Archive for the 'Clothing and Fashion' Category

“What was she thinking?” A long post on feminism and the “sausage-casing girls”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on July 5, 2006
in Clothing and Fashion, Feminism, Modesty, Sexuality and Vanity
. 40 Comments

Robin Abcarian had a rather snarky piece in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times about what she calls the "Sausage Casing Girls", those young women who dress in styles entirely too small and tight to fit their bodies: Letting It All Hang Out.  It begins:

THE Sausage Casing Girls are everywhere this summer, their muffin tops hanging over their hip-skimming jeans, clothes shrink-wrapped around fleshy bodies that look as if they’ve been stuffed — like forcemeat — into teensy tops and skintight pants.

I don’t know about you, but I became instantly defensive and wary after that sentence.

Still, Abcarian does touch on something important:

One is tempted to applaud the Sausage Casing Girls; after all, Southern California is an epicenter of body consciousness, and here they are thumbing their noses at the idea that they must be whippets or Lindsay Lohans to wear the current styles, which for the last several seasons have been exaggeratedly body-hugging and skin-revealing. Perhaps all that self-esteem building has finally paid off.

But this phenomenon does not appear entirely to be about self-acceptance and the conscious abandonment of repressive physical ideals. It is far more complicated than that. Yes, there are plenty of young women who can confidently say that they are happy with their less-than-svelte shapes — and that is to be applauded. But there are many others who in the rush to be fashionable are unable to admit that they are larger than they wish to be, or that their bodies just don’t look good in the clothes they are choosing. Instead of reveling in their big, beautiful bodies, many girls instead are deep in denial, pouring themselves into clothes that are putting them in a python squeeze.

I hear this sort of discussion all the time from my students and my youth group teens.  Call it the "What was she thinking?" phenomenon, after the question that so many young women pose when they see a peer wearing clothes that, to their mind, are much too small for her body.   On this blog, I’ve regularly made the case that "Sisterhood is easier in winter", and yesterday’s Abcarian article is a fine case study of that unfortunate truism.  When the weather turns warmer and clothing styles become more revealing, many women do become more energetic in the "verbal policing" of the clothing choices of their peers!

Whether she’s aware of it or not, Abcarian is engaged in a classic behavior: substituting supposedly objective judgment about aesthetics for the less socially acceptable (but still ubiquitous) condemnation of fat and revealing clothing.  In other words, the progressive Los Angeles Times wouldn’t print a similarly long article in which the author decried miniskirts and tube tops as fashion choices for adolescents; that sort of op-ed might only be found in a conservative magazine.  But the Times is perfectly happy to run a long piece which, in only somewhat sympathetic language, asks again that nasty sotto-voce question: "who does she think she is to think she can get away with that?"  For Abcarian, aesthetic ridicule ("muffin tops?") is an acceptable form of criticism because it’s rooted in supposedly value-neutral fashion sensibilities in a way that moral criticism is not.

Abcarian is right, however, about the dearth of choices that so many young women have for summer fashions.  Tight and revealing clothing, modeled by the likes of Paris Hilton, is easily found in malls and stores from Nordstrom to Wal-Mart.  And it’s certainly true that the social pressure to dress according to these fashions — combined with the sheer unavailability of other choices — means that a great many girls and young women will find themselves squirming and pulling and tugging to get their bodies into clothes that seem, objectively, to be too danged small.

Abcarian is also right about the huge psychological impact that sizes have on self-esteem, even when virtually everyone recognizes that the numbers used in women’s clothing are arbitrary and unreliable:

"Everyone wants to buy a small size, even if it looks terrible," said psychologist Nancy Etcoff, who directs the Program in Aesthetics and Well Being in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. "There is shame in buying sizes that are above 8, which some think is already a big size."

Etcoff said that one of her patients, a 16-year-old girl, was traumatized in front of friends when one held up a pair of her size 7/8 jeans and said, "You wear these? I could get two of me in here."

Both Abcarian and Etcoff suggest that young women’s attachment to numerical sizes is so strong that they will "deny reality" in order to fit into the size they think they ought to be.   After all, though the article doesn’t point this out, young women tend to self-describe using sizes: "I’m a 2" or "I’m an 8". You don’t hear those gals saying, "I generally wear a 6"; instead they frequently say "I am a 6."  The size becomes more than a measure of hips, waist, and inseam; it becomes a key component of identity itself. If a young woman wants to think of herself as a "4", for example, then, as Abcarian and those she interviews suggest, she may do everything in her power to squeeze into a "4" rather than wear a larger size.  The psychological cost of admitting that the smaller size doesn’t fit is simply, apparently, too high to pay.  Physical discomfort and the risk of public ridicule are thus less important than maintaining one’s self-concept as a 2,4,6,14, what-have-you.

So what’s the feminist answer to this problem?  Is it a problem at all? 

As a pro-feminist, I’m aware of the uneasy relationship between feminism and fashion.  There’s a tendency within the loosely organized feminist community to never criticize a woman’s clothing decisions.   The very notion that there might be an objective standard of beauty is one of which feminism is traditionally very critical; we who work in this field are understandably reluctant to judge women’s personal fashion choices.  We tend to save our criticism for the fashion industry and the media, while remaining deeply respectful of the personal sartorial decisions of women.  Hence my anger at the rather nasty (to my mind) way that Abcarian’s article begins.

But feminism does care about women’s physical and psychic comfort.    While we might dispute whether or not certain jeans styles are more appealing than others, we can easily agree that physical comfort for women is a fundamental feminist good.  We ought also to agree that body acceptance and good self-image are also laudable and important goals.  There isn’t a quick-fix solution that can provide young women with these comforts.  Simply encouraging young women to "cover up" and resist the imperatives of Teen Vogue doesn’t get very far.   It’s one thing to ask a thirty year-old woman to opt out of the "beauty myth"; another thing altogether for older folks to ask sixteen year-olds desperate for attention to also opt out and refuse to "play the game."  When we do that, we tend to come across as patronizing old people who "just don’t get" how intense the pressure to be fashionable and desirable truly is.

