I knew something would pull me from my blogging hiatus. It wasn't the omnibus crime bill, though note: I think this is one of the most terrifying pieces my generation has seen in Canadian policy. It was "How to lose friends and alienate people: Show cleavage, study finds." It made a U of O press release. The original study can be ripped here. Needless to say, Dar Williams (thank you, Erin) disagrees with its main finding: most women aggress against sexual rivals.
Hesitant to pay the article any credence, I avoided circulating and critiquing yesterday. Then I saw the headline on the front page of today's G&M print edition, complete with images of "confederate dressed conservatively" and "provocatively (sexy-thin)"...
You've probably all read it, but to summarize, the scorn of the sexy woman is ubiquitous among women, and showing too much cleavage is a surefire way to become ostracized. Of course this is not a new idea, and there are corresponding man discourses of peacocking, competition, etc. According to this perspective, grounded in evolutionary biology, we're all driven by our bodies, our bodies desire to mate, all human interactions in our modern world can be reduced to this. Given our genetic destiny, as the author of the study notes oh-so-rigorously, "we can't tolerate anyone giving the milk away for free."
Regardless of whether or not this perspective rings true in your imagination, this is just bad research (thank you Sasha, JoAnne). Women were secretly video taped to record their reactions to a provocatively dressed woman and a conservatively dressed woman entering the holding room. They were then asked to rank the women's "bitchiness." Because women were less likely to want to "be friends with" the provocatively dressed woman, introduce her to their boyfriends or allow him to spend time alone with her (pardon? "allow"?), "the sexy colleague was indeed seen as a sexual rival."
There are a lot of assumptions about women going on here. First, they are a unified brand of heterosexual. Second, they desire monogamous mating. Third, they have the same sense of what a monogamous heterosexual relationship should entail, including precariousness.
Then there are the methodological issues of accuracy and validity, and analytical problems. "Bitchy" is operationalized out of the sky, as researchers checked for "once-overs" and "death stares." I'm pretty shocked that this passed defense, never mind received SSHRC funding and was published. Not that I worship positivism, but this blog is more scientific. Perhaps it was the employment of a standardized emotion coding statistical model... argh.
The link between not wanting to be friends with someone and seeing them as a sexual rival is totally unintuitive to me. There are many people I don't want to be friends with, and I may make unfair judgements based on dress, but that does not mean I see these people as sexual rivals. [My problematic link would likely be between provocative office dress and naiveté, or, in the case of these images, disinterest in personality based on style of dress. Shallow, yes, but not related to sexual intimidation.] This assumption granted, my not wanting to be friends with someone certainly doesn't lend itself to the next hint at causation: sense of sexual rivalry = ostracize and avoid. My first reaction to women chuckling about wearing provocative clothing in the office is they are amused by her breaking a social norm. I might laugh myself, thinking hmm, you don't see that everyday. And of course I'd give her a "once over." It's tough not to look at cleavage. We've been socialized to see this as sexy, and it's not something you see very often in the office. I'd probably stare at it, but not while wishing the owner "death." Also, the women participants only scoffed once the "sexy" woman left the room, suggesting to me that she might not be ostracized if they were sitting in a group having a chat.
The second part of the study involved participants ranking women's "cuteness" and "sexiness" in photographs. Again, the sexy-thin and sexy-fat confederates (lots of crap research cited in the literature review about this distinction) were less likely to be friended by the participants and most likely to be isolated from meeting the boyfriends. My gut here is that of course I'd be less likely to introduce someone to my boyfriend if I weren't interested in being friends with her. This would not mean I viewed the voluptuous woman as a "mate poacher."
Even if this study were rigorous, it rests on assumptions about social behaviour that are seen as exclusively biological. There is no room for consideration of the social here. How is one-sided research like this still celebrated? I'll keep the opposite in mind when I write exclusively on the social. Further, even if there were a nuanced consideration of the social and compelling "evidence" that women ostracize "sexy" counterparts, I'd hope that this could also be situated in a broader socioeconomic context, possibly with a statement like, "Reportedly heterosexual women seeking monogamous partnerships appear to demonstrate aggression against women by whom they feel sexually threatened. This dynamic occurs within a condition where women are an economically disenfranchised group that are still required to rely on men (largely in heterosexual partnerships) for social capital, physical safety and economic stability."
Brief aside on the theme of intrasexual competition, I recall my reading of a girl peer in high school. She wore her uniform in a way that I have been socialized to understand as suggestive of her promiscuity. She made a lot of jokes about her sexual experiences, her hair was always perfectly straightened, her lips always glossy, she always smelled like vanilla, and she wore shiny coloured bras under her gym clothes. I remember wondering to myself if my boyfriend found her attractive. My guess was probably, but even in my 16-year-old brain, I didn’t seek to appropriate her look or keep my boyfriend away from her, and I certainly didn’t seek to ostracize her. I did, however, avoid being friends with her. I wasn’t interested in a thing she had to say, and I didn’t feel particularly comfortable around her. I assumed she didn't like me either. I think this distinction is lost on the researchers.
Usually I argue for more academic insertion into popular media. After all, folks are doing a lot of studying that can contribute to our understanding of the state of things. The other side of the coin, though, is the academy carrying a certain legitimacy that allows uncritical research to be fetishized. I hope readers view these cleavage findings with critical eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment