Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

I'm sorry, but I do not wish to address the exact same comments about the article that everyone else has posted.

I capitulate--the author is telling women what to do, he's wrong about feminism, and there's something wrong with his brain. Now we can all move on. Preferably to something that's actually important.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

OK. What would you like to discuss?

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

The article is important. It may look silly to all of us on this thread, but the fact is that many people believe all this stuff and live their lives based on these misconceptions.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

There are definitely some misconceptions here, but I couldn't find any actually promoted by the article.

Look. What the author is doing is not important, because he's not really saying anything. It's a fluff piece that he probably came up with on an airplane or waiting in line at the post office.

Here's how it works. He's taking a premise that can be proved false, namely that feminism is some sort of evil pop culture fad that doesn't really address the problems women have in the world. Next he argues against that premise (badly) using his knowledge of evolutionary psychology.

I think everyone here has seized upon details in the article and entirely missed the consequential failures of the entire piece. Some of what he says makes sense, but he does it in such a ham-handed way that it barely merits a second look let alone all this outrage.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

Good point, and I think that's why so many of us responded so strongly to this article. Some people will believe what he says because they assume it's based on proper scientific research; some already think this way and will feel their view is validated by his article, assuming again that it's based on proper research. The way I see it, the real danger of this article is that he provides only his own opinion, but presents it as a valid conclusion based on scientific research and knowledge.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

What harm can be done by one article, that's probablyu only been read when people stumble on it accidently. All in all I have to agree with canismajoris here. Even if people don't like it, for me the author has some points. Definitellhy not agreeing with everything, but in general I do. But like Bill said you shouldn't put so much value into this one article, which it seems is seen as a threat to your idea of how women should act or should be treated, not that I agree with everything there as well.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

Interesting and depressing (I thought, anyway) article about young women aspiring to marry a famous sportsman:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ags-john-terry

The comments underneath are predictably scary, though.

So what do people think? Do women today still define success by the status of their partner/husband rather than their own success? If so, why do you think that is - biology, socialisation, changing face of the workplace giving fewer opportunities for working-class women, something else entirely?

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

From what I see, it depends on the country, the cultural environment, and the people involved themselves. I know many women who are successful in their own right. In some cultures, that is frowned upon (a woman is not supposed to do better than a man in a traditionally male field) but I genuinely think that in most Western countries we've moved past that. Hopefully.

On a slightly different angle, I found this post on another site, about "vintage ads" that show how women were viewed just a few decades ago. I'm copying the whole post from that site - the comment is from the poster (a woman), not from me.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

Hmm...In less modern countries, certainly, but I think rather than status based on the partner, more like status based on the family in general, whether based on income or fame or something else.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

Gosh I would take John Terry right away even if he had cheated on 1000s of women. But we always assume that they are in relationship with the successfull because of the money. But why can't it be real love? And even if that's not the case, everyone should be entitled to be with someone for their own reasons and not split up because some people think they're degrading themselves. There is nothing wrong with being married to a football player, they also need love.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

I thought the article made clear that in some of the cases of some of the women it interviewed/alluded to it was real love.

In the case of the girls who ask nightclub bouncers to point out to them who is a footballer, though, it's clearly the status they're after.

You're right, of course, there's nothing wrong to aspiring to get wealthy that way, if that's what you want. What depressed me about the comments' sections is that about half the respondents were really down on the women, implying they were half-brained manipulative golddiggers or stupid unrealistic fantasists, and the other half seemed to be arguing, using cod evolutionary theory, that it's just "natural" for women to seek a rich provider and for men to seek an attractive piece of totty (or several attractive pieces of totty). Nobody seemed to be voicing my view - that we don't have a "looking for a sugar daddy" gene, but if some women feel they have to do that to get where they want to be - good luck to them.

What does concern me, though, is that so many young women don't seem to think there are any other ways of getting what they want in life, other than through a powerful man. Have opportunities for women shrunk?

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

Yeah but it's only a small percentage, same like some people only pick their partners after the look. I guess having access to money is appealing to lots of women, for that they love to shop and have status symbols like prada bags. I think it lies in the general nature of some women that they are after the money of the hubby to fullfil their own "being and looking important and rich" dreams.

Have the opportunities shrunk?
Not at all, but getting into a relationship with a richer guy is above all things the easiest way. They are too lazy to do it the other way I'd say.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

I can see that being the case, sometimes, for example, I think John and Toni Terry were teenage sweethearts.

Or failing that, the tacky kiss'n'tell in a tabloid.

I think it's shallow and shows a lack of self-respect, personally. However, I agree with the comments that people seek out wealthy partners in other spheres of life as well, so there is probably a class issue as well as a gender one involved in the criticism of so-called "WAGs"

Hmm, I think it's something of an extension of the huge popularity of instant fame shows like Big Brother, X-Factor, American Idol, Britain's/America's Got Talent, etc. People want instant results and their fifteen minutes.