The first phase of the solution is clear: non-judgmental conversation.  Young women, perhaps particularly the so-called "sausage-casing girls", are not nearly as in the dark about what they look like as Abcarian imagines.  A few may be brimming with genuine self-confidence, but others are anxious and defensive and wary of condemnation, or worse, ridicule.  No matter how well-meaning older folks might be, saying "Honey, that just doesn’t look good on you" is only likely to reinforce that anxiety and defensiveness.  Giving young women an opportunity to open up, safely and without risk of judgment, is key.  Let them begin, as they surely will, by talking about "other girls" and their fashion decisions.  If the environment is safe enough, the conversation can gently turn to a young woman’s own self-image.

There’s a lot in the Abcarian article to discuss and unpack. As feminists, we must be careful to direct the brunt of our criticism not at young women but at the cultural and economic institutions that form and shape their ideals and their self-image.  At the same time, we must work with these young women to help them resist and respond to deeply unhealthy messages about their bodies. And we’ve got to find a way of doing that that will be heard and received.  That will mean doing what Abcarian could not do: suspending our own culturally-shaped aesthetic sensibilities, biting back our own well-meaning criticism, and actively listening to the concerns, desires, and fears of the young women with whose bodies we are apparently all so concerned.

More on bare chests and privilege

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 16, 2006
in Athletics and Fitness, Chinchillas, Clothing and Fashion, Feminism, Men's Movement and Modesty
. 43 Comments

I’ve got one eye on the Mexico-Angola match, and another on the computer.  Once I finish this post, I will dive into some serious grading.  I’m still wracked with sudden and intense bouts of grief over Matilde, but that is to be expected.  No one said this would be an easy time.  (I can say that we may be adopting two older chins later this year from Michigan, but that is still tentative.  We are committed to these most extraordinary of animals, of course, no matter what — we just need much more time to celebrate Matilde’s life and cope with her unexpected loss.)

I’m taking a break from blogging about my views on teaching feminism; my attempts to explain (even when written after considerable reflection) only seem to exacerbate the gulf between my weltanschauung and those of many other feminists whose work I respect. (Violet’s response to yesteday’s post is here.)   We can continue to be allies even while we mystify each other, and I remain happy to be provoked and challenged by those whose ultimate goals I believe I share.

It seems an eternity ago, but it’s only been a week since my "Hey, put a shirt on!" post.  I did want to address an important point made in the comments beneath that post made by Helen.  She writes:

Frankly, I’m offended by men running shirtless, although it does depend on the situation (it really pisses me off in town but if I were out in the country or mountains I might not be as bothered, I don’t know). It’s just a smack in the face that I have to be so careful about what I wear and I’ll still get hassled, whereas there’s some guy running around half naked and confronting me with his naked chest. Of course, I’m not forced to look at him, but a mostly-naked person out of place (in a sea of clothes, sometimes) is likely to attract your attention before you look away.

I am curious as to how the expression "your rights end where mine begin" fits into this. I think you could argue that a man’s shirtlessness does actually infringe on other people’s rights and thus it’s not entirely unexpected that some people will respond negatively. I just try and ignore it when I see it and I’m not defending the person in the car who should have kept his comments to herself, but I thought I’d share my opinion on why that might have bothered her (especially since it was a woman).

Helen makes an important point.  As a man, I can (legally) run shirtless.  I run shirtless because it’s much more comfortable, particularly on longer runs, to do so.  I’d rather be a bit too cold than a bit too warm, and I can do without all the chafing issues that even a Coolmax shirt presents on a long run.  (And don’t get me started on horror stories about bloody nipples.)

But women can’t run with a completely bare chest.  For many women — perhaps most — wearing at least a jogging bra is essential for comfort.  But it’s possible that there are women who would be quite comfortable running entirely bare-chested, but aren’t allowed to do so thanks both to laws about public nudity and to cultural prohibitions.  Leaving the sport of distance running aside, it’s clear that there’s a double standard when it comes to the exposed chest in our culture.

One of the things about privilege is that it isn’t always enough merely to recognize it; one has to be willing to renounce it.  If I read Helen correctly, she’s suggesting that male feminists should think twice about running about bare chested  — not for aesthetic reasons, but for reasons of solidarity.  Until women have the same freedoms that men do, men should — whenever reasonably possible — avoid taking advantage of unearned masculine privilege.

I can think of a clear parallel to gay marriage.  I know two straight couples who have told me that they aren’t going to get married until same-sex marriage is legalized.  These couples believe that heterosexuals should make a conscious effort to renounce "special privileges" as an act of solidarity with their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.  As one of my friends in one of these relationships put it to me, "You can’t simultaneously work to end injustice while benefiting from injustice.  While we all as privileged Americans benefit from injustice in ways we can’t avoid, we do have a choice whether or not to legally marry — and it’s a choice we should choose not to make until that choice is available to everyone."

I think that’s what Helen may have meant about men going shirtless in public.  I can wear a running singlet without too much discomfort; shouldn’t I be willing to do so in order not to enjoy a right that my sisters cannot?  On the other hand, it’s easy to take this to an extreme quickly: should I refrain from using a urinal in the men’s room because only toilets are available in the ladies’ loo? 

I’ll be running up the mountain bare-chested tomorrow morning, mind you, but I’m interested to hear what my readers think about naked chests and unmerited privilege.

“Hey, put a shirt on!”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 9, 2006
in Clothing and Fashion, Feminism, Modesty, Sexuality and Sports
. 19 Comments

The run up Brown Mountain — through heavy mist — was a delight.  Just as I was reaching my car after the hard 13-miler, someone in a passing car yelled "Put a shirt on!"  (I always run shirtless if the temperature is over 50, not out of a desire to display my paleness but out of a commitment to comfort).  The words stung.  I don’t know if the yeller was critiquing my body, suggesting that it was the sort that shouldn’t be out shirtless, or if they were generally opposed to folks exercising bare-chested.  Either way, I was surprised at how much it hurt!  And it reminded me again of how much worse this sort of thing is for women.  Incidents such as this morning’s are rare indeed in my life — but they are ubiquitous in the experience of the women I know and run with.

Of all the nursery rhymes I grew up hearing, one repeats a great lie:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.  Would that that were true!  For years, that rhyme led me to believe that I was oversensitive when I allowed other’s remarks to get under my skin; it also (in my younger days) made me less sympathetic to those who complained about the pain of verbal harassment.  But I’ve come to recognize that that simple rhyme repeats a great lie.  Broken bones often heal faster than broken spirits.

