't you ragging on them?

Wow...for some weird reason, I am sensing an enormous amount of hostility here....People, I am not picking fights or trying to insult anyone at all. No need to get personal. I am not attacking you (or women).

reply to post by korathin

I made no mention of women being children or child-like. The toxicity of Popular Culture in general is also surely a worthy topic, but in this particular thread, I decided to focus on the effect it has on women.

reply to post by Flighty

Flighty, the difference being that while many men DO end up in the entertainment business, they also end up in Engineering, in Politics, in business, etc. Women are theoretically afforded the same freedoms. If they wanted to pursue a career in these things, they could (or they could at least attempt to, as which could be demonstrated in them taking those subjects up in their under-graduate and post-graduate studies). But for some bizarre reason, despite the fact that a greater percentage of women (compared to men) graduate highschool and go for further studies, very few choose these fields.

reply to post by antonia

Originally posted by antonia
No, what you don't understand is there is an OBJECTIVE standard of beauty and it's very old.

Again, aside from some very generic points (faces being average, etc.), I'd have to disagree with you. And as I already mentioned, if you look at Miss World winners from the 50s, or magazines and stuff from that era, you'll see they are certainly not as unhealthy as those now. The "ideal" that is to be reached for has definitely changed, even compared to 30 years ago.

Also, I think you missed where I said that these examples you gave don't really apply, because these women WERE considered beautiful when they started in the entertainment business. I doubt you'd find many people who would disagree that Madonna was sexy and beautiful in the 80s.

Originally posted by antonia
Except most people who go into business do not have degrees in that field. Most of them just open a business. You don't need a degree to open a business nor do you need to have a M.A. in Business to do it. You are looking at it from the standpoint of the "executives" and that's not fair.

Why is it unfair? Why DON'T they go for a masters or at least some undergraduate Business degree? It certainly isn't necessary, but the guys are doing it, and they seem to be benefiting from that. Why don't males simply start a business themselves, instead of joining business school? If business schools are so useless, why aren't they empty? Obviously attending business school is beneficial to those who with to enter business.
Where did the question of fairness even enter the equation? I'm not having some kind of competition here where I'm trying to show up female academia. Instead of making excuses for them, I was simply asking...why don't they do it?
Are you suggesting that it is good, or even okay that women make up a significantly smaller percentage of the students enrolled at business schools? SOMETHING is obviously deterring them from applying.

Originally posted by antonia
This has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say math sucks, I said I suck at math-So why did you bring that why?

I don't think you even clicked the link. It discusses exactly what you are talking about. In fact, the very first line in that article makes it very evident what it is talking about.

Originally posted by antonia
Again, plenty of women do run for office and you don't need a degree in politics to do that. As for engineering, more women will join the field in time, but why are you so hung up on other people sharing your priorities? There are plenty of men who go into entertainment, why aren't you ragging on them?

But as I showed from the statistics in my original post, plenty of women DON'T run for office. In the US Senate, females barely make up 17% of the total members.
And what do you mean by "will join the field in time"? Why aren't they joining now? What is different now? As I showed, women are actively choosing not to join engineering fields. It is not like something is stopping them (except perhaps popular culture's projected image of what girls should reach for). Saying "Don't worry, it'll get better over time" never really solved any major problem. It just made society complacent to its own faults.

Originally posted by babloyi

reply to post by antonia

 

Also, I think you missed where I said that these examples you gave don't really apply, because these women WERE considered beautiful when they started in the entertainment business. I doubt you'd find many people who would disagree that Madonna was sexy and beautiful in the 80s.

Actually Madonna was chubby in the 80's and got ragged on for it.

Originally posted by antonia

Why is it unfair? Why DON'T they go for a masters or at least some undergraduate Business degree?

Why don't you go ask them? Why are you so hung up on women doing what you think they should be doing? When did you become the judge and jury? Hmmmm?

Why don't males simply start a business themselves, instead of joining business school?

They do, happens all the time.

If business schools are so useless, why aren't they empty? Obviously attending business school is beneficial to those who with to enter business.

Business school is useful for those who want to go into fortune 500 companies, work in banks or do investment work, but even then it isn't nesscary. Buisness has become the new communcations major in truth. But you know what is rather funny-Most of the business majors at my school are women.

Where did the question of fairness even enter the equation? I'm not having some kind of competition here where I'm trying to show up female academia. Instead of making excuses for them, I was simply asking...why don't they do it?

Because instead of showing the actual accomplishments in business women are responsible for you are boiling it down to how many women graduate business school. Instead of acknowledging the many women who own their own business you belittle it because they have no degree. That's unfair to women.

Are you suggesting that it is good, or even okay that women make up a significantly smaller percentage of the students enrolled at business schools? SOMETHING is obviously deterring them from applying.

