|
On May 03 2013 10:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 10:43 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:34 Slaughter wrote:
Gender is considered to be separate from biological sex, and its not a really extreme point of view or anything. Many academics in the social sciences ascribe to this view and many of them don't have anything to do with feminism or the feminist intellectual perspective. I know that, doesnt make it better either. It just plain wrong, it isnt backed up by any facts just a "constructed" theory applied to humans. For me that is a really extreme point of view because it is ideology not science. You are aware that transgender people exist, right?
That is one reason why their theory is wrong. Transgender proof that gender isnt constructed. If gender is only socially constructed there shouldnt be any transgender at all since they were raised as "boys" or "girls" yet they dont want to be their biological gender (due to another biological reason that isnt discovered yet). And from what i heard transgender people dont really like the "theories" that the gender studies are making up.
|
On May 03 2013 10:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 10:43 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:34 Slaughter wrote:
Gender is considered to be separate from biological sex, and its not a really extreme point of view or anything. Many academics in the social sciences ascribe to this view and many of them don't have anything to do with feminism or the feminist intellectual perspective. I know that, doesnt make it better either. It just plain wrong, it isnt backed up by any facts just a "constructed" theory applied to humans. For me that is a really extreme point of view because it is ideology not science. You are aware that transgender people exist, right?
right, there's gay people too, pointing out exceptions does not make it less true that one's gender preferences are mostly determined before birth, feminists in a whole tend to miss the point that gender roles are the way they are because they conform to our propensities as male/female.
ps: "social sciences" are sadly pretty full of bullshit.
|
On May 03 2013 11:02 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 10:45 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 10:43 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:34 Slaughter wrote:
Gender is considered to be separate from biological sex, and its not a really extreme point of view or anything. Many academics in the social sciences ascribe to this view and many of them don't have anything to do with feminism or the feminist intellectual perspective. I know that, doesnt make it better either. It just plain wrong, it isnt backed up by any facts just a "constructed" theory applied to humans. For me that is a really extreme point of view because it is ideology not science. You are aware that transgender people exist, right? That is one reason why their theory is wrong. Transgender proof that gender isnt constructed. If gender is only socially constructed there shouldnt be any transgender at all since they were raised as "boys" or "girls" yet they dont want to be their biological gender (due to another biological reason that isnt discovered yet).
But you cannot deny that much of our gender identity is constructed, something which I think should still be kept in mind.
|
On May 03 2013 11:05 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:02 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:45 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 10:43 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:34 Slaughter wrote:
Gender is considered to be separate from biological sex, and its not a really extreme point of view or anything. Many academics in the social sciences ascribe to this view and many of them don't have anything to do with feminism or the feminist intellectual perspective. I know that, doesnt make it better either. It just plain wrong, it isnt backed up by any facts just a "constructed" theory applied to humans. For me that is a really extreme point of view because it is ideology not science. You are aware that transgender people exist, right? That is one reason why their theory is wrong. Transgender proof that gender isnt constructed. If gender is only socially constructed there shouldnt be any transgender at all since they were raised as "boys" or "girls" yet they dont want to be their biological gender (due to another biological reason that isnt discovered yet). But you cannot deny that much of our gender identity is constructed, something which I think should still be kept in mind.
Sure i dont denie that, i think it has both. Biological and social reasons, it is never just ONE side. For me it is just wrong to say "well it is just biology" or "well it is all constructed". I think it is somewhere in the middle.
But if you accept biological prepositions then you WILL also see social differences of the sexes. If man have more testosterone then they will do more risky actions, just to bring up an example.