I cheered up in Pilates; my wife and I do a joint training session, and my wife — soccer fanatic that she is — brought a small portable television which she managed to watch even while doing our usual demanding contortions on mat and "reformer."  And as I sit here typing this, Ecuador has just scored a goal against Poland, and my wife is outdoing Andres Cantor in her vocal reaction… It’s going to be an exciting month….

Losing money, feeling good

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on May 2, 2006
in Class, Clothing and Fashion, Links, People and Sexuality
. 4 Comments

In the file called "People whom I alternately loathe and admire" is the irrepressible Dov Charney, the CEO of American Apparel.  His reckless personal behavior and the over-sexualized ad campaigns for his company have long troubled me; his commitment to social justice and to decent working conditions for his employees have been inspiring.  Some of us are complicated people, after all — and in the case of Dov Charney, I won’t let the good he does obscure the tawdry details of his all-too-public personal behavior in the workplace, and I won’t let the reality of his transgresssions obscure his tremendously positive example to other garment manufacturers.  I like my villains to have a heroic side, and my heroes to have a nasty underbelly.

Dov Charney lost $400,000 yesterday, and couldn’t be happier about it. The Times story is here.

The most superficial, shallow, and trivial post of the year

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 14, 2006
in Clothing and Fashion, Fun and Vanity
. 18 Comments

It’s Valentine’s evening, and we’ll be going out to dinner soon, but a couple of quick, light-hearted notes.  There’s lots of serious debate going on in the comments about gender, sex roles, theology, race, and so forth; it’s time for a break.

I’m thrilled with the adorable new Paul Frank watch my wife gave me today!  She knows how much I love his stuff, especially the accessories.

And for those of you who want to know how I spent my evening last night, my beloved thought I should share that after an exhausting day, I settled in for a couple of hours of frantic channel-changing, as I went back and forth between the Westminster dog show and coverage of Olympic pairs figure skating.  I watched while carefully pressing and hanging out my wonderful new pair of Lucky Jeans (women’s, size 10, long).  As if this behavior wasn’t amusing enough to my patient and understanding spouse, she has been reminding me all day that at one point, I shrieked at the television coverage of the terrier class: "Ohmygod, when that Jack Russell comes out I’m just going to lose it!"

Man’s gotta be very comfortable in his own sexuality to share all this…  or merely, as in my case, playfully provocative.

Off to dinner.  Something serious tomorrow, I promise.

Two disparate passions

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 7, 2006
in Clothing and Fashion, Men and Masculinity, Sports and Vanity
. 14 Comments

How many men in American wasted time on these two sites today:

New York Metro’s Fashion Week Report

The scout.com message board on college football recruiting.

I care passionately about both subjects, and can while away far too much time fantasizing about new outfits to wear and debating the merits of Cal’s latest haul of high school seniors.

I once had a subscription to Women’s Wear Daily and, simultaneously, several premium memberships at various college football recruiting websites.  (Ask me for recommendations!)  Am I odd?

Hugo’s “white boy teaching outfit”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 2, 2006
in Class, Clothing and Fashion, Ethnicity, Men and Masculinity and Race
. 34 Comments

I’m close to two colleagues of mine, one male and one female; one Latino and one African-American.  I’ve been teaching today in a mustard color Banana Republic t-shirt and blue jeans, and as I was walking back to the office from class just now, I passed these two colleagues in the hall.  As we exchanged wishes for a good weekend, one said to the other "There goes Hugo in one of his ‘white boy teaching outfits.’" 

The other laughed, and I joined in — but now I’m a bit bewildered as to what they meant.  (Several students overheard, by the way.)  I do tend to prefer a casual style (albeit a tight-fitting one), but I’m not at all sure what that has to do with race.  Is it some sort of veiled reference to white male privilege, where a white guy can feel comfortable wearing anything while a professor of color needs more formal attire?   Given that my dress style is often one more commonly associated with gay men, was there a homophobic slur in there as well?

Am I just over-thinking this?  Should I not wear mustard?

Any thoughts?

Pro-feminist responses to the “Queen for a Year” problem

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 11, 2006
in Class, Clothing and Fashion, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement, Modesty, Pasadena City College, Porn, Sexual ethics and transformation, Sexuality and War
. 50 Comments

Annika sent me a link to this NPR interview with Kayla Williams, author of "Love My Rifle More than You", about serving as a woman in the army during the current Iraq conflict.  As part of the interview, there’s a lengthy excerpt from the book in which Williams describes the "Queen for a Year" phenomenon:

A woman at war: you’re automatically a desirable commodity, and a scarce one at that. We call it "Queen for a Year." Even the unattractive girls start to act stuck-up. It’s impossible not to notice.

"Queen for a Year." You won’t find the phrase in the dictionary or any compilation of military terms. But say it among soldiers, and they’ll know immediately what you mean. That’s what we’ve called American women at war since nurses traveled to Vietnam in the sixties.

There’s also this "deployment scale" for hotness. Let me explain. On a scale of ten, say she’s a five. You know — average looks, maybe a little mousy, nothing special. But okay. Not a girl who gets second glances in civilian life. But in the Army, while we’re deployed? Easily an eight. One hot babe. On average every girl probably gets three extra points on a ten-point scale. Useful. After you’re in-country for a few months, all the girls begin to look good — or at least better. It changes — how should I say this? — the dynamics of being deployed.

Because there are relatively few women (compared to men) deployed in Iraq, these few can experience a significant rise in attention and status.  Resisting the urge to make use of that enhanced status was difficult for Williams, and impossible for others:

You could get things easier, and you could get out of things easier. For a girl there were lots of little things you could do to make your load while deployed a whole lot lighter. You could use your femaleness to great advantage. You could do less work, get more assistance, and receive more special favors. Getting supplies? Working on the trucks? It could be a cinch — if you wanted it to be. It didn’t take much. A little went a long way. Some of us worked it to the bone. Who says the life of the Army girl has to be cruel?

Lots of girls succumbed to temptation. The younger girls were the most susceptible. Many thrived and fed on the male attention they were getting for the first time in their lives.

I did my personal best to resist. So did my friends and the girls I respected. (That’s why I respected them.) But many girls became full-fledged Queens for a Year. We saw it. And the guys talked.

From a feminist standpoint, this is just a re-framing of the old question of whether or not women can ever be justified in using sexual desirability in order to gain professional or personal advancement. It’s all too easy to condemn those women who, as Williams describes, feed "on the male attention they were getting for the first time in their lives."  It’s too simplistic to insist to young women that they ought never use their sexuality, no matter what the potential rewards.

