[General Battuta]

Very interesting read about the way in which women are constantly forced to disclose information and send signals, both linguistically and socially.

[Mars]

I agree it's sad that there are no unmarked women, but to be human is to be marked.

Too much pressure is put on women and I definitely believe women are still unequal in our society. On the other hand, if one day I choose to wear a tee-shirt and jeans, people will think of me as working class - a nice shirt and slacks? Cubical dweller.

If I grow my hair out, people literally ask me if I'm a jew, if I shave my head, people wonder if I'm in a gang. Everything about me gives people cues.

I think this article speaks to society. . . the part of society that works in an office. The men may have been "unmarked" in that context, but on the subway going to work they would have been easily identifiable.

There is no truly unmarked style for anyone. It's part of the reason nudism hasn't taken off, and even if it did, we'd be comparing stylings of body hair. The fact is, you can walk around an office and see a bunch of guys who are 'unmarked' and it probably says that they either don't know how to dress nicely, or that they don't know how to dress interestingly, or that they feel uncomfortable in a suit.

[IronBeer]

Very interesting read

Hey! I read that essay in high school! Good read then, still a good read now.

[ssmit132]

A nice read. I find things like this interesting, as it gives light to things we may not think about normally.

[iamzack]

Maybe that's why guys all look the same to me.

[zookeeper]

Very interesting read about the way in which women are constantly forced to disclose information and send signals, both linguistically and socially.

A nice read, sure, but to say that women are forced to do anything of the sort is hyperbole.

[General Battuta]

Very interesting read about the way in which women are constantly forced to disclose information and send signals, both linguistically and socially.

A nice read, sure, but to say that women are forced to do anything of the sort is hyperbole.

I don't think it's hyperbole.

[iamzack]

it's not hyperbole :\

on the other hand, though, it does give women somewhat of an advantage in that there are a TON of options to choose from, and some of them are bound to be more flattering than others

if we get acne, we can dab on a bit of make up to make it less obvious, put on some mascara to enhance our eyes, etc

but if a guy gets caught doing that, he might catch some hell for it

but on the other hand AGAIN, make up is the norm for us... so if we are lazy one morning or if we don't like makeup, etc, that *says* something about us.. which kinda sucks.

[zookeeper]

Very interesting read about the way in which women are constantly forced to disclose information and send signals, both linguistically and socially.

A nice read, sure, but to say that women are forced to do anything of the sort is hyperbole.

I don't think it's hyperbole.

Well, of course it is, because obviously women are not actually forced. The fact that there's always people around who assume things based on your choice of clothing or hairstyle doesn't force you to disclose information and send signals. When someone makes (silly) interpretations of your personal choices then that's not forcing you into anything.

Sure, on a societal level you can say that "X are forced to do Y", but that's also (practically) always hyperbole since it's (practically) always factually incorrect. As an alternative, something along the lines of "the way in which women are constantly observed for both linguistical and social information and signals" would be more accurate and far less hyperbolic (or at least I wouldn't complain about that anymore).

[Rodo]

Everything you do says something for someone that's looking, don't give it that much of an importance.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, but as the linked screed lays out, some of the marking is a consequence of very fundamental systems (like language) that are essential to livelihood. You could argue that women have the choice not to speak English, or to never respond to questions like 'what prefix should I use on your name', but if you make that contention I suspect we're using very different definitions of 'forced' - you just can't exist in American society without engaging with these systems.

To create a totally hyperbolic example, if you're born into a cage where the only food is human flesh, you have the choice not to become a cannibal, but it's not a choice you can realistically take; I'd be happy to say you're forced into cannibalism. Same with the choice to opt out of, say, the English language.

[iamzack]

Very interesting read about the way in which women are constantly forced to disclose information and send signals, both linguistically and socially.

A nice read, sure, but to say that women are forced to do anything of the sort is hyperbole.

I don't think it's hyperbole.

Well, of course it is, because obviously women are not actually forced. The fact that there's always people around who assume things based on your choice of clothing or hairstyle doesn't force you to disclose information and send signals. When someone makes (silly) interpretations of your personal choices then that's not forcing you into anything.