Nope, I'm saying it doesn't matter. Women can do what they want and you can get over it.

Originally posted by antonia

But as I showed from the statistics in my original post, plenty of women DON'T run for office. In the US Senate, females barely make up 17% of the total members.

Senate membership isn't indicative of how many women run. You do remember they have to WIN to be a member of the senate? Might say more about the society you live in.

And what do you mean by "will join the field in time"? Why aren't they joining now? What is different now? As I showed, women are actively choosing not to join engineering fields. It is not like something is stopping them (except perhaps popular culture's projected image of what girls should reach for). Saying "Don't worry, it'll get better over time" never really solved any major problem. It just made society complacent to its own faults.

edit on 25-2-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

Who cares if they aren't joining now? What is with people who just have to run around telling others what they should and should not do. Women are free to make their own choices. Who cares if you like it or think they need to do something else. It's their life and maybe you should let them focus on what makes they happy rather then what you think they should do with their lives.

And wow, that link you posted was a bunch of self righteous crap. If that's what you think of people who aren't good at what you are then I don't even want to talk to you anymore. In fact his conclusions were wrong. Music is not some thing people step up to happily learn. Ever take music theory? Most people flunk out because they just can't freaking get it and don't want to. There are plenty of non-mathematical subjects some people just don't want to learn. Can you crochet? maybe I should call you worthless and useless because you can't and maybe curse you up and down. How classy.

reply to post by antonia

Originally posted by antonia
Actually Madonna was chubby in the 80's and got ragged on for it.

Actually Madonna set the trend for what was popular for every girl in the 80s to dress like, and every boy in the 80s to...well, I am sure you get the idea.

Originally posted by antonia
Why don't you go ask them? Why are you so hung up on women doing what you think they should be doing? When did you become the judge and jury? Hmmmm?

...Ask them? Are you being confrontational simply for the sake of it? It amazes me how much you don't seem to care at all about how vaste swathes of the industry and academia are almost devoid of women (out of their own choice).

Originally posted by antonia
Nope, I'm saying it doesn't matter. Women can do what they want and you can get over it.

Yes, women CAN do whatever they want (at least in theory in today's world). So why don't they want to do these things? And I hope you realise that replying with "Why don't you go ask them?!" is very silly.

Originally posted by antonia
Because instead of showing the actual accomplishments in business women are responsible for you are boiling it down to how many women graduate business school. Instead of acknowledging the many women who own their own business you belittle it because they have no degree. That's unfair to women.
...
Senate membership isn't indicative of how many women run. You do remember they have to WIN to be a member of the senate? Might say more about the society you live in.

I'm not sure what you want. If I measure the actual accomplishments by women in these fields, it is invalid because society conspires against them (which I agree with, to an extent. While misogyny has been greatly reduced, it certainly isn't gone). However, if I measure how many of these women express a desire to enter these fields (through post-secondary enrolment, not through how many graduate), it is wrong because women accomplish much in business without doing this?
Hey, if you have statistics for "How many women start out in a career in business (whether or not they fail due to outside influence) vs How many men start out in a career in business (whether or not they fail...)", I'd be very interested in seeing it. But I get the feeling that such a thing doesn't exist. Which is why I took what I considered the next best thing.

You keep talking about how women are free to do what they like. And I'd like to absolutely agree with you, so I find it a bit hilarious how you are trying to paint me as some sort of oppressor who only wants women in certain fields. Women have the opportunity available today to go into WHATEVER field they like.

So why don't they "like" all these major fields? You say that women "will join these fields in time", but again, the statistics (same ones in my OP) show the exact opposite. From the 70s to the 2000, women enrolment in engineering disciplines went up from 12% to 20% (as a percentage of the total enrolment). This is something great, something you'd totally expect to follow the Women's Lib movements in the 70s. However, from 2000 to 2008, the average number of women who applied to these disciplines remained virtually the same, but the total number increased (i.e. more men), so now the percentage of women enrolment in engineering disciplines is actually LESS.

So no, it won't just "improve over time". Why are you so okay with this? Do you not care that we may possibly be regressing BACK to a society where women are only good for "cooking and housework (and maybe acting and singing and entertaining and writing added)", while "real men" take care of the stuff like engineering, politics, business and law? And this time it won't be as simple as "they don't have opportunities" or "Men are chosen over women". This time, it'll be because women would CHOOSE not to join these fields. Doesn't that bother you?

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by antonia

 

...Ask them? Are you being confrontational simply for the sake of it? It amazes me how much you don't seem to care at all about how vaste swathes of the industry and academia are almost devoid of women (out of their own choice).

You started the topic. You are the one telling women what they should be doing. Ever thought women find that a bit annoying?