But as the excerpt makes clear, many young women feel profoundly dis-empowered in the traditionally male-dominated setting of the military.  Before she’s even opened her mouth or performed a single task, it’s likely that a young female soldier has already been judged and dismissed by many of her male peers who may remain deeply suspicious of women’s fitness for army service.  Even outside of the military, we live in a world where young women — particularly from the sort of economic background from which most enlisted women hail — are not taken seriously.

It’s axiomatic that the fewer educational and professional opportunities a young woman has, the more valuable her sexuality becomes as a marketable commodity.  (This is why, for the most part, most female sex workers come from working-class rather than affluent backgrounds.  One enduring fantasy in male-centered pornography is of "coeds" and "sorority sluts" — but the sad truth is that most of the young women who play those roles on screen will never get a chance to be in a sorority or experience the full richness of the undergraduate life.)   It’s also nearly as axiomatic that young women will be pulled in opposite directions on the subject of whether they ought to make use of that sexual desirability. 

Many middle-class feminists, and many irate men’s rights activists, find common ground in decrying young women’s use of sex in order to try and gain some small degree of power.  Of course, feminists and MRAs have different reasons for disliking the phenomenon!  Feminists are worried that by using their sexuality for career advancement (or merely the small perks that Williams describes), young women reinforce destructive stereotypes about female sexuality and power.  They are also concerned, and rightly so, that using sexuality tends to create rifts between individual women, particularly in male-dominated settings (like the army) where feminist solidarity could prove so invaluable.  On the other hand, MRAs are angry because they feel that men are being manipulated and "used" by "scheming women"; they are frustrated, I suspect, both by their own inability to gain access to women and by their own vulnerability to flirtation and arousal.  They become enraged by what they desire but generally cannot have.

I’ve pointed out before that there’s a consistent socio-economic element to young women’s dress here at the community college.  Generally speaking, the young women most likely to dress for school as if they are going to a nightclub come from working-class backgrounds. Those whose life experiences have made them uncertain about the likelihood of success through purely academic means (or who lack professional female role models) tend to be the ones most likely to want to "sexualize" the classroom.  Of course, countless women from disadvantaged backgrounds come to college and aren’t interesting in displaying their sexuality.  But there’s no question that a place like my own Pasadena City College is more likely to see female students "dressing to impress" than a more affluent four-year institution!

So, what’s the pro-feminist response?  Ultimately, we will only end the "queen for a year" problem by doing a much better job of making it clear to young women from all backgrounds that they do have other tools at their disposal besides their sexuality.  We have to continue to be aggressive about promoting women into positions of authority, and providing still more role models who can exemplify professional success achieved through hard work and intellectual ability rather than flirtation. 

Above all, men in positions of authority — superior officers, teachers, employers — have to hold themselves accountable for how they respond to sexually desirable subordinates.  Without shaming young women who do attempt to use their sexuality for advancement or perks, we must go out of our way to make it clear that we will give them our attention and mentoring irrespective of their appearance.   Every time we give extra attention or "perks" to a pretty student, or a flirtatious private, or an attractive intern, we do damage to her, to our institution, and to other women.  Yet every time we withdraw our attention from a woman merely because she is attractive, fearing our own response or the judgment of others, we also do damage.  The key to ending the entire problem is conditioning adult men to see beyond the surface appearance of the women around them. And once we’ve looked beneath the surface, we then have to have the courage to mentor fearlessly.  That’s not easy work, but it’s at the heart of the contemporary pro-feminist task.

Some links and a self-indulgent note about reconciling irreconcilables

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on December 5, 2005
in Animal Rights, Blogging, Christianity, Clothing and Fashion, Feminism, Links and Sexual harassment
. 29 Comments

First off this afternoon I’ve got some links and notes.  I’ve been remiss in not putting up my own link to HollabackNYC, a site that offers a safe way for women to "fight back" against street harassment in our nation’s largest city.  Check it out — it’s stern stuff.

Jessica Valenti and her partners at Feministing have created a terrific new idea: The REAL Hot 100.  Here’s the idea:

The REAL hot 100 are young women who are smart, savvy, and actively trying to make the world a better place. They contradict the popular notion that sex appeal is all young women have to offer.

The REAL hot 100 also highlights the important — but often overlooked — work young women are doing. Are you a younger woman who is REALLY hot? Do you know a younger woman who is REALLY hot?

Consider submitting a nomination.  Read the guidelines here.  It goes along nicely with the Men Can Stop Rape "counterstory" campaign I blogged about almost exactly one year ago.  I’ll think about some good nominations.  I’ve got some likely candidates, though, ranging from Bethany Torode to duVergne Gaines, Micki Krimmel, and the other women who blog at "Stand Up".  I could think of several dozen young feminist bloggers whose work I admire.  I could also think of the many fine young Christian women I know who write or are doing public activist work on a variety of issues. 

If you click on my links, you’ll notice they fall into two general categories: Christianity and feminism.  A few such links are to blogs that specifically reconcile these two commitments, but most of the writers I read in the ’sphere are healthily suspicious of feminism or of institutionalized Christian faith.  (A few folks I read reject both.)   And though I’ve surely brought it on myself, sometimes it does get tiring shuttling back and forth.

I think the thing I find most exhausting about being a self-proclaimed "Pro-feminist progressive evangelical Christian" is that I tend to be the subject of a fair amount of suspicion.  Many of my secular feminist allies don’t like overtly religious language, and they worry when I make remarks that suggest that individual autonomy is not the most important component for personal happiness.  My evangelical and conservative Christian friends are convinced that my spiritual beliefs have been sabotaged by my ideological convictions; I have made, in their eyes, too many compromises with the culture.  And my progressive Christian friends (like some of my readers at All Saints) worry that I spend too much time hanging out with folks on the so-called "religious right" to be a real, trustworthy progressive.

The temptation I have to fight is to be "all things to all people."  It’s easy for me to "talk evangelical" when surrounded by conservative Christians.  It’s just as easy for me to employ the language and the rhetoric of the feminist left, both in its secular and Anglican manifestations.  But what is harder for me to do, and what I realize I am called to do more and more, is to develop one consistent, large vocabulary.  I’m called, I believe, to carry the good news of Christ to everyone.  I’m called, I believe, to work for gender justice as my own particular vocation.   My secular feminist friends want me to work with them but keep my religious opinions to myself.  My conservative Christian friends welcome me in worship, but would rather I not challenge many of their traditional beliefs about sex roles. 

