societal conventions you hate

[GeorgW]

ALL OF THEM!
/Thread
Fine, there are a lot of good ones, but the bad ones really stand out!

1. Having to wear clothes
2. It being acceptable to be a fat unhealthy jackass
3. People considering race or gender to be important
4. Society being based around money and class
5. Sexuality/sexual preferences being an issue
6. Lots of other things. Like most of the things. Almost all of them.

Move out of the states. Depending on where, but at most only 2 of those are a big thing over here in Sweden.

Which two? No matter what, you're lucky. Not only is there that, but you guys have what may be the greatest metal band ever: Sabaton. I hate how hated nudity is. Really, the only reasons it's illegal is to make the clothing industry more money and because of religion.

Which 2 depends on the part of the country. And we have a lot of great music.
And while I think that prudishness is a little silly these days, I wouldn't want everybody to walk around completely naked. It'd take a lot of the thrills away from sex.

I think it would be worth it. It would kill alot of insults if everybody's body type was seen as ok.

But that's the thing, if anything it'd make physique even more important, and make having an "un-attractive" body type more unjustly ridiculed.

Not if nobody was ashamed of their body, which they would need to be to be nude.

But that's an entirely different social convention, the obsession with looks and what looks are okay, that's the really bad one.

But nobody would go nude if they still were ashamed of their bodies. And if everyone was nude when they didn't need clothing then they would clearly not be ashamed.

But people are still self concious and ashamed of how they look even when they wear clothes. I don't think they're as connected as you might think.

That's my point. They're self conscious and ashamed while clothed, so they'd never go nude. So if they were going nude, they wouldn't be self conscious or ashamed, would they?

Sure they would. If the social stigma of clothes would be gone, but not the stigma of looks, nothing would change, everybody would be just as, or much more, ashamed, they'd just also be naked.

 

[stuka06]

Considering the Suit issue: Thank god I work for a video game company. The day of my interview, I was wearing a Band shirt and Jeans, walked in the office and had the interview with my boss, who wore exactly the same

The social convention that being gay is some thing strange or abnormal or whatever. There are less Australians on Earth than gay people. I mean both talk in a funny voice sometimes, but so do German train engineers( seriously it's hilarious [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb9AaqSPaCc]). So what ever. Get over it.

 

[ZtH]

EDIT: I forgot to post my hated social convention! Sorry
I have many, but they largely come down to judging each other based on first impressions. Yes, those are important, but judging because of what someone wears, or that they have tattoos and piercings, and making assumptions about their personalities because of it.

I was once guilty of doing this. Last year I met a guy who was wearing the whole ghetto getup. I assumed he was doing the whole gangster style thing. First impression seemed to confirm this until we actually got in a group together. The whole gangster thing was just a facade for him, he was actually a huge anime nerd. I don't think I've assumed a personality after only a few superficial meetings since. I still feel like an ass for judging him on his dress.

OT:

I dislike the attitude that partying is the best way to meet people. I feel that it is next to impossible to have anything more than superficial interactions in that type of setting.

 

[funguy2121]

I actually wasn't talking about the redhead who was tragically blown up along with the rest of the fleet in the reboot, though we can include her as well. Shatner's Kirk used to run around with all kinds of green ladies.

And ditto on the fake tan. It's disturbing bordering on cartoonish, particularly when it's done to the degree that their skin is actually orange. But it does make for great stripper names, i.e. Tangerine.

Surely 'satsuma' is more appropriate, they almost unwrap themselves and they're incredibly cheap!

Lalalala haven't seen reboot yet! I was thinking about that green dancer when Kirk is having hallucinations in one episode.

See it as soon as you can.

What is it about the 60's? Jayne, Bridget, yum...don't care much for 70's and 80's women (aside from Superman's Ms. Tessmocker), but I do love the 60's.

 

[GeorgW]

ALL OF THEM!
/Thread
Fine, there are a lot of good ones, but the bad ones really stand out!

1. Having to wear clothes
2. It being acceptable to be a fat unhealthy jackass
3. People considering race or gender to be important
4. Society being based around money and class
5. Sexuality/sexual preferences being an issue
6. Lots of other things. Like most of the things. Almost all of them.

