Norms in society that make no sense?

[prplchknz]

Saying we'll hang out sometime when you have no intention of doing so.

 

[Paisley]

Saying we'll hang out sometime when you have no intention of doing so.

Ya, wouldn't it be great if people were more honest and said, "Chances are we'll never see each other again...." and then leave it there, instead of adding the obligatory social convention of "so let's hangout sometime." Or do you mean it the other way aro.....never mind.

 

[prplchknz]

Ya, wouldn't it be great if people were more honest and said, "Chances are we'll never see each other again...." and then leave it there, instead of adding the obligatory social convention of "so let's hangout sometime." Or do you mean it the other way aro.....never mind.

exactly!

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Wealthy people wearing ties and silk scarves. It would be easy to be grabbed and strangled, so I've never understood that. Even high heels for women makes it hard to run away. All these clothing preferences makes a person much more vulnerable to have their wallet stolen. Maybe it is a sign of being above attack? I've wondered if that's why the tough goth, biker, etc. crowd has piercings and chains that makes them vulnerable to physical damage. There might be a weird way that overtly expressing vulnerability is a sign of strength?

Okay, what I'm actually saying is that it makes no sense to me.

 

[Coriolis]

Wealthy people wearing ties and silk scarves. It would be easy to be grabbed and strangled, so I've never understood that. Even high heels for women makes it hard to run away. All these clothing preferences makes a person much more vulnerable to have their wallet stolen. Maybe it is a sign of being above attack? I've wondered if that's why the tough goth, biker, etc. crowd has piercings and chains that makes them vulnerable to physical damage. There might be a weird way that overtly expressing vulnerability is a sign of strength?

Okay, what I'm actually saying is that it makes no sense to me.

Much of what is pushed on women in the name of fashion makes no sense.

 

[prplchknz]

twisting other people's words to fit one's agenda

 

[Mind Maverick]

Wealthy people wearing ties and silk scarves. It would be easy to be grabbed and strangled, so I've never understood that. Even high heels for women makes it hard to run away. All these clothing preferences makes a person much more vulnerable to have their wallet stolen. Maybe it is a sign of being above attack? I've wondered if that's why the tough goth, biker, etc. crowd has piercings and chains that makes them vulnerable to physical damage. There might be a weird way that overtly expressing vulnerability is a sign of strength?

Okay, what I'm actually saying is that it makes no sense to me.

In the case of goths, their appearances — looking like a “freak” — are sometimes being used as intimidation. If you look crazy enough, no one messes with you. Sometimes people expect this type of person to be capable of pulling out some kind of weapon.

Aside from that…honestly, I don't think most people (in 1st world countries at least) go around living their lives in that much fear/anxiety, so they simply never think about it.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Much of what is pushed on women in the name of fashion makes no sense.

A bit of devil's advocate/alternative perspective — they don't make sense in relation to what purposes?

Be it social norm or primitive instinct, the females are generally the more “decorated” of the human species. No different from some types of birds, really, except that in our case we have the capacity to alter these dynamics, and it's not a consistent among all human females. When we observe birds, we wouldn't usually think that their decorated qualities make no sense, even when it reduces their abilities to camouflage. This is because it serves a purpose, has a function. If we were to consider camouflage the goal, then we would more than likely consider this to be a nonsensical disadvantage. However, if the alternate goal were to be focused on, the bird being decorative is a useful advantage with plenty of utility.

In the case of humans, who are more complex than the birds, this function can be self-oriented instead. For example, women may dress the way they want to in order to feel pretty, thus contributing to a sense of self-esteem. It may also be used to appeal to a partner or spouse we already have, but this can still an important relationship dynamic if it's used to keep the relationship satisfying by fulfilling a desire.

I do agree that more options need to be more available to be used for different functions. Women shouldn't need to shop for men's items just to find something that has certain functional purposes. I wonder if society pushes them onto women, or if those things are more popular and therefore the market strives to meet marketing demands while ignoring the minority (which brings in less profit). I wonder if the reason they're popular is that they're serving a different purpose — one you don't personally see the value in, but a valid one just the same, since what people consider valuable is subjective.

Perhaps the problem is priorities rather than the fashion. Using things that are perfectly useful, but less than ideal for the setting(s) they're being used in. Meaning, the priority is to meet one purpose when it would be better to meet another.

