Representation in Culture: Women

[shadyJ]

Thanks for the compliments, Adam.

Regarding your story idea, I can't tell you if you have a good recipe for a story there. I should probably have a better understanding of its treatment before I suggest anything, but I'll just say this anyway: if you want tension, I think you will need to make an effort to develop sympathy for the male victims. Otherwise, it may just be an exercise in schadenfreude- punishing shallow douchy stereotypical men. In that case you would be rooting for the killer, which may not make for a bad story, but you would lose a sense of danger in doing so. That approach would make for a better black comedy. However, if you want a horror story, make your reader care for those whom you place in harm's way.

[Kandarian Demon]

Originally Posted by adamhenderson

Yeah it is interesting how all that works. See I would have thought that his natural proclivity towards feminine hobbies would be a massive 'in' for him in regards to success with the ladies. I didn't think women rejected men for being too feminine in the same way that men rejected women for being too masculine (I thought women were somehow less shallow in that regard).

Well, not all stereotypes are negative... and it's a big myth that woman are less shallow, but I think they do tend to try to protect the idea that they're not. Of course, as with everything else, this is obviously a HUGE generalisation, and I am in no way suggesting that ALL woman (or men, for that matter) are shallow. But when talking to woman with no men in the room, it's all about looks and money for quite a lot of them.

Originally Posted by adamhenderson

Maybe its a fine line with these matters.

I definitely think so - I think up until a certain point, you would be right in thinking that it's an advantage. But of course, again, that IS a generalisation. And I'm living proof of that - I've fallen for a few guys over the years who crossed that line completely.

I also think that our natural appearances can influence how we are read. I've been picked on and rejected all my life for being "butch", but I'm really not sure I would have been read that way if I didn't happen to be tall, broadshouldered and have facial features that are generally not considered "pretty".

In fact, I've noticed that people seem to automatically expect me to have a tough, dominant personality, even though that is as far from the truth as you could possibly get. So I don't think I can get away with as much as a "pretty" girl would, without being labelled as masculine.

Originally Posted by adamhenderson

Okay how about this:

I've been dabbling with writing horror fiction for the last few months (massive Stephen King fan, but I want to write a bit more subversively than him), and I've come up with an idea for a novel that is a subversion of the slasher movie.

Instead of a male killer, the killer is a woman, and instead of women dying for being promiscuous, men are killed for only valuing women for their visual appearance. I wanted the female killer to be a Kathy-Bates-in-Misery type character.

Is it too on the nose, do you think?

Well... there are plenty of "revenge movies", but not sure if I've seen a story with that exact story line.

I don't really like the idea of one gender punishing the other though, but that's just my personal opinion :)

I'm going to sound like such a cynic right now, but in recent years I have come to the conclusion that most relationships are based on superficial values anyway. At least I really don't think that one gender is better than the other in that respect.

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by Kandarian Demon

Well, just to give you one example, and it's a "real life" example - a couple of years back, I knew a guy from work - totally straight, by the way - who happened to be what you would probably call "metrosexual". It goes back to what you were talking about earlier, about the "feminine" man. And more than anything, his passion was designing, sowing and knitting clothes.

The guys were really nasty to him - the woman seemed to like him, but did to some extend participate in the jokes behind his back. And I know from a conversation that I had with him, that he had a really hard time finding woman who would actually date him. Ironically - he turned my offer down when I asked him out, because he was looking for someone more "feminine" :D

Thanks for the example. I know what you're saying now.

Sorry the designer turned you down. Did he actually say he was looking for someone more feminine? (I can break his legs for you. ;) ). If not, what made you think that?

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by Kandarian Demon

...
I'm going to sound like such a cynic right now, but in recent years I have come to the conclusion that most relationships are based on superficial values anyway. At least I really don't think that one gender is better than the other in that respect.
...

(Please pardon me if anyone perceives this as a tangent)

I don't doubt that. Still, I suppose it depends on what you consider superficial. It may be men and women have different ideas on what is superficial.

I extraordinarily respect people who seek out a spouse with no regard to how sexually attracted they are to the other's appearance. I admit I'm not going to court (date to marry) someone I'm not sexually attracted to. I'm not going to assume I can overcome my "sexual repulsion" of them in a marriage relationship. I don't think it would be fair to them. And even if they didn't want sexual contact, I still would. I realize a spouses appearance can change, but I think the root of sexual attraction would still be there.