Move out of the states. Depending on where, but at most only 2 of those are a big thing over here in Sweden.

Which two? No matter what, you're lucky. Not only is there that, but you guys have what may be the greatest metal band ever: Sabaton. I hate how hated nudity is. Really, the only reasons it's illegal is to make the clothing industry more money and because of religion.

Which 2 depends on the part of the country. And we have a lot of great music.
And while I think that prudishness is a little silly these days, I wouldn't want everybody to walk around completely naked. It'd take a lot of the thrills away from sex.

I think it would be worth it. It would kill alot of insults if everybody's body type was seen as ok.

But that's the thing, if anything it'd make physique even more important, and make having an "un-attractive" body type more unjustly ridiculed.

Not if nobody was ashamed of their body, which they would need to be to be nude.

But that's an entirely different social convention, the obsession with looks and what looks are okay, that's the really bad one.

But nobody would go nude if they still were ashamed of their bodies. And if everyone was nude when they didn't need clothing then they would clearly not be ashamed.

But people are still self concious and ashamed of how they look even when they wear clothes. I don't think they're as connected as you might think.

That's my point. They're self conscious and ashamed while clothed, so they'd never go nude. So if they were going nude, they wouldn't be self conscious or ashamed, would they?

Sure they would. If the social stigma of clothes would be gone, but not the stigma of looks, nothing would change, everybody would be just as, or much more, ashamed, they'd just also be naked.

The social stigma on nudity wouldn't go away until the one on looks did.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, cuz to me they're completely different. But it was nice debating with you!

 

[DRSH1989]

Debt, taxes, the sole idea that i have to give money to someone else.

Surely if your in debt then someone has already given money to you?

And taxes? do you like healthcare, schools, infastructure, roads, rubbish collection, etc? Assuming you do, you're gonna have to live with it.

You live in the UK my friend. I live in a different country.
The healthcare here is expensive & sucks - you're as good as dead with it or without it, I've seen plenty of schools with awful teachers, infrastructure isn't like you're probably used to in your country, we got lots of shitty roads over here & lots of accidents have happened because of the so called "infrastructure" as they call it...I prefer "warzone"... in fact out of all the things you mentioned, only the rubbish collection works properly... dunno for how long though...
And no, no one has already given me anything (money or otherwise)... I make it a rule to avoid banks for loans & shit... hell dunno about UK bank interests, but where I live they're usually about 33% which is the equivalent of loan sharks to me... I know plenty of people in very bad situations with their bank loans over here...
Anyway what you said is a nice idea in theory & I appreciate your effort of replying to my comment & I'm all for paying taxes & doing my part when the system works as it should, but believe me when I tell you that theory has a hell of way of malfunctioning in practice most of the times...

 

[RADlTZ]

Lately society's necessity for me to wear pants has become a real problem in day to day life.

 

[HardkorSB]

This topic isn't much about "social Conventions" as it is just about "things you hate" in general.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

The expectation that the guy will pay for things on dates. College students on the east coast in the 21st century don't have a wage gap anymore. There's simply no reason left for this and it has become discrimination, plain and simple.

Equally, anyone who is not elderly or disabled but still expects me to go out of my way to hold doors open for them or let them go ahead of me out of 'chivalry'. Chivalry died with feudalism and had nothing to do with any of this bullshit. When I have a fief with serfs on it and ride around to jousting tournaments in full plate armor, then you can talk to me about chivalry.

 

[Gamer_152]

There's probably a lot of these but just a few of the ones that really annoy me are:

-Sex being a largely taboo subject among many people, yet the media being full of sexual imagery, is it really better that kids learn about sexuality from TV rather than real human beings?

-People wound up in the celebrity culture. They end up judgemental of total strangers, lining the pockets of people who invade other peoples lives for a living, and end up teaching both themselves and their children that the way to happiness is purely through a celebrity lifestyle.

-Peoples' squabbles about political correctness. On the one hand you have people who are genuinely trying to suspend freedom of expression and speech so that nobody gets offended by the tiniest thing, but what I see way more often is people using "Political correctness gone mad" as a kind of barrier for ranting about anything in an ignorant fashion to a downright racist one.

