Open Coding The sense of attraction in a romantic context has multi-dimensions due to its complexity and subjectivity. The power that evokes the feeling of interest can be various factors not limited to physical appearance, personality traits, social location, sociodemographic status, and compatibility (Bogovic, 2018). What an individual finds attractive may not be considered as ‘attractive’ to others. Through the exploration of attraction, I will be attempting to answer: How do people define attractiveness in relation to partner(s) and themselves? And how do people make use of definitions of attractiveness in their consideration of a partner(s)? From the two interviews conducted with subjects of various sociodemographic backgrounds, it was …show more content…
Each of the codes are factors that reinforces societal norms and they acquire tremendous influence because they are significant pillars in society. Societal expectations, family, and social media are codes that emerged throughout the interview because they touch upon our lives so intimately. Consequently, heteronormativity and gendered physical and personal traits would be projected to the society. All three of the codes deliver corresponding reflection of attractiveness. There is a certain structure that the society reflects as ideal and attractive, such as a relationship that consists of a man and a woman. Moreover, women are physically represented as curvaceous with personality traits of being shy, empathetic, and gentle. On the other hand, men are deemed attractive when they are muscular and tall with a personality that is protective, ambitious, and aggressive. When these set of qualities are standardized within the society as a whole, a socially constructed expectations are established. If a woman has a set of qualities that are relevant to a man’s trait, for instance being opinionated and assertive, that is deviating from the frame, thus can be treated as unattractive. We, as a society, are constructing our own meanings and deciding what is right or wrong when in reality, it does not
In the Article “marked women”, Deborah Tannen explains the social manner of judging women by their appearance or other factors, but not judging men for the same reasons. Tannen uses her observation during a conference meeting of four women and eight men to analyze how each woman in the meeting was marked while men were not. Again Deborah points out the issue of how one gender writing about the other is either portrayed as prejudiced or sexist.
Recently the world has adopted the position of attacking men for everything they do however, women could learn a few things from men. Wente presents many attributes which women could adopt from men in order to be seen in a better light in society. For example she argues “Men get to the point” because “They don’t think emotions are all that interesting. Women are overly sensitive to emotions.” (Par. 4). Wente believes that if women were to suppress their sensitivity to emotions society would function more smoothly because more things
Society has taught its people that men are supposed to have certain and different characteristics than women and vice versa. What is difficult to understand is why society split the uncomplicated human characteristics in to two categories. Jensen brings up two important questions in this text pertaining to the separation of characteristics, “What makes these distinctly masculine characteristics? Are they not simply human characteristics?” These questions are really important to discuss because whether an individual is male or female they are still a human and all humans have access to the same set of characteristics. Males and females can express masculinity and they can both express emotions because they are each human. Jensen’s main point about characteristics is that any characteristic can apply to males or females because characteristics are not sex based, they are human
Prentice, D. A. and Carranza, E. (2002), What Women and Men Should Be, Shouldn’t Be, Are Allowed to Be, and Don’t Have to Be: The Contents of Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26: 269–281.
Society stereotypes women in almost all social situations, including in the family, media, and the workplace. Women are often regarded as being in, “Second place” behind men. However, these stereotypes are not typically met by the modern day woman....
Women in today’s society seem to be having a very difficult time expressing themselves without dealing with lots of criticism. Common values are standing in the way of women’s drive toward molding themselves into whatever they desire. Our culture has made standards about how should women look, act, and conduct themselves that greatly limits what they can do, and still gain respect. Martin S. Fiebert and Mark W. Meyer state that, “[there are] more negative [gender] stereotypes for men than for women.” This idea doesn’t seem to have a great amount of validity in our present society. Society set certain standards that men are supposed to live up to such as strength and confidence, which are more behavioral characteristics. Women seem to be more trapped than men by societies standards because they are supposed to live up to standards dealing with beauty and size, which are more physical characteristics These specific guidelines have been set by society that are sometimes unattainable for a majority of women. The women that follow the specific criteria are greatly respected, and the ones that try and be innovative usually are criticized if not disliked.
Devor and Nelson both acknowledge that gender roles are determined not by biological makeup but by societal manipulation. Devor conveys how society has developed of system of communicating gender identity that relies more so on the characteristics of a person rather than the anatomy of a person. So when individuals fail to religiously adhere to these gender codes they are at risk of failing to adequately communicate their gender, which can lead to being ostracized in the dating world or by pairs. Nelson highlights how the culture uses television to promotes and enforces gender roles; which assist society in identify what is gender appropriate. Society puts so much emphasis on gender appropriation that people fear the outcome of not fitting into a category of male or female because there is no inbetween. Men are supposed to dominate with aggression while women enable them by remaining vulnerable and submissive. Both authors believe that there are no natural character traits in men and women and that the creation of these differences were culturally created in an effort to keep women oppressed by male
For many years society has embraced the idea that the difference between men and women were biologically determined. Others see not only the physical but also the social, emotional and intellectual differences between males and females. Though through traditions, media, and press, we act accordingly to how others view us. Each individual has pressure placed upon them based on their genders. Our sex is determined by genetics while our gender is programmed by social customs. Gender roles by definition are the social norms that dictate what is socially appropriate male and female behavior. Some theories interpret that a woman is tender and a loving mother, while on the other hand men are aggressive and are the dominant one of the family. An individual gender role is modeled through socialization. Individuals learn the ways, traditions, norms, and rules of getting along with others. A person’s environment has a big influence on the roles deemed expectable for men and women.
