skirt: symbol of oppression?
TruthDoctor
Several women of my acquaintance have said that they regard the
skirt as a symbol of women's oppression. They argue that it affords
less freedom of movement than pants, can be cold in winter, and
brings other inconveniences such as the need to wax/shave the legs.
For them, it is a visible symbol of how women are treated
differently.
But recently I met a woman who took the opposite view. For her, the
skirt is a symbol of women's greater freedom relative to men - the
garment is free-flowing and open to the atmosphere whereas pants are
tight and constrained. She welcomed the opportunity to bare her legs
in winter on the grounds that enduring the elements shows her to be
stronger than men.
So which is it to be: symbol of opporession or freedom? What do
others think or prefer wearing, and why?
--
Common sense is anything but common
Julia Kosatka
On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Veronica I. Arreola wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, TruthDoctor wrote:
> > So which is it to be: symbol of opporession or freedom? What do
> > others think or prefer wearing, and why?
> >
> was a HUGE tom-boy and wearing a skirt meant that day I couldn't run,
> climb the monkey bars, play ball, or do anything fun. All I could do is
> sit and watch. Or at least that's how I felt.
Same here. I can remember being in elementary school (at a time when
girls were not allowed to wear pants to school) and being scolded for
letting my panties show (it was the sixties... remember those skirt
lengths? :-) on the play ground and then having to do toe touches during
calethenics (sp?). Naturally, the boys were lined up behind the girls.
There was a brillant set up. I generally detest skirts and dread ever
being in a position where I have to either start wearing them again or
pass up a good job that 'requires' it.
> I don't think that a skirt is a symbol of oppression, but you could have a
> point there. Who knows? I rather enjoy the freedom of a nice comfy pair of
> pants to run, skip, etc and not worry if my underwear is showing. ;)
Me, too!!!!! I spend a lot of time crawling around under people's desks
messing with their computer cables. A skirt is terribly impractical for
that. I may well invest in a sun dress or two this summer, but those will
be for play, not work.
Julia Kosatka University of Houston
SFLAaE/BS, PSEB, DDEB, HLLL
Unpublished Writer: Will Rewrite for Food
Pamela Anne McVay
I can't give you the definitive answer to your question, but
I know one thing about your friend who loves to show off her
toughness by wearing skirts: she's never spent a winter
in Minneapolis/St. Paul.
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Valerie S. Rake
In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.970106...@icarus.cc.uic.edu> "Veronica I. Arreola" <var...@uic.edu> writes:
>From: "Veronica I. Arreola" <var...@uic.edu>
>Subject: Re: skirt: symbol of oppression?
>Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 22:23:05 GMT
>On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, TruthDoctor wrote:
>> So which is it to be: symbol of opporession or freedom? What do
>> others think or prefer wearing, and why?
>>
>> --
>> Common sense is anything but common
>>
>>
>>I have a job that I am very happy, does not require a skirt to wear. I
>was a HUGE tom-boy and wearing a skirt meant that day I couldn't run,
>climb the monkey bars, play ball, or do anything fun. All I could do is
>sit and watch. Or at least that's how I felt.
>I don't think that a skirt is a symbol of oppression, but you could have a
>point there. Who knows? I rather enjoy the freedom of a nice comfy pair of
>pants to run, skip, etc and not worry if my underwear is showing. ;)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O
>Veronica I. Arreola
>University of Illinois - Chicago
> Piglet sidled up to Pooh from behind. "Pooh!" he whispered.
>"Yes, Piglet?"
>"Nothing," said Piglet, taking Pooh's paw, "I just wanted to make sure you
>were still there."
>
I wore pants forever, then all of a sudden fell in love with skirts. I do
have one gold rule, though. Skirts must be long enough and wide enough that I
can climb, crawl under desks to plug in computer parts, and sit cross-legged.
They must also have pockets.
I've often thought that one of the few identifiable perks we have achieved
over the last couple decades is that women often now have more freedom than
men in dressing. We can wear skirts _or_ pants, depending on how we,
individually, feel about them.
----------
Valerie S. Rake
Ban Life.
100% of people who have it,
will die from it.
Camilla Cracchiolo
In message <5aqvpe$2pf$1...@mhafc.production.compuserve.com> - TruthDoctor
<10145...@CompuServe.COM>Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:41:47 GMT writes:
:>
I think it all depends on context. Certainly it has nothing to do with the
inherent characteristics of the garment itself, which is good in some
situations and bad in others. Skirts are not great for manual labor or
riding bicycles. On the other hand, they are cool and allow free
circulation of air in the summer.
I also assume that you mean skirt wearing in western european culture, since
in many societies men and women both wear long robes that are quite
similiar.
Even with Western European culture, there is also the kilt, in which even
Prince Charles feels free to show his knees.
I also assume that when your friends refer to restricted movement, they mean
short skirts (preserving modesty) and ankle-length skirts. I've never
noticed a movement problem with skirts of mid-calf length.
I think there is something to the idea that dresses and skirts symbolize
oppression because while women are quick to adopt pants, you don't see too
many men eager to wear skirts.
In fact, men who wear women's clothing are absolutely despised and ridiculed
for doing so. Most recent famous example is probably basketball player
Dennis Rodman, who has taken an inordinate amount of flack for
crossdressing. The L.A. Clippers have a billboard here in town joking that
Rodman brings games to a halt so he can find a dropped earring. It's
particularly offensive that this billboard is up on Santa Monica Blvd near
Vine, in Hollywood. This is a part of town where several transvestite bars
exist and where transsexual prostitutes regularly ply their trade. Yet one
more good reason for me never, ever to go to a Clippers' game (even if they
weren't a lousy team!)
Basically, men and women wear different clothes in this culture probably
because of injunctions in the Old Testament that say men and women
who wear clothing of the opposite sex should be put to death.
In this context, wearing a skirt may be a symbol of liberation if it's a gay
man or a transvestite man who does it.
Personally, I favor long skirts with boots, mostly because I am a large
woman but short and have a lot of trouble finding pants that fit me. When I
do buy pants, I get men's pants and have them altered. This is both because
they fit my particular shape better and also are better made with more
pockets than most women's pants.
:>Several women of my acquaintance have said that they regard the
:>skirt as a symbol of women's oppression. They argue that it affords
:>less freedom of movement than pants, can be cold in winter, and
:>brings other inconveniences such as the need to wax/shave the legs.
:>For them, it is a visible symbol of how women are treated
:>differently.
:>
:>But recently I met a woman who took the opposite view. For her, the
:>skirt is a symbol of women's greater freedom relative to men - the
:>garment is free-flowing and open to the atmosphere whereas pants are
:>tight and constrained. She welcomed the opportunity to bare her legs
:>in winter on the grounds that enduring the elements shows her to be
:>stronger than men.
:>
:>So which is it to be: symbol of opporession or freedom? What do
:>others think or prefer wearing, and why?
:>
:>--
:>Common sense is anything but common
:>
Roger Schwenke
Camilla Cracchiolo wrote:
> In this context, wearing a skirt may be a symbol of liberation if it's a gay
> man or a transvestite man who does it.
What about just a man? Am I necesarily gay or transvestite if I wear
a skirt? Isn't that just one more gender stereotype to add to the pile
that all of us on this newsgroup are trying to deconstruct?
Roger
occasional skirt wearer
Caitlin M. Shaw
>> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, TruthDoctor wrote: [about skirts]
>> > So which is it to be: symbol of opporession or freedom? What do
>> > others think or prefer wearing, and why?
Julia Kosatka <ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU> writes:
>I can remember being in elementary school (at a time when
>girls were not allowed to wear pants to school)
Speaking as a member of a younger generation (I assume from the above)
I'm prompted to add that wearing a skirt is not as easy as it looks when
you're watching someone who was brought up wearing one. I was raised a
tomboy daughter of not-so-ex hippies and quite simply I don't know how
to walk in a skirt without tripping over it or having it ride up. I've
also found, asking around, that girls who are raised wearing sneakers,
sandals, and boots generally have wider feet than girls who wore
'girlie' footwear -- in fact, we have feet about as wide as boys' -- and
thus have difficulty finding 'proper' shoes to go with the skirts.
('Girlie' and 'proper' placed in quotations to express my general
mistrust of any system which divides clothing or behaviors into 'for
girls' v. 'for boys', 'proper' v. 'not fit to be seen', etc.)
That said, I know of some people who, being far more poised and elegant
than I, have included skirts, dresses, and a few pairs of comfy-yet-proper
shoes into their otherwise grown-tomboy wardrobes. It can, I'm told,
feel pleasantly dignified (a sensation I'm not terribly familiar with).
Of course, these are people with a job or position which at times
precludes skipping, crawling, or hanging upsidedown in any type of
clothing...
Caitlin
--
Caitlin MacKay Shaw /\ /\ /\ <http://www.princeton.edu/~cmshaw>
<cms...@princeton.edu> \/ \/ "There is no one true way." M. Lackey
Princeton University Mathematics Department and Women's Studies Program
Julia Kosatka
[I'm finally seeing the original post here.. figures. :-)]
On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, TruthDoctor wrote:
> skirt as a symbol of women's oppression. They argue that it affords
> less freedom of movement than pants, can be cold in winter, and
> brings other inconveniences such as the need to wax/shave the legs.
> For them, it is a visible symbol of how women are treated
> differently.
Yep!
> But recently I met a woman who took the opposite view. For her, the
> skirt is a symbol of women's greater freedom relative to men - the
> garment is free-flowing and open to the atmosphere whereas pants are
> tight and constrained. She welcomed the opportunity to bare her legs
> in winter on the grounds that enduring the elements shows her to be
> stronger than men.
Ummm... Granted, she's entitled to her opinion, but I'd be willing to bet
she'll find very few women who agree with her. :-)
On the other hand, I'd like to see more men wearing skirts (if they want).
:-):-)
Julia Kosatka University of Houston
SFLAaE/BS, PSEB, DDEB, HLLL
Unpublished Writer: Will Rewrite for Food
Robert Huff
In article <5asmt4$i...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
cam...@primenet.com (Camilla Cracchiolo) writes:
> I also assume that you mean skirt wearing in western european
> culture, since in many societies men and women both wear long
> robes that are quite similiar.
Once you have established the context as "wewstern european"
(in which I will include Rome, but not Greece), the following
statement becomes very problematic:
> Basically, men and women wear different clothes in this culture
> probably because of injunctions in the Old Testament that say men
> and women who wear clothing of the opposite sex should be put to
> death.
From the days of Caesar and the legions, until about 1450,
just about everybody in "western europe" wore a outer garment
with one opening facing from the waist to the ground. Toga,
tunic, cotehardie, sideless surcote, academic robe. And sometime
in the late 1400's, men's high fashion was basically a _very_
micro-miniskirt and tights (technically, a short, very
form-fitting tunic and individual hose tied to a underbelt).* The
spiritual descendants of the clerics who went to Outremer and
bewailed the immorality of the Muslim women wearing pants also
bewailed the inciteful fashions of Henry VII's male courtiers.
Moralists may have raised the Old Testament prohibition, but
they didn't accuse men on the basis of "wearing a skirt".
Robert Huff
(who would _love_ to see someone tell
Charlemagne, Ruy Diaz, and Richard
Lionheart how their dress diminished
them)
* - amazingly like the 1990's "sweater and leggings"
Larisa Migachyov
TruthDoctor (10145...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: Several women of my acquaintance have said that they regard the
: skirt as a symbol of women's oppression. They argue that it affords
: less freedom of movement than pants, can be cold in winter, and
: brings other inconveniences such as the need to wax/shave the legs.
: For them, it is a visible symbol of how women are treated
: differently.
: But recently I met a woman who took the opposite view. For her, the
: skirt is a symbol of women's greater freedom relative to men - the
: garment is free-flowing and open to the atmosphere whereas pants are
: tight and constrained. She welcomed the opportunity to bare her legs
: in winter on the grounds that enduring the elements shows her to be
: stronger than men.
: So which is it to be: symbol of opporession or freedom? What do
: others think or prefer wearing, and why?
I think that the very fact that women have a choice between wearing a
skirt or wearing pants is a symbol of freedom. For me, my choice of
attire depends on the weather. When it's cold, I wear pants, and when
it's warm, I wear a skirt. I think that women are a lot more free than
men as far as clothing goes - men don't have the choice between pants and
a skirt.
Larisa
Camilla Cracchiolo
In message <32D314...@sabine.acs.psu.edu> - Roger Schwenke
<rws...@sabine.acs.psu.edu>Tue, 7 Jan 1997 23:40:15 GMT writes:
:>
Hmm...Hadn't thought about that. Men who wear skirts are by definition
crossdressers, since skirts other than kilts and certain long robes are
proscribed for men in this culture. I've always equated crossdressing with
transvestite. But, of course, if you're not getting a sexual kick from it
then I guess it's not 'true' transvestitism, whatever that is.
Just to double check, I do assume that you're not equating transsexualism
with transvestitism, which are very different things.
I'm interested to know under what circumstances you wear skirts. It might
prove interesting and spark some further discussion of this topic. After
all, deconstructing masculinity is something some of the men on this
newsgroup are working on.
Of course, I don't know that I'd go so far as to dare them to wear skirts.
:)
Interesting idea, though.
Travller
OK, maybe this is going to sound weird coming from a man, but I actually
have a problem with most skirts. All clothing worn by men is easy to put
on. Zippers, buttons, etc. are always in the front and easy to reach.
Why is this not so with all women's clothing? I distinctly remember my
women's studies prof. pointing out that little girls dresses required
assistance while little boys could easily dress themselves. From that
point on I have gotten angry when I see a little girl in such attire -
especially when it's my own niece. The socialization of this is quite
obvious - girls learn they must have help while boys get to be
independent.
I realize that many times women look very attractive in skirts. To say
otherwise wouldn't be honest. However, I still have a problem with them.
Someone here said it was more freedom for women since they could wear
either pants or a skirt. First, this goes back to the "male being the
norm." In other words, it's acceptable for a woman to be more like a man,
but not for a man to be more like a woman. Second, it is not entirely
true that woman have a choice. Indeed, in many white collar jobs and
government offices skirts are mandatory. Just be a female lawyer for a
day and you'll find out how much judges tolerate when it comes to women's
clothing.
While women do have the advantage in summer when they wear skirts that
allow air flow, the skirt, at least to me, is an overwhelming image of
oppression. And I would say the same about high heels, "most" makeup
(not all), long hair, and anything else that prevents freedom of motion or
isn't comparable to what men are expected to do.
Lara
Pamela Anne McVay wrote:
>
> I can't give you the definitive answer to your question, but
> I know one thing about your friend who loves to show off her
> toughness by wearing skirts: she's never spent a winter
> in Minneapolis/St. Paul.
>
ROFL. I heard about the winters there (and the spring and fall aren't
skirt weather either)
Lara
Julia Kosatka
On 10 Jan 1997, Travller wrote:
> While women do have the advantage in summer when they wear skirts that
> allow air flow, the skirt, at least to me, is an overwhelming image of
Unless, of course, it's a situation where panty hose are also required.
Nasty things to wear when it's hot (even worse when it's also humid).
> oppression. And I would say the same about high heels, "most" makeup
> (not all), long hair, and anything else that prevents freedom of motion or
> isn't comparable to what men are expected to do.
Amen! I gave up makeup years ago, then the heels went and I haven't worn
skirts...ummm... since I was pregnant over three years ago. That was also
the last time I wore hose (support hose toward the end - now *that* was
nice - it helped a lot :-). Now, I'm lucky in that I work in a fairly
casual environment. There are any number of jobs just on campus where
those things would pretty much be required (I would never even be
considered for such positions unless I first changed my manner of dress).