However, if I measure how many of these women express a desire to enter these fields (through post-secondary enrolment, not through how many graduate), it is wrong because women accomplish much in business without doing this?
Hey, if you have statistics for "How many women start out in a career in business (whether or not they fail due to outside influence) vs How many men start out in a career in business (whether or not they fail...)", I'd be very interested in seeing it. But I get the feeling that such a thing doesn't exist. Which is why I took what I considered the next best thing.

www.womenonbusiness.com...
articles.latimes.com...
www.sddt.com...

Looks like the ladies are doing just fine in business.

You keep talking about how women are free to do what they like. And I'd like to absolutely agree with you, so I find it a bit hilarious how you are trying to paint me as some sort of oppressor who only wants women in certain fields. Women have the opportunity available today to go into WHATEVER field they like.

So why did you start a whole topic to lament what they choose to do with themselves?

. Why are you so okay with this?

Because I don't have the right to tell others what to do with their life just because I think it's better.

Do you not care that we may possibly be regressing BACK to a society where women are only good for "cooking and housework (and maybe acting and singing and entertaining and writing added)", while "real men" take care of the stuff like engineering, politics, business and law?

That's a little hyperbolic. Women aren't going to regress because they don't choose certain careers. Maybe you should stop belittling other women's choices as unimportant to society simply because you don't like them. You seem to overvalue certain professions. Guess what-Kids don't get raised by themselves, houses don't clean themselves, dinners don't cook themselves. There is nothing demeaning about such work and it adds value to society.

And this time it won't be as simple as "they don't have opportunities" or "Men are chosen over women". This time, it'll be because women would CHOOSE not to join these fields. Doesn't that bother you?

edit on 25-2-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

Nope, as long as women CHOOSE what they want as opposed to having that life chosen for them. Feminism was about choice in the beginning not world domination.

I was thinking about something else earlier. You are so hung up on what you perceive as importance in society. Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps what you perceive as important is in fact a creation of culture and not yourself? And how much of this is you feeling better than others because of what you study? And really, who are you to sit there and tell other women what they should find important?

You know, Autism runs rampant through the children of engineers. No, that's not some kind of crazy assertion.
spectrum.ieee.org...
It's twice as likely to occur in that profession, more than any other. Boys are 8 times more likely to have autism than girls. Certain features of Autism lend themselves to Engineering. If more boys have autism than girls and Engineers are more likely to be Autistic then why would you shocked there are more men in that profession? Science has already proven men and women have differently structured brains. Men have more gray matter than women, women have more white matter than men. This is why women tend to be more socially aware than men. I also believe it may be why women don't manifest Autism as much as men do. In this case, it might simply be due to the way the female brain is structured. Women can certainly learn math and they should. However, your condescending attitude certainly isn't going to attract them to the profession (and yea, that crap you linked to earlier REALLY CONDESCENDING and if you really thought it was going to convince anyone to study math you are simply socially inept).

I answered the other two professions so I will not go into them again.

reply to post by antonia

Originally posted by antonia
You started the topic. You are the one telling women what they should be doing. Ever thought women find that a bit annoying?

Yes, I did, and I'm not sure you looked very carefully at my OP. Nowhere am I trying to "tell anyone" or "force anyone" to do any such thing. My thread was about WHY they aren't. No need to be so touchy!

Originally posted by antonia
www.womenonbusiness.com...
articles.latimes.com...
www.sddt.com...

Looks like the ladies are doing just fine in business.

Actually, no it doesn't. If you check those links you just posted, it shows that the number of small businesses and companies owned by women make up 7.8 million, vs 13.9 million owned by men. That is almost half.

And I'm not sure where you are going with constantly making this as if it is personal about me belittling certain jobs. I am sorry, but certain fields are more necessary to progress than others.

If a civilisation existed that ONLY cherished art and story-telling and dancing to the exclusion of other fields, they'd be at the level of cave-dwelling primitives who just happen to have awesomely beautiful cave paintings and be able to tell with great flourish and pomp how their brave hunter speared that bull last week.
If a civilisaton existed that ONLY cherished science (or engineering or even business), they'd be pretty advanced technologically, have all the comforts of modern life and beyond, although they may be very sad and boring.
I am not saying that entertainment is totally unimportant. I am certainly not saying that nobody should go into entertainment. Heck, it would even be okay or understandable if the percentage of people in each of these fields were equal. But it is not.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by antonia

 

Originally posted by antonia
You started the topic. You are the one telling women what they should be doing. Ever thought women find that a bit annoying?

Yes, I did, and I'm not sure you looked very carefully at my OP. Nowhere am I trying to "tell anyone" or "force anyone" to do any such thing. My thread was about WHY they aren't. No need to be so touchy!