The way individuals discipline their body is analogous to how they act towards the idea of power and status. How bodies are trained to emit gender distinctions is similar to how people tend to clothe their bodies. The way people tend to “sit, stand, gesture, walk, and throw” are different depending on their performance of masculinity or femininity (Martin 297). Women’s bodies tend to be more “confined, their movements restricted (Martin 297).” The term “femininity” defines the idea that the female sex is perceived with specific traits and characteristics. Crossing their legs, sitting up straight, having a softer voice and light footsteps are all ways in which women become naturally embedded to the gender norms. She is ascribed to be more gentle, nurturing, and emotional, and weak. These traits she attains are given by society the moment she is born, creating an idealized sexually more inferior identity than that of a male. By analyzing the socially constructed gender profile of men, it is easy to see how society creates a more dominant and powerful facade. They are stereotyped to being more aggressive, highly sexual, strong, competitive, emotionless, and in control. These socially constructed differences confines males and females to particular character profiles that limit their equality as a whole. The bodies are gendered “as a product of social doing; constituted through interaction (West and Zimmerman 175).” The way male and female establish their gender order in society correlates to their mentality as a whole. Overall masculinity is more valued than femininity in society. Masculinity correlates to gender privilege. An inequality that gives males the access to more power, resources and positions due to the traditional notions of gender roles. Men are given a greater advantage because he is deemed more capable to fend for himself. He is given greater power in the working field and
MASCULINITY. In this article Watzlawik (2009) examines what elements go into gender constructs and what factors cause masculinity and femininity within ourselves. Thought the article three definitions are explored and examined for pros and cons. The first definition implies “A feminine woman is one who is, and strives to be, attractive to men, and a masculine man is one who is attractive
Society has females and males alike typecasted into roles which have basic characteristics that are the reverse of each other. Although this has begun to change over the past thirty years, typically the man was seen as superior to the female. This superior image is one that today, is slowly on its way to being reduced to one of complete equality between the two genders.
It may seem obvious to some why people mate, however there are many facets to human mating. Psychology has shown that reasons for mating have gone beyond the scope of love and physical attractiveness. People may search for mates who resemble archetypical images of the opposite-sex parent, mates with characteristics that are either complementary or similar to one's own qualities, or mates with whom to make an exchange of valuable resources (Buss 238). Although these theories play a key role in understanding patterns in human mating preferences, evolutionary psychology and sexual selection theory provide more concrete frameworks for explaining human mating.
Masculinity and femininity are two terms, which have been interpreted differently throughout history. Both the males and the females have responsibilities and duties but these duties differ based on one’s gender. Gender has played a prodigious role in the economy, politics, and the society. Everyone starts making interpretations of the strengths and weaknesses based on one’s gender. These interpretations are not always based on his or her ability but is usually based on his or her gender. Males tend to be judged as extremely strong and unfashionable in terms of appearance. Whereas, females are judged as expensive and very fashionable. Males and females both differ in their abilities and their enjoyments. Fashion, entertainment, and strength are three topics, which are used to define masculinity and femininity in the 21st century.
Attractiveness is the least commitment, as it is just how one views a certain race in general. Our hypothesis is that for attractiveness, people will rate other ethnicities high on attractiveness and not just their own ethnicity. The next article helps to support our hypothesis as it is based on attractive in own-race preference (Burke, Nolan, Hayward, Russell, & Sulikowski, 2013). This article takes a continuation from the previous article as it makes a statement about assortative mating and ties it into how interracial relationships and marriages are still quite rare. The researchers state the reason for this could be because people find their own race more attractive than others.
The first and most popular interpretation of the word “beauty” is seen as outer appearance. On that perception, “beauty” and “attractiveness” have a significant difference even though they are word cousins. A beautiful looking person may be attractive, but an attractive person does not need to be beautiful. One person may look at someone beautiful with “deep satisfaction in the mind” because that person admire how beautiful the other is. Someone, who is not striking beautiful looking, may attract other people just by how they express their personalities. The others who are attracted to that particular individual because they feel connected, happy, and comfortable around that person. While attractiveness may result in long lasting relationships, physical beauty only brings short term pleasant feeling in the mind. Yet, beauty as outer look conquers many societies around the world. For instance, American culture tends to value the way a person look. That value is transmitted from one generation to the next by families, peers, and media in the process of enculturation. Young children come to adapt ways of thinking and feeling about physical beauty from their families first. The show