Out in the Real World it can be much worse. About the only thing men are
saddled with (clothing-wise) are ties (barbaric things) and relatively
drab colors. *PLEASE* correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going by the
complains from the men in my life.
Valerie S. Rake
In article <19970108203...@ladder01.news.aol.com> trav...@aol.com (Travller) writes:
>From: trav...@aol.com (Travller)
>Subject: Re: skirt: symbol of oppression?
[cut]
>I realize that many times women look very attractive in skirts. To say
>otherwise wouldn't be honest. However, I still have a problem with them.
>Someone here said it was more freedom for women since they could wear
>either pants or a skirt. First, this goes back to the "male being the
>norm." In other words, it's acceptable for a woman to be more like a man,
>but not for a man to be more like a woman. Second, it is not entirely
>true that woman have a choice. Indeed, in many white collar jobs and
>government offices skirts are mandatory. Just be a female lawyer for a
>day and you'll find out how much judges tolerate when it comes to women's
>clothing.
Both very true.
>While women do have the advantage in summer when they wear skirts that
>allow air flow, the skirt, at least to me, is an overwhelming image of
>oppression. And I would say the same about high heels, "most" makeup
>(not all), long hair, and anything else that prevents freedom of motion or
>isn't comparable to what men are expected to do.
I'm not sure what you are implying. The way I'm reading you, neither women
nor men should wear skirts, heels, makeup, or long hair because they aren't
comparable to what men are expected to do. In other words, the point of
feminism is to erase the differences between women and men by making women
over into the current male norm. This may not be what you mean, but its the
meaning I'm picking up.
Just do toss out a new topic, how about the clothing described in Marge
Piercy's _Woman on the Edge of Time_? She has women and men in a variety of
skirt and pant styles, as well as a variety of not-particularly-efficient
"dress up" clothes for special occasions. While parts of her utopia give me
the willies, I like her ideas about clothes and costume. Women and men are
free to choose the styles they like, based on what works for them in any
particular occasion. Rather than there being a male/female distinction in
styles, there is an everyday/special occasion disctinction. Everyday clothes
tend to be sturdy and practical, while special occasion clothes are rare and
luxurious and need careful attention to preserve them for future use, or are
completely frivolous and completely recyclable.
Valerie
Valerie
Lara
TruthDoctor wrote:
>
> Several women of my acquaintance have said that they regard the
> skirt as a symbol of women's oppression. They argue that it affords
> less freedom of movement than pants, can be cold in winter, and
> brings other inconveniences such as the need to wax/shave the legs.
> For them, it is a visible symbol of how women are treated
> differently.
>
> But recently I met a woman who took the opposite view. For her, the
> skirt is a symbol of women's greater freedom relative to men - the
> garment is free-flowing and open to the atmosphere whereas pants are
> tight and constrained. She welcomed the opportunity to bare her legs
> in winter on the grounds that enduring the elements shows her to be
> stronger than men.
>
> So which is it to be: symbol of opporession or freedom? What do
> others think or prefer wearing, and why?
>
> Common sense is anything but common
Skirts are only symbols of oppression when you are forced to wear them,
which happened to me in two cases where if I didn't wear them, I would
lose my job. Actually, I'm not really a skirt wearer, mostly due to
pantyhose. Those are a really symbol of oppression. Men should be able
to wear skirts if they wanted too.
Lara
Donald Harlow
cam...@primenet.com writes in a recent posting (reference <5asmt4$i...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>):
>In this context, wearing a skirt may be a symbol of liberation if it's a gay
>man or a transvestite man who does it.
Actually, I think it's even more a symbol of a liberation of a straight
non-transvestite man wears a skirt because gays and transvestites, in
labeling themselves non-'normal', have already transcended the boundaries
of the norm, for the most part, in being non-straight and cross-dressing
on a regular basis, whereas the former are more likely to be a part of
mainstream society in just about every aspect of their lives.
The original poster wrote:
>:>Several women of my acquaintance have said that they regard the
>:>skirt as a symbol of women's oppression. They argue that it affords
In Western society it does for the following reasons:
(1) women were restricted to skirts in earlier centuries (remember Susan
B. Anthony and Amelia Bloomer?) and the first half of this century;
(2) when a woman wears a skirt, she must worry about her underwear showing
(as other posters have already noted). This is the modesty women usually
are ~supposed~ to feel, whereas men can have their underwear hanging out
with impunity, at least in lower social circles in which they do not need
to be dressed meticulously (i.e. my dad does it all the time :-) ).
(3) skirts do ~not~ allow for greater freedom of movement, at least in
very athletic sports in which your legs need great room to move, i.e. rock
climbing or bicycle riding, although they are less constricting to one's
hips and pelvis. If they're long, they're also easy to get caught in
things (I was wearing a long skirt once and it caught in a fan and tore).
Our society places a great emphasis on physical appearance and strength,
esp. to differentiate between the genders. Although shorter skirts may
demand 'enduring the elements', they are a considerably recent invention
-- for hundreds of years women wore ~long~ skirts, often layered with
thick petticoats beneath.
Esther A. Harlow
est...@donh.vip.best.com
Charles Lieberman
On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, TruthDoctor wrote:
Need? How is that a need? Except for swimmers and bicyclists (And I'm sure
other atheletes), who *needs* to shave his or her legs?
--
Charles A. Lieberman http://members.tripod.com/~calieber/index.htm
Brooklyn, New York, USA
"Well I have walked/Over miles/And under a stone wall/Across the fields
of snow"--For Squirrels
Julia Kosatka
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Charles Lieberman wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, TruthDoctor wrote:
> > brings other inconveniences such as the need to wax/shave the legs.
>
> Need? How is that a need? Except for swimmers and bicyclists (And I'm sure
> other atheletes), who *needs* to shave his or her legs?
Any woman who bares her legs in a 'standard' American work setting, for
one. Otherwise she risks, at the least, not being taken seriously (which
is tough enough just being female half the time) and at worst she'll find
lots of doors into better jobs shut because she doesn't have the 'right
look'. Pretty silly, but it's there.
Julia Kosatka University of Houston
SFLAaE/BS, PSEB, DDEB, HLLL
Unpublished Writer: Will Rewrite for Food
Linda Walsh
Travller wrote:
All clothing worn by men is easy to put
> on. Zippers, buttons, etc. are always in the front and easy to reach.
> Why is this not so with all women's clothing?
The other day, I was running out the door to a class. I thought
it was fairly warm outside (it was sunny, I'm in CA) -- I put
a unitard, a T-shirt, sweatshirt and brought a jacket. I put on my
laceup
boots as well (like doc martins). I stepped outside and my legs were
*cold*, so I ran back in and pulled on a 10-yard skirt (10 yards
circumference
around bottom tier) and ran back out. Now if I were a guy, I would have
had to remove my boots, find something to go over my unitard, reboot...
I sure felt the freedom of women's dress at that point.
> I realize that many times women look very attractive in skirts. To say
> otherwise wouldn't be honest. However, I still have a problem with them.
> Someone here said it was more freedom for women since they could wear
> either pants or a skirt. First, this goes back to the "male being the
> norm." In other words, it's acceptable for a woman to be more like a man,
> but not for a man to be more like a woman. Second, it is not entirely
> true that woman have a choice. Indeed, in many white collar jobs and
> government offices skirts are mandatory. Just be a female lawyer for a
> day and you'll find out how much judges tolerate when it comes to women's
> clothing.
--
It is my impression that this is changing and that it is sexual
discrimination to force women to wear only skirts. I think there have
been some court cases saying that employers have to allow the option to
women to wear slacks (of course I still think it is sexual
discrimination
until men have the option, and do, wear skirts as well).
> While women do have the advantage in summer when they wear skirts that
> allow air flow, the skirt, at least to me, is an overwhelming image of
> oppression.
---
Given the documented drop in fertility rates among Scottish
Highlanders when they started wearing pants over kilts, I'd say forcing
men to wear pants has some direct oppressive effects. I would guess men
could argue that pants are a symbol of oppression for men.
In both cases it isn't the clothing that is the problem, it is
being *forced* into not having a choice -- whether by law, or cultural
oppression.
> And I would say the same about high heels, "most" makeup
> (not all), long hair, and anything else that prevents freedom of motion or
> isn't comparable to what men are expected to do.
---
Long hair? I can put it up if I want. I have the freedom to not
wear a scarf around my neck in the winter. Makeup is oppressive if
required.
As for high heels...well again, if required, but they are sortof
impractical,
but there is often a tradeoff between practicality and
beauty/comfort/art.
-linda
Roger Schwenke
> :>Camilla Cracchiolo wrote:
> :>> In this context, wearing a skirt may be a symbol of liberation if it's a gay
> :>> man or a transvestite man who does it.
> :> What about just a man? Am I necesarily gay or transvestite if I wear
> :>a skirt? Isn't that just one more gender stereotype to add to the pile
> :>that all of us on this newsgroup are trying to deconstruct?
>
> crossdressers, since skirts other than kilts and certain long robes are
> proscribed for men in this culture.
True, it probably does classify as crossdressing. But again that's aq
definition with respect to a sexists culture - and not a definition we
really want to keep. So in my mind I still don't think of it as
cross-dressing.
> Just to double check, I do assume that you're not equating transsexualism
> with transvestitism, which are very different things.
no, I know what you mean.
> I'm interested to know under what circumstances you wear skirts. It might
> prove interesting and spark some further discussion of this topic. After
> all, deconstructing masculinity is something some of the men on this
> newsgroup are working on.
Around the house, on occasion. I've only worn it once in public and
that was at a Phish concert (where I have seen men wear skirts before,
and I saw at least one other man in a skirt at that particular
concert). OH, I guess I should mention that it's a long flowing
"hippie" sorta skirt. Phish fans have a definite hippie/Greatful Dead
flavor to them. I wore a solid color shirt and a solid color vest with
it - and I don't think it looked (or seemed to try to look...or
whatever) particularly feminine. I plan to wear it more often, at
friends parties and such, then just in public. I'm not really sure if I
could get away with wearing it in the department.
Roger
Isabel
Actually, I think the skirt as a symbol of oppression depends upon how
one looks at these things. I am female and I happen to like wearing
skirts. Not hight heels (one inch is about it for me) and not
make-up, but I find skirts--especially the long, comes to your ankles
type-to be very comfortable and they give me as much range of motion
as a pair of slacks. Part of that may have to do with the fact that
I'm short and while I do not have to have most skirts hemmed, most
jeans and slacks do need to be taken up even when I buy petites.
Perhaps if I were wearing layers of petticoats and hoops underneath
I'd feel differently, but I do not even usually wear stockings or
nylons unless it's cold, and then it's cold weather tights.
Isabel
Stephanie Huffman Thebo
Caitlin M. Shaw (cms...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, TruthDoctor wrote: [about skirts]
> >> > So which is it to be: symbol of opporession or freedom? What do
> >> > others think or prefer wearing, and why?
>
> sandals, and boots generally have wider feet than girls who wore
> 'girlie' footwear -- in fact, we have feet about as wide as boys' -- and
> thus have difficulty finding 'proper' shoes to go with the skirts.
I grew up wearing 'girlie' dress up shoes and my toes grew to be in a
pointed formation. But I have wide feet and had often wore shoes that
squeezed. (Looking back I don't know why I suffered) Now I wear tennis
shoes and sandals. When I occasionally have to wear 'dress' shoes I have
trouble wearing them. They're so restricting. Also, I haven't worn high
heels since high school and can no longer walk in them-which is probably
a good thing because I hate them anyway.
As for the skirt question, I love long flowy skirts in the summer. You
get nice circulation that's much cooler than shorts.
Oh, I think Roger said something about men wearing skirts-
I think it's cool when guys wear skirts. Not only are they fighting a
stereotype but they look darned cute.
Stephanie Thebo
sth...@indiana.edu
David J. Loftus
Julia Kosatka (ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU) wrote:
: Amen! I gave up makeup years ago, then the heels went and I haven't worn
: skirts...ummm... since I was pregnant over three years ago.
More power to you. But does that mean every other woman SHOULD do as you
have? Because it "sends a message" about oppression and freedom? And
are we agreeing on the message?
I started out being against heels and makeup on women while affecting
bright colors and floor-length robes from Japan and Africa for myself (ages
18 to 25), but after that time I increasingly met and enjoyed the company
of women who liked to employ both at times. One even experimented with
putting makeup on me before we went out to breakfast once. My wife is
also a fan of makeup and skirts along with her sensible shoes and power
suits; after years of staring down men in sales meetings and
institutional boardrooms, she looks for more feminine and exotic outfits
to go with the artistic lifestyle she's trying to construct for herself.
It's up to the individual woman, I say.
: Out in the Real World it can be much worse. About the only thing men are
: saddled with (clothing-wise) are ties (barbaric things) and relatively
: drab colors. *PLEASE* correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going by the
: complains from the men in my life.
Well, to being with, you might consider that what men complain about may
not be all that rides and rattles them; we are famous not only for
ignoring and bottling up our cares, but even failing to find out what
they are in the first place, for ourselves.
I'm not really knowledgeable about men's clothing woes because I've
avoided work situations that impose on me in that manner. At present, I
work at a place where I sometimes wear t-shirts and shorts, but I also
feel like wearing colorful embroidered vests, silk long sleeve button
downs and neckties sometimes.
This is not possible in many other workplaces, although I suspect men often
limit themselves more than they might have to if they chose to push the
boundaries a bit more.
David Loftus
Pamela Anne McVay
Was Charles Liberman serious when he asked who, besides
bicyclists and swimmers, needed to shave her legs? Lieberman's
signiture says New York, perhaps he lives in such a big city that
he sees lots of women wearing skirts with unshaven legs? I assure
you, here in Cleveland a woman who chose to wear skirts without
shaving would be made to feel very uncomfortable. First, other
women would stare at her and make comments. Heck, I've had women
give me "the look" and take the liberty of asking in incredulous
voices if I'm REALLY not wearing hose with my skirt, never mind
me actually trying to "get away" with not shaving. The social [A
pressure to shave off all leg hair if you're a woman is very strong
in the United States, and whereas in some areas with a strong
leftist community and significant numbers of activist lesbians and
feminists I have actually seen an occassional woman go without
shaving her legs, to do so is a deliberately loud political
statement. I don't know any woman who goes unshaven who isn't
very feminist and living in a situation where what other feminist
women think is just as important as what most people think. For
a woman like me, who works for Catholic nuns of moderate political
leanings, I might as well put a sign on the back of my dress
saying "don't promote me--I'm too stupid to try to fit into your
organization!"
Beatrice Muller
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970112...@Bayou.UH.EDU>, Julia Kosatka <ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU> writes:
|> On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Charles Lieberman wrote:
|> > On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, TruthDoctor wrote:
|> >
|> > Need? How is that a need? Except for swimmers and bicyclists (And I'm sure
|> > other atheletes), who *needs* to shave his or her legs?
|>
|> Any woman who bares her legs in a 'standard' American work setting, for
|> one. Otherwise she risks, at the least, not being taken seriously (which
|> is tough enough just being female half the time) and at worst she'll find
|> lots of doors into better jobs shut because she doesn't have the 'right
|> look'. Pretty silly, but it's there.
|>
|> Julia Kosatka University of Houston |>
in summer. I do not get treated differently then my male colleagues.
But it might be just the academic environment I work in and the fact
that I am European (although having lived in the States for 6.5 years).
Beatrice
Charles Lieberman
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970112...@Bayou.UH.EDU> did Julia Kosatka
(ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU) decree:
> > other atheletes), who *needs* to shave his or her legs?