This actually reminds me, last weekend, I was listening to a radio programme discussing why women stay with philandering sports stars. A couple of the ideas really stood out to me - one suggestion made was that without the sports star partner, she loses the status and all the trappings- like the OK! spreads, media attention etc. I think this didn't take into account that some of these women have their own careers, but it may be true of the girls who ask bouncers to point out footballers.

Another suggestion, which bothered me very much, was that there are sometimes children involved and it's not just breaking up a relationship, it's breaking up a family. Surely, that's the responsibility of both partners, not just the betrayed partner? I can understand that ending a relationship when children are involved is a bigger decision than when they aren't but I think it is unfair to expect a certain decision in that regard from a woman whose partner clearly hasn't been busy putting his family first.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

I think there's something else to be considered - many people do not what they would like, but what they are expected. If they live in a society which expects from them to achieve status in a certain way, to be pretty, popular and in demand, sometimes they'd do it, unconsciously bending to societal pressure - even if it's not a pressure for something which society perceives as a good thing (like motherhood or marriage) but just what they've always been "told" through all sorts of different messages and indications they are supposed to do.

What I mean is rarely does anyone make decisions about their lives in a complete vacuum, irrespective of social order, etc., which is why I don't believe in analysing things in a vacuum.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

In this case I find it very, very unlikely. Afterall the women go to the discos and pick the men, the rich and famous ones. They choose to be like that and are not forced into the roles. It's their own will and not the fault of the society that those women are after football or other successful guys.

And lots of those women aren't even highly respected, they are labelled as attention seeking "women who sell their bodies for sex", who are only after the man's money. Why would anybody want to be put in a role like that. The only way I see it is that they want it like that. they want the attention.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

I don't know - I'm inclined to agree with Yoana. Generally, I think in society women are still judged on how attractive they are and whether or not they have a partner (and, if so, what kind of a partner) more than men are. I think perhaps the girl who wants to bag a footballer is just the extreme manifestation of that.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

Personally, I never encountered a women who fits in that role, who was only accepted because of the status of her husband. Those women are only a small minority. It may be valid for a handful of women but as the majority of women doesn't face this "problem" I don't see it as such.

I agree that woman who look good have it better in life, but there are also women who are not your average beauty and are still apprechiated. I've got gaps in my teeth and people told me to correct it. But I always say that Madonna has gaps too and she can live with it and became famous and so can I.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

I think it possibly depends on social context. Amongst middle-class professionals, perhaps women are accepted more for their own worth. I know I get a lot of commiserating comments from my working-class family and neighbours about how "sad" it is that I'm "not settled yet" (how I hate that expression!). I remember when I went to my sister's wedding, I had just graduated with first-class honours, gone backpacking around Europe and was considering different exciting careers. None of my extended family thought this was the least bit interesting or worthy of comment - all they wanted to talk about is whether I had a boyfriend or not.

:agree: I think really beautiful people look human, individual and natural, not like identikit airbrushed computer-generated images.

Speaking of which, it's rare that I praise the Telegraph (highly conservative British newspaper I've often quoted before which usually has a Victorian attitude to gender roles) for positive feminist articles, but this article yesterday made me punch the air and shout "Yes!"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...ith-pride.html

It's about how older women have character, individuality and sex appeal, but you wouldn't know it from how invisible they are in popular culture. As ever, though, some of the commenters below have evidently crawled out of the gutter.

Also, an interesting, amusing and at times surreal discussion of how children's toy and clothes manufacturers seem to be trying to enforce gender boundaries in an extreme and bizarre way:

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010...a#comment54828

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYNymvtbWw4

My friend showed me this a few days ago, it's of a tv show called wife swap and this episode was about two families, one who's obsessed with making their daughter beautiful and the other is ultra feminist and they homeschool their daughters to be strong and independent. It's an hour long but it was pretty interesting, even if it was probably a bit exaggerated.

I REALLY don't understand this. I'm 15 and while it's perfectly normal for people my age to have boyfriends in America, it would be considered extremely scandalous and bad in China, and most of my family is Chinese. So whenever I talk to them, I get the typical "how are you doing in school? Are you being healthy?" talk, and then it goes to "Do you have a boyfriend?" I guess I could understand that if they weren't Chinese but really? It seems like they're so interested in it even though they frown upon it...


About physical beauty, it's mostly about bone structure for me, but really, inner beauty DOES show through. You can tell if a beautiful person is vacant and airheaded or evil or cruel and plainer people can look much prettier if they just act beautiful, whether it's about happiness or confidence or something else.

Re: Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination Version 2
 

I agree with this, in fact it literally happens all the time. I'll meet someone and not think much of him but when I get to know him suddenly I realize he or she is beautiful.