I should note, sexual attraction would certainly not be my only consideration for dating or marrying someone.

Is sexual attraction superficial?

I think most would say that's the most superficial item there is; probably because appearance is often equated with "surface". I think it's superficial to a friendship, but not to a marriage.

Just for fun, an online dictionary defines superficial as:
1. Of, affecting, or being on or near the surface: a superficial wound.
2. Concerned with or comprehending only what is apparent or obvious; shallow.
3. Apparent rather than actual or substantial: a superficial resemblance.
4. Trivial; insignificant: made only a few superficial changes in the manuscript.

Considering my understanding and plan for marriage, referencing the 4th definition, sexual attraction wouldn't be insignificant to me, and thus wouldn't be superficial.

Many say a higher portion of women do not consider sexual attraction to their potential spouse as an important consideration. But I wonder how many of those same women would equally not care if their potential spouse had no sexual attraction to them?

[Kandarian Demon]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

Sorry the designer turned you down. Did he actually say he was looking for someone more feminine? (I can break his legs for you. ;) ). If not, what made you think that?

LOL that won't be nescesarry :D Yeah, he did... we had been pretty friendly for some time, so I think he felt the need to give me the "I like you, but..." explanation. And, fair enough... I didn't resent him for it or anything.

Originally Posted by Sculpt

(Please pardon me if anyone perceives this as a tangent)

I don't doubt that. Still, I suppose it depends on what you consider superficial. It may be men and women have different ideas on what is superficial.

That is probably one of those truths that many, especially woman, just don't want to accept. That's what I think I was mentioning earlier when I said that equality does not nescesarily mean that men and woman have to be exactly alike - and that's what I meant by saying that one gender isn't better than the other, so I don't think one has the right to punish the other. But - I'm repeating myself here - again, we're making a generalisation.

Originally Posted by Sculpt

I extraordinarily respect people who seek out a spouse with no regard to how sexually attracted they are to the other's appearance. I admit I'm not going to court (date to marry) someone I'm not sexually attracted to. I'm not going to assume I can overcome my "sexual repulsion" of them in a marriage relationship. I don't think it would be fair to them. And even if they didn't want sexual contact, I still would. I realize a spouses appearance can change, but I think the root of sexual attraction would still be there.

I should note, sexual attraction would certainly not be my only consideration for dating or marrying someone.

Is sexual attraction superficial?

I think most would say that's the most superficial item there is; probably because appearance is often equated with "surface". I think it's superficial to a friendship, but not to a marriage.

Just for fun, an online dictionary defines superficial as:
1. Of, affecting, or being on or near the surface: a superficial wound.
2. Concerned with or comprehending only what is apparent or obvious; shallow.
3. Apparent rather than actual or substantial: a superficial resemblance.
4. Trivial; insignificant: made only a few superficial changes in the manuscript.

Considering my understanding and plan for marriage, referencing the 4th definition, sexual attraction wouldn't be insignificant to me, and thus wouldn't be superficial.

Many say a higher portion of women do not consider sexual attraction to their potential spouse as an important consideration. But I wonder how many of those same women would equally not care if their potential spouse had no sexual attraction to them?

I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree, actually. It's like I said, I can sound a bit cynical at times, but I was simply stating the fact (or what I think is a "fact", at least) that we're all at least at some level superficial - if that is the correct word.

You ask, IS it being superficial? Well - in a way yes, but if it's human nature, we can't really change it, and if we can't, then what good does it do us to blame each other for it? However, when it comes to judging someone on their income, as many woman in particular do, I have to admit that I find that extremely shallow... although of course, who am I to say what they should look for in a partner.

I think we, especially us woman, have an unrealistic idea of what romance is and should be... and I'm the first to admit that I would absolutely love it if my prince charming existed, but I am enough of a realist to know that he doesn't - if it makes any sense to explain it like that. There is the reality that we would like to be real, and then there's the actual reality that isn't quite as cute.

The fact is that if it was all about personality, which is a beautiful thought, we would all be pansexual. The difference between a close friend and a partner IS the sexual attraction.

BUT... I HAVE also experienced that feelings, including physical attraction, CAN develop even though you initially didn't feel anything at all and never thought you would. I've seen people whom I even considered unattractive turn into "hunks" right in front of my eyes.