-The way society treats the different genders. We're living in a so-called age of equality yet the man still holds the door open for the woman and the man may never hit a woman under any circumstances? I'm sorry but that's just insulting to both sexes. Another one that really gets me is that the woman is told to let out her emotions, while the man is told to "man up".

 

[Terminal Blue]

Firstly, I don't think those stereotypes are accurate and nor do I think the counter-stereotype you offered (in regards to misogynists) is accurate.

I think it's pretty accurate.

The word misogyny comes out of a very specific context, specifically a feminist context. It was (and arguably still is) a way to explain the confinement of women into extremely restrictive and harmful gender scripts for the widespread betterment and enjoyment of the male sex.

99% of the time when you hear it being it used it is not to refer to people who outspoken, explicitly dislike women, although they certainly exist. Instead it is generally used to refer to societies, to institutions, to social customs or to statements which define women in a certain way. It is a mode of critique, not generally a form of identification.

The idea that women should be at home birthing and caring for children and sexually satisfying their husband can be described as misogynist precisely because it invokes gender scripts which very much used to define what it meant to be a woman in very unfavourable terms.

Misogyny is not the hatred of 'female' behaviours, and misogynists don't generally talk about killing all women everywhere or making them act like men because they hate traditional 'female' behaviours. Misogyny is far more likely to entail a desire to confine, restrict and possess women as passive objects than it is to entail an outright desire for extermination. Enforcing 'feminine' behaviours has historically been the means to that end.

Secondly, I never said that either gender should behave in a certain way; I was trying to raise awareness about the discrimination against men who 'act like men' versus their acceptance should they 'act like women' and versus the acceptance of the behavior of women whether it be socially masculine or feminine (I do not think your example of a female stereotype exists in anyone's mind).

You'd be very surprised about how many people still adhere to that stereotype. Maybe not in exactly the terms I've described, but to some degree or another. Our society is still largely set up around the assumption that people will form heterosexual families with complementary gender roles, and that men will work and produce and women will stay at home and reproduce. If you look, you'll find that cropping up in everything from family law to employment practices to the way dating works.

I feel quite entitled to speak as a man who to some degree 'acts like a woman' in saying that it doesn't bring the acceptance or power you seem to think it does. In fact, I would argue that it can very much cut you off from any kind of acceptance or any chance of gaining real social influence. Women, as a sex, do not wield anything like the same degree of social power as men, they do not get into decision-making positions in anything like the same numbers, and those who do must adopt a traditionally 'male' set of behaviours or risk relegation to second class status within those positions.

If you mean that traditional working class masculinity has lost some of the instant social respect it used to carry, then yes. I wouldn't disagree, but that is not necessarily anything to do with the changing status of women. In fact, it can be seen as far more a consequence of the demise of a significant low-tech manufacturing sector in the developed world. It is for precisely these economic reasons that masculinity needs to learn to adapt from time to time.

Now, getting to it; 'acting like men' is intrinsic. Your genes play a role in your personality; we are not born blank slates. Very few people are naive enough to argue that the difference between the gender personalities is purely social. But nor is that entirely relevant.

I don't see why that's such a dud hypothesis. There's no real evidence to the contrary.

Firstly, genetics is largely irrelevant. While the X Y chromosomal binary is a good general rule, it isn't even determinate of physical, biological sex. We have many examples of physical deviation from chromosomal sex going unnoticed, and increasing evidence that some degree of physical intersexuality is statistically significant. It may be that genetics is determinant of personality, I won't deny, but the fact is that human genetics are too complicated for that assertion to current be made. We don't even know precisely how physical sex characteristics are genetically determined beyond a few oversimplified rules. Assigned sex is based on a physical examination of the genitals at birth, not on a chromosome test.

This creates problems with the whole idea of assigning sexual traits along binary lines, particularly when you compare the massive differences in phenotypes within the same assigned gender. In truth, the type of body you likely think of when defining a 'male' body is possessed by only a fraction of the overall population. Likewise, the type of personality you think of when defining a male personality is hardly universal. Given the diversity of male bodies and personalities, what makes that assertion of 'real' masculinity genuine. What actual physical principle underpins it beyond arbitrary social value?