|
On May 03 2013 11:07 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:05 Shiragaku wrote:On May 03 2013 11:02 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:45 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 10:43 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:34 Slaughter wrote:
Gender is considered to be separate from biological sex, and its not a really extreme point of view or anything. Many academics in the social sciences ascribe to this view and many of them don't have anything to do with feminism or the feminist intellectual perspective. I know that, doesnt make it better either. It just plain wrong, it isnt backed up by any facts just a "constructed" theory applied to humans. For me that is a really extreme point of view because it is ideology not science. You are aware that transgender people exist, right? That is one reason why their theory is wrong. Transgender proof that gender isnt constructed. If gender is only socially constructed there shouldnt be any transgender at all since they were raised as "boys" or "girls" yet they dont want to be their biological gender (due to another biological reason that isnt discovered yet). But you cannot deny that much of our gender identity is constructed, something which I think should still be kept in mind. Sure i dont denie that, i think it has both. Biological and social reasons, it is never just ONE side. For me it is just wrong to say "well it is just biology" or "well it is all constructed". I think it is somewhere in the middle. But if you accept biological prepositions then you WILL also see social differences of the sexes. If man have more testosterone then they will do more risky actions, just to bring up an example.
Great, we are on the same page then. I was a bit worried given how social sciences are dying, especially after Alan Sokal (and rightfully so) but I feel that a lot of the hate is unjustified
I guess I will end there not to get off topic.
|
On May 03 2013 11:03 sibs wrote:
gender roles are the way they are because they conform to our propensities as male/female.
ps: "social sciences" are sadly pretty full of bullshit.
something here's full of bullshit, yeah
how can you even write something as absurd-on-its-face as this generalization? would you perhaps like to include some exceptions to this rule? I think it's kind of important that you're asked to define what exactly these propensities are, because if you include all the various "gender roles" that have been ascribed to women over just the 20th century alone...wow.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 03 2013 11:07 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:05 Shiragaku wrote:On May 03 2013 11:02 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:45 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 10:43 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:34 Slaughter wrote:
Gender is considered to be separate from biological sex, and its not a really extreme point of view or anything. Many academics in the social sciences ascribe to this view and many of them don't have anything to do with feminism or the feminist intellectual perspective. I know that, doesnt make it better either. It just plain wrong, it isnt backed up by any facts just a "constructed" theory applied to humans. For me that is a really extreme point of view because it is ideology not science. You are aware that transgender people exist, right? That is one reason why their theory is wrong. Transgender proof that gender isnt constructed. If gender is only socially constructed there shouldnt be any transgender at all since they were raised as "boys" or "girls" yet they dont want to be their biological gender (due to another biological reason that isnt discovered yet). But you cannot deny that much of our gender identity is constructed, something which I think should still be kept in mind. Sure i dont denie that, i think it has both. Biological and social reasons, it is never just ONE side. For me it is just wrong to say "well it is just biology" or "well it is all constructed". I think it is somewhere in the middle. But if you accept biological prepositions then you WILL also see social differences of the sexes. If man have more testosterone then they will do more risky actions, just to bring up an example.
Oddly enough research into testosterone and risk taking has been largely inconclusive with research backing up both claims.
|
Is it weird that while I agree with the writer on so many levels, that I'm still a bit uncomfortable with her article?
|
On May 03 2013 11:27 LuckyMacro wrote:
Is it weird that while I agree with the writer on so many levels, that I'm still a bit uncomfortable with her article?
are you, respectfully, a male? that sort of itching discomfort, or feeling that you can read something but not understand it in all the ways the writer can, seems pretty common to most of us who don't spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about these issues of gender or minority oppression.
in other words, I don't think it's weird at all. I do think that feeling motivates an awful lot of anonymous internet users to marshal really bad arguments and do battle with a viewpoint they don't understand or empathize with.
|
On May 03 2013 11:31 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:27 LuckyMacro wrote:
Is it weird that while I agree with the writer on so many levels, that I'm still a bit uncomfortable with her article? are you, respectfully, a dudebro? that sort of itching discomfort, or feeling that you can read something but not understand it in all the ways the writer can, seems pretty common to most of us who don't spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about these issues of gender or minority oppression. in other words, I don't think it's weird at all. I do think that feeling motivates an awful lot of anonymous internet users to marshal really bad arguments and do battle with a viewpoint they don't understand or empathize with.
Honestly, I had to look that up. ...I don't think so? Maybe it's that I know that this kind of thing is a major issue, but it doesn't really make itself present in my daily life. =/
|
i was really considering just changing that to male, which i should have done because it was what i meant and the silly word i substituted in actually has (somehow) some sort of connotation with rudeness or general lack of decorum.
sorry, actively making the thread worse
|
On May 02 2013 19:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote:
Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are? The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less.