I am convinced that feminism and faith are not irreconcilable.  I’m equally convinced that one can thoughtfully reject traditional teaching about both sexual behavior and gender roles while living humbly as a disciple of Christ within His church.  And the hard part isn’t holding these seemingly contradictory value systems in tension.  The hard part is witnessing to the passionate adherents of one about the virtues of the other, and doing so in a way that is irenic, humorous, winsome, and, above all, gentle and kind.

I’m not saying "poor me", mind you.  I love doing what I do.  I’m just trying to work up the courage to be braver in all the various forums in which I find myself.  I need to do a better job of listening, that’s for sure.  I need to hear the very real fears my feminist friends have about the church, and I need to hear the very real fears my  conservative Christian friends have about feminism.  But having heard those fears, I need to be bold enough to suggest that what my friends hold dear and what they loathe may not in fact be as inimical as they imagine.   I need more guts and more sensitivity.  Right behind lots of donations for the Matilde Mission, and right ahead of some really nice new jeans, those virtues are tops on my Christmas list this year.

 

A lunchtime response to Artemis on girls and lust

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 22, 2005
in Clothing and Fashion, Feminism, Modesty, Sexuality and Youth
. 15 Comments

Yes, it’s another long one.  Feel free to skip.

Let it not be said I don’t "take requests."  Artemis at the splendid Feminist Mormon Housewives had a very kind post about my piece yesterday.  She also wrote:

The only thing I think is missing (but would be better addressed in a separate post) is more of the girls’ point of view and a validation of girls’ sexuality–letting girls know it’s okay for them to have (and enjoy and not feel guilty for) those feelings, as well as how they too are responsible for them. Which, I suppose, could lead to a discussion of whether men and their dress are responsible for women’s sexual desires, or–since there are double dress and sexual standards for women and men in our society–the repression or secondary-ness of women’s sexual desires.

For what it’s worth, here are two earlier posts some of you might have missed on women, dress, and responsibility: Propriety, Marie’s boobs, and the myth of male weakness and Sisterhood is Easier in Winter.  I’ve also dealt with the issue of men and dress, and specifically how I dress for the classroom, here: The Male Teacher’s Body and Propriety.  Here’s what I wrote at the end of the last of these posts: What I really care about is not using my body to make others uncomfortable.  I don’t want my clothes and my flesh to arouse others, I don’t want them to scare others, I don’t want them to inspire economic envy, and I don’t want them to distract others.

So that deals a bit with the second part of the Artemis query.  But what of the first part?  What about the healthy, pro-feminist validation of young women’s sexuality?  Let me take a lunchtime stab at the subject…

When dealing with young women and sexuality, I find it is always dangerous to confuse two issues: the joy of being an object of desire, and the joy of being a subject of desire.   The former and the latter are two fundamentally different experiences.  The former is the traditionally validated expression  of female sexuality, and it’s the one with which young women are much more comfortable.  From a very early age, most girls in this country are taught to dress themselves with a keen attention to their role as objects of scrutiny.  Parents and grandparents praise cuteness long before boys and older men leer.  Much more so than boys, girls are programmed to be alert to the various signals their dress and their bodies send.  And indeed, for many girls — not all — the attention and the validation they get as young girls for being "cute and pretty" feels good.

And then comes adolescence.  Is there anything as contradictory as the various messages that bombard young girls about their bodies?  Parents and teachers and op-ed writers urge them to "Cover up!"   Pop culture figures urge them to "flaunt it" (whether they have "it" or not).  And as always, young girls notice that their peers who do dress in certain ways get more attention and validation than others. 

Because of this, those of us who do youth work have to be aware that it’s never enough to ask teenage girls "What do you want?"  We first have to ask them another question, one I regularly ask my girls:  "How does it feel to be wanted?"  In both youth group and in college groups, I’ve had my female students share their feelings about being objects of desire.  The answers, of course, vary.   As always, it depends on what form the "wanting" (or at least the "noticing") takes.  If it’s what I call the "appreciative glance", especially if it comes from an attractive boy, then most of my girls say it makes them feel really, really good.  Even more common than "good" is the word "powerful".  Over and over again, girls report saying it feels exciting and empowering to be noticed and desired.

But if the "wanting" takes the form of a penetrating stare, particularly from an older man, then that doesn’t feel good at all.   "I feel creeped out", "Gross", "Icky", "Like I want to wear a raincoat or disappear" — these are some of the typical responses to questions about reactions that are either  flagrantly sexual or that come from considerably older men.  (And of course, as I’ve written in "Sisterhood", there’s the whole other question of how other girls and women respond!)

So we’ve got to be honest here about the fact that many young women enjoy "being seen"!  They enjoy being wanted, and they are keenly aware that what they wear can impact how they are viewed.   As youth workers or parents, we shouldn’t shame this perfectly normal desire to be wanted.  We can validate the fact that it feels good sometimes to be the object of another’s desire, even as we ask our girls to begin to take responsibility for how their clothing decisions make everyone else around them feel.  Dress that makes other people feel inadequate, or poor, or envious, is not appropriate.  And while we cannot always predict how our clothing choices will affect others, we can ask our girls to consider the well-being of the wider community, and balance that well-being against their own perfectly valid longing to be wanted.

But adolescent girls are not just objects.  They are also subjects of desire.  And here, of course, we tread on less familiar ground.  While traditional cultures are accustomed to teaching young women to gain at least some validation from being wanted, they aren’t nearly as comfortable with telling our girls that it’s okay to want!  Too much of what is written about teenage girls still insists that adolescent females don’t really have strong libidos; any apparent sexual agency that these girls display is really just a longing for attention.   According to this tired discourse, a sexually aggressive teen girl never really wants sex for its own sake, she merely wants attention and validation from a man (perhaps due to her neglectful father) and is "using" sex as a tool.  While there is some considerable truth to that stereotype, it’s also true that whether we like it or not, our daughters do have libidos of their own.