Erh.. I guess it depends on your definition of forced? I mean, yeah, I can walk around in pretty miniskirts and heels and stuff if I want to, but if I venture near a road I may have to deal with creepy old guys honking at me or catcalling or some ****. To avoid that, I have to wear baggy clothes, and where I used to live, I would also cover up my long hair because it identified me as female.

In other situations, it's even more obvious. Who is a manager going to hire, the girl who is wearing make up with styled hair and fashionable clothes, or the girl wearing no make up at all, plain unstyled hair, and frumpy clothes? Attractive women earn more, and for the vast majority of us, you have to put a fair amount of effort into reaching the "standard" level of beauty. Even women who you think aren't wearing make up most likely are, they just might not be wearing much, or are very good at applying it.

There's also the issue of shaving. Everything below the eyebrows MUST GO. I know girls who don't shave, but they are very hippieish, and most of them have started shaving in the last couple years anyhow.

For guys, it's situational. If you're just walking around campus, t-shirt and jeans, polo and khakis, whatever, you're in standard dress. Unless your shirt says something particularly out of place, your clothes don't really say anything about you. "Jeans and a tshirt" for girls is just as varied as anything else. Are they skinny jeans? Bootcut? Torn? Embroidered? Boyfriend jeans? What color are they? Is the tshirt baggy or fitted? V-neck or crew? Color? How girly is the design on it? Is it plain? Heels, sandals, sneakers, or boots? How fashionable are they? Do they match her belt/purse? Is her hair in a ponytail, let loose, messy bun, etc, etc? Is it dyed? How is it cut? Are her eyebrows tweezed? Is she wearing enough foundation? Too much? How thick is her eyeliner? Lip gloss, lip balm, or lipstick? Is she wearing jewelry? What kind? Are her ears pierced? Are her nails painted? It goes on and on and on and on....

And no, you can't accurately use those markers all the time to evaluate a chick. But most of us do think about everything we wear and what signals it puts out and all that.

[Topgun]

I don't understand why this is looked on as something wrong. Long ago we evolved to to value females that adjusted their appearance.  Pretty soon all females began adorning themselves and now it seems weird when they don't. That's it.

[General Battuta]

I don't understand why this is looked on as something wrong. Long ago we evolved to to value females that adjusted their appearance.  Pretty soon all females began adorning themselves and now it seems weird when they don't. That's it.

ahahahah evopsych. Back in my lab at Chicago we would tell stories about people saying this stuff and then laugh and laugh. It's like dilettante scientists talking about 'the center of the universe'; it shows that someone has no idea of the actual research done on the topic.

No, this isn't how it works. It's a fairy tale, unsubstantiated by science.

It's also a badly flawed argument from a logical standpoint because of appeal to nature. It's wrong in the context of modern society because it forces women to constantly disclose information which is then used against them. If you'd read the article you would already have several examples of this; you don't need to agree with them but you wouldn't be facile enough to say 'that's it'.

Of course from what you said I suspect you haven't even read the article, you were just responding to iamzack; if so please take the time to read the article.

[Topgun]

I don't get it.  What's wrong with evopsych? Do you have a better explanation of psychology?

[iamzack]

I don't get it.  What's wrong with evopsych? Do you have a better explanation of psychology?

Anything is better than evopsych.

For example:

I don't understand why this is looked on as something wrong. Long ago we evolved to to value females that adjusted their appearance.  Pretty soon all females began adorning themselves and now it seems weird when they don't. That's it.

Relative plainness of male dress compared to female dress is a somewhat recent development in Western societies. Men and women both used to wear makeup and men had plenty of fancy fashions going on, the same as women.

AFAIK the only conclusion evopsych ever reaches is the idea that 1950s gender roles are somehow ingrained in all of us as human beings.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, using actual science.

Evopsych is useful when it makes testable predictions. I've been involved in evopsych research that made testable predictions and we went on and tested them. But what you just did was invent a fairy tale, a just-so story, how the leopard got its spots for women. I went into college wanting to major in evopsych and I rapidly learned that it is a field infected with bull**** like that; a major Harvard evopsych professor was recently found guilty of simply fabricating his results. Evopsych could be good, but idiots give it a bad name.