Every time Kwark posts in a feminism thread on TL, I love TL a little bit more.
|
On May 03 2013 11:05 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:02 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:45 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 10:43 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:34 Slaughter wrote:
Gender is considered to be separate from biological sex, and its not a really extreme point of view or anything. Many academics in the social sciences ascribe to this view and many of them don't have anything to do with feminism or the feminist intellectual perspective. I know that, doesnt make it better either. It just plain wrong, it isnt backed up by any facts just a "constructed" theory applied to humans. For me that is a really extreme point of view because it is ideology not science. You are aware that transgender people exist, right? That is one reason why their theory is wrong. Transgender proof that gender isnt constructed. If gender is only socially constructed there shouldnt be any transgender at all since they were raised as "boys" or "girls" yet they dont want to be their biological gender (due to another biological reason that isnt discovered yet). But you cannot deny that much of our gender identity is constructed, something which I think should still be kept in mind.
Ok, normally I don't get into topics like the one I just quoted, but Sokrates I cannot agree with you here. Modern psychology, including studies on SLT (social learning theory) have shown that many schemas and gender roles are learned, not born into. In fact, the fact that gender is chosen by children and can be chosen apart from sex shows that this is a learned trait, one that is constructed rather than pre-constructed. While we are all just people on the internet, I am inclined to side with psychological experts on the subject, rather than a specious logical deduction.
|
On May 03 2013 11:16 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:03 sibs wrote:
gender roles are the way they are because they conform to our propensities as male/female.
ps: "social sciences" are sadly pretty full of bullshit. something here's full of bullshit, yeah how can you even write something as absurd-on-its-face as this generalization? would you perhaps like to include some exceptions to this rule? I think it's kind of important that you're asked to define what exactly these propensities are, because if you include all the various "gender roles" that have been ascribed to women over just the 20th century alone...wow.
how is this absurd? how do you think the gender roles came to be? did you ever babysit a girl and a boy? they have different preferences, these in most part have nothing to do with society, trying to attach every behavior exhibited by gender as "socially constructed" is plainly not very smart but mostly it's just disingenuous (aka it's getting in the way of your ideology).
|
On May 03 2013 11:27 LuckyMacro wrote:
Is it weird that while I agree with the writer on so many levels, that I'm still a bit uncomfortable with her article?
Of course not. I have a lot of problems with her arguments, notwithstanding that she has a valid complaint about the boorish comments and attention that she receives.
|
On May 03 2013 11:50 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:16 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 11:03 sibs wrote:
gender roles are the way they are because they conform to our propensities as male/female.
ps: "social sciences" are sadly pretty full of bullshit. something here's full of bullshit, yeah how can you even write something as absurd-on-its-face as this generalization? would you perhaps like to include some exceptions to this rule? I think it's kind of important that you're asked to define what exactly these propensities are, because if you include all the various "gender roles" that have been ascribed to women over just the 20th century alone...wow. how is this absurd? how do you think the gender roles came to be? did you ever babysit a girl and a boy? they have different preferences, these in most part have nothing to do with society, trying to attach every behavior exhibited by gender as "socially constructed" is plainly not very smart but mostly it's just disingenuous (aka it's getting in the way of your ideology).
I really don't enjoy self-identifying as a feminist because I don't examine these issues very closely and don't deserve the moniker, but I guess I have to when I say that "gender roles" are for the most part societally bestowed without any justification as to what being male and being female actually means. when I say that, I'm thinking of the sort of BS you're evoking when you say that babysitting differently sexed children means they act differently; since you weren't kind enough to offer an example, I'll assume that you mean something simple like boys play with industrial vehicles and girls play with dolls, because...that's just the way it is?
who bought them those toys?
who marketed those toys to those who bought them?
feminists would answer to both of those questions that the forces behind those decisions are motivated by nothing more than self-replicating false ideals of what it means to be a boy or a girl, i.e. boys are rough and tough and goal-motivated, girls are pretty and appearance-oriented blah blah fucking blah.