Entire schools of thought have grown up around the idea that, to a large extent, people are blank slates, and to be honest they've made significant more progress in explaining human behaviour than the sex determinists ever did. Look at the massive proliferation of identities, behaviours and understandings around you and tell me that it's all hardwired along a basic XX/XY split. Because I think that's a very difficult and problematic assertion to make.

I was saying two things; that behaviors are posited under social incompetence by their association with masculinity and that men are discouraged from masculine behaviors (whether or not they are only socially masculine) while women are entitled to act in such a manner without discrimination.

In this case I can only suggest reading Female Masculinity by Judith Halberstam and Hegemonic Masculinity and Emphasized Femininity by R.W. Connell.

On one hand, no amount of adherence to socially feminine behaviours will get you in the position to sit on the board of a major corporation, or let you be prime minister/president. Masculinity is a huge commodity with massive social weight, and one which is heavily biased to be only accessible to men.

Also, 'masculine' women are discriminated against on a level I really don't see how you can't grasp. The existence of acceptable degrees of mimicry of masculine behavior from within a specific type of feminine context doesn't change that fact, or the social inequalities inherent in it.

Now I am about to talk about cars and sports again. You can argue that they are not intrinsic to masculinity but, in the interests of keeping on topic, we'll say it's enough to say that they are certainly behaviors more often associated with masculinity.

Social development emerging from last hundred years in a specific culture are hardly universal. I don't think there's any debate about whether or not they're universal. They're not, it's that simple. Look worldwide and it's quite easy to see that.

A passion for cars or for sports (in the spectator's context) is most often regarded with contempt, most often regarded as socially under-developed behavior, while a passion for mediums often associated with femininity (fashion, gossip) is most often perceived as synonymous with social competence.

I don't think that's accurate.

A passion for cars which you have no hope of owning to the exclusion of engaging with the real world might be considered socially under-developed, as might any obsession on that level. By contrast, men who own nice cars, as many men are able to do, are often subject to a fairly massive degree of respect from other men and from particular groups of women. Ownership of a car is not merely an expression of masculine virtue, it is an expression of a wide range of masculine virtues. It shows you have the money to afford that car, the stable job which gives you that money, the autonomy to be able to decide to buy a nice car purely for yourself. We talk about these things as a 'status symbol', and really.. that means what it says on the tin. Is it surprising that even men who can't afford these things dream of them as an ideal? Sure, a woman can own a car, but it's extremely unlikely to be interpreted in the same light. Is it any wonder then that most women don't obsess over objects they can gain no social value from?

Consider for a moment how often women's bodies are used to sell cars or car related products, events and brands. That expression of ownership, that you can equate possession of a car with possession of a woman, takes enormous social power to make happen. Advertisers have actually been amongst the first to realize the money to be made in catering to the fantasies of non-traditional markets, so yes, we do have advertising which caters to the (perceived or imagined) fantasies of women and gay men, for example, but even then it's still incredibly rare in comparison.

Likewise, social competence is relative. It's the age old muthos/logos divide. To a certain extent relying on 'feminine' forms of communication indicates a lack of power if not competence. Traditionally, a 'masculine' man does not need to use gossip or persuasion, he speaks and people listen to him and believe what he says because he is masculine man. The fact that such authority might not be as widely respected as it used to be is not really unfair when you consider how easy it has traditionally been for masculine men to project authority over less-masculine men and women.

Gossiping or being into fashion is a much better way to get excluded from most areas of society than it is to gain acceptance.

In point; it is more fashionable to be a person from an oppressed lineage - heterosexual white males are incredibly unfashionable.

Heterosexual white males don't need to be fashionable. Society as a whole is set up to cater to them at every opportunity.

What has happened recently is that this has begun to unravel as other groups have emerged from the closeted or domestic domains which they were previously forced to inhabit and into the social arena, often confronting considerable resistance and hatred on the way.