> Any woman who bares her legs in a 'standard' American work setting, for
> one. Otherwise she risks, at the least, not being taken seriously (which
> is tough enough just being female half the time)
[snip]
Than why can I get away with not shaving my legs? Am I asking a more basic
question than the subject calls for?
--
Charles A. Lieberman http://members.tripod.com/~calieber/index.htm
Brooklyn, New York, USA
"Well I have walked/Over miles/And under a stone wall/Across the fields
of snow"--For Squirrels
Henry Neeman
TruthDoctor (10145...@compuserve.com) said:
>>>Several women of my acquaintance have said that they regard the
>>>skirt as a symbol of women's oppression. They argue that it ...
>>>[has] inconveniences such as the need to wax/shave the legs. ...
Charles Lieberman (cali...@bu.edu) replies:
>>Need? How is that a need? Except for swimmers and bicyclists ...
>>who *needs* to shave his or her legs?
Julia Kosatka (ju...@bayou.uh.edu) responds:
>Any woman who bares her legs in a 'standard' American work setting,
>for one. Otherwise she risks, at the least, not being taken seriously
>... and at worst she'll find lots of doors into better jobs shut
>because she doesn't have the 'right look'. ...
The same can be said of men with long hair, and in some cases of men
with beards. It's not *as* serious a problem, but it definitely exists.
A male friend of mine had considerable trouble finding a job because of
long, though well kept, hair.
I suspect that corporations with such policies, who I imagine are in the
business of making money rather than sociopolitical statements, prefer
employees whose tastes are bland and conventional, on the theory that
such tastes will offend none of their customers.
I would also imagine that male corporate execs in, say, middle eastern
countries who grow thick, bushy mustaches probably are more successful
than those who are clean-shaven.
Corrections invited.
Henry Neeman
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
hne...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Ellen Denham
In article <5bbb74$j...@news.bu.edu>,
cali...@bu.edu (Charles Lieberman) wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, TruthDoctor wrote:
>> brings other inconveniences such as the need to wax/shave the legs.
>
>Need? How is that a need? Except for swimmers and bicyclists (And I'm sure
>
Umm, have you ever seen a woman with hairy legs in pantyhose? I often don't
shave my legs in winter, but if I wear a skirt I wear opaque tights. If I had
a job where the dress code was skirts and pantyhose, I can almost guarantee I
would get called into the supervisors office if I came in with leg fuzz poking
through my stockings. It kind of defeats the whole image. (which is one
reason I hate pantyhose anyway).
I am sure that for women who work in a skirts and hose environment, shaving or
waxing legs is a necessary part of the dress code, unless they are somehow
blessed with such a small amount of hair that it isn't noticable. I don't
think that is most of us -- we are mammals after all!
Ellen (who sometimes likes to wear skirts, but would scream if I had to wear
them all the time)
Julia Kosatka
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, David J. Loftus wrote:
> Julia Kosatka (ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU) wrote:
>
> : Amen! I gave up makeup years ago, then the heels went and I haven't worn
> : skirts...ummm... since I was pregnant over three years ago.
>
> More power to you. But does that mean every other woman SHOULD do as you
> have? Because it "sends a message" about oppression and freedom? And
> are we agreeing on the message?
No... but no woman should be 'forced' to wear makeup or hose or heels or
whatever to keep her job (or be considered for a better one).
> institutional boardrooms, she looks for more feminine and exotic outfits
> to go with the artistic lifestyle she's trying to construct for herself.
> It's up to the individual woman, I say.
Exactly. Both my techie side as well as my artistic side are perfectly
well expressed in jeans and sweats. :-)
> : Out in the Real World it can be much worse. About the only thing men are
> : saddled with (clothing-wise) are ties (barbaric things) and relatively
> : drab colors. *PLEASE* correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going by the
> : complains from the men in my life.
>
> Well, to being with, you might consider that what men complain about may
> not be all that rides and rattles them; we are famous not only for
> ignoring and bottling up our cares, but even failing to find out what
> they are in the first place, for ourselves.
True, though I was speaking about men I am close to (family members
mostly).
> I'm not really knowledgeable about men's clothing woes because I've
> avoided work situations that impose on me in that manner. At present, I
My brother (40) 'retired' from the aerospace industry to tune pianos in
the country. When he applied to a local community college for a part time
teaching position and they found out he has some technical qualifications
they needed he flat out told 'em he didn't do ties anymore (or mornings
for that matter :-). Fortunatly, they needed his skills more than an
image.
> work at a place where I sometimes wear t-shirts and shorts, but I also
> feel like wearing colorful embroidered vests, silk long sleeve button
> downs and neckties sometimes.
Go for what feels right.
> This is not possible in many other workplaces, although I suspect men often
> limit themselves more than they might have to if they chose to push the
> boundaries a bit more.
They are probably in the same position many women find themselves in.
There are dozens of other people in the organization who can do their jobs
*and* appeal to the organization's 'image'. I think more organizations
should worry less about how their people dress and more about the
important things their organization is there to do. But that's just MHO.
Julia Kosatka University of Houston
SFLAaE/BS, PSEB, DDEB, HLLL
Unpublished Writer: Will Rewrite for Food
Anna Gates
On 7 Jan 1997, Valerie S. Rake wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.970106...@icarus.cc.uic.edu> "Veronica I. Arreola" <var...@uic.edu> writes:
> >From: "Veronica I. Arreola" <var...@uic.edu>
> >Subject: Re: skirt: symbol of oppression?
> >Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 22:23:05 GMT
>
> >On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, TruthDoctor wrote:
>
> >> So which is it to be: symbol of opporession or freedom? What do
> >> others think or prefer wearing, and why?
[Moderator's Note: excess quoted material deleted -- pw]
I haven't been following this thread, so I am not sure if this pont has
been mentioned yet, but ever since I was a girl, I hated skirts, but I
wan't sure why. When I was a teenager, I made a connection between the
wearing of a skirt and sexual accessibility (or rape?). It seems to me
that the skirt makes it easier for a man to have sex when he wants it. I
don't know about the validity of this statement, it just seems to be a
feeling I have about why it is that at one point in time women weren't
even permitted to wear pants.
Jennine Gates
David J. Loftus
Travller (trav...@aol.com) wrote:
: OK, maybe this is going to sound weird coming from a man, but I actually
: have a problem with most skirts. All clothing worn by men is easy to put
: on. Zippers, buttons, etc. are always in the front and easy to reach.
: Why is this not so with all women's clothing? I distinctly remember my
: women's studies prof. pointing out that little girls dresses required
: assistance while little boys could easily dress themselves. From that
: point on I have gotten angry when I see a little girl in such attire -
: especially when it's my own niece. The socialization of this is quite
: obvious - girls learn they must have help while boys get to be
: independent.
This is an interesting point, but most women have the choice, eventually,
whether to incorporate skirts into their wardrobe or discard them
forever. That you might have a problem with them on women's behalf is
kind of beside the point for women who like them for themselves.
: I realize that many times women look very attractive in skirts. To say
: otherwise wouldn't be honest. However, I still have a problem with them.
: Someone here said it was more freedom for women since they could wear
: either pants or a skirt. First, this goes back to the "male being the
: norm." In other words, it's acceptable for a woman to be more like a man,
: but not for a man to be more like a woman.
I'm not sure if this is true; more that men have norms, and women have
norms, and in this particular case women may have a slightly broader
spectrum of acceptable norm.
: Second, it is not entirely true that woman have a choice. Indeed, in
: many white collar jobs and government offices skirts are mandatory.
: Just be a female lawyer for a day and you'll find out how much judges
: tolerate when it comes to women's clothing.
But are ALL judges this way, or are you talking about a statistically
significant portion of them . . . which may be subject to change over
time? And are such professional limitations on a woman's wardrobe any
more restrictive than they are for the men who choose to inflict such
careers upon themselves?
: While women do have the advantage in summer when they wear skirts that
: allow air flow, the skirt, at least to me, is an overwhelming image of
: oppression.
Maybe I'm missing something, but where the heck is the oppression if the
women freely choose, for whatever reason, to wear the skirt, and no one
singles them out for punishment if they don't? This is like saying
blacks who call one another "nigger" in friendliness and jest are
perpetuating their own oppression: they maybe making a reference to
historic oppression, but I wouldn't say they are perpetuating it -- any
more than I (a Japanese-American) am when I jokingly disparage "nips" and
my wife (who is not) blanches good naturedly.
: And I would say the same about high heels, "most" makeup (not all),
: long hair, and anything else that prevents freedom of motion or isn't
: comparable to what men are expected to do.
But ONLY if that kind of freedom of motion is what the individual woman
desires, given that no one is forcing her to wear the skirt! Monks and
nuns traditionally wore floor-length robes that impeded movement, too --
some still do. Shall we say they were oppressed? No. They choose the
life and the garb, and rarely if ever NEED to move quickly and freely.
Keep in mind that some women choose to exercise power by dressing in the
manner you disparage, and they get far more attention and move further in
the corridors of wealth and power than either you or I on our skills and
with our more sensible clothing.
David Loftus
Netnom
=cali...@bu.edu (Charles Lieberman) wrote:
<Pine.OSF.3.95.970112...@Bayou.UH.EDU> did Julia Kosatka
(ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU) decree:
> > other atheletes), who *needs* to shave his or her legs?
> Any woman who bares her legs in a 'standard' American work setting, for
> one. Otherwise she risks, at the least, not being taken seriously
(which
> is tough enough just being female half the time)
[snip]
=Than why can I get away with not shaving my legs?
= Am I asking a more basic question than the
= subject calls for?
um, maybe cuz you don't wear skirts????
keep in mind that in *many* jobs, esp corporate ones, women still can't
wear pants (or only on 'casual' days). lawsuits are flying to contest
this, but it's still true most places. and it is NOT acceptable to have
visible leg hair under pantyhose, and hose is usu. explictly required
(and if not, then implicitly most places).
if this sounds unlike your experience.....you may need to get out of
academia to get a true view of what work life is like for most women...and
men.
Iane Morgan
*************************************
"Flaming says absolutely nothing real
about the object of the attack, but
everything about the flamer himself.
Those who flame merely reveal the
ratholes of their own psyches."
-- Cybermind Freud
*************************************
Julia Kosatka
On 15 Jan 1997, Beatrice Muller wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970112...@Bayou.UH.EDU>, Julia Kosatka <ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU> writes:
> |>
> |> Any woman who bares her legs in a 'standard' American work setting, for
> |> one. Otherwise she risks, at the least, not being taken seriously (which
> |> lots of doors into better jobs shut because she doesn't have the 'right
> |>
>
> in summer. I do not get treated differently then my male colleagues.
> But it might be just the academic environment I work in and the fact
> that I am European (although having lived in the States for 6.5 years).
You've got two major factors on your side. Academia is one of the reasons
I can avoid skirts/hose/heels/makeup completely. Most people also know
that leg shaving isn't the big deal in Europe that it is here. Or maybe
my experiences vary from yours based partly on geography. Perhaps it's
worse down here in the bible belt.
Julia Kosatka University of Houston
SFLAaE/BS, PSEB, DDEB, HLLL
Unpublished Writer: Will Rewrite for Food
Chloe Carter
In article <1997011623...@kipling.cse.ucsc.edu>, tra...@cse.ucsc.edu
(Tracey Sconyers) writes:
>Yes, women can buck the trend by not shaving (or men
>by not wearing a tie, perhaps), but Corporate America does not take kindly
>to those who buck trends. Other types of work environments may be
>flexible enough to accomodate those who hate to shave or wear ties,
>but there is definitely a large segment of the American business culture
>that requires this kind of dress code.
After reading a number of articles like this, one can only wonder why
anyone would want to be a part of 'Corporate America'. It seems clear
that 'Corporate America' is in the process of excluding an ever-growing
percentage of the working public. The model of the 'acceptable employee'
seems to be getting narrower and narrower, not just in terms of appearance
and manner, but also in other terms, such as age. In the large companies
that I've been in contact with, most of the employees over 55 have been
cut or offered early-retirement bonuses. So, if you're not a white male,
between the ages of 25 and 45, and dressed strictly according to the
usual standards, you just don't belong. There are clearly an awful lot
of people who don't fit this mold...
- Chloe
Diana Newman
Julia Kosatka wrote:
>
> [I'm finally seeing the original post here.. figures. :-)]
> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, TruthDoctor wrote:
> > less freedom of movement than pants, can be cold in winter, and
> > differently.
>
>
> > But recently I met a woman who took the opposite view. For her, the
> > skirt is a symbol of women's greater freedom relative to men - the
> > garment is free-flowing and open to the atmosphere whereas pants are
> > tight and constrained. She welcomed the opportunity to bare her legs
> > in winter on the grounds that enduring the elements shows her to be
> > stronger than men.
>
> she'll find very few women who agree with her. :-)
>
> On the other hand, I'd like to see more men wearing skirts (if they want).
Well, comming as I do from a very long line of Scots...including a man
named Wallace...I wouldn't mind seeing a few skirts on the guys, either.
As for me, I love 'em; as long as they are long enough to cover the
legs, warm and tuckable. I have told my children that the only person
who will EVER see my knees is my local mortician...
Anyway, that is totally beside the point here. It is true that the men
have considerably less freedom to choose what they wear than we do. I
would not say that skirts, at least NOW, represent any sort of
repression of women. If anything, refusing to wear one would be to deny
the heritage of our ancestresses...besides limiting ourselves even more
than some complain that others are trying to limit us.
So I sit here in my jeans and sweater---and it's cold. I think I will
don my long johns, cozy wool socks, and my heavy flannel skirt. Believe
me, my son restricted to one pair of jeans will never be as warm.
diana
Netnom
Iane Morgan
>and it is NOT acceptable to have
>visible leg hair under pantyhose, and hose is usu. explictly required
>(and if not, then implicitly most places).
I do not shave my legs and am able to wear hose with no "visible leg hair
under the pantyhose." This would be a pointless endeavor if it was poking
through the nylon.
Reenie
Tracey Sconyers
|> > Any woman who bares her legs in a 'standard' American work setting, for
|> > one. Otherwise she risks, at the least, not being taken seriously (which
|> > is tough enough just being female half the time)
|>
|> Than why can I get away with not shaving my legs? Am I asking a more basic
|> question than the subject calls for?
|>
|> --
|> Charles A. Lieberman http://members.tripod.com/~calieber/index.htm
|> Brooklyn, New York, USA
|> "Well I have walked/Over miles/And under a stone wall/Across the fields
|> of snow"--For Squirrels
For the same reason *I* can get away with not wearing a tie and
jacket to a business meeting. There are clearly different dress codes
for men and women in certain business settings, and for women this
includes wearing hose and shaving legs if she has anything but pale
blonde leg hair. Yes, women can buck the trend by not shaving (or men
by not wearing a tie, perhaps), but Corporate America does not take kindly
to those who buck trends. Other types of work environments may be
flexible enough to accomodate those who hate to shave or wear ties,
but there is definitely a large segment of the American business culture
that requires this kind of dress code.
I feel like I am stating the obvious here, and I am not sure what the
point of Mr. Lieberman's question is.
--
Tracey Sconyers
tra...@cse.ucsc.edu
Graduate student, UC Santa Cruz, Computer Science Board
David J. Loftus
Julia Kosatka (ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU) wrote:
: My brother (40) 'retired' from the aerospace industry to tune pianos in
: the country. When he applied to a local community college for a part time
: teaching position and they found out he has some technical qualifications
: they needed he flat out told 'em he didn't do ties anymore (or mornings
: for that matter :-). Fortunatly, they needed his skills more than an
: image.
That may well have been one of the many reasons my father was a piano
tuner and repairman too.
David Loftus
Jan Bruyndonckx
Hi,
I've been reading this thread, much to my enlightment **and** amusement.
Oppression or Freedom?