We live in a culture where even now, young women are very reluctant to talk about themselves as subjects of desire.  A girl who confesses to looking and lusting still risks being labeled as a slut by her peers.  From what I’ve seen, a conservatively dressed young woman who admits to lusting is far more likely to be ostracized than a scantily-clad gal who publicly denies her own sexual desires.  If what I hear anecdotally in many college and high school groups is true, girls are infinitely more frank about what they do to please boys sexually (like blowjobs) than what they do to please themselves (like masturbate).   Pleasing boys and men, no matter what it involves, still is part and parcel of a very traditional understanding of female sexuality.

I don’t write this to titillate or scandalize, but to make a larger point about our cultural messages about sexual desire.  We all acknowledge the reality of the adolescent male libido, and indeed, we are likely to over-emphasize its power.   Too many folks either shame boys for their sex drives, or see those same drives as so irrepressible that they are beyond the capacity of boys to control.  This narrative of the unconquerable male libido is used to make girls and women responsible for male behavior, a point that I have rejected many times (explicitly in yesterday’s post). 

But we need to face the truth that our little sisters and our daughters are sexual creatures.  However powerful their socially sanctioned desire to be seen, they also have a very real desire to see.  Again, as with boys, we must do everything we can not to shame our girls for these desires.    Even more so than with boys, we’ve got to do a good job of communicating to them that it is okay to want and to look and to fantasize.  Girls will, in general, be more reluctant to admit to their own libidinousness.  While I’ve never heard of a boy put down another boy for being horny, I have heard girls say incredibly cruel things about a peer who admitted to having strong sexual desires of her own.  This difference in peer acceptability is a key aspect of the discussion about boys, girls, and desire — and parents and youth workers and teachers need to be cognizant of that.

And of course, we live in a world where young women are sent the blunt message that their sexuality can get them hurt.  According to the dominant narrative of the culture, sexually aggressive women not only risk assault and rape, they deserve whatever they get if they are victimized.  Those are powerful warnings, and they serve to silence public discussion of the reality of teen girls and their own sexuality.  As adults and pro-feminists, we have to redouble our efforts to transform the culture and help create a world where young women don’t see their sexuality as a weapon that will be used against them!

In the end, those of us who have teens or work with teens have to be willing to acknowledge the full and complete humanness of both our boys and girls.   We have to admit that both our sons and daughters are sexual creatures.  And as with boys, we must be clear that our daughters have every right to be both objects and subjects of desire, but they also have responsibility for their actions — particularly as subjects. 

An exceptionally long post on girls, boys, dress and desire

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 21, 2005
in All Saints Pasadena, Clothing and Fashion, Faith, Favorite Posts, 2004-2006, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Modesty, Sexuality, Youth and Youth ministry
. 29 Comments

A number of folks in the "femosphere" (my new term for feminist blogosphere) have been discussing the latest salvo in the "Teenage Fashions are Turning Our Daughters into Whores and it’s all Feminism’s Fault" wars, this Washington Post piece from yesterday’s paper:  What’s Wrong with This Outfit, Mom?  Today, Amanda and Jill both offer excellent "fiskings" of the Patricia Dalton op-ed.

I wouldn’t add my own thoughts, save for two particular paragraphs near the end of the article.  Dalton writes in the first one:

The girls who dress the most outrageously are often those most starved for adult male attention, first and foremost from their fathers. This happens most commonly with girls whose fathers have disappeared from their lives, perhaps following a divorce, or because their workaholic schedules leave them little time for their children. Children who are raised with attention and affection tend to identify with and admire their parents. This identification is the basis for both discipline and the transmission of values. Without it, parents can’t do their job.

I’m with her so far. Dalton is spot on that the absence of safe, loving adult male figures (fathers in particular) is linked to young women’s need for attention.   To be fair, it ignores the possibility that some teenage girls have their own agency, and are interested in sex with boys not because of absent fathers but because of their own libidos. I do not suggest that they are the majority of young women, but they are not an unheard-of subset of American adolescents.  Still, Dalton is to be applauded for her suggestion that men’s workaholic schedules play a part in the problem.  Anyone who is advocating that fathers spend more quality time interacting with their sons and daughters and less time at work, on the Internet, or in front of the TV is going to get no argument from me!

But the second quoted paragraph is a disaster:

I often recommend that fathers be the parent to take the lead in setting limits on their daughters’ dress, because opposite sex offspring typically cut that parent more slack. Fathers can say, "Honey, you can’t wear that. I know teenage boys — I was one!" A dad like this is looking out for his daughter and treating her as someone special.

Jill does a nice job tackling this:

No, he isn’t. He’s putting her in an even more vulnerable position — if something does happen with one of those teenage boys, she’ll internalize it as her fault for dressing in a particular way. When she goes out of the house and sees other girls dressing in more revealing clothes, she’ll become part of the group that looks at them and says, “You’re a slut.” Adolescence is hard enough on young women; when they’re already desperately trying to fit in and find their own identities, the worst thing one can do is encourage greater rifts between “good girls” and “bad girls,” and create even deeper insecurities in all of them.

And where is the dad who says, “Honey, I was a teenage boy once. I know that they’re capable of being reasonable human beings, and of treating women well. Don’t accept anything less than that” — and who tells his sons the same thing? Sexual equality and women’s physical safety simply cannot come from women alone. Shaming young girls about the way they dress isn’t the way to achieve anything.

Jill nails that,and I agree completely.

Thinking about what I would much rather have men say to their daughters, and thinking about what I say to teenage girls and boys, leads me into another youth group anecdote (you knew it would).  Three years ago, we were in the midst of our "sex month" with the kids at youth group.  (Four consecutive Wednesday nights of talking about sexuality, dating, and Christian ethics "All Saints style").  As we always do, we spent some time in single-sex groups.  There were just two youth leaders at the time, and my female colleague took the girls off to one room, while I went to another with the boys.

It was May.  The weather was warm.  One girl in our group, widely regarded by both sexes as being among the "hottest" of her peers, had worn some very short shorts, flip flops, and a tiny top to youth group.  As soon as I got the boys alone in the room, two of them started talking excitedly about what "Janae" (name changed, of course) had been wearing.   One of the boys, using what seemed to be the pervasive lingo of 2003, said "Dang, when I look at those shorts all I think is how much I want to ‘hit that’!" (The meaning of "hit that" ought to be clear even for those of you who don’t hang out with the younger set these days.)  The other boys all laughed and concurred,and then turned towards me with sheepish grins.  Yes, their youth minister was with them — but he was also a man, and they were operating under the homosocial assumption that even in church, it’s okay to objectify women and girls as long as only other men are around.