Heterosexual white men have become so used to getting their own way, so used to having every social institution exist for their benefit and to serve them, that the slightest backlash or loss of the absolute authority which they used to wield in the social arena is seen as discrimination. The position of white heterosexual men as the centre of the social world and the sole wielders of social power for hundreds of years has been discrimination, the mere existence of alternatives and other modes of subjectivity is, in my opinion, not discrimination.

Men are not always disrespected for 'masculine behavior' but they are, at least, encouraged towards more feminine behavior - to have 'a woman's touch' around the flat is one example.

They tried to promote that idea in the 80s, it was an utter failure. Both men and women rejected in en masse. The 'new man' was never anything more than a gleam in an advertising agent's eye.

Also, on a real level. What does it mean to 'have a woman's touch'? Does it mean doing unpaid labour around the home? Does it mean caring for children?

The assignment of these roles as feminine behaviours carries an implication that unpaid labour is beneath men. That the position of men is out in the real world making real money with other men, while women stay at home as financial dependents and do their unpaid women's work (maybe get a part time job if they're lucky).

No. This is exactly why we can't keep clinging to essential definitions of masculinity and femininity. Because that system of organization creates dependencies and power inequalities between men and women. 'Being like a man' can no longer mean having sole access to the social world and the world of work, and 'being like a woman' can no longer mean being trapped in the house in unpaid domestic servitude. To make that a reality, we have to compromise on the scripts. We've started to build more flexible female gender scripts, now men need to learn to let go of their gender script and the power it has given them for far too long.

When we no longer expect people to follow these scripts as a matter of course, then we can start to claim and work towards equality. But the scripts themselves create unequal power relations.

P.S. Sorry about the name-calling, buddy, I was just trying to arouse attention.

I understand. Sorry for sounding a bit angry in my last post.

 

[sageoftruth]

I dislike my society's contempt for collectivism. There's nothing wrong with independence, but not all societal machines are evil either, and sometimes I feel that our reverence for independence is being taken to its illogical extreme.

 

[Ace of Spades]

I understand - and you aren't alone in those sentiments. I think all people need to do a better job of trying to empathize with others and realizing that interactions don't take place inside a vacuum - there's context for everything. It's hard to live by, but it's definitely worth it.

And thanks - I admit, I wasn't expecting a KIND response to my post. But hopefully, I can offer a new perspective.

You're welcome The difference between you and a lot of other people I've interacted with online is that your post set up an opposing argument to mine without demonizing me or my point of view, and maintaining civility, which is much more conducive to an actual discussion. We really need more of that on the Escapist, and on the internet in general.

 

[Obsideo]

Personally I hate how people these days try so hard to be different.

I dislike it when people blindly conform to others as much as the next guy, but the people who try so hard to be different are just as bad.
Everyone is always claiming to be so "random" or "weird" and they're often very boring.

Worst of all, they always have to say something like "Purple cheesecake moo" afterward just to show how random and spontaneous they must be.

"I'm not like everyone else, I'm my own person, no one will ever understand me!"


Blegh.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Herp derp. I honestly didnt think that statement needed sarcasm markers (tyranny of women? COME ON) but apparently it did.

Hyperbole, not sarcasm. Look them up.

Also, even if it was, sarcasm isn't meaningless.

I'm fairly sure it was sarcasm. I'm also fully aware of what hyperbole is. I do not think the poster was being hyperbolic, as that would imply that he thinks women are oppressive, even if he isn't so extreme as to really believe that they are tyrannical.

No, sarcasm isn't meaningless, but that does not mean that you should go on a page-long rant at somebody about the literal meaning of a statement when it clearly is not meant to be taken literally.

Believe me, if I thought that the poster was actually asking people to band together and support some kind of rebellion against women's rights, equality- or anything of the sort- I would definitely be on your side.

As it is, I'm not fully sure why I'm arguing this, although I do find your reactions to be fairly amusing.

OT: I can't really say there are any social conventions that I particularly hate. Does bullying people who defy social conventions count as one?

 

[Benny Blanco]

What's up with the mods in this thread? Some fairly innocuous comments earned people warnings but, apparently, thinly veiled misogyny is A-OK...

Which, coincidentally, is a societal convention I hate.

Then again, maybe I'm just a pinko liberal crybaby.