Skirts are a symbol of female oppression? Well, I feel that a skirt is a
symbol of male freedom. Not only physical (to our 'sensitive parts'), but
also mental (freedom from old-fashioned stereotypes.)
Comfort/Practicality?
Some women didn't like skirts because they are impractical (when long) or
not modest (when short). I don't disagree, pants are more practical,
especially for working in the garden or creeping under tables for wiring
computers.
But for any sitting activities, shopping, etc... I prefer the comfort of a
skirt. But, of course, I'm a man.
Symbol?
What's a symbol? That's a sign that represents something else by
convention. A skirt is nothing but some yards of cloth, just a garment.
If society **chooses** that a skirt represents female oppression, then it
becomes a symbol. As an individual, you're free to accept that symbol or
you don't.
Example!
I started wearing a sarong while on holiday in Sri-Lanka. Then I wore it
at home, and much later in public. No negative comments! On the
contrary. Why? Because I dress and act like myself, a man. I wear the
sarong because it is my full right to do so, no hiding in dark corners,
but very open.
Then I bought a kilt. Even more positive comments! At the moment, I wear
a kilt at least half of the time, including at work. At work? Yes!
First, one gets the odd looks, the exclamations ("Jan, you're sexy!") and
the questions. Now, no one even looks around. ...Last week I got
(another) promotion...
I feel the only important thing is: (try to) dress neatly, it doesn't
matter if it's in pants or in kilt.
Have fun!
Jan
(at work, in black T-shirt, woolen pull, red&black kilt)
---
Check out:
http://waveweb.innet.be/janb/
Jan Bruyndonckx
In article <5b9o44$l...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, sth...@indiana.edu
(Stephanie Huffman Thebo) wrote:
> I think it's cool when guys wear skirts. Not only are they fighting a
> stereotype but they look darned cute.
Stephanie,
Thanks a lot for the support!
Jan (wearing a great red and black kilt at the moment)
jbruyn...@waveresearch.com
http://waveweb.innet.be/janb/
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>I've been reading this thread, much to my enlightment **and** amusement.
[much interesting stuff deleted]
Nothing profound, just my 2 cents.
I would never in a million years wear a skirt or dress.
I would not have any serious reservations about wearing a kilt or
a sarong.
I think nothing less of a woman who wears a dress or skirt.*
Now, I honestly can't think of any time I would not rather wear a good
pair of shorts, but that is somewhat beside the point, the above are
gut reactions and fairly strong ones at that.
*generally, if she is wearing a mini in below freezing weather, I
might think her a bit foolish.
Robert
specify the e-mail address below, my reply-to: has anti-spam added to it
Mor...@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers
Shaun Young
i don't think that men can be feminists, but i know some men who feel
that they are. how do you women think about it? please e-mail me
directly and simply say:
Yes, i think men can be feminists. or
no, i don't think men can be feminists.
thank you.
Veronica I. Arreola
> Yes, I think that men can be feminists. Why? Because I know many. It all
depends on your definition of feminist.
> If your def. says that a feminist is a WOMAN, then no a man can't be
one. My def is that any person who works toward the goal of equality of
women and men is a feminist. (That was a way simple version of my def!)
Just my 2 dinars!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O
Veronica I. Arreola
University of Illinois - Chicago
=========================================================
Piglet sauntered up to Pooh from behind. "Pooh!" he whispered.
"Yes, Piglet?"
"Nothing," said Piglet, taking Pooh's paw, "I just wanted
to make sure you were still there."
=========================================================
Roger Schwenke
> Then I bought a kilt. Even more positive comments! At the moment, I wear
> a kilt at least half of the time, including at work. At work? Yes!
> First, one gets the odd looks, the exclamations ("Jan, you're sexy!") and
It's funny you should mention that - I got the same comment - "Wow,
sexy". I couldn't explain it at the time, but I didn't really like
getting that comment.
Before I pretty much thought that skirts were *not* a symbol of
opression, they simply correlated highly with an oppressed group. Now
that I see skirts may mark someone as a sex object, I think I might
change my mind. I need more data points of comments towards men who
have worn skirts
I'm not holding my breath.
Roger
Travller
dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) wrote:
<<But are ALL judges this way, or are you talking about a statistically
<<significant portion of them . . . which may be subject to change over
<<time? And are such professional limitations on a woman's wardrobe any
<<more restrictive than they are for the men who choose to inflict such
<<careers upon themselves?
To the best of my knowledge, it is standard for many courts to limit a
woman's dress to a skirt. I even remember one circumstance where a judge
ordered a woman to take off her coat even though she had a cold and a
slight fever. Would the judge have done the same to a man? Probably.
But that's not the point. We're talking about what the skirt means.
<<Maybe I'm missing something, but where the heck is the oppression if the
<<women freely choose, for whatever reason, to wear the skirt, and no one
<<singles them out for punishment if they don't?
Ah, yes, you did miss the point. We're talking about a *symbol.* Is a
tie a symbol of oppression for a man? Not hardly. Is a suit? No. Dress
shoes? Give me a break. Those things represent power and wealth. And
yes, in professional circles, formal skirts can also represent power.
However, overall, they signify that someone is a female and that it's not
appropriate to dress "like a man." What's the problem with this? Well,
if you followed this thread - skirts are not very practical a lot of the
times. Thus, in those situations, such garb is most definitely a symbol
of oppression, professional or not. As a man who has worked jobs at
banks, city offices, etc. etc. I can think of nothing in comparison -
except for when it's really hot. I find it quite odd that you singled
out my comments about "choice" when more than enough women here can tell
you that such a thing does not exist in many cases. Again, much of
women's clothing is a symbol. And furthermore, I don't think it's a
choice when you are raised that you must wear a certain type of clothing.
Yes, times are changing, but it hasn't been that long.
Roger Schwenke
Anne Elizabeth Lincoln wrote:
>
> Diana Newman (b...@utah.uswest.net) wrote:
>
> : Anyway, that is totally beside the point here. It is true that the men
> : have considerably less freedom to choose what they wear than we do. I
>
> symbolic of oppression. My question is why are women given more freedom
> in clothing colors and styles than men?
I don't have the time or inclination to repeat it here - but Deborah
Tannen does a very good job of covering this subject in the book
"Talking from 9 to 5" (and maybe other books, that's the only I've
read). Her basic point is that women may have a greater selection of
clothing, but all of it is *marked* - that is, others will interpret her
clothing as indicating something about her personality. Men's clothing
is mostly unmarked, when only when they devaite from the norm are they
marked. Under this interpretation men have the freedom to be marked or
unmarked, and women do not.
That's not really a good enough synopsis for the sake of further
discussion, but it might create some interest in the book.
Roger
Anne Elizabeth Lincoln
Stephanie Huffman Thebo (sth...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: > also found, asking around, that girls who are raised wearing sneakers,
: > sandals, and boots generally have wider feet than girls who wore
: > 'girlie' footwear -- in fact, we have feet about as wide as boys' -- and
: > thus have difficulty finding 'proper' shoes to go with the skirts.
thanks goodness i'm not the only one! i never owned dressy shoes as a
child, and as an adult, i find it difficult to fit into many women's
shoes because they are classified as "medium width," which just isn't
happening with me. wide width is so much better for me. i wear men's
shoes like Chucks or hiking boots most of the time for comfort, though my
Birkenstocks are a huge fave too. regardless, i'm interested in knowing
that my pet theory was upheld that women who wear heels etc all the time
end up mangling their feet. i saw something in national geographic once
where an american was comparing feet with a villager in south america and
his feet were much more compact than the south american, as the american
had spent most his life bound in shoes and his counterpart had not.
foot, err... FOOD for thought. :)
: I think it's cool when guys wear skirts. Not only are they fighting a
: stereotype but they look darned cute.
sexy, i must say. slightly above knee length or longer flowing
ones....mmmm. i LIKE that! don't get to see it frequently enough
though....why i there such a stigma against men wearing skirts in this
society? male is good, females should emulate males to get away from
being female, but male to female role reversal is BAD! or at least
that's how it seems :(
anne
--
Anne E. Lincoln aeli...@unity.ncsu.edu mszt...@aol.com
Jan Bruyndonckx
> Than why can I get away with not shaving my legs? Am I asking a more basic
> question than the subject calls for?
Charles,
To put it even more contradictory:
Why do many (not all, about 50%) ladies ask me to shave my legs while
wearing a kilt, but not when wearing shorts...
It's different, they say... Is a skirt enhancing one's legs so much that
people are expecting them smooth?
Jan (with unshaven legs)
JennBBBB
To me skirts are not physically oppressive, although historically and
socially they have a sexist message. The construction of skirts are
freeing to me, it is the things that are expected to go along with skirts
that are oppressive -- high heels, panty hose, girlie blouses, etc.
However, I choose to not go along with the sexist expectations and where
clothes to suit my needs -- skirts with warm boots, leggings or bare legs,
not shaving my legs (unless i want to), etc. Personally, I feel strong
and capable no matter what I wear on my legs, as long as I'm wearing
sturdy boots on my feet. Girlie shoes are the real oppressors of women.
Of course, I should admit that since I am self-employed I don't have to
dress to suit someone else's idea of professional. I know most women
don't have that freedom yet.
jennifer
Justin Schwartz
Is the thought that men cannot hold, and act on, the belief that women
should not be subjected to special disadvantages because of their gender?
Or they cannot want and fight for the liberation of women from traditional
forms of women's oppression?
If either of these, what is the force of that "cannot"? Is is because of
their plumbing that men are incapable of wanting and working for these
things for women? Is it because of social relations that have historical
given men advantages from women's subordination?
If if the latter, can white peple be antiracists? Can nonproletarians be
socialists?
Perhaps the idea is that men may say that they want these good things and
even act to promote them in a public context, by fighting laws that
disfavor women and struggling for women's rights, but in their private
relations with women they will take advantage of traditional gender roles
to exploit and oppress women. Or at least, they will let the women in
their lives do the cooking, housework, and change the baby.
There's something to that. I know that despite my own professed male
feminism and the fact that I do a lot more cooking and baby-changing, etc.
than most men I know,a nd probbaly more than most men, still my wife does
more than her share.
The question is, does that make me no feminist at all? Does it put me on
the level with Rush Limbaugh, the Promise Keepers, and others who think
that women should stay barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen? I don't
think so. It means that I am not as good a feminist in my personal
relations as I am in public. But even in my personal relations I make a
pretty serious effort.
And while I think personal relations are very important, they are not less
important than what we do in public. If a guy who doesn't do his share of
the housework still turns out to keep abortion clinics open and fights for
equal pay laws, he's doing much of what's the right thing, don't you
agree? If a guy who does his share of housework protests at abortion
clinics and fights against equal pay laws--I realize this is somewhat
implausible--he's a personal boon to his wife and a curse to women in general.
Yours in feminist solidarity
Justin Schwartz (a person of the male persuasion)
Shaun Young (syo...@beothuk.swgc.mun.ca) wrote:
: i don't think that men can be feminists, but i know some men who feel
: that they are. how do you women think about it? please e-mail me
: directly and simply say:
: Yes, i think men can be feminists. or
: no, i don't think men can be feminists.
: thank you.
--
Julia Kosatka
On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> I think nothing less of a woman who wears a dress or skirt.*
What about a woman who wears pants? Do you believe that there are places
or situations where a woman *should* wear a dress or a skirt and not wear
pants (excluding things like stage costumes, of course :-)?
Julia Kosatka University of Houston
SFLAaE/BS, PSEB, DDEB, HLLL
Unpublished Writer: Will Rewrite for Food
Caitlin M. Shaw
In article <dloftE4...@netcom.com>
dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
>Travller (trav...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: OK, maybe this is going to sound weird coming from a man, but I actually
>: have a problem with most skirts. All clothing worn by men is easy to put
>: on. Zippers, buttons, etc. are always in the front and easy to reach.
>: Why is this not so with all women's clothing? I distinctly remember my
>: women's studies prof. pointing out that little girls dresses required
>: assistance while little boys could easily dress themselves. From that
>: point on I have gotten angry when I see a little girl in such attire -
>: especially when it's my own niece. The socialization of this is quite
>: obvious - girls learn they must have help while boys get to be
>: independent.
>
>This is an interesting point, but most women have the choice, eventually,
>whether to incorporate skirts into their wardrobe or discard them
>forever.
No, many women DO NOT have such a "choice". Do you have a steady job?
Let me tell you, as a college senior with little voices all over campus
starting to mutter (back this fall, even) need-a-job-now-need-a-job-now,
most people will jump through any number of hoops to avoid unemployment.
A women, for example, will have a "choice" of wearing pants and getting
two job interviews and wearing a skirt-suit and getting two dozen, in
many fields, as I understand it. Some "choice".
>: Second, it is not entirely true that woman have a choice. Indeed, in
>: many white collar jobs and government offices skirts are mandatory.
>: Just be a female lawyer for a day and you'll find out how much judges
>: tolerate when it comes to women's clothing.
>
>But are ALL judges this way, or are you talking about a statistically
>significant portion of them . . . which may be subject to change over
>time?
All or a whole lot, it's still way too many women who DO NOT have a
choice in their working conditions.
> And are such professional limitations on a woman's wardrobe any
>more restrictive than they are for the men who choose to inflict such
>careers upon themselves?
No. But they are more uncomfortable and demeaning in several ways. As,
for example, Travller pointed out about with regards to ease of
dressing, and with regards to free motion, and especially with regards
to footwear.
>Maybe I'm missing something, but where the heck is the oppression if the
>women freely choose, for whatever reason, to wear the skirt, and no one
>singles them out for punishment if they don't?
Just out of curiousity, how many pink-collar and white-collar women
workers do you know?
Caitlin
--
Caitlin MacKay Shaw /\ /\ /\ <http://www.princeton.edu/~cmshaw>
<cms...@princeton.edu> \/ \/ "There is no one true way." M. Lackey
Princeton University Mathematics Department and Women's Studies Program
Carla E. Schack
Jan Bruyndonckx (jbruyn...@waveresearch.com) wrote:
: I would be interested to know how 'dress codes' came into being and how
: they are sustained. I find it a form of politeness for one's collegues to
: be neatly dressed at work, but that doesn't have to mean I have to wear a
: tie. In summer, a T-shirt without grease stains, is fine.
: I think the reason is fear: fear what the other **might** think. And as
: it works both ways, no one dares to break the vicious circle.
ehem. though in general, you might be right, I can remember hearing about
at least one case where a female lawyer wore a pant_suit_ to court and was
_ordered_ by the judge to "leave and don't enter my court until you are
dressed properly" never underestimate the power of blatent enforcement of
stereotypes. it happens, and it makes that fear quite well grounded in
some settings.
other examples would be school uniforms, and for that matter military
uniforms. one of my navy friends mentioned that it wasn't until women
started serving on ships and thus climbing ladders in uniform that it
occured to anyone that they might like to wear something more practical
than a knee length sheath skirt.
--
The Big Kahuna Burger
Fifteen birds in five oak trees.
Their feathers are fanned by the firey breeze.
What funny little birds! They have no wings.
Oh, what shall we do with these funny little things?
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
j...@tab.com (Julie Haugh) writes:
>mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu says...
>>I would never in a million years wear a skirt or dress.
>>I would not have any serious reservations about wearing a kilt or
>>a sarong.
>Question -- Jan and I were chatting off-line about a kilt I dieted out
>of and wanted to sell. From a purely descriptive point of view, it is
>roughly a 51" wide by 27" long wool piece of green and black plaid cloth
>with a few dozen pleats. Now you mention skirts. I have a wrap around
>skirt. It is roughly a 45" wide by 39" long polyester piece of black
>cloth with no pleats.