A younger Hugo would have rebuked them sharply.  I could so easily have given them the "Janae is your sister in Christ, boys!" lecture, and tried to shame them.  An even less mature Hugo might have validated what they were saying by agreeing about Janae’s attractiveness, if for no other reason than to affirm my masculine bona fides by showing them that I too was, after all, "just another guy" who enjoyed looking at pretty girls.  (Obviously, for the record, I never have nor will I ever use sexually objectifying language about any of the kids in my youth group.  But  I have heard stories of other male youth leaders at other churches who have not felt the same need to restrict, sadly enough).

But since the subject was supposed to be sex anyway, I figured I’d use Janae’s shorts as a teaching moment.   So I asked the boys: "What’s it like when a girl like Janae is showing a lot of skin? How does it make you feel?"  The replies came fast and furious:  "Dude, it’s so awesome!"  "I love it when you can see so much!"  And, of course "I can’t stop looking!"  I let the boys share and laugh and get squirrely, and then I quieted them again.  I asked: "When you say you can’t stop looking, what does that mean?  Do you really have no choice?" 

Silence.  One boy, "Aaron", blurted out "No way, dude.  No choice.  Girl that fine, can’t control my mind."  Other boys laugh and agree.  I wait, and then follow up: "Do all of you feel like Aaron feels?"  None of you think you can control where your eyes go and where your mind goes?"

More silence.  "Roger" speaks up: "I guess it kind of is a choice.  I mean, when you first see a pretty girl, you can’t help but look.  But you can choose whether or not you keep staring at her legs or her tits.  You don’t have to make the girl feel uncomfortable."  Several other boys quickly agreed, and Aaron found himself on the defensive: "I don’t know dude, I don’t know how you can say you really like girls and not be totally distracted by something so fine."  I smiled inwardly; Aaron, bless his heart, was trying to bully the other boys by threatening their masculinity if they didn’t take his side. 

To my delight, what followed was a serious discussion lasting fifteen minutes.  (That may sound short, but getting eight to ten boys in mid-adolescence to have a serious discussion for even that long is, I assure you, a significant achievement!)   With my prodding questions, the boys debated their own ability to control themselves. In the end, even Aaron grudgingly admitted that he too had a choice with where his eyes went.  Roger, his foil, high-fived him at this and said "Hey, Aaron, welcome to All Saints!" (A reference to the church’s staunch pro-feminism.)

What I said to the boys was something like this: "I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with noticing girls.  I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with fantasizing about them!  I do think there’s something very wrong when your focus on their bodies makes it impossible for you to also see them as people, as friends, as human beings. When you find yourself noticing a girl’s body, and staring at her skin, I don’t want you to beat yourself up.  But I don’t want you to make her uncomfortable either."

"Next time you’re looking at Janae’s legs, Aaron", I said, "I want you to gently remind yourself that Janae is more than just her body.  It’s okay to think she’s sexy.  But remember she’s not a pair of legs or breasts.  She may be hot, but she’s also a person, and whether you believe it or not, you are strong enough and good enough to never forget that she’s a person.    She gets frightened and tired and happy just like you do.  She may want you to look at her body, but even more than that, she hopes that you’ll also see her as a human being.   And no matter how hot she is, you’ve got it in you to never, ever forget that."  Aaron nodded solemnly, and I don’t know if he really heard me or not.

But other boys did, and I had a couple of them come up to me thank me for what I said and to talk more about the topic.  Boys almost never hear that they have choices about where they ultimately direct their thoughts and their eyes.  The myth of male weakness and the myth of the raging adolescent male libido that can never be contained are powerful influences. I don’t deny that young men can be very, very horny; I do deny that that horniness is so supremely overwhelming as to make it impossible for adolescent boys to see the essential humanity of even their scantily-clad female peers.

My goal is to reach young men "where they are" with a message about their sexuality that is realistic, loving, and both authentically pro-feminist and Christian.  Ultimately, I don’t want anyone, male or female, to feel ashamed of their desires.  I don’t expect them not to lust for each other.  But what pro-feminism and Christianity both insist on, even for young men, is that sexual desire, no matter how powerful, cannot be used as an excuse to rob our brothers and sisters of their humanness.  Whether Janae is in sweats or in short shorts, how the boys perceive her is ultimately their responsibility.  Of course they’ll be more easily aroused by her in short shorts!  Yet even if she were to wear a burka, plenty of her male peers would find themselves stimulated by even a flash of ankle.  The teenage libido is a powerful thing, after all.  We do well, I think, when we don’t fear all of that raging sexual energy.  We do well to acknowledge it, even celebrate it, and then ask that it always be tempered with a recognition of the other’s essential humanity.  That’s a far more effective strategy than either demeaning boys for lusting or asking girls to cover up in order to prevent the boys from doing so.

Yes, I do think adults should have input into how their teenagers dress.  I think it’s right and proper to ask kids to consider the consequences of their clothing choices, and to ask them to take some responsibility for the messages they send to others.  But I also think that we must do the more difficult — and yet ultimately far more rewarding — job of challenging the most basic beliefs about boys, sexuality, and the damaging discourse of the raging, uncontrollable, male libido.  When and if I have a daughter, I expect I will say to her what I have already said to many girls in my youth group and in my classes:

"Your body is not your enemy.  Whatever you wear, in winter or summer, you have both rights and responsibilities.  You have the responsibility to consider the time and the place you are wearing your outfit.  You should be aware that clothing can create envy.  But in the end, no matter what you wear, no one has the right to refuse to see you as a person because of your clothes or your skin.  You don’t ever have to choose between being desired and being taken seriously, and you don’t have to believe the myth that men cannot control their eyes or their actions.  Whether in a miniskirt or sweats, you are still a woman who deserves respect, because respect is not contingent on your body or your attire.  Believe it, and be willing to demand it."

More on t-shirts

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 4, 2005
in Clothing and Fashion, Feminism and Sexuality
. 65 Comments

Three of my favorite feminist women, Jessica at Feministing, Jill at Feministe, and Amanda at Pandagon are all responding to a new batch of particularly offensive t-shirts, designed for teen girls,  from major retailers  with various slogans like "I’m too pretty to do math".  (Check Amanda’s blog for more examples.)