Still, I'm 36, and I've kind of had to learn to accept that I can't attract a better half the way I happen to look. If I couldn't when I was 25, then I sure as hell can't now that age is starting to creep up on me. It sucks, to put it mildly, because I am the ultimate "nest builder" and never really wanted anything more than my own family. But - do I resent men for it? No, absolutely not... you can't blame anyone for what they're not attracted to. But a lot of woman choose to call it mysogyny.

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by Kandarian Demon

I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree, actually. It's like I said, I can sound a bit cynical at times, but I was simply stating the fact (or what I think is a "fact", at least) that we're all at least at some level superficial - if that is the correct word.

You ask, IS it being superficial? Well - in a way yes, but if it's human nature, we can't really change it, and if we can't, then what good does it do us to blame each other for it? However, when it comes to judging someone on their income, as many woman in particular do, I have to admit that I find that extremely shallow... although of course, who am I to say what they should look for in a partner.

I think we, especially us woman, have an unrealistic idea of what romance is and should be... and I'm the first to admit that I would absolutely love it if my prince charming existed, but I am enough of a realist to know that he doesn't - if it makes any sense to explain it like that. There is the reality that we would like to be real, and then there's the actual reality that isn't quite as cute.

The fact is that if it was all about personality, which is a beautiful thought, we would all be pansexual. The difference between a close friend and a partner IS the sexual attraction.

BUT... I HAVE also experienced that feelings, including physical attraction, CAN develop even though you initially didn't feel anything at all and never thought you would. I've seen people whom I even considered unattractive turn into "hunks" right in front of my eyes.

Still, I'm 36, and I've kind of had to learn to accept that I can't attract a better half the way I happen to look. If I couldn't when I was 25, then I sure as hell can't now that age is starting to creep up on me. It sucks, to put it mildly, because I am the ultimate "nest builder" and never really wanted anything more than my own family. But - do I resent men for it? No, absolutely not... you can't blame anyone for what they're not attracted to. But a lot of woman choose to call it mysogyny.

In regards to the fellow who said he 'wanted someone more feminine', if you were asking for the truth, and that was it... I'm with you, I wouldn't regret getting the truth. I want the truth.

You're right, I have been told of non-sexual attraction friendships that turn into sexual attraction marriage. Sounds wonderful. Personality, pheromones, spirits and God make anything possible. All the more reason to have a variety of friends. Funny, reminds me of the "When Harry Met Sally" scene about how men and women can't be friends. I don't believe it; it's just a complex humorous contemplation.

Along with friends becoming lovers, I've also seen attractions I never would have expected. I've dated women who were beautiful, and friends and family thought they were ugly. Some men like very thin, some very heavy set. Honestly, you'd be foolish to think no man would be sexually attracted to you. There may be statistically demonstrated physical attractiveness levels, but I assure you, sexual attraction is in the eye of the beholder. I'm absolutely certain there are men sexually attracted to you. And in an area near you. :)

And I should also say, I completely agree with you, that we all need to be thankful for the lives we have. That is to say, we must live in the now, and not think we can't be whole, happy and have a worthwhile life unless we have a spouse and/or children. You're spot on with that. With that understanding, we can accept a future spouse is possible, seek a mate, date, and accept we don't know if it will happen.

[Kandarian Demon]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

In regards to the fellow who said he 'wanted someone more feminine', if you were asking for the truth, and that was it... I'm with you, I wouldn't regret getting the truth. I want the truth.

I didn't ask, but I didn't mind him telling me. I've heard it before, anyway.

Originally Posted by Sculpt

Funny, reminds me of the "When Harry Met Sally" scene about how men and women can't be friends. I don't believe it; it's just a complex humorous contemplation.

Well, most of my friends over the years have been male, and I tend to get along with them better than I do with woman, so no, I don't believe it either...

Originally Posted by Sculpt

And I should also say, I completely agree with you, that we all need to be thankful for the lives we have. That is to say, we must live in the now, and not think we can't be whole, happy and have a worthwhile life unless we have a spouse and/or children. You're spot on with that. .

It's not actually quite what I meant (although in a way it kind of is), but thanks LOL! :D I would say the complete opposite is true, for ME at least (and we can only speak for ourselves). But I've accepted that life is meaningless. If there is something you are desperate to achieve, but you know that realistically you can't have it, it will only make you more miserable if you keep trying.