>So ... why would you wear green and black plaid but not plain black,
>or is it the pleats that make the difference, because I have a few
>pleated skirts if that makes a difference.
Because one is a kilt which is worn by manly-men (more manly than sensible
if one beleives the tale of what they wore under the kilts) and skirts...
well they are skirts. I am sure that the fact that they are worn
by girls and women enters into it but at the surface level, for me
at least, it is because they are skirts.
I never said any of this made any sense.
And BTW a "real" kilt is some 80" or so long and goes over the shoulder.
It also tends to be 54" wide (2*27" folded over) but I don't think I would
have any serious problems even with a "fake" kilt.
Julia Kosatka
On 22 Jan 1997, Larisa Migachyov wrote:
> : On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, David J. Loftus wrote:
> : > Julia Kosatka (ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU) wrote:
> : > : Amen! I gave up makeup years ago, then the heels went and I haven't worn
> : > : skirts...ummm... since I was pregnant over three years ago.
> : >
> : > More power to you. But does that mean every other woman SHOULD do as you
> : > have? Because it "sends a message" about oppression and freedom? And
> : > are we agreeing on the message?
>
> Isn't feminist pressure on women not to wear skirts as "bad" and as
> insidious as societal pressure on women to wear skirts? In other words,
Yes, I agree with you. Which is why I don't put pressure on anyone
regarding styles of dress. That I prefer one mode (for this decade at
least, who knows what I'll like wearing in another 10 years) is my choice.
My closest friend is a skirt fiend. *shrug* To each her own. *That* is,
I believe the point of the whole thing.
David J. Loftus
Anna Gates (aga...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: I haven't been following this thread, so I am not sure if this pont has
: been mentioned yet, but ever since I was a girl, I hated skirts, but I
: wan't sure why. When I was a teenager, I made a connection between the
: wearing of a skirt and sexual accessibility (or rape?). It seems to me
: that the skirt makes it easier for a man to have sex when he wants it. I
: don't know about the validity of this statement, it just seems to be a
: feeling I have about why it is that at one point in time women weren't
: even permitted to wear pants.
These are rather large leaps in logic, although they might make sense to
one's irrational fears and fantasies. If a man really wants sexual
access, whether with a girlfriend or a rape victim, a skirt or trousers
are not going to make a lot of difference; whereas considerate men who
might secretly thrill at the sight of underwear or more if granted an
inadvertant flash under a skirt, would never move to capitalize on it
physically, and might even avert their gaze.
David Loftus
Larisa Migachyov
: On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > Julia Kosatka (ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU) wrote:
: >
: > : Amen! I gave up makeup years ago, then the heels went and I haven't worn
: > : skirts...ummm... since I was pregnant over three years ago.
: >
: > More power to you. But does that mean every other woman SHOULD do as you
: > have? Because it "sends a message" about oppression and freedom? And
: > are we agreeing on the message?
Isn't feminist pressure on women not to wear skirts as "bad" and as
insidious as societal pressure on women to wear skirts? In other words,
isn't the attitude that all the "traditional" female-role stuff should
not be used anymore by a "right-thinking" woman just as restrictive and
oppressive as the traditional female role itself?
I think that the real essence of feminism is freedom - freeing women from
societal constraints about what a woman can or cannot do. I wear a
skirt, sometimes, when I want to. Sometimes, when I want to, I wear
pants. I don't wear makeup, because I don't want to wear it. I do,
however, wear jewelry, and my ears are pierced, because I like it and
want to wear it. It is a counterproductive waste of time to sit around
thinking about what everyone thinks, whether the "everyone" is all of
society, or all feminists.
Larisa
Diana Newman
Anne Elizabeth Lincoln wrote:
>
> Diana Newman (b...@utah.uswest.net) wrote:
>
> : Anyway, that is totally beside the point here. It is true that the men
> : have considerably less freedom to choose what they wear than we do. I
>
> I'm going to start a new thread here as a spinoff of the skirt being
> symbolic of oppression. My question is why are women given more freedom
> in clothing colors and styles than men?
Because we take it? (g) Of course, I do see signs of rebellion; I am
under orders to get my son Rush Limbaugh "No Boundaries" ties for any
occasion requiring a gift. One must wear sunglasses when shopping for
these.
<snip>
> In the animal world, the female is often drab-colored and the MALE bright
> and colorful to draw predators away from nesting areas.
Odd. I was taught, and I have always thought, that the flamboyance of
the male in the animal world was to attract MATES, not preditors. Come
to think of it, I can't think of any species that has such a difference
in coloration between male and female that raise the young together. In
fact, I can think of a couple whose females wouldn't want the male
anywhere near her young, as he has a regretable tendency to eat them.
Of course, "top of my head" thinking tends to be way off base, so I will
be glad of correction. I'm not a biologist. (G)
Then again, I'm not really certain what that means to the human world,
having the bright colors on the sex that is out to attract mates....(G)
> i find it
> interesting that humans have reversed that "natural" tendency and womyn
> are now the colorful, made-up creatures and men the IBM robots.
Not all humans have done so: ever been to an adamantly Islaamic country?
The women all look like crows in their chadors....and it wasn't all THAT
long ago that western society, also, demanded that men wear shoes with
two and three inch ruby heels, make up and lace. Of course, they also
wore swords....
> also
> interestingly, i have overheard frequently in restrooms, etc., wimmin
> complaining that they saw someone with "my skirt on!" I, myself, have
> felt a surge of disappointment if i've gone somewhere and seen someone
> dressed in my outfit or dressed similarly to me -- that whole
> socialization thing going on here. i actually like being unique in a
> crowd and dislike looking like anyone else.
Then we are going to HAVE to do something about the western uniform;
jeans and T-shirts. (G) My kids wear nothing else. Come to think of it,
I hardly ever wear anything else, either.
Hmnnnnn......(grin)
Diana
Charles Lieberman
jen kilmer (je...@saranac.microsoft.com) wrote:
>| From: Pamela Anne McVay <gq...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu>
>| Was Charles Liberman serious when he asked who, besides
>| bicyclists and swimmers, needed to shave her legs? [...]
>It's a legitimate question.
Mine or Ms. McVay's?
> there is, to my knowledge,
>no law stating that woman has to bare her legs. It's
>true that some dress codes require skirts - but skirts
>are available in a variety of lengths, from ankle-length
>to mid-calf to knee-length to mini.
Not exatly what I was refering to.
>I routinely do it in summer with no comment. Of
>course I wear shorts about 4 times as often as skirts.
>In neither case do I shave.
THAT'S what I was talking about. I shave because people see my face, people
look at my face, I intend for people to look at my face, and so I want to
improve it's appearance. And if I ever get tempted to grow a moustache all I
have to do is look at my school ID...
Jan Bruyndonckx
In article <5c56gp$n...@lana.zippo.com>, j...@tab.com (Julie Haugh) wrote:
> In article <5c3i2a$8...@corn.cso.niu.edu>, mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
says...
> >I would never in a million years wear a skirt or dress.
> >
> >I would not have any serious reservations about wearing a kilt or
> >a sarong.
>
> ...Now you mention skirts. I have a wrap around
> skirt. It is roughly a 45" wide by 39" long polyester piece of black
> cloth with no pleats.
>
> So ... why would you wear green and black plaid but not plain black,
> or is it the pleats that make the difference, because I have a few
> pleated skirts if that makes a difference.
> Julianne,
A kilt is considered by all people as a purely masculine garment. So, I
never encountered any problems with it. I also love to wear a sarong. I
*would* also like to have something in between: a long 'skirt' but of
heavier material.
But, to my knowledge, it's not available to a man... as men's garment.
I know, although I'm pushing the fashion enveloppe for men quite a lot I
wouldn't dare yet wear what's considered women's clothing (however
'masculine' in cut)... I'm still bounded by prejudices, help!
Jan
Julie Haugh
In article <5c5l3e$e...@corn.cso.niu.edu>, mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu says...
>Because one is a kilt which is worn by manly-men (more manly than sensible
>if one beleives the tale of what they wore under the kilts) and skirts...
>well they are skirts. I am sure that the fact that they are worn
>by girls and women enters into it but at the surface level, for me
>at least, it is because they are skirts.
But which attribute (other than the "male" or "female" -ness naturally
attribute to the garment) =makes= it a "kilt" and for the other a "skirt".
I mean, neither have little penises or vaginas sewn into the hem or
something like that.
>I never said any of this made any sense.
'Course not.
>And BTW a "real" kilt is some 80" or so long and goes over the shoulder.
>It also tends to be 54" wide (2*27" folded over) but I don't think I would
>have any serious problems even with a "fake" kilt.
Yes, I know that it is isn't a "Really Real" kilt. I also didn't pay #300
or more for it <smile>.
--
Julianne Frances Haugh Those who do not understand Unix are
mailto:j...@tab.com condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
http://www.tab.com/~jfh -- Henry Spencer
Chloe Carter
In article <5bptsn$r...@epx.cis.umn.edu>, miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Larisa
Migachyov) writes:
>Isn't feminist pressure on women not to wear skirts as "bad" and as
>insidious as societal pressure on women to wear skirts? In other words,
>isn't the attitude that all the "traditional" female-role stuff should
>not be used anymore by a "right-thinking" woman just as restrictive and
>oppressive as the traditional female role itself?
Well, back in the old days we had a phrase: "consciousness raising". The
idea was that stereotypes had to be actively resisted, not just passively
ignored.
>I think that the real essence of feminism is freedom - freeing women from
>societal constraints about what a woman can or cannot do.
True enough, but the question is how to get from where we were to where
we want to be. Is it enough to merely pretend that traditional forms of
oppression don't exist, and have never existed? Or should we acknowledge
them, confront them, and defeat them? Feminists have differed over this
issue for many years.
>Larisa
- Chloe
NKing10428
jen kilmer wrote:
>>there is, to my knowledge,
no law stating that woman has to bare her legs. It's
true that some dress codes require skirts - but skirts
are available in a variety of lengths, from ankle-length
to mid-calf to knee-length to mini. <<
Unfortunately, if you have a uniform, as in a restaurant, where you are
required to wear a skirt (in some cases), the skirt usually comes in one
length. Furthermore, it is a state statute where I live that women in
skirts or shorts in restaurants must wear pantyhose. That's a law.
Certainly a woman like myself, who is also frequently subjected to
commentary about her clothing, is more often going to choose skirts (fewer
negative comments). Having dark black hair and lots of it, unless I am
willing to wear opaque black or navy hose, I am not going to socially be
allowed to not shave my legs. Other women comment on an unshaven state, as
well as men. Indeed, the harshest criticisms I have received have often
been from other women.
However, it was a man, of "equal" status to mine in the community who --
bringing in another topic -- quite loudly commented on the length of my
skirt and what was appropriate in a public meeting one day, with our
peers. The sole purpose of this comment was to put me in my place and
place himself above me.
Naomi K.
Jan Bruyndonckx
In article <5c5l3e$e...@corn.cso.niu.edu>, mor...@physics.niu.edu.nospam wrote:
> j...@tab.com (Julie Haugh) writes:
> >mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu says...
> >>I would never in a million years wear a skirt or dress.
>
> >>I would not have any serious reservations about wearing a kilt or
> >>a sarong.
>
...
> I never said any of this made any sense.
> Robert,
Yes, Indeed, it doesn't make sense, but I feel bounded by the same
stereotypes. It feels like chains, but I don't yet dare to break those.
'Kilts' are recognized by everyone as being masculine, skirts are not.
Illogical, nonsensical...
Jan
David J. Loftus
Caitlin M. Shaw (cms...@yuma.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
: No, many women DO NOT have such a "choice". Do you have a steady job?
: Let me tell you, as a college senior with little voices all over campus
: starting to mutter (back this fall, even) need-a-job-now-need-a-job-now,
: most people will jump through any number of hoops to avoid unemployment.
: A women, for example, will have a "choice" of wearing pants and getting
: two job interviews and wearing a skirt-suit and getting two dozen, in
: many fields, as I understand it. Some "choice".
This is not sexism, however. Men have their choices limited in very
similar ways. In the absence of hard proof about one's competence on
the job, prospective employers cannot help but judge you on the basis of
physical appearance, whether you are male or female. What is annoying is
when they insist on imposing superficial clothing rules upon you after
your competence has been well proven -- except in work which entails
having to continually make a good instant first impression on many
strangers, such as outside sales. I've had my clothing choices
criticized and curtailed by bosses, too, and I don't like it when it
doesn't make sense. The solution? I go to work and workplaces where
things are more flexible.
But even when you are self-employed, which I hope to be in the not too
distant future, you still are not free to wear EXACTLY what you want if
you have to deal directly with strangers in the course of your business.
Nobody's going to offer work to an independent architect who wears a
T-shirt and cutoffs, and people are going to look askance at artists who
don't bother to groom for a gallery opening.
: All or a whole lot, it's still way too many women who DO NOT have a
: choice in their working conditions.
But neither do men.
: No. But they are more uncomfortable and demeaning in several ways. As,
: for example, Travller pointed out about with regards to ease of
: dressing, and with regards to free motion, and especially with regards
: to footwear.
I haven't seen a lot of evidence that sensible shoes can lead to poor
work evaluations.
: Just out of curiousity, how many pink-collar and white-collar women
: workers do you know?
My coworkers are the former (I'm a secretary), and several of my bosses
and my wife are the latter.
David Loftus
ANGILION
>jbruyn...@waveresearch.com (Jan Bruyndonckx) wrote;
>In article <1997011623...@kipling.cse.ucsc.edu>,
>tra...@cse.ucsc.edu (Tracey Sconyers) wrote:
>> but there is definitely a large segment of the American business culture
>> that requires this kind of dress code.
>
>I would be interested to know how 'dress codes' came into being and how
>they are sustained. I find it a form of politeness for one's collegues to
>be neatly dressed at work, but that doesn't have to mean I have to wear a
>tie. In summer, a T-shirt without grease stains, is fine.
Before the bulk of my post, I would like to raise two points.
Firstly, most relevant to the title of this thread, is that people
are IMO utterly missing what oppression is. When anyone suggests
that wearing a broad class of clothing (skirts vary tremendously)
is a symbol of oppression in and of itself, that is a symbol that
they are protected and pampered. "Oppression" is much stronger
than that. Most importantly, the symbol of oppression is
always the same; lack of choice. To be realistically seen as
oppression, it has to be in an area of significant importance.
Secondly, I think that the concentration on an item of clothing
is missing an important point. Clothing taboos/requirements both
symbolise and enforce behavioural taboos/requirements. There is
undoubtably a strong correlation and IMO there is also a causal
link, indirectly through the different treatment given to people
in different clothes.
There is another aspect that I think people here are missing for
class and wealth reasons. Many people don't have a dress code
at work; they have a *uniform*. Conformity to this is
enforced by sacking.
I've spent 5 years arguing for a removal of a sex-based uniform
split. Theoretically, it will come in with uniform changes in a month
or two. In fact, only women get the choice. I expect to have to
fight the case, lose and get sacked. That is what has happened to
men who have done it before (although there have been very few).
Hell, it took me 3 years to be allowed to have my hair longer than
collar length. Men were sacked for having longer hair.
I *STILL* get a lot of hassle for having hair that is still only
shoulder length. I still get plenty of customers telling me to
get it cut because I look like a girl. Every time, I'll try and
discuss it with them. Okay, not every time. I have limited
patience and I did once retort "wear a skirt - you look like a man"
to a woman who told me "get your hair cut - you look like a girl".
She got the point. To be clear, it wasn't that I thought she
should wear a skirt. It was that I thought the same standards
of freedom should be aplied to people regardless of their sex.