very few anecdotal behaviors on the part of an individual are motivated or overtly influenced by their sex or gender because that's just the way it is, instead it's a subtle structuring in society that even introduces that all-powerful, all-important binary construct between men and women for us. the purpose of feminism is to readjust this imbalance on a societal level; not to neuter men, just to empower femininity, and anything else is in fact what is disingenuous.
|
On May 02 2013 20:01 Ahelvin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 19:57 DR.Ham wrote:On May 02 2013 19:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote:
Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are? The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less. I could not agree with both of these statements more. In the first page of responses alone, there are so many of the standard sexist trope responses: * She is attention seeking. * I have it just as bad being a man, but I can't complain about it. * Names don't bother me or some other random female I make up, therefore she should not be bothered either. * Sexism doesn't exist. etc etc etc It's impressive to me that she has the passion for games and such that she is willing to put up with all the bullshit and still produce content. What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist.
Last I checked feminism is about empowering women. Hence femin-ism. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The dictionary even uses a nearly identical definition. Feminism is not non-sexism and therefore focuses more on women and what men and other women do negatively to women and what can be done to stop that.
I don't appreciate being told to "man up," but I also don't appreciate automatically being labeled a feminist. I would argue that labels are a big part of the issue. Labels put people into a box. A person with a mental illness is "crazy," someone with developmental delays is "retarded," A person who picks on someone else (often because of his/her own insecurities) is a "bully," someone really smart is a "nerd," someone that spends a lot of time online is a "no-lifer," hell even the label of "troll" reduces a person to a simplistic notion that in no way adequately describes what all makes up that individual.
The problem is you cannot make everyone on the earth stop using labels. You can only control yourself; however, you can be an example to others. Nothing is going to be accomplished by simply complaining about it online.
|
On May 03 2013 11:50 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:05 Shiragaku wrote:On May 03 2013 11:02 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:45 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 10:43 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 10:34 Slaughter wrote:
Gender is considered to be separate from biological sex, and its not a really extreme point of view or anything. Many academics in the social sciences ascribe to this view and many of them don't have anything to do with feminism or the feminist intellectual perspective. I know that, doesnt make it better either. It just plain wrong, it isnt backed up by any facts just a "constructed" theory applied to humans. For me that is a really extreme point of view because it is ideology not science. You are aware that transgender people exist, right? That is one reason why their theory is wrong. Transgender proof that gender isnt constructed. If gender is only socially constructed there shouldnt be any transgender at all since they were raised as "boys" or "girls" yet they dont want to be their biological gender (due to another biological reason that isnt discovered yet). But you cannot deny that much of our gender identity is constructed, something which I think should still be kept in mind. Ok, normally I don't get into topics like the one I just quoted, but Sokrates I cannot agree with you here. Modern psychology, including studies on SLT (social learning theory) have shown that many schemas and gender roles are learned, not born into. In fact, the fact that gender is chosen by children and can be chosen apart from sex shows that this is a learned trait, one that is constructed rather than pre-constructed. While we are all just people on the internet, I am inclined to side with psychological experts on the subject, rather than a specious logical deduction.
I recommend you to watch a documentation by harald eia, which has a lot of these subjects critically viewed from both sides of experts. There is also an episode about gender and sex. Worth watching it.
The gender studies also postulate that sexuality is also a "social construct", meaning that there is no preposition to be heterosexual but all sexuality is learnd. So everyone can be gay, bi or hetero, which doesnt make too much sense for me and is also dangerous.
On May 03 2013 11:58 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:50 sibs wrote:On May 03 2013 11:16 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 11:03 sibs wrote:
gender roles are the way they are because they conform to our propensities as male/female.