To quote Noam Chomsky:

"You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

All you did - and all that most rigorless, pop approaches to evopsych do - is take a modern phenomenon, invent a basis for it in the evolutionary past, and set it out as truth. When you actually buckle down and do the science, though, what you'll find is that common sense evopsych predictions rarely pan out. For instance, the notion that women look for a strong, powerful man to mate with because they need a partner to help protect and raise their children is often cited as a biological universal, and yet the data suggests it's not completely true.

Here, I'm going to demonstrate. Let's take your assertion

I don't understand why this is looked on as something wrong. Long ago we evolved to to value females that adjusted their appearance.  Pretty soon all females began adorning themselves and now it seems weird when they don't. That's it.

Now I'm going to turn it around!

In most species the male displays and the female selects. Thus we see that evolution favors good-looking males because males always display for females rather than the other way around, so the appearance of the female is irrelevant. Thus men wear makeup and now it seems weird when they don't. That's it.

It's just as valid, just as wrong, and just as guilty of oversimplifying an enormously complex issue that combines biological, social and historical influences.

And yeah, what iamzack said is true, men used to dress like peacocks as recently as a couple hundred years ago. You went straight for the evopsych explanation instead of actually looking at history to see the ten billion counterexamples. That's why evopsych gets laughed out of the house.

[Topgun]

I admit I just made that up, bad science or whatever. but what makes this wrong? I mean the women thing, not making stuff up.

[Mars]

From the perspective of the article, it's because it puts an unfair burden on women to 'look nice' and give away information on their availability etc.

My argument is that besides the names (a well documented misogynistic establishment) much is put on people's appearance in general. If we were talking body image, I'd argue differently; but I just don't see women actually having to put on certain clothes or being any more 'marked' in that way than men are.

[General Battuta]

The fact that 'male' is the default in our language causes subtle, pervasive biases - witness the famous doctor-car-crash riddle that I assume you've encountered by now:

A father and his son are out for a drive when they are struck by another car. The son is badly injured and rushed to the emergency room, where a doctor scrubs up to operate. The doctor enters the OR, takes one look at the son, and says "I can't operate. This is my son." How is that possible?

I've delivered this riddle to tables of college students and a fair fraction of them don't get it. That kind of cognitive bias pervades our society and actually impacts things like hiring decisions; we ran some experiments on this.

Or, another example from the article

If a woman's clothing is tight or revealing (in other words, sexy), it sends a message -- an intended one of wanting to be attractive, but also a possibly unintended one of availability. If her clothes are not sexy, that too sends a message, lent meaning by the knowledge that they could have been. There are thousands of cosmetic products from which women can choose and myriad ways of applying them. Yet no makeup at all is anything but unmarked. Some men see it as a hostile refusal to please them.

The woman is unable to dress neutrally. She cannot make a choice about her dress which will not in some way draw unwanted attention. Either she advertises perceived availability, or perceived hostility.

Or, furthermore

Women can't even fill out a form without telling stories about themselves. Most forms give four titles to choose from. "Mr." carries no meaning other than that the respondent is male. But a woman who checks "Mrs." or "Miss" communicates not only whether she has been married but also whether she has conservative tastes in forms of address -- and probably other conservative values as well. Checking "Ms." declines to let on about marriage (checking "Mr." declines nothing since nothing was asked), but it also marks her as either liberated or rebellious, depending on the observer's attitudes and assumptions.

I sometimes try to duck these variously marked choices by giving my title as "Dr." -- and in so doing risk marking myself as either uppity (hence sarcastic responses like "Excuse me!") or an overachiever (hence reactions of congratulatory surprise like "Good for you!").

All married women's surnames are marked. If a woman takes her husband's name, she announces to the world that she is married and has traditional values. To some it will indicate that she is less herself, more identified by her husband's identity. If she does not take her husband's name, this too is marked, seen as worthy of comment: she has done something; she has "kept her own name." A man is never said to have "kept his own name" because it never occurs to anyone that he might have given it up. For him using his own name is unmarked.

The author's contention here is that women are deprived of choices because they are unable to act without disclosing information which is then used against them. The neutral 'Mister' has no equivalent for women; any prefix they give conveys social information about their personalities and attitudes towards men.