Those above me in the organisational hierarchy are mixed. Most
don't mind as long as it's neat (I tie it back at work). Some
do. If the management at the club where I work changes, I could
be given the choice of sacking or short hair. This isn't unusual.
In fact, it's the norm.
The reaction to the fact that I often wear perfume is generally less
positive. To digress, this is yet another irritating and pointless
sex-based difference; perfume and aftershave. It's the same stuff;
scent. Why attach a sex to it?
The shit will hit the fan when I wear a uniform skirt, assuming the
new rules and styles are implemented. I have faced enough
ridicule for even mentioning the idea. Luckily I'm used to
being ridiculed. I'm a man in the 90s.
The ironic thing is that I don't like wearing skirts.
>I think the reason is fear: fear what the other **might** think. And as
>it works both ways, no one dares to break the vicious circle.
Fear of dismissal is much more likely once you get out of the
"professional" circles. In them, fear of the negative impact
on your career would be reasonable.
>And yet, if one breaks the bondage, one gets nothing but compliments...
Oh, I wish!
I get compliments, certainly, but I also get ridicule and insults.
Oh, and patronised if I'm lucky ("Well, if you want to wear a skirt.....")
with the issue being deliberately misunderstood.
>("Keep breaking cultural barriers", said our CFO. He wore a tie + jacket,
>I wore an Indonesian sarong)
That's a good angle to take, for those people in a job where it is
relevant. It could even be a good career move, on the grounds of
multiculturalism in a global market and ability to think differently
and take risks. It also makes you MUCH more noticeable, which can
be an advantage.
I would suggest that people read about the problems women who wore
trousers, or even more practical skirts, had in the past. The
issue of "the short dress" was important in it's time in the USA.
Now men face the same problems.
A story that I think is true, although I can't remember who the
woman was;
When entering a rather formal restaurant, the woman in question was
told that they didn't serve women who were wearing trousers. With
marvellous composure, she took off her trousers, handed them to
the maitre d' and went in to dine in her underwear.
Whilst I disagree with her actions (the restaurant would not serve
men in skirts either, so their code was restrictive but not sexist)
I applaud her attitude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
| |
| I protest against the attempts to excessively censor the net |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
Julia Kosatka <ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU> writes:
>On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>> I think nothing less of a woman who wears a dress or skirt.*
>What about a woman who wears pants? Do you believe that there are places
>or situations where a woman *should* wear a dress or a skirt and not wear
>pants (excluding things like stage costumes, of course :-)?
There are places where one should dress up. I think that if I went
to a formal ball, I would note, but not think less of, a woman who was
not wearing a dress. In THAT sort of situation there is another
factor 80% of the point of going to a ball is to be dressed up.
I hate ties but would not consider going to a formal event without one.
To address another thread, I think it inappropriate for judges to
require skirts for lawyers who are female. I do think that decorum
should be preserved but fail to see why a pants suit fails the test.
Robert
> Julia Kosatka University of Houston
specify the e-mail address below, my reply-to: has anti-spam added to it
Mor...@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers
David J. Loftus
Travller (trav...@aol.com) wrote:
: <<Maybe I'm missing something, but where the heck is the oppression if the
: <<women freely choose, for whatever reason, to wear the skirt, and no one
: <<singles them out for punishment if they don't?
: Ah, yes, you did miss the point. We're talking about a *symbol.* Is a
: tie a symbol of oppression for a man? Not hardly. Is a suit? No. Dress
: shoes? Give me a break. Those things represent power and wealth.
I'm sorry, I have to disagree. You reason with regard to a context, but
leave out the individual's point of view. Much of what passes for
feminist theory today is based on women's feelings, and yet you feel free
to ignore men's feelings here. If a man doesn't LIKE wearing a tie and
shoes that pinch, if he doesn't ENJOY his corporate job but finds himself
unable to walk easily away from it because of financial and family
commitments, then I'd say his clothing could be said to symbolize his
powerlessness. Symbols are very slippery phenomena, depending on the
person and the context.
: And yes, in professional circles, formal skirts can also represent power.
: However, overall, they signify that someone is a female and that it's not
: appropriate to dress "like a man."
But you are speaking as if this were the case in ALL contexts, for ALL
individuals, and that's a mistake. Appropriateness has nothing to do
with it if a woman likes to wear a skirt, whether it's in an office that
has no particular dress code, or when she's out on the town.
: What's the problem with this? Well, if you followed this thread -
: skirts are not very practical a lot of the times. Thus, in those
: situations, such garb is most definitely a symbol of oppression,
: professional or not.
Practical is also in the eye of the beholder. In some ways, skirts would
be more practical for men. Or shorts. But that doesn't mean "powerful"
men feel free to wear them in government and corporate offices. In one
sense, power means the ability to do as one feels like doing; in that
sense, I am far more powerful to speak my mind and wear what I wish than
those men in suits you claim are so powerful. Their choices are more
limited, their voices far more mute, than mine. You are presuming we
would all be what they are, possess what they have, if we had the
opportunity; I've had such opportunities, or I could have if I had
sought them out -- but I never wanted them and I never went after them.
That's a kind of power I would rather have than the "power" that is
"symbolized" by suit and tie.
: As a man who has worked jobs at
: banks, city offices, etc. etc. I can think of nothing in comparison -
: except for when it's really hot. I find it quite odd that you singled
: out my comments about "choice" when more than enough women here can tell
: you that such a thing does not exist in many cases. Again, much of
: women's clothing is a symbol. And furthermore, I don't think it's a
: choice when you are raised that you must wear a certain type of clothing.
: Yes, times are changing, but it hasn't been that long.
Lots of people have freed themselves of expectations imposed on them by
the way they were raised. That's power, too.
Choice always exists. You always have to give up some things to get
others. I refused to learn how to drive for nearly 3 decades of my life,
and some people acted as if that choice were some sort of GIFT: wow, you
don't have to pay these awful insurance premiums, put up with the cost of
repairs, etc.! Going without a car cut down on mobility, certainly, but
it helped me maintain a level of flexibility and freedom I would have
lost through the financial commitments.
Apparently lots of women believe wearing a skirt is an imposed
"oppression" they can live with to get something else they want, just as
lots of men put up with suits, ties, ulcers, and long hours to get what
they want. This is not oppression, this is compromise. And still other
women like skirts -- they enjoy wearing them -- and that cannot be
oppressive.
Unless you subscribe to the theory of brainwashing, with which some
feminists blithely insult the intelligence of other women with whom they
disagree.
David Loftus
Camilla Cracchiolo
In message <jbruyndonckx-2...@194.7.68.21> -
jbruyn...@waveresearch.com (Jan Bruyndonckx) writes:
:>I know, although I'm pushing the fashion enveloppe for men quite a lot I
:>wouldn't dare yet wear what's considered women's clothing (however
:>'masculine' in cut)... I'm still bounded by prejudices, help!
:
Given that men who crossdress are physically attacked and beaten for it, I
think you have real cause for fear and are not just bounded by prejudice.
"The trick is to keep an open mind, without keeping it so open that
your brain falls out."
Camilla Cracchiolo, R.N.
cam...@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~camilla
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shrine of the Cybernetic Madonna BBS, Los Angeles, CA
(213) 766-1356
CFS/Fibromyalgia/AIDS Support * Medical Info * Science/Skepticism
Left Wing Politics/Feminism/Gay Rights * Church of the SubGenius
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NKing10428
I would also like to say a few other things about requiring certain attire
in business.
A friend of mine in marketing tells his sales staff that they can dress
down Fridays -- if they don't want to close any sales. He had tracked his
salespeoples' records and they closed many fewer sales when they dressed
down on Fridays than if they wore standard business attire.
I have also been told I am perceived as being much more aggressive when I
wear pants. I am a tall and large woman, with a deep voice, so this can be
a concern. Most of the time I could care less, but if what I am wearing
closes doors, do I want to wear that? (I suppose it depends on what's
behind the doors.)
I also find that I risk considerable censure if I don't have a varied
wardrobe. Wearing the same suit twice in a week is sure to bring down a
rain of c***. I am also irritated by the higher costs of drycleaning I
have to pay. Why should my shirts cost more to dryclean than a man's? Why
should my suits cost more than a man's?
As for shoes.....don't get me started. Grrrr. We're creatures of our
cultures, and so have to respond to them. Can I change the culture?
Somewhat. But I have to measure those risks.
Naomi K.
Neill McKay
Carla E. Schack wrote:
[...]
> ehem. though in general, you might be right, I can remember hearing about
> at least one case where a female lawyer wore a pant_suit_ to court and was
> _ordered_ by the judge to "leave and don't enter my court until you are
> dressed properly" never underestimate the power of blatent enforcement of
> stereotypes. it happens, and it makes that fear quite well grounded in
It seems to me that in every context where a woman might draw fire for wearing
trousers a man would be in at least as much trouble for wearing a skirt.
Neill McKay
--
|\^/|
_|\: :/|_ Neill McKay z5...@unb.ca
> < ----------------------------------
>_./|\._< Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
James A Barfield
Shaun Young (syo...@beothuk.swgc.mun.ca) wrote:
: i don't think that men can be feminists, but i know some men who feel
: that they are.
<grin> I guess it depends on how you define the word "feminist" and it also
depends on what your preconceptions are, especially in regard to gender.
Personally, I doubt that gender can be reduced to an either-or such as
man v woman. Certainly, there are masculine and feminine traits; but
individuals combine these various traits in many ways and each of us
looks more "masculine" or "feminine" depending on how we present ourselves.
Second, I don't think feminism is a feeling. Correct me if I'm wrong. I
define feminism as (1) a system of belief that advocates equality between
the sexes and (2) actions that promote such equality. A "feminist", then,
is one who believes and acts in these ways.
So why *can't* men be feminists? Certainly, I agree that some of us are
better feminists than others, or more complete, more fanatical, more
intellectual, etc. And I would agree that women are very likely to be
better feminists than I -- I have come late to the table, being raised in
a patriarchal home as a child, and I will never have the same
understanding of women's issues that a woman may have. *shrug* Maybe that
makes me a "lesser" feminist; but if I advocate equality between the sexes
as well and as often as I am able, I don't see how I can *not* be a
feminist.
Jim Barfield
jba...@emory.edu
Anne Elizabeth Lincoln
Diana Newman (b...@utah.uswest.net) wrote:
: > In the animal world, the female is often drab-colored and the MALE bright
: > and colorful to draw predators away from nesting areas.
:
: Odd. I was taught, and I have always thought, that the flamboyance of
: the male in the animal world was to attract MATES, not preditors. Come
: to think of it, I can't think of any species that has such a difference
: in coloration between male and female that raise the young together. In
: fact, I can think of a couple whose females wouldn't want the male
: anywhere near her young, as he has a regretable tendency to eat them.
true, attraction is also a reason why males are more brightly colored
than females. i'm sure there are quite a few other ideas out there too,
i just listed the predator one. i was studying to be a biologist when i
found my love of sociology to be greater and have since pursued that
interest. but, one example is the cardinal, which i spent many years
observing as a child. actually, many species DO have co-parenting, and
some species (some fish, i know) only have the fathers around for the
kids. it's all variation and all the techniques work for hte species
that use them, but i just find it interesting.
:) anne
--
Anne E. Lincoln aeli...@unity.ncsu.edu mszt...@aol.com
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~aelincol/www/cattbabe.html
--
My dates are all nice enough, but if my life were a movie, they'd all be
buried in the credits as something like "Second Flight Attendant."
Say to them, "I'm not your trial-size lesbian!" -- Jason Sullivan
"That's trial-size bisexual, to you." -- me
Larisa Migachyov
JennBBBB (jenn...@aol.com) wrote:
: To me skirts are not physically oppressive, although historically and
: socially they have a sexist message. The construction of skirts are
: freeing to me, it is the things that are expected to go along with skirts
: However, I choose to not go along with the sexist expectations and where
: clothes to suit my needs -- skirts with warm boots, leggings or bare legs,
: not shaving my legs (unless i want to), etc. Personally, I feel strong
: and capable no matter what I wear on my legs, as long as I'm wearing
: sturdy boots on my feet. Girlie shoes are the real oppressors of women.
You are absolutely right. A skirt will not damage your body if you wear
it. Narrow women's shoes with pointy toes and high heels, however,
will. 90% of patients with foot problems are women.
Larisa
Diana Newman
Julia Kosatka wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> > I think nothing less of a woman who wears a dress or skirt.*
>
> What about a woman who wears pants? Do you believe that there are places
> or situations where a woman *should* wear a dress or a skirt and not wear
> pants (excluding things like stage costumes, of course :-)?
Interesting question:
AMOF, I've seen many women in office situations who wear pants--and it
works fine with both boss and customer.
However, there is one place I never, ever wear pants..and that is in
church of a Sunday. Oh, it is strictly cultural, not doctrinal; no
matter how you cut it, society still sees pants on women as being
slightly more casual than skirts or dresses. By the same token, we
rather expect the men to wear suits, white shirts and ties. It isn't a
function of oppression as much as it is a statement of respect; we wear
our most formal "Sunday go to meeting" dress in church. I have noticed
that some women, especially converts, are beginning to wear very nice
suits that include split skirts. I imagine that when WE begin to see
that pants on women do not denote a more casual expression, then even
this last bastion of "skirts only" will fall. (G)
I don't think the men are going to get out of wearing jackets and ties,
though. ;-)
diana
Jan Bruyndonckx
In article <5cg39t$4...@lana.zippo.com>, j...@tab.com (Julie Haugh) wrote:
> In article <jbruyndonckx-2...@194.7.68.21>,
jbruyn...@waveresearch.com says...
> >Yes, Indeed, it doesn't make sense, but I feel bounded by the same
> >stereotypes. It feels like chains, but I don't yet dare to break those.
> >'Kilts' are recognized by everyone as being masculine, skirts are not.
> >Illogical, nonsensical...
>
> Okay, the first part of liberation is recognition. Now that you
> recognize that your actions are illogical and nonsensical, what are
> you going to do about it?
Scold you for making me face reality!
If we want skirts for men being accepted as a 'standard dress', then I
feel we should start with a kilt. That's easily recognisable by everyone
as a male garment, so easily accepted, and others might follow. (Some men
at our company told me they were jealous!) If I would wear women's
skirts, then the mental gap would be much larger, and fewer people would
understand, let alone follow.
Notice that the previous paragraph starts with an 'if'! Actually, I don't
care too much about social acceptance, but it would be nice nevertheless.
Actually, I need a minimum of social acceptance: I've got some
girlfriends, but I'm still looking for the 'ideal' one...
> Someone has to be "first" to break the rules.
I've been thinking about following evening classes in fashion design and
sewing. In this way, I could alter a women's skirt to fit a man's body
**and** style.
Unfortunately, this year's Japanese courses take up too much of my time,
maybe next year...
Greetings,
Jan
Caitlin M. Shaw
>: A women, for example, will have a "choice" of wearing pants and getting
>: two job interviews and wearing a skirt-suit and getting two dozen, in
>: many fields, as I understand it. Some "choice".
>
>This is not sexism, however. Men have their choices limited in very
>similar ways. In the absence of hard proof about one's competence on
>the job, prospective employers cannot help but judge you on the basis of
>physical appearance, whether you are male or female.
...And the point people are trying to make is that the standards of
physical appearance to which women are held are perceived (by a fair
number of people) to be demeaning(*). That men's standards are not
considered demeaning in the same way is why this is a question of
sexism rather than general workplace problems.
(*) see the other posts in this thread: "skirt: symbol of oppression?"
Caitlin
--
Caitlin MacKay Shaw /\ /\ /\ <http://www.princeton.edu/~cmshaw>
<cms...@princeton.edu> \/ \/ "There is no one true way." M. Lackey
Princeton University Mathematics Department and Women's Studies Program
Julia A M Simon
Hello!