Why do you need to know? Obviously because you are looking for some way to remedy that which you consider a fault. You've already stated you don't think enough women are in the field and this is going to lead to regression for women. You have an idea about what women should be doing otherwise you wouldn't be worrying about it no?

Actually, no it doesn't. If you check those links you just posted, it shows that the number of small businesses and companies owned by women make up 7.8 million, vs 13.9 million owned by men. That is almost half.

Opening a business requires capital not a M.A. in Business. Women are more likely to be poor than men. However, all statistics show female ownership of business has been increasing steadily over the last decade.

And I'm not sure where you are going with constantly making this as if it is personal about me belittling certain jobs. I am sorry, but certain fields are more necessary to progress than others.

If a civilisation existed that ONLY cherished art and story-telling and dancing to the exclusion of other fields, they'd be at the level of cave-dwelling primitives who just happen to have awesomely beautiful cave paintings and be able to tell with great flourish and pomp how their brave hunter speared that bull last week.
If a civilisaton existed that ONLY cherished science (or engineering or even business), they'd be pretty advanced technologically, have all the comforts of modern life and beyond, although they may be very sad and boring.
I am not saying that entertainment is totally unimportant. I am certainly not saying that nobody should go into entertainment. Heck, it would even be okay or understandable if the percentage of people in each of these fields were equal. But it is not.

You can't see the forest for the trees. There are many things which make the planet go around, it's not some one thing. The Engineer would not eat if there was not someone to grow food, the Engineer would not survive illness were there not doctors and nurses, the Engineer would not imagine a different world without art, they would not be educated without teachers. There are many different professions which make the world and without those people modern society wouldn't exist. That's the point. The world isn't going to suddenly progress because there are more engineers-You will just see your pay go down because supply has gone up.

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by babloyi

 

I think treating women like perpetual children is what is really harming them. They are human beings, and as such are capable of higher thought. Now if you want to talk about the toxicity of Popular Culture in general, that may be an interesting venue of dialog. But such condescending drivel as found in your opening statement has no place in civilized discussion.

I agree with you there. I get into this argument with my "Femininst" friends all the time, particularly when it comes to date rape. Women HAVE to take responsibility for themselves, and need to avoid risking getting into dangerous situations. Yes, that doesn't mean what the guy does is right either, but there are predators out there. Don't swim with sharks and you won't get eaten by them.
And yes, most Feminists attack pop culture with the assumption that the women reading and watching these things are just brainless sheep.

As for weight issues, I've argued for years that obsessing about weight enables women to be narcissists without coming across as such. Talking over and over again in detail about what you eat or don't eat, your exercise, the clothes you can't find to fit you, etc. enables a person to talk non-stop about themselves in a way that seems to be socially acceptable.

On the subject of beauty, it has little to do with the media, though the media certainly helps perpetuate it and probably helps standardize beauty over a wider group of people. But what I found really funny was one friend of mine posted a photo of a plus-size model who boasted she was wanting to push the boundaries of what society sees as beautiful. So yes, she was by most standards pretty fat. But she also had long blonde hair, milky white skin, large boobs and a "pretty" face - large eyes, big lips, strong cheekbones, etc. LOL, she was only pushing the one standard she didn't live up to...Basically she was a Barbie Doll, just with a thicker waist.

Pop Culture is only a reflection of our own culture, made up from what people promote in their own families and among their own friends and peer groups writ large.

reply to post by antonia


I fully agree with you. Ever watched the movie Mona Lisa Smiles? Julia Roberts plays a teacher who is frustrated at all these women who 'just want to get married', complaining that getting an education was a waste of time for them. Julia Stiles' character snaps back at her that raising the next generation is an important job too, and it is better if it is done by someone who is educated and intelligent over someone stupid and ignorant.

If a woman wants to raise children and not go out in the 'real world' there is NOTHING wrong with that.
I think women should have some experience in the workplace before having children though, because I hate to say it but having worked in customer service some of these stay at home mommies can be the worst biatches. But still, there should be a choice and what a person chooses for herself should never be looked down upon.

Let's face it, the working world sucks for the most part. What is most important is that every woman can exercise economic freedom: that she can quit an abusive relationship any time. On top of that, there should always be options available for women who never married, which has always been a large segment of the population. One reason there were so many "fake" mediums in the 1800s was that it was one of the few ways a woman could make money for herself.

Having said that, everyone should have a level of economic freedom where they should be able to quit an abusive employer at any time without worrying how they would fend for themselves otherwise.
This race to the bottom that we have in this world is only won by people who don't have to run.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Really that's what any industry wants, for people to feel a lack so they'll buy. Although, it's a little more ethical to make people want a movie or whatever compared to the things that drive some industries, needless to say.

The internet...

But its deeper than that... its MEN on the internet that are destroying Women