The idea of "appropriate dress"

[squinting_kitty]

This topic is also taken from dysgr8mystake's recent post here. What I have to say (and ask) is also a bit different than the thread chreebomb started. (She is primarily concerned about whether using the privilege of attractiveness is justified.) I, however, am having issues with this notion of "appropriate dress."

This is an excerpt from a comment someone posted in

Comments

[zil]

I said on the other thread (chreebomb's thread), "For the record, I dress up nicely, wear high-heels and short skirts because it brings me joy to revel in my own body. I don't do it for the attention it gets or for the advantages it brings me. In my opinion, that's the difference between a feminist approach to beauty and a patriarchal approach." And I think that applies here.

I don't for an instant think that anything a woman does, be it exposing a lot of skin, walking in a dangerous place at night, or flirting makes her "responsible" for anything that happens to her because of it. There are no extenuating circumstances for rape, sexual harrassment, or anything of that ilk.

However, I do think that there are women out there who do those things specifically to elicit that kind of attention, rather than just doing it because it brings her joy in itself. I certainly understand why a woman would attempt to elicit that kind of attention, as our society really makes it seem that male attention and approval are necessary for women. But I think that those women are playing along with the patriarchy and thus assisting in its perpetuation.

I don't condone all women having to dress "appropriately" to protect the menfolk from their uncontrollable lust (hah) but I think that women who wish to wear skimpy or exciting clothing should look long and hard at their reasons for doing so. If they're doing it because they like the feel of freedom that comes with bare legs, or they relish the swish of silk against bare skin, more power to them. However, if they're doing it to elicit male attention, I would beg them to rethink their actions. By inviting the male gaze, they are, sadly, condoning and accepting that kind of behavior for men. No, that doesn't excuse the behavior; the men are responsible for their own actions, but those women have to understand that they're not exactly sending the message that it's not okay. Now, of course, no one else can tell what an individual woman's purpose is for dressing the way she does, but I think that once we begin encouraging women to dress the way they want to because they want to, I think all of a sudden a lot less women are going to feel the desire to invite the male gaze.

Maybe not stated as coherently as I'd like; I'm a bit light-headed right now. But hopefully I got my point across.

[chreebomb]

did you see dorktastic's comment above? it was your comment, i think, that i was thinking of when i was walking yesterday. [that's a lot of "thinking" in one sentence!]

it's not cut and dried, you know? our desires are intricately woven in with our desire for other people's approval, a desire to be identified in the way we choose to express our individuality and 'tribal' affiliations, etc.

[zil]

our desires are intricately woven in with our desire for other people's approval

That's definitely true, and unfortunately our society is structured in such a way that women are encouraged to believe that male approval is of premier importance. And I believe that there are plenty of women who dress conservatively not because they enjoy it but because they don't want other people (especially women) to classify them in a certain way.

I still think, though, that there is a certain point where any woman (or man) can individually identify in herself "Okay, am I wearing this because it makes me feel good about myself and because it'll make the whole world realize how confident I am, or am I specifically wearing it to attract male attention?" Yes, the line is very fine, and in our society, there is almost no difference, since general societal approval is so wrapped up in male approval. Even other women's opinions are at least partially based on those of men ("What a skank," "All the guys are looking at her," etc, are all related to male sexuality).

I think that it strikes a blow against feminism whenever a woman chooses clothing specifically and directly with the notion that it will attract men. Yes, society makes it so that many things are tied up and involved with that notion, bu you can still tell, individually, when your choices are all the way to one side.

There's a difference between attracting people because you are confident and happy and attracting people because you're showing a lot of skin. I'm not really judging people that dress a certain way to gain societal approval, as that's almost impossible to avoid. But I think that emphasis should be placed on attracting them for valid, lasting qualities that are available to anyone, rather than ephemeral, superficial, subjective things like beauty. It not only advances feminism, but also means that said woman is more likely to attract someone who likes her for "who she really is," since beauty fades,a nd those that love you for it might not stick around afterwards. (Admittedly, then there's the whole "attracting people not because you're beautiful but simply because you make them think of sex for one reason or another, but I'm not really sure what I think about that... I don't think it's based on a societally constructed genetic advantage, as even "unattractive" women who are still self-confident and self-loving can probably pull it off, so I think I'm okay with that).

Sorry for the rambling... it's early and it's a tricky subject. I think you're making a number of good points, and I really want to discuss them properly; hopefully this works. :)

[chreebomb]

I wasn't able to pay proper attention to your points because of some faulty premises:

1. It's not male-based. I'm not heterosexual, for example. I have *no* interest in attracting males. None. So what I wear is largely for myself as most females I encounter day-to-day aren't gay. When I *am* around other lesbians, I'm dressed pretty much the same.

2. I think you're ignoring biological mating ritual and instinct. Every species has specific clues and rituals and markings/colorings that signal availability for mating. Humans are no different except in our ability to be cognitive about our rituals and instincts and our ability to affect changes to our behavior and style of clothing.

3. You suggest that attracting a mate based partially on appearance [I don't believe it's an either/or thing] is a faulty basis for forming partnerships. I disagree.

