Phil Osborn wrote:
>
> From: Amara Graps (Amara.Graps@mpi-hd.mpg.de)
> Date: Wed Nov 22 2000 - 07:15:36 MST
>
> >From: Phil Osborn <philosborn@altavista.com>, 20 Nov 2000
>
> >I.e., how to get around the fact that women almost universally treat
> >any interaction with them as a special privilege which should be paid
> >for? Sometimes I wish that I lived in one the more natural cultures,
> >like I've occasionally run into in rural Mexico, where women didn't
> >craftilly measure every gram of emotion they allowed a man to see .
>
> Did you really mean to say this?
>
Obviously someone has been badly hurt somewhere. Women measure each
gram of emotion? HAH! Women are so much freer with emotion than men
(generally speaking) that this is to laugh.
>
> Why would I say it otherwise? Taken in context - or even by itself (note my cultural comparison), it is obvious that I am speaking about a particular culture - perhaps I should have been clearer that I am referring specifically to S. California. Discussion follows:
>
I was not aware that S. California is isolated enough to get such
uniformity across an entire gender.
> There are certain diseases of the facial area that effect only women, very >rarely men.
Really? Like what?
> It has been medically ascertained that these are caused by the state of
> extreme tension women exert upon their facial muscles in order to directly
> control what expression they project.
>
I have known lots of men who were this uptight about controlling their
facially expression but the only women I've known like this were ones
under some durress not to show what they felt. Men have often been
exposed to cultural pressures that it is not manly to express emotion
easily and very uncool to show too much on one's face. Women veil their
expression when they think they will subject them to ridicule, abuse,
unwanted flirtation or worse. Otherwise women are extremely open in
their facial expressions. Much more so than men.
> I haven't investigated this further than the original report which I ran
>accross recently in connection with life extension research. I will
>tentatively predict, however, that there is major variance in the incidence
>of the problem among different cultures of similar genetic heritage. I >would also expect to see that among the rare male incidence, it would be
>mostly concentrated with gays, and perhaps secondarily with asian men.
You are a piece of work. You take an unsubstantiated report, use it to
boost empty generalizations and then on the basis of no more than that
go on to make even more vaporous generalizations and aspersions on other
groups.
>
> Why? Because, like women, gay men are notorious for adopting poses, or
>even wearing makeup, involving much studying of their faces, with the same
>goal of controlling effect.
If you knew anything about acting or projecting emotion you would know
that it requires learning to loosen up one's expressive ability and
facial muscles, build up the emotions and persona one wants to convey
within and then let that play through the face and body. It is not
about rigidly controlling.
>(Note that "butch" lesbians especially tend to
>be on the opposite end of the spectrum - wearing their hearts on their
>sleeves, and little or no makeuup. One would expect, therefore, a lower incidence with them.)
What? You never met a 'stone' butch? There are butch lesbians who
think it is uncool to show to much emotion on their faces or what they
think.
>Asian cultures also focus on the maintenance of "face," which means much >more than the mere physical visage, but includes the concept of the perfect >playing of a role or pose again, if only in maintaining a perfectly blank >expression. Skill at treachery or deception is prized in many Asian >cultures.
OK. I have better things to do. Sheesh.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT