[LMB] OT: gendered clothing and discontents of same

[Azalais Aranxta]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, William A Wenrich wrote:

> To get specific and personal, I've never been part of the
> conspiracy (they never invite me to their meetings)

That's really too bad, I was hoping someone would invite me so I
can spy on them.

> to destroy women by making them wear bad shoes. I'm sorry I'm
> beginning to see a fashion revival starting for the 70's. Did
> you notice the shoes men were wearing then? Ugh!

Uh...the 70's fashion revival started in about 1994, actually.  I
have mixed feelings about it.  I'm good with flare-leg pants that
look modest under a long tunic, but earth colours look awful on
me.

I think there are good points to be made about business attire.
As a woman I resent the fact that while it's getting easier to
find skirted suits with skirts as long as men's pants, that are
not slit up to Alaska, it's still difficult.  I fail to
understand why power skirts have miniskirts because I fail to
understand how a woman can feel powerful if over 75% of her legs
are exposed and she's in an air-conditioned office, but maybe
it's me.  Men's suits have silly fiddly bits but at least they
cover your whole body.  On the other hand, women can get away
with not wearing suits at much higher levels of corporate America
than men can.

> I wear tennis shoes with dress pants to work every day. 30
> years ago I would have been criticized, now no one notices.
> Many men and women dislike what is available in the stores and
> what is considered "professional business attire."

Yes, but how obligatory it is depends on what part of the country
you live in, what industry you are in and what company you work
for.  When I interview for jobs I notice what the other women are
wearing; I don't want to work somewhere where heels, short skirts
and a lot of makeup are de rigueur.  But I make less money
working at a university than I would in private industry, so I do
have to pay for my choice to work somewhere where nobody cares if
I wear a long (tea-length to floor-length) skirt, a pretty
long-sleeved T-shirt or blouse, and Doc Martens shoes to work,
with or without a jacket.

> To say that "Men" make women destroy their bodies for fashion
> is like saying that all people of European decent are by
> definition racists. (This was the position of the official
> University of Delaware for RA's in the dorms.)

Yes, and I agree that both statements are ridiculous.  On the
other hand, I do think that it's sadly telling that the women who
make the most money generally are wearing the short skirts and
heels and makeup with their power suits.

Men who want to make a lot of money have to wear ties, which are
somewhat uncomfortable, particularly if badly tied (I've worn
them--used to have a pink one).  Men's shoes are, however,
generally more comfortable than women's shoes.  The shoe brands
that fit my feet are the ones that make men's and women's shoes
from the same lasts--Dr Martens and Converse--or the very
expensive ones with extended wide sizing.  And men are never
expected to go round with 50% or more of their legs on display,
nor are they obliged to wear sheer, easily torn hosiery on that
part of their leg, which must be shaved clean or even made up for
maximum social acceptability (essential, if you want to make a
LOT of money).  They get to wear socks.

When the upper ranks of the corporate world (not the fashion
industry--business people usually are not the trendiest folks)
are filled with equal numbers of males and females, it will be
interesting to see what kinds of clothes women wear at that
level.  Will they continue to have to display much more of their
bodies than men do?  Will men display more, or women less?

We don't know yet.  But right now, with a shrinking but fairly
large disparity in the sexes among CEO's and other such types,
women at every level are expected to display and adorn more of
their bodies than men are.  Eschewing makeup and jewellery and
short skirts and little impractical shoes costs something; while
extremely feminine clothing, lots of makeup and jewellery and the
like are considered appropriate only for secretaries, not wearing
any of those things is definitely not going to get you to the
highest ranks.

My mother knew what she was doing when she tried to force me into
preppy, rather unfeminine but decidedly gendered clothes that I
hated as a teenager.  It was all about a certain level of social
power.  I rejected it because I can't stand to look like that,
but in general I am more likely to wear a tea-length skirt to a
job interview than an ankle-length skirt, and I don't really like
that aspect of the current social reality.

So I think what the OP was saying was not that "all men,
everywhere, are conspiring to make women wear uncomfortable
clothes and shoes" but rather that "men are currently at the top
of most social hierarchies, and women who'd like to join them
there have to show a certain amount of skin, paint and adorn
themselves more than the men do, and wear stupider shoes, and
since they are the majority in the group that's making those
rules, it seems that the male taste for looking at women's legs
and made-up faces is being catered to more than the female taste
for being comfortable at work and dressing in a way that draws
attention to one's work and not one's looks."

Because I would really like to work somewhere that paid more than
this place does, but not if I have to wear a knee-length skirt,
hose and makeup, thanks.

~malfoy :)

****************************************************************
Azalais Aranxta (~malfoy)
ataniell93 on LiveJournal and Vox
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/malfoymadness

"I know the true world, and you know I do. But we needn't let it
think we all bow down." --Christopher Fry