ps: "social sciences" are sadly pretty full of bullshit. something here's full of bullshit, yeah how can you even write something as absurd-on-its-face as this generalization? would you perhaps like to include some exceptions to this rule? I think it's kind of important that you're asked to define what exactly these propensities are, because if you include all the various "gender roles" that have been ascribed to women over just the 20th century alone...wow. how is this absurd? how do you think the gender roles came to be? did you ever babysit a girl and a boy? they have different preferences, these in most part have nothing to do with society, trying to attach every behavior exhibited by gender as "socially constructed" is plainly not very smart but mostly it's just disingenuous (aka it's getting in the way of your ideology). I really don't enjoy self-identifying as a feminist because I don't examine these issues very closely and don't deserve the moniker, but I guess I have to when I say that "gender roles" are for the most part societally bestowed without any justification as to what being male and being female actually means. when I say that, I'm thinking of the sort of BS you're evoking when you say that babysitting differently sexed children means they act differently; since you weren't kind enough to offer an example, I'll assume that you mean something simple like boys play with industrial vehicles and girls play with dolls, because...that's just the way it is? who bought them those toys? who marketed those toys to those who bought them? feminists would answer to both of those questions that the forces behind those decisions are motivated by nothing more than self-replicating false ideals of what it means to be a boy or a girl, i.e. boys are rough and tough and goal-motivated, girls are pretty and appearance-oriented blah blah fucking blah. very few anecdotal behaviors on the part of an individual are motivated or overtly influenced by their sex or gender because that's just the way it is, instead it's a subtle structuring in society that even introduces that all-powerful, all-important binary construct between men and women for us. the purpose of feminism is to readjust this imbalance on a societal level; not to neuter men, just to empower femininity, and anything else is in fact what is disingenuous.
There was a study showing that male apes prefer different toys (like cars and trains) than female apes (perfering dolls). Also there are studies where you baby boys suffer a lot more injuries by moving more than female babys.
|
On May 03 2013 08:03 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:57 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 07:47 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 07:41 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Um... you actually said that you think its immoral.
[quote] It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. It is utterly detestable to assign an arbitrary price to one's sexuality or self-worth. I am against such behaviour for the same reason that I'd be against selling oneself into slavery. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. You do not understand Kant. Kant's categorical imperative is that one ought to never treat any person merely as a means. This means using them as a means without their consent. When you purchase something at the grocery store and have the clerk check it out for you, you are using his labor as a means to facilitate your purchase, but in no way is this immoral. Your argument is flawed if it is based on this fundamental misunderstanding of the basic premise of Kantian ethics. Thank you for the clarification; it doesn't really affect my argument though because Kant states that one must always treat another person as an end. Interestingly, there are some socialist interpretations which actually turn your labor example into a condemnation of capitalism  Yes, and if a person consents, you are treating them as an end because there is the recognition of their autonomy. That is what it means to be an end as a human, to be a rational, autonomous person. As for your latter statement, you would be incorrect because socialism avoids questions of morality and consent. Marx, specifically, would see debates over proper morality and proper consent as red herrings, since those very frameworks of evaluation presume a particular system of values constructed by the bourgeoisie. Rather, Marx is concerned with the natural progression of humanity through history, and how dialectical materialism will manifest itself in human society. And yet Kant himself forbade prostitution because he thought it was like offering oneself up as a steak/object and because it demeans/does not respect one's humanity.
You are only somewhat correct here - Kant was somewhat puritanical in his views towards sexuality, and indeed viewed all sexual intercourse as degrading. However, liberals Kantians argue that his ethics justify prostitution and the like, when, of course, there is consent (http://philosophynow.org/issues/21/The_discarded_Lemon_Kant_prostitution_and_respect_for_persons). This interpretive dispute is a simple matter to resolve, as it seems hard to justify the claim that all sexual intercourse or all sexuality is immoral - hell, you're going to have problems when even groups like the Catholic Church justify sexuality in certain forms. I simply think Kant is wrong in how he applies his categorical imperative to Christianity, and there are certainly feminists that would fight back against the claim that prostitution is degrading, as an imposition of victorian male/classist standards.
|
On May 03 2013 11:59 Sokrates wrote:
There was a study showing that male apes prefer different toys (like cars and trains) than female apes (perfering dolls). Also there are studies where you baby boys suffer a lot more injuries by moving more than female babys.
I respect your passion, but come on with those examples, sir. do ape societies (lol) have interlocking systems of imprinting and branding upon the female gender (honestly both genders suffer from this, to an extent) as to what she should look like, how she should dress, what her life goals should be, etc, from cradle to grave? if not, I'm not sure this analogy holds up...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