EDIT: For anyone who may be thinking it…yes, men can too, etc. etc. I'm not trying to adhere to gender roles excessively, that just wasn't the topic I was discussing at this time.

 

[Coriolis]

A bit of devil's advocate/alternative perspective — they don't make sense in relation to what purposes?

Short answer: practicality, economy, even personal safety. Noting the difference in what is pushed on women vs. men highlights this point.

Be it social norm or primitive instinct, the females are generally the more “decorated” of the human species. No different from some types of birds, really, except that in our case we have the capacity to alter these dynamics, and it's not a consistent among all human females. When we observe birds, we wouldn't usually think that their decorated qualities make no sense, even when it reduces their abilities to camouflage. This is because it serves a purpose, has a function. If we were to consider camouflage the goal, then we would more than likely consider this to be a nonsensical disadvantage. However, if the alternate goal were to be focused on, the bird being decorative is a useful advantage with plenty of utility.

In nature, at least among birds, it is usually the male of the species that has the more flamboyant appearance. As I understand it, a primary purpose is to attract a mate.

In the case of humans, who are more complex than the birds, this function can be self-oriented instead. For example, women may dress the way they want to in order to feel pretty, thus contributing to a sense of self-esteem. It may also be used to appeal to a partner or spouse we already have, but this can still an important relationship dynamic if it's used to keep the relationship satisfying by fulfilling a desire.

But why is "pretty" so often synonymous with impractical, costly, and even unsafe (think stiletto heels in an emergency) when women are concerned? Why aren't practical clothes considered pretty? In some cultures, they are. Look at Indian salwar-kameez outfits. Many are gorgeous, but they are far more practical than the party or formal wear marketed to American women.

I do agree that more options need to be more available to be used for different functions. Women shouldn't need to shop for men's items just to find something that has certain functional purposes. I wonder if society pushes them onto women, or if those things are more popular and therefore the market strives to meet marketing demands while ignoring the minority (which brings in less profit). I wonder if the reason they're popular is that they're serving a different purpose — one you don't personally see the value in, but a valid one just the same, since what people consider valuable is subjective.

Perhaps the problem is priorities rather than the fashion. Using things that are perfectly useful, but less than ideal for the setting(s) they're being used in. Meaning, the priority is to meet one purpose when it would be better to meet another.

The notion of value is inherently subjective. Some valued things or concepts are more objective than others, though. Consider economy (getting more for your money), practicality (being able to accomplish more daily tasks, more efficiently and conveniently), or even safety (the ability to avoid injury, or respond in an emergency). Yes, many people don't place much value on one or more of these, or at least they don't act in a way that suggests that they do. It makes no sense to me that clothing marketed to women is far less supportive of these values than that marketed to men. On the flip side, clothes marketed to men provides far less range for the more subjective value of personal expression than that aimed at women. Both sides get cheated.

Popularity has a strong social component, including upbringing, peer pressure, and even requirements like the make-up and heels often required of female flight attendants. Many people are "willing" consumers of items pushed on women for practical benefits such as keeping or advancing in a job. It is worth noting that, for most jobs, job performance does not in any way depend on the use of these so-called popular female styles and items. The ability of "the market" to shape consumer demand by portraying items as popular, or even by encouraging their popularity, is well known. It is worth asking to what extent this market is deliberately reinforcing societal or cultural norms, and vs. just trying to make money. There are also plenty of examples of items losing their popularity over time as norms shift, suggesting that actual demand is a combination of push-pull. Either way, broad forces are at work that can leave outlier customers with few options.

 

[Maou]

We live in a society.

 

[junathan]

Wealthy people wearing ties and silk scarves. It would be easy to be grabbed and strangled, so I've never understood that. Even high heels for women makes it hard to run away. All these clothing preferences makes a person much more vulnerable to have their wallet stolen. Maybe it is a sign of being above attack? I've wondered if that's why the tough goth, biker, etc. crowd has piercings and chains that makes them vulnerable to physical damage. There might be a weird way that overtly expressing vulnerability is a sign of strength?

Okay, what I'm actually saying is that it makes no sense to me.

That's an interesting perspective haha.

But if you look into the purpose and the context of them dressing up that way. You will find out that, despite how inconvenient it can be, it still does not disregard the initial purpose of ties and high heels.

I believe the fundamental idea of dressing up like that is simply to help portray and showcase a person's social status and their personal value. And that itself is important, because that is the norm and that is how people view you as an individual.

To some it may sound ridiculous because of how much we are judging a person by they dress. But in the end it is still crucial in this society, because we are not barbarians.

 

[Morpeko]

@Infinite Metamorphosis (can't tag Caelia for some reason) I second all this. Some people do become friends in the dating process, and it's lovely to see. But yeah, the point of dating is for the person to become your life partner in the end. So why does it have such a stiff process? An argument for not dating friends is that you'll lose them as a friend, but I think a true friend would go back to just being your friend if they spotted any rockiness in the relationship. And falling out of love is going to hurt, no matter if it's your friend or not. Dating a friend means someone is going to know your quirks and your triggers, and is going to laugh off any faux pas along the way. More casual, lighthearted fun too, that comes naturally. I don't why getting a life partner, who should end up being your best friend, is always portrayed as, "Hey, hot stuff, can I get you a drink? How are stocks?".

Gender reveal parties. This one doesn't really bother me, but it is kinda funny that they're having a celebration for what they found in between the babies legs during the ultrasound. Whatever makes you want to party, I guess. Just don't go setting the forest on fire. Also, the normalization of making fun of peoples' bedroom skills because they don't want to do risky things, it's repulsive. Just let them love each other, for heaven's sake.

I'm with y'all who don't understand the "typical" dating process in modern society. Though, I've heard people argue against the bolded here, that for them dating is to have fun, meet new people, or for some reason other than to find a person to become your life partner. I DON'T understand this at all.

Also YES to gender reveal parties. Although, they do bother me intensely. It's upsetting to me that some people find a desire to celebrate a baby being born male or female. Why would one gender or the other be something to throw a party about? I'd be pissed growing up if I learned my parents threw me one and were ecstatic to find out I were a girl. Besides me hating it, it doesn't make sense to me.

I don't like people insulting anyone's bedroom preferences in general, kinky or not, I've seen it both ways. Let the two consenting adults do what they want to do as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

 

[Morpeko]

Saying we'll hang out sometime when you have no intention of doing so.

This.

Flaking out in general seems to be a common thing in people, and it doesn't make sense to me. If you don't want to hang out with me, don't say anything about it! Less words should mean less effort!

 

[junathan]

Also YES to gender reveal parties. Although, they do bother me intensely. It's upsetting to me that some people find a desire to celebrate a baby being born male or female. Why would one gender or the other be something to throw a party about? I'd be pissed growing up if I learned my parents threw me one and were ecstatic to find out I were a girl. Besides me hating it, it doesn't make sense to me.

This is so true. Maybe instead of having a gender reveal party, they should have a BABY reveal party, I think that's wayyy harmless and less upsetting to others.

 

[ceecee]

Working class and poor apologists for the billionaire class.

 

[Maou]

That anyone other than the rich elite, have any concept of how the rich actually live, what they actually believe, and how they function.

You could functionally say they are aliens. A good example of this, is any interview with Mark Zuckerberg and the memes it spawned as a result. "The Rich", and I don't mean "upper middle class" or even millionaires, I am talking people like Bill Gates, the Dynasty families that run for presidency, and the Rockerfellers. None of them even see most people, most of their countrymen, as "people". They see you as chattel, whom they purposefully manipulate to further increase their power, money and influence over you. "Wealth" is actually an afterthought, because they have so much of it it doesn't even cross their mind that it is something they could lose.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

That anyone other than the rich elite, have any concept of how the rich actually live, what they actually believe, and how they function.

You could functionally say they are aliens. A good example of this, is any interview with Mark Zuckerberg and the memes it spawned as a result. "The Rich", and I don't mean "upper middle class" or even millionaires, I am talking people like Bill Gates, the Dynasty families that run for presidency, and the Rockerfellers. None of them even see most people, most of their countrymen, as "people". They see you as chattel, whom they purposefully manipulate to further increase their power, money and influence over you. "Wealth" is actually an afterthought, because they have so much of it it doesn't even cross their mind that it is something they could lose.

forgot the Trumps!

 

[Maou]

forgot the Trumps!

You might not have realized, but the Trump family wasn't a dynasty family. They did have the potential though. They largely kept out of politics (which is a pre-req for dynasty family). I remember the media talking about if Trump's family might become a new dynasty... But things are not so black and white. We all know what happened to the last "dynasty" family that challenged the "plutocracy". I am talking about the Kennedys. The Trump family seemed to have toed the line more than once. Including having met Epstein (Who didn't kill themselves). I don't know everything about the Trump's, and I simply trust my judgement of character more than I do the media, and social pressure. The fact that everyone hates Trump for all the wrong reasons, proves to me that I was right about him being the good guy. Because how could you honestly think that any mainstream idea, political talking point, and carefully constructed set ups are at all from the good guys when the entire system is corrupt? Leave it to the Democratic voters, to think the system is fair, just, and unrigged... but at the same time acknowledge multi-billion dollar corporations, the judicial branch, politicians, and nations are all horribly corrupt... oh but anyone running under democrat totally has the nation's best interest in mind.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You might not have realized, but the Trump family wasn't a dynasty family. They did have the potential though. They largely kept out of politics (which is a pre-req for dynasty family). I remember the media talking about if Trump's family might become a new dynasty... But things are not so black and white. We all know what happened to the last "dynasty" family that challenged the "plutocracy". I am talking about the Kennedys. The Trump family seemed to have toed the line more than once. Including having met Epstein (Who didn't kill themselves). I don't know everything about the Trump's, and I simply trust my judgement of character more than I do the media, and social pressure. The fact that everyone hates Trump for all the wrong reason's, proves to me that I was right about him being the good guy.

No, the fact that people hate him for all the wrong reasons just means that people are brainwashed idiots. I'm sure he's fucked lots of little girls on Epstein's island, too.

Because how could you honestly think that any mainstream idea, political talking point, and carefully constructed set ups are at all from the good guys when the entire system is corrupt? Leave it to the Democratic voters, to think the system is fair, just, and unrigged... but at the same time acknowledge multi-billion dollar corperations, the judicial branch, politicians, and nations are all horribly corrupt... oh but anyone running under democrat totally has the nation's best interest in mind.

Trump's involved with all of that stuff. You believe him just because he says he isn't and he makes you feel good.

But you also defend capitalism and don't even know what it is. Want to know what capitalism actually is? It's all the things you were ranting about in your initial post. That's what happens when you "let the market decide."

 

[Maou]

No, the fact that people hate him for all the wrong reasons just means that people are brainwashed idiots. I'm sure he's fucked lots of little girls on Epstein's island, too.

And so has everyone else, according to you. Almost all of the Elites, have had a connection with Epstein. Its almost as if the Elite are all fucking pedophiles.

Trump's involved with all of that stuff. You believe him just because he says he isn't and he makes you feel good.


But you also defend capitalism and don't even know what it is. Want to know what capitalism actually is? It's all the things you were ranting about in your initial post. That's what happens when you "let the market decide."

Are you any different? You vote do you not? Anyone who makes it to the big stage has either great connections, is a pedophile, or is fodder. It isn't that hard to understand. You vote, you are voting for scum, regardless of what you believe in. God forbid, I try to vote for the lesser evil that limits control over the government.

You don't know what capitalism actually is. It is historically, simply the exchange of goods and service, for currency. You cannot seem to be able to separate the concept itself, from the government. Just like Marxists cannot separate communism/socialism, from the government. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

The issue is, the government itself. Not what financial system it is using. Everything, every financial system has the potential to be great. It all depends on outside factors that determine its functionality though. You denounce capitalism, but probably have a super idealized version of a country that isn't actually communist as your idea "socialist" country, like Denmark or something. When in fact, places like Denmark and Norway (The Nordic model), are capitalist with socialist subsystems. They also have what is called, homogeneous societies. That is what makes it work. Implementing socialistic systems into a non-homogeneous society, is a death sentence. There is not a single system, that isn't homogeneous, that has a successful system of socialism in place, including sub systems. This has entirely to do with different cultures, and different ideas. This is making it difficult for one system to affect the most people with a single act. If you have 100 sub cultures all vying for the same resources who want to use them differently, it promotes cultural infighting, segregation, racism, and classism.