Caitlin M. Shaw (cms...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
:> I've
:> also found, asking around, that girls who are raised wearing sneakers,
:> sandals, and boots generally have wider feet than girls who wore
:> 'girlie' footwear -- in fact, we have feet about as wide as boys' -- and
:> thus have difficulty finding 'proper' shoes to go with the skirts.
I know that problem - I, too, have quite wide feet (probably inherited them
from my father along with all those other wide limbs of mine ;) . So I was
more or less restricted to wearing sneakers most of the time and
ill-fitting "nice" shoes for the rest of the time until a few years ago,
when I noticed that here in Europe there seem to be different standards for
"normal-shaped" feet in different countries: generally speaking, North
European feet are a lot wider than South European ones. And bingo!, when I
moved to Finland I suddenly found all kinds of women's shoes that look nice
enough with a skirt and are still wide enough to fit my feet. :-) I still
need one of the largest sizes available in women's shoes, but at least now
they're neither too long nor too narrow for my feet...
Incidentally, my boyfriend has very narrow feet (for a man), so he likes
wearing shoes from southern Europe.
CU,
Julia 8-)
--
Julia Simon Hypp"a"aj"at"ar Sprachen-Freak vom Dienst
email: si...@cc.helsinki.fi, sil...@coli.uni-sb.de
snailmail: Akanapolku 2 L 401, 01370 Vantaa, Finland
homepage: http://www.lingsoft.fi/~simon
('-: ... and remember: 1996 is a Leap year! ,:-)
From dae...@ncar.UCAR.EDU Wed Jan 22 20:05:57 1997
Received: from ncar.UCAR.EDU (ncar.ucar.edu [192.52.106.6]) by mail2.panix.com (8.7.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id UAA25529 for <p...@panix.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:05:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ncar.ucar.EDU (NCAR 12/5/96/ NCAR Central Post Office 03/11/93)
id SAA16195; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:05:47 -0700 (MST)
Received: from epx.cis.umn.edu by ncar.ucar.EDU (NCAR 12/5/96/ NCAR Central Post Office 03/11/93)
id SAA16192; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:05:37 -0700 (MST)
Received: by epx.cis.umn.edu; Wed, 22 Jan 97 19:05:36 -0600
To: femi...@ncar.UCAR.EDU
Path: maroon.tc.umn.edu!miga0003
From: miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Larisa Migachyov)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: NOW, censorship, and Larry Flynt
Date: 23 Jan 1997 01:05:35 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <5c6dgv$h...@epx.cis.umn.edu>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970118...@linda.teleport.com> <32E6A5...@sabine.acs.psu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: maroon.tc.umn.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Status: RO
Roger Schwenke (rws...@sabine.acs.psu.edu) wrote:
: WHAT DOES A FIRST AMMENDMENT CHAMPION LOOK LIKE?
: I've seen several comments along the lines of "Do we really want
: somone like Larry Flynt as a First Ammendment Champion?". Considering
: the fact that the only speach that needs to be protected in the US is
: offensive -I really can't see a first ammendment champion being
: anything *other* than an obnoxious offensive person.
I am not sure about that (that is, that only offensive speech needs to be
protected). Or rather, a lot of literature that normal people would not
consider offensive is offensive to some small group (such as the
fundamentalist Christians). Thus, a book can be perfectly innocent (like
"Huckleberry Finn"), and produced by a perfectly nice person, but still
offend someone and be taken out of school libraries and such. I think
that if Forman wanted to choose a First Amendment champion, he could have
chosen someone nicer. (BTW, wasn't Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451"
banned in this country for a while? I'd settle for a movie about
Bradbury as a First Amendment champion).
Larisa
Maria Rost Rublee
Anne Elizabeth Lincoln (aeli...@unity.ncsu.edu) wrote:
: I'm going to start a new thread here as a spinoff of the skirt being
: I worked at, for instance, the men all wore the similar dark-colored
: suits, but the women wore colored sweaters, skirts, or whatever. Going
: to a local bar last night, a good number of the men wore the same old
: tired polo or buton down shirt and slacks or jeans, whereas nearly every
: woman was significantly different from her peers, with different cuts of
: blouses and styles and patterns of fabrics.
: In the animal world, the female is often drab-colored and the MALE bright
: and colorful to draw predators away from nesting areas. i find it
: interesting that humans have reversed that "natural" tendency and womyn
: are now the colorful, made-up creatures and men the IBM robots. also
: interestingly, i have overheard frequently in restrooms, etc., wimmin
: complaining that they saw someone with "my skirt on!" I, myself, have
: felt a surge of disappointment if i've gone somewhere and seen someone
: dressed in my outfit or dressed similarly to me -- that whole
: socialization thing going on here. i actually like being unique in a
: crowd and dislike looking like anyone else.
Personally, I've always found it oppressive that as a female, I am expect
to have 50 different outfits in 10 different colors. More than once I
have told my husband how lucky he is to be able to put on a pair of dress
pants, shirt, and tie, with the same pair of shoes everyday. All he cares
about is matching. We have to care about being creative, looking nice,
finding stuff that flatters our bodies (lord knows most of the stuff out
there doesn't flatter a woman without a stick body!), etc.
I wish I could have 5 different outfits and just wear them week after
week, without any social consequences. It is much easier for me now as a
student--I can wear basically whatever I want. But when I intern in the
summers, it is hell. There is REAL pressure to have lots of nice outfits
that look good, with nice matching accessories, etc. People constantly
comment on your clothes--not just me as an intern, but on the women bosses
as well.
I think many women like clothes shopping, etc., because the more unique
and flattering clothes they find, the more social status they gain. (I'm
talking about average women here, not socially concious feminists,
although they might be included also). Converesly, if you don't put alot
of energy into it, your social status is less than perfect.
Let me add that I like clothes shopping, especially shoe shopping. Why?
I'm socialized. :) But I know it's partially due to the pressure I feel.
Most men do NOT feel that kind of pressure.
Anyway, I know I can buck the trend, etc., but that's my whole point. I
wish women could work in an office, wear the same looking stuff all the
time, and not be bucking a trend! Since I plan on/hope to be a professor,
I will miss out on most of this, since in academics you can wear whatever
you'd like. Yeah!
Maria
PS I haven't really talked about why I think women are oppressed in this
way. I'd gander it's a combination of pressure from women (who after all
have been socialized to accept their need for pretty stuff, myself
included) and men (again, who are socialized to expect women to look
pretty or colorful, etc.). Any further comments on this are welcome,
since I know I'm oversimplifying it. I really liked the post on "marked"
vs. "unmarked"!
One last thought: I like choice, but hate being forced to use it if I
don't want to. (As with skirts: I like wearing them sometimes, but would
hate it if I were forced to by a dress code.)
Larisa Migachyov
Roger Schwenke (rws...@sabine.acs.psu.edu) wrote:
: Anne Elizabeth Lincoln wrote:
: >
: > Diana Newman (b...@utah.uswest.net) wrote:
: >
: > : Anyway, that is totally beside the point here. It is true that the men
: > : have considerably less freedom to choose what they wear than we do. I
: > symbolic of oppression. My question is why are women given more freedom
: > in clothing colors and styles than men?
: I don't have the time or inclination to repeat it here - but Deborah
: Tannen does a very good job of covering this subject in the book
: "Talking from 9 to 5" (and maybe other books, that's the only I've
: read). Her basic point is that women may have a greater selection of
: clothing, but all of it is *marked* - that is, others will interpret her
: clothing as indicating something about her personality. Men's clothing
: is mostly unmarked, when only when they devaite from the norm are they
: marked. Under this interpretation men have the freedom to be marked or
: unmarked, and women do not.
Hmm. Interesting. I think that men's clothing is marked, too. The kind
of suit he wears (cheap or expensive, leisure suit vs. formal suit, etc.)
is quite easy to interpret. In a group of students, it is easy to tell
the difference between a liberal arts student and an engineering student
by looking at the way they're dressed.
Larisa
Julia Kosatka
On 24 Jan 1997 mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> Julia Kosatka <ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU> writes:
> >On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> >> I think nothing less of a woman who wears a dress or skirt.*
>
> >What about a woman who wears pants? Do you believe that there are places
> >or situations where a woman *should* wear a dress or a skirt and not wear
> >pants (excluding things like stage costumes, of course :-)?
>
> to a formal ball, I would note, but not think less of, a woman who was
> not wearing a dress. In THAT sort of situation there is another
> factor 80% of the point of going to a ball is to be dressed up.
> I hate ties but would not consider going to a formal event without one.
I can see this, though the idea never crossed my mind since it's so far
out of my range of experiences. :-):-)
> To address another thread, I think it inappropriate for judges to
> require skirts for lawyers who are female. I do think that decorum
> should be preserved but fail to see why a pants suit fails the test.
They fail the test because, to many many people, pants are not suitable
attire for women but they are for men (same for skirts for men). When
these people have the power to enforce their attitudes, they do so.
Someone else mentioned that church is a place where it is 'expected' that
women will wear skirts. (I've paraphrased this since I accidently deleted
the post before replying, sorry.) The rational stated (which I also heard
growing up) was that you wear your best clothes to church on Sunday
(assuming you're Christian, of course). What if a woman's best clothes
are pants? The skirt preference doesn't jibe with my adult experiences,
however. While I haven't personally been in a church in years, I know
many people who do go and few of the women I know consistantly wear skirts
to church or feel any social pressure to do so.
Julia Kosatka University of Houston
SFLAaE/BS, PSEB, DDEB, HLLL
Unpublished Writer: Will Rewrite for Food
RP
One can look at it this way. If the men who support femnism, equality
between the sexes, consider themselves femnists and are told by others
that they are not feminists or cant be feminists, I think that this
will cause resentment toward the feminist movement movement by these
men. Then what kind of men will women be left to deal with? The
sexists, the pigs, the macho morans and the mysoginists. Female
feminsts should be the first to give male feminists praise. I dont
recall any feminist publications praising or mentioning male feminists
for supporting equality. It would be a nice jesture if this was done.
Raymond
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
Julia Kosatka <ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU> writes:
>On 24 Jan 1997 mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>> Julia Kosatka <ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU> writes:
>> >On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>> >> I think nothing less of a woman who wears a dress or skirt.*
>> >What about a woman who wears pants? Do you believe that there are places
>> >or situations where a woman *should* wear a dress or a skirt and not wear
>> >pants (excluding things like stage costumes, of course :-)?
>I can see this, though the idea never crossed my mind since it's so far
>out of my range of experiences. :-):-)
<cough><cough>
The closest I have ever been to a formal ball is my wedding.
>> To address another thread, I think it inappropriate for judges to
>> require skirts for lawyers who are female. I do think that decorum
>> should be preserved but fail to see why a pants suit fails the test.
>They fail the test because, to many many people, pants are not suitable
>attire for women
Can't argue with that logic, now can I? <blech>
>Someone else mentioned that church is a place where it is 'expected' that
>women will wear skirts.
This is partly personal and partly based on the church. My wife
almost never wear pants to church (bad weather and nursery duty being
the exceptions) but there are plenty of women who do. I am sure
there are churchs where a woman would be very out of place if she wore
pants.
Ignoring footwear, Churchs and formal occasions are places where clothing
is purely decorative and the fact that you can't climb a mountain in the
clothing you are wearing is irrelavent. (though sheath skirts that make
climbing stairs difficult do come to mind)
Robert
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <32ED08A4...@its.brooklyn.cuny.edu>,
RP <rpat...@its.brooklyn.cuny.edu> wrote:
> ... If the men who support femnism, equality between the sexes,
> consider themselves femnists and are told by others that they
> are not feminists or cant be feminists, I think that this will
> cause resentment toward the feminist movement movement by these
My view is different.
I don't care whether other women (or for that matter, other men)
are willing to call me feminist. I do not hold my political
views or advocate political changes in order to win gratitude,
recognition, or other strokes from the people who might benefit
from this. I think there are some kind of action that women
*do* better take away from men, and that doesn't bother me in
the least. As to labels ... I just can't get too worked up
about it.
Russell
--
I'd rather that a bigot mistake me for a lesbian than that a lesbian
mistake me for a bigot.
-- Tovah Hollander
Russell Turpin
-*--------
In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.970127...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>,
Maria Rost Rublee <mru...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
> ... There is REAL pressure to have lots of nice outfits
> that look good, with nice matching accessories, etc. People
> constantly comment on your clothes--not just me as an intern,
> but on the women bosses as well.
While I have no doubt that men comment on women's clothes,
what puzzles me in the comment above, is that most men I
know have little fashion sense, and could not remember what
they wore the day before the day before yesterday, much
less what their coworkers wore a few days ago. I have no
idea which women where I work have "lots" of outfits, and
which recycle the same three or four.
Russell
--
I'd rather that a bigot mistake me for a lesbian than that a lesbian
mistake me for a bigot.
-- Tovah Hollander
David J. Loftus
Caitlin M. Shaw (cms...@yuma.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
: >This is not sexism, however. Men have their choices limited in very
: >similar ways. In the absence of hard proof about one's competence on
: >the job, prospective employers cannot help but judge you on the basis of
: >physical appearance, whether you are male or female.
: ...And the point people are trying to make is that the standards of
: physical appearance to which women are held are perceived (by a fair
: number of people) to be demeaning(*). That men's standards are not
: considered demeaning in the same way is why this is a question of
: sexism rather than general workplace problems.
Well, like the bumper stickers that say "If you don't like abortion,
don't have one," I can say "If you don't like skirts, don't wear them."
Recognize, however, that some employers apparently require them of female
employees, and most likely require a limited repertoire of clothing
choices of their male employees as well, and that some men and women find
these compromises perfectly acceptable. Others quite enjoy the clothing
they are required (and not required) to wear. For them, the issue of
oppression (or what other folks deem to be oppression) is beside the point.
Therefore, skirts cannot be, ipso facto, oppressive.
David Loftus
Elisabeth Anne Riba
I found an article in Sunday's newspapre interesting and relevant to this
discussion. EDS, Ross Perot's former company, just announced that women
working for the company will be allowed to wear pants. Just now, in 1997.
Women who worked for the company had been required to wear skirts or
dresses. [EDS has a fairly strict dress code, also restricting facial
hair on men. However, they're also a big company, so people may have no
choice about following these requirements if they wish to avoid
unemployment.]
Fortunately, I'm in a job where I can wear pants most of the time. I
tend to associate skirts with memories of freezing my legs off during
recess in Wisconsin winters because one day a week I had to wear my girl
scout uniform. Brrr.
While I could get away with unshaven legs in college, which has a much
more relaxed attitude towards such things, I don't dare wear a skirt to
work without shaving my legs. I have dark thick hair and pale skin -- my
legs are hairier than the stereotypical biker's arms.
If I could wear skirts without worrying about hose (which seem to run
if I look at them the wrong way) or shaving my legs (there's never
enough hot water to shave in the shower, waxing and epiladies hurt, and I
don't trust the chemicals in Nair) I might do so more often.
Although the choice of wardrobe might be freeing, I do feel oppressed by
the additional effort that skirts require. Which is why I never wear
them.
--
-------------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <-------------------
"Love wouldn't be blind if the braille weren't so damned much fun."
- Armistead Maupin, "Maybe the Moon"
Lisa Curhan - Sun USOPS New Products
I have some anecdotal experience on this subject, which may explain
my own preference for pants (at least at work):
I worked for many years as an engineer at a semiconductor factory. In order
to enter the actual development and manufacturing fabrication areas, one had
to don coveralls, hoods and gloves to protect the product. The coveralls were
impossible to pull over a skirt, and hose alone were not allowed under them
for chemical/protective reasons.