I don't mean to be argumentative. I hope it doesn't sound as such. I'm interested in discussing this more; we're just of differing opinions, it seems. :) But I want to continue, if you're willing.

[zil]

1. I do believe it is male-based, even for those who are not attracting men. Standards of attractiveness are very narrow, though different in different cultures (some have wider standards than others), and in this culture they are primarily defined by the (heterosexual) media, which presents an unnatural standard for women that all women then feel pressured to attain. I personally believe that a big part of this is in an attempt to widen the gender gap as much as possible; the fact that socially acceptable male roles rest so much more in what is "natural" (they don't have to wear makeup or shave their legs) indicates that this is based primarily on male approval; it is men who are expected to be doing the looking. Women are expected to be the ones looked at. There is nothing naturally unattractive about a hirsute body or extra flesh, but our society as a whole deems these things unacceptable for women. If lesbians were totally unaffected by the media, they would be just as attracted to heavy women or hairy women. That being said, I think it is much more likely for a lesbian to sidestep those things and not care about them, or find them specifically attractive, precisely because they are already used to defying the system. But I don't think that standards of attractiveness change dramatically based on who you are trying to attract.

That being said, I think you're right that I omitted discussing women that are specifically trying to attract female attention. And I have to admit that I have less of a problem with that, as unfair as that sounds, mostly because it doesn't support a problematic hierarchy. I still don't really support using attractiveness as a stepping stone for advantage, but I think that form is slightly less harmful. Plus, I've always found that the women I encounter (I'm bisexual myself) are less interested in my appearance and more attracted to me for other things; perhaps it's a byproduct of skewed experience, but in my experiences, men are more driven by appearances than women. I personally would feel that I could trust a woman to, say, hire me based on my actual merits rather than how much leg I'm showing.

2. I don't for a second believe that instinct can trump social or psychological expectations. You can read my "treatise" (read: long-winded rant) on the subject here. (second article)

3. Please tell me why you disagree that attracting a mate based on appearance is a faulty basis. I agree that certainly physical attraction can play some part, and often does, but if it's the primary reason for attraction, then it is unlikely to last. Physical attraction says nothing about how well two people will get along, how well their personalities will mesh, etc. It is also ephemeral and subjective; someone may look totally different under bar light with makeup on then they will the next morning, and if they choose to grow old together, they definitely won't look the same forever. Beauty fades. That's not to say that I don't think initial impressions of someone can give you an idea of how well you will get along; for example, if someone is wearing a Nirvana t-shirt, you can form at least an amorphous, but possibly accurate idea of what they like. Simply having luscious lips and a killer body? As much as some people want to convince us that those women are sluts, or great in bed, or etc, there's really no way of knowing what they're really like.

(I should be doing work, but these conversations are so much more interesting... *sigh* I'll just pretend they're research for my current project.)

[chreebomb]

ha! i should be working too.

1. I see your point that societal standards are mostly based on a het. male's perception of 'beauty.' There have been, however, studies about how there seems to be evidence of perceptions of beauty transcending culture in some cases. I'm not talking about fat/thin, dark/light, and other variables, but on a basic, shapes-based level. Does that makes sense? I'm not an intellectual by any means, and much of this is not backed up--just my unsubstantiated thoughts.

Also, I disagree that there are not politics of beauty going on for WSW (women who have sex w/women). The second-wavers believed strongly in bucking the ideas of male beauty, thus the image of the "granola" feminist and/or lesbian. While this exists and 2nd Wave continues to affect attitudes about beauty and style in the lesbian and feminist communities today, there has been a huge backlash against it, it seems. Witness the 'revival' of butch-femme dynamics and the well-groomed lesbian (regardless of gender presentation). In Southern California, especially, beauty is a huge deal. And while there are plenty of "granola" lesbians around, a good many of lesbians are quite concerned about fashion, beauty, etc.

Your points about defying the patriarchy, etc. are not lost on me by the way. :)

I've digressed into something else, and I'm going to have to think about how to articulate it. See, I have some ideas about power dynamics and how they are related to men/women, but it's more basic than that--more Lacanian, if you will. More about the doer and "do-ee"--the gazer and the gazed. In most cases, that's male/female. But in same-sex relationships, the same power dynamics seem to play out. The same issues surface. Is this because of an emulation of hetero-partnerships? I don't think so.

2. I didn't say "trump." I think it's more like "confuse." Your post that you linked to explains the idea very well. But we're really back to the whole nature/nurture thing, aren't we? I think the consensus these days is both, but we still argue over the extent of which influences, don't we? :)

3. I think it's a faulty basis because it's the way that humans first decide if there's that "something special" about a potential mate and that initial infatuation--largely based on appearances--allows them the maintained interest in the other person, then eventually, allows them to "smoothe through" things in rocky times. It's like the whole babies are cute because they are dependent upon adults to care for them thing. By the way, studies show that attractive babies, yes, I said attractive babies! :)get more cuddling and interaction. To me, this points to something larger than solely cultural values of beauty.

Oi, off to a meeting. Sorry I have little academic backing for my views. :)

[agirlnamedlucky]

Well said.