A society, like a herd gathering, feels more comfortable when everyone in it is the same, but then it gets tired of this sameness and it mutters under its breath "You this, be brighter so that we are surprised, but do not be too bright, so that we do not scared. " I am often struck by this squalid spirit of undulating fears, which I must take from society as feedback.
Most likely this is another of the contradictory directives that society issues to the female sex in principle. Women's upbringing in the patriarchal or quasi-patriarchal paradigm is full of contradictions and conflicting attitudes from the series "a cook in the kitchen, a whore in bed, a loving but strict mother with her children, an admiring admirer with her husband." What is most surprising, a considerable number of men really believe that such a cadaver exists and make these requirements absolutely to all women. The woman, in turn, has to balance so as not to confuse any of the roles. The story with "brightness" rests against the same settings. It is reminiscent of the parental approach of "be yourself, but as long as you match my idea of you." Since society in general tends to treat a woman as a guardian and control her manifestations, "brightness" should be socially approved and fit into the concept of femininity. (Traditionalist societies, into which our country is turning in general, tend to alienate the female body by controlling, for example, for reproductive function is an echo of belief in female incapacity). Here we inevitably come across the concept of a male gaze, through the prism of which a woman as an object is viewed by society. The message "to be attractive to him" is the main direction of movement of most women's magazines, the notorious "disclosure of femininity", which we can hear about on the air of programs like "take it off immediately" implies fitting to one or another stereotype, and the presence of an observer evaluating the result. Feminine "brightness" is good to the extent that it does not conflict with a whole range of concepts. On the one hand, a woman should be bright, attractive, "pleasing to the eye", on the other hand, women with a lot of makeup and too provocative outfits are instantly determined by society as "whores", on the third hand, informal "brightness", like the aforementioned colored hair and tattoos don't fit into the concept of a "feminine woman who wants to protect." As a result, the ideal woman should be wearing makeup, but in such a way that it is not visible, should be dressed attractively but in such a way that it does not frighten and irritate the evaluating side, does not cause wrong associations and, in general, supports the myth of guardianship over a woman. This all leads to very deplorable results - the upbringing of a child, which gives such ambivalent attitudes, ends in neurotization of the personality and brings up the repression mechanism as the main adaptation mechanism. To survive in a society that constantly communicates with you through mutually exclusive paragraphs, analysis and sanity have to be supplanted, as well as the internal conflict that arises as a result of this analysis. That is why among women there is such a high percentage of neurotics and people suffering from anxiety subtypes of depressive states. So deconstruct the myth for your own good
People are subconsciously afraid of people not like the majority. In general, in Russia, being informal, or looking extravagantly abnormal for the vast majority. I know from myself, I grew up informal. Frequent polls in social networks on the subject, a normal person or a "moron" (piercings, a lot of tattoos, etc.) have already got it, I always choose the option - normal.
On the one hand, society requires conformity from its representatives - this is the guarantor of security and predictability. On the other hand, society loves personality, misses the triviality and prefers variety in different spheres of life. It seems to be like gaining a new experience, which is equal to life and youth. And so it turns out that people always want an interesting toy that will entertain them (whether visually, informationally, emotionally ...), but on the other hand, they want comfortable predictability to keep their ass safe.
In order to save time, I will copy my old post from my public, I hope he answers the question.
Informal or crazy?
Why do many people dislike informals? Or those who outwardly try to show counterculturalism?
First, you need to understand one of the meanings of social norms. One of the main values is to ensure predictability, and therefore safety. Everything from important things like traffic rules, rules of conduct in public places to seemingly silly things like the correct placement of forks next to the plate and many different cutlery for different dishes - all this is necessary to either directly provide safety, or indirectly indicate our predictability.
Why informals are becoming a part of ordinary culture. The point is that informals are not a product of "counterculture", but a change in the standard rules and symbols of culture. Changing your hairstyle, dyeing your hair, getting piercings is all just a reversal of the usual rules of culture. The most counter-cultural people are madmen, sociopaths, psychopaths - since they either do not understand the rules, the mentally ill may simply not know the rules and do not understand the accepted decency, and psychopaths and sociopaths are indifferent to the rules, they follow them for their own purposes, demonstrate "predictability." p>
From this it follows that the society of "normal" will react cautiously to manifestations of "counterculturalism". Not because of anger, but because of a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of behavior, you just do not know what to expect from a highly distinguished individual. The effect is similar to the experiences of people who find themselves in a different cultural environment, they do not know the norms of behavior and rules, do not know how to be predictable and who is predictable. Over time, informality becomes clear and predictable. This is facilitated, among other things, by commercial companies, which, in order to expand the sales market, embed "counterculture" into ordinary culture with the help of advertising and other means of influencing the mass consciousness.