So, at this factory (and others like it), a skirt marked a woman as a secretary who
never needed to go into the fabrication area, or a marketing/non-technical type.
All the women engineers wore pants, even the few in management, so that they
could travel the whole facility if needed. A skirt was a signal to many that
the person wearing it need not be taken seriously (which was a sad comment on
the attitude toward adminstrative support).
I've carried this predjudice against skirts over to other jobs in which skirts would
be accepted. However, I've noticed that few engineers of either gender commonly
wear skirts. Why wear clothing that necessitates that you wear hose that runs,
more uncomfortable shoes, and makes it necessary that you sit "properly". I
suppose one could get around these constraints by wearing long skirts with boots,
but I don't bother... Pants are quicker and more practical for me. I feel sorry for
women attorneys and others who are forced by predjudice or habit/convention to
wear these straight knee-length skirts with hose & pumps. (Pumps are less comfortable
than most oxfords or sneakers no matter how "sensible"). I do feel that this type
of skirt is "oppressive" if the people wearing it are only doing so because it
is implicitly required for their work environment. Neckties may also be annoying
for men who don't like them, but the degree of inconvenience is less IMHO.
Lisa
jen kilmer
Robert mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
| Julia Kosatka <ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU> writes:
| >Someone else mentioned that church is a place where
| >it is 'expected' that women will wear skirts.
|
| This is partly personal and partly based on the church.
| My wife almost never wear pants to church (bad weather
| and nursery duty being the exceptions) but there are plenty
| of women who do. I am sure there are churchs where a
| woman would be very out of place if she wore pants.
:-) And there are churches where anyone in a dress gets a
second look. For that matter . . . when I go to the 11am
traditional [Episcopal] service, I tend to dress up, either
wearing a dress or nice pants, dress shoes, etc. This
enables me fit in with most of the other adult women
present (well, aside from those who are wearing
vestments). Also it usually impresses a certain Divinity
student (who wears jeans under her vestments ;-)
When I go to the 7pm lesbigay service, I wear jeans. So
do most of the other women at that service (tho again, if
a woman priest is celebrating, she'll wear vestments.)
Same church, different dress codes. Which again
brings us to the big reason a lot of folks dress as they
do: to fit in.
-jen
jen kilmer -=- je...@saranac.microsoft.com -=- aicg testing
the views expressed in this message are my own personal
views and do not necessarily reflect those of Microsoft Corp.
David J. Loftus
Julie Haugh (j...@tab.com) wrote:
: Most of feminist theory is based on women's experiences relative to men's
: experiences. Consider that men (those poor creatures) are free to suffer
: from the pressures of corporate executiveness while women are forced to
: "enjoy" more menial jobs. Those poor men, forced to earn more, work longer
: hours, be regarded as more intelligent. Must be a =really= hard life.
: Sure. Sounds like "women's feelings" to me.
You might check out some of the theorists who suggest that part of the
continuing disparity between male and female salaries is due to the
possibility that women are not as interested in the grinding, top
managerial positions because of all they have to give up. Sure, I can
acknowledge that women have never had free access to the top jobs -- but
that does not mean that women are going to go for them in proportionate
numbers once they DO have equal access.
A lot of men DO feel very forced. You don't sound inclined to listen to
them (always overlooking the fact that many of them are unable to
articulate their woes).
: Yes, but when a woman has externally imposed requirements, as compared
: to the internally imposed ones which men suffer (vis a vis, wearing
: skirts and other "feminine" attire ...), and those requirements impose
: still more requirements, =that= is oppression.
As some other posts have attested, a lot of women feel the pressure to
wear these things from within, as well.
: The problems created by
: dress codes for women are far-reaching. Wearing a skirt requires that
: you (for the most part) shave your legs, wear hose, and wear uncomfortable
: shoes. Women's clothing -- blouses, skirts, pants, =whatever=, is more
: expensive and lower quality. Women's shoes, relative to men's, last about
: 1/3rd as long and easily cost as much or more. Hosiery is a consumable,
: not much more to say there, and leg shaving is socially enforced torture
: at best. Blouses rip, skirts tear, and shoes wear out all with greater
: regularity than men's. And this is some wonderful "choice"? Right.
The market is not wholly defined by the sellers, however; the women who
buy also help define what's available.
: Yes, BUT. For a man, the dress code is internally imposed.
WRONG. You have not been paying attention to the posts from men and
women who have observed "job discrimination" against men who dress
creatively.
: A "powerful"
: executive need not have a manicure if he wishes to be CEO. Nor is he
: forced to wear clothes above and beyond "dress" slacks, a shirt, and if
: he can tie one properly, a tie which does not strangle him. As for "shoes
: that pinch", God created glove leather and Italian shoemakers as the answer
: to any man's greatest desire in comfortable dress shoes. For less than the
: price of many pairs of mall shoes, you =can= find men's shoes that are
: simply a dream to wear.
I wouldn't know. I couldn't afford such shoes, nor would I have a reason
to wear them. I am perfectly happy to confess my ignorance in this
area. I would ask you why there are so few executives who are shown
wearing running shoes, Birkenstocks, dashikis, or caftans.
David Loftus
Jym Dyer
> If the men who support femnism, equality between the sexes,
> consider themselves femnists and are told by others that they
> are not feminists or cant be feminists, I think that this will
> cause resentment toward the feminist movement movement by
> these men.
=o= These ideas stand on their own merits. They're good enough
to hold to no matter what anyone thinks or says.
=o= I can understand feeling alienated by those in the feminist
movement who reject us feminist men, but anyone who knows the
first thing about feminism knows that the movement is anything
but monolithic.
=o= Thus this is hardly a sufficient reason to reject "the
feminist movement," and certainly no reason to reject feminism
itself!
<_Jym_>
Watr Mark
I wish we could get past the "s/he's got it better" or "i've got it worse
than them" syndrome. For christ's sake, nobody has it easy, men or women,
and anyone who thinks that owning a penis is the magic key to fulfillment
is fooling themselves and doin us all a disservice; esp. the girls who are
taught by people that they key to happiness in life is to be a man. Can we
quit arguing about who is the biggest victim and make some suggestions
about how to resolve the issues without bitching? I like women, the women
I associate with like men, and I'm not going to listen to anyone who calls
me an oppressor (since I know I'm not), and I don't think any
self-respecting person will either. So if we can get past the
name-calling, maybe we can solve some real problems.
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <5cg4rl$7...@lana.zippo.com>, Julie Haugh <j...@tab.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, BUT. For a man, the dress code is internally imposed. A "powerful"
>executive need not have a manicure if he wishes to be CEO. Nor is he
>forced to wear clothes above and beyond "dress" slacks, a shirt, and if
>he can tie one properly, a tie which does not strangle him.
I've had jobs given to me only on condition that I cut my hair. I've had
headhunters tell me that they'd not be sending me to certain lucrative
employers because I have a beard. And suppose I don't want to wear a
tie? Or dress slacks?
This is some new definition of the word "internal" with which I was
previously unfamiliar.
--
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, ANGILION wrote:
> When entering a rather formal restaurant, the woman in question was
> told that they didn't serve women who were wearing trousers. With
> marvellous composure, she took off her trousers, handed them to
> the maitre d' and went in to dine in her underwear.
> Whilst I disagree with her actions (the restaurant would not serve
> men in skirts either, so their code was restrictive but not sexist)
> I applaud her attitude.
Oh, I don't know, I think that enforcing gender stereotypes is sexist.
Cindy Tittle Moore
dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
>Sure, I can acknowledge that women have never had free access to the
>top jobs -- but that does not mean that women are going to go for
>them in proportionate numbers once they DO have equal access.
Your point? Since we do not yet have free access, debating the second
point is pointless, and certainly not an argument that we don't need
to ensure free access in the first place.
>The market is not wholly defined by the sellers, however; the women
>who buy also help define what's available.
Really? I can't count the number of times I've wanted to buy certain
things and either could not find them, had to make them myself, or
found one little obscure company carrying the item. I am certainly
not alone in that respect either. I *wish* I defined the market
more... OTOH, I do save quite a bit of money ...
--Cindy
--
*********** tit...@netcom.com ** http://www.zmall.com/tittle.html ***********
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the
definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to
send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to
recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
Griz
70121115348....@beothuk.swgc.mun.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path: dialup6-16.camtech.net.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup6-16.camtech.net.au
Organization: Camtech (SA) Pty Ltd Customer
Lines: 14
Shaun Young wrote:
>
> i don't think that men can be feminists, but i know some men who feel
> that they are. how do you women think about it? please e-mail me
> directly and simply say:
>
> Yes, i think men can be feminists. or
>
> no, i don't think men can be feminists.
>
> thank you.
Yes, I think men can be feminists, but I think most of them don't want
to be.
Henry Neeman
David Loftus (dl...@netcom.com) said:
>>The market is not wholly defined by the sellers, however; the women
>>who buy also help define what's available.
Cindy Tittle Moore (tit...@netcom.com) replies:
>Really? I can't count the number of times I've wanted to buy certain
>things and either could not find them, had to make them myself, or
>found one little obscure company carrying the item. I am certainly
>not alone in that respect either. ...
The market isn't determined by what one individual wants to buy, but by
the aggregate of what many people want to buy. In retail, the issue is
usually shelf space.
That's why I can hardly find clothes in my size: not enough short guys.
Henry Neeman
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
hne...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Travller
watr...@aol.com (Watr Mark)
<<I wish we could get past the "s/he's got it better" or "i've got it
worse
<<than them" syndrome. For christ's sake, nobody has it easy, men or
women,
<<and anyone who thinks that owning a penis is the magic key to
fulfillment
<<is fooling themselves and doin us all a disservice; esp. the girls who
are
<<taught by people that they key to happiness in life is to be a man.
There was time when I first read this NG when I discovered several female
feminists who were really sexist towards men. It seemed enough dialogue
ensued to where some of these women saw their behavior and grew. Now, it
has swung the other way. This NG the last few months has been mostly
about how we all have it equally bad, how both men and women have been
victims. It's been gettin' so warm and fuzzy lately that I've been
tempted to go out and hug every rapist, every white male CEO, every wife
batterer. It's as if all those case studies, statistics, and personal
experiences were worthless. As if every gay man, every black, every
woman, every handicapped person had the same great opportunities as the
average white man. Ahhhhhh, we've reached utopia at last . . . . . .
Yes, it's true that men can be victims. They can be raped - usually by
other men. They can be bullied - usually by other men. They can be
killed - usually by other men. About the only time they're beaten by
women is when they're children. But, surprise, even that has been traced
back to the men who beat the wives. No, this does not excuse the
behavior, but it certainly indicates where the original source of violence
comes from. Please, do not respond that husbands are beaten by wives,
killed by wives, etc. etc. It's obvious those things happen - but they
ARE NOT representative of the majority. Even fathers losing custody of
their children can be linked to patriarchy. Traditional gender roles
dictate that women raise the children. *Patriarchal* lawmakers decided
this - not ultra radical misguided feminists who unknowingly support the
very system they're trying to fight.
It is a fact that over 90% of the wealth in this world is owned by men.
It is a fact that women are underpaid for the same work, regardless of
ability. These are just a few examples. It is also a fact that most men
have a hard time showing their emotions, most die early as a result, and
most can't freely touch another man. No, life as a man is no picnic. But
where is this coming from? As much as a lot of men on this NG want to
deny it, it comes from patriarchy - a system of mostly male control and
traditional gender roles. This is NOT the same as all men. Some men
participate in the system, some don't. Same goes for women. This warm
and fuzzy approach by Watr Mark completely ignores patriarchy - as if it
didn't exist. Well, welcome to the real world. This *IS* a feminist NG
and I'm not so far out of the loop that the recognition of patriarchy has
become passe for accepting feminism. Posts such as Watr Mark's (and
others like him) serve only to undermine the tenets of feminism. Since
Watr Mark hasn't been posting here too long, I can't question his motives.
However, the intent of some of the men here is quite clear - argue
ridiculous positions until the idea of feminism is so watered down that
every one of us, regardless of class, gender or race, has experienced
equal oppression. Bullshit. Time to fess up to your true intentions,
whatever they may be.
And, as usual, I *AM* a *male* feminist who supports equality for both
women and men.
David J. Loftus
Travller (trav...@aol.com) wrote:
: has swung the other way. This NG the last few months has been mostly
: about how we all have it equally bad, how both men and women have been
: victims. It's been gettin' so warm and fuzzy lately that I've been
: tempted to go out and hug every rapist, every white male CEO, every wife
: batterer.
Sure you have. Is it warm fuzziness to which you object, or inaccurate
thought? Because we still have disagreements in this newsgroup. Part of
the reason they are not more virulent is that the moderation discourages it.
: Yes, it's true that men can be victims. They can be raped - usually by
: other men. They can be bullied - usually by other men. They can be
: killed - usually by other men. About the only time they're beaten by
: women is when they're children.
You are fortunate that your experience has not matched that of other
men. Some of us have been slugged and bitten by women as grownups.
What I find more interesting and potentially rewarding for discussion is
a close examination of how we victimize ourSELVES in this great
oppressive system -- keep making many of the same assumptions, socially
punishing those who deviate or innovate in the slightest.
: Even fathers losing custody of
: their children can be linked to patriarchy. Traditional gender roles
: dictate that women raise the children. *Patriarchal* lawmakers decided
: this - not ultra radical misguided feminists who unknowingly support the
: very system they're trying to fight.
Wait a minute . . . if traditional gender roles dictate that women raise
the children, that suggests a lot of mothers trained their boys and girls
in sexist behavior (or at least assisted in such programming). Still do.
This is at least one of the reasons it is ridiculous merely to blame men
for the way things are.
: ability. These are just a few examples. It is also a fact that most men
: have a hard time showing their emotions, most die early as a result, and
: most can't freely touch another man. No, life as a man is no picnic. But
: where is this coming from? As much as a lot of men on this NG want to
: deny it, it comes from patriarchy - a system of mostly male control and
: traditional gender roles. This is NOT the same as all men. Some men
: participate in the system, some don't. Same goes for women.
No, we ALL do, to some extent. At some times more than others. And the
situation is so complex and far-reaching that I don't think you can
simply say "if we threw it out," everything would be okay. That would be
like fighting pollution by getting rid of air.
: This warm and fuzzy approach by Watr Mark completely ignores
: patriarchy - as if it didn't exist. Well, welcome to the real world.
I'm sorry. It DOESN'T exist. It's just a concept, like truth or justice
or freedom, which is useful for analysis but kind of beside the point
when you get down to brass tack details. I find discussion of
"patriarchy" mostly a waste of time; let's get practical.
: This *IS* a feminist NG
: and I'm not so far out of the loop that the recognition of patriarchy has
: become passe for accepting feminism. Posts such as Watr Mark's (and
: others like him) serve only to undermine the tenets of feminism.
That's ridiculous. Discussion helps clarify everyone's thoughts, as long
as they listen and participate.
: Since Watr Mark hasn't been posting here too long, I can't question
: his motives. However, the intent of some of the men here is quite
: clear - argue ridiculous positions until the idea of feminism is so
: watered down that every one of us, regardless of class, gender or
: race, has experienced equal oppression. Bullshit. Time to fess up to
: your true intentions, whatever they may be.
I think it's a dangerous and presumptuous thing to guess at other
people's motivations. Stick to the details of the argument.
Your contention here veers toward the kind of "if you're not with me,
you're against me" intolerance toward dissent that I dislike whether it
comes from Steinem and Morgan or Paglia.
: And, as usual, I *AM* a *male* feminist who supports equality for both
: women and men.
Sure. That's a nice warm fuzzy. Now, back to the details.
David Loftus