Immodestly, I’m going to redirect readers interested in the current t-shirt controversy to this post of mine from July 27, 2004:  Waterparks. And the T-Shirt.  I wrote the post about the "I had an abortion" t-shirts, about which I feel much the same way as the others currently up for debate.  (I suspect some of my feminist allies may seem them as quite different.)  In any event, though I’ve continued to modify my views on reproductive rights since I wrote the t-shirt post, I continue to stand by my hostile assessment of the phenomenon.  Here’s part of what I wrote back then that may still be relevant:

It was about 1997 or 1998 when I began to see the most remarkable slogans showing up on the fitted t-shirts of my female students: "Porn Star". "Juicy." "Real American Bitch." "I Just Slept with your Boyfriend" (I’ve seen gay men where these too, but I see ‘em more often on women; I’ve seen other verbs besides "slept" as well.) "Too Hot to Handle". "You Know you Wanna Touch." There are probably others (you can mention them in the comments section) but those have lingered in my memory. I associate all this with the banal and infuriating "girl power" movement; largely a creation of advertisers, it sold young women a message of empowerment through shock and sexuality. Adolescents love to upset adults; this adult initially found it difficult to know how to deal with female students whose t-shirts read "You Know you Wanna Touch". (I do a splendid job of affecting blindness in such situations nowadays.)

What I disliked about these shirts was not so much their brazenness as their rank commercialism. Nothing genuinely radical, edgy, or dangerous is sold at Abercrombie and Fitch or Urban Outfitters (two known sources of said shirts; no doubt, there are others.) Newsflash, kiddies: The fact that it horrifies your parents doesn’t make it any less a product of the very same corporate America in which your parents are investing. What these places sell is the cleverly marketed opportunity to outrage the older generation while simultaneously offering a superficially feminist message. The message is "Only a bold, strong, brave young woman who doesn’t care about conforming to stereotypes would wear a shirt like this. Thus if you wear this shirt, you bear witness to your fiery, indominatable, wild grrl soul." Please. What you bear witness to, darlin’, is nothing more than your own socially constructed insecurity, and any sensible person over 25 is abundantly aware of that.

More on Modesty

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 24, 2005
in Clothing and Fashion, Modesty and Youth
. 21 Comments

Continuing on the subject of fathers and daughters, I was struck by this Rebecca Hagelin piece on Townhall yesterday.  Entitled "Fashioning a Response to Immodest Clothing", it’s Hagelin’s spirited defense of parents who refuse to buy what they regard as inappropriately revealing clothing for their daughters. (Hagelin has a thirteen year-old daughter).

On the one hand, I’m prepared to share many of the concerns expressed by parents across the country (not all religious conservatives, either) about the apparent ever-increasing sexiness of clothing aimed at young teen and "tween" girls.    Frankly, I don’t hear many feminists vigorously defending retailers like Abercrombie and Fitch, though many of us on the left are as troubled by A&F’s reputation for racism and "body fascism" as by their marketing of mildly provocative clothing to younger adolescents.   For not altogether different reasons, feminists and social conservatives can agree that dressing thirteen year-olds in tiny miniskirts is problematic.

So I have several "yesses" to Hagelin.  But I have a fairly big "no" as well.  Hagelin writes:

…it can be tough to take a stand in favor of modest clothing. But it can be done. Just ask some of the friends Kristin has brought to our house.

Occasionally, a girl visits wearing something inappropriate — a midriff-baring shirt, a short skirt, a low neckline.

I smile and say, “God made you a person of value. You’re somebody special who deserves to be respected. So when you’re in my home, I want you to dress in a way that reflects the treasure you are. So let’s go upstairs. You can pick out anything you like to cover up while you’re here.” There may be a gasp — often, nobody’s ever told them that their body is a treasure to be respected. But then they get it. And you know what? A bond is created, and they appreciate what I’m doing.

Well, I’d love to know what these girls’ parents have to say, particularly with the offensive implication that any parent who lets his or her daughter out of the house dressed "inappropriate" doesn’t see her as a person of value, at least as Hagelin defines it.

More importantly, it’s a reiteration of the ancient lie that one has no right to be both sexually alluring and respected!  While I agree with Hagelin that thirteen year-olds ought to be allowed to remain innocent a while longer, I’m concerned about the message these girls will have as they progress through adolescence into adulthood.  The message is this:  "You have a treasure, but it needs to stay hidden.  Remember that men will only value that which is hidden from them.   Displaying your sexuality undermines your credibility, and it robs you of the chance to be seen as a full and complete human being."

I think that’s a fair characterization of the subtext of Hagelin’s message, and the message of the neo-Victorian modesty crowd that has recently emerged in all of its blue-nosed splendor. (If it’s unfair, please tell me how.)

The feminism which I have embraced, and which I try and inculcate in the teen and twenty-something women with whom I work, is one in which they are taught one overriding lesson about sexuality: it belongs to them.   On the one hand, this approach is critical of consumer culture (ala Abercrombie); it works to strengthen young women to resist the often-exploitative and fat-phobic messages of the mainstream fashion industry.  Feminism is critical of the message that young women’s bodies exist only to be judged or fetishized or lusted for.  On the other hand, it is equally critical of the message that women’s sexuality ought always be tamed, suppressed, and hidden in order for a woman to be respected. 

I want the women with whom I work to see their sexuality as theirs; it doesn’t belong to their fathers, their future husbands, the leering boys in math class or the older men at the bus stop.  It doesn’t belong to the church, or to MTV, or to the magazines, or to their peers, or to their parents.  Are girls of thirteen ready to understand the implications of this?  Almost certainly not.  But girls of seventeen and eighteen may well be, and they deserve better than to hear a message which is only a few rhetorical flourishes removed from that of the Taliban.

On a lighter note, Hagelin links to this site as a suggested resource for frustrated parents: Modest by Design, a Utah-based company that seems closely affiliated with the LDS church.  Rather tellingly, the motto of the company is "clothing your father would approve of."    Huh?  Is mom too influenced by a depraved modern culture to be trusted to pick outfits for her daughter?  I am particularly troubled by the notion that it is fathers who are the more reliable guardians of their daughters’ burgeoning sexualities.  After all, continuing to dress his adolescent daughter as if she’s a small child allows Dad to fantasize that he remains the central male figure in her life.  If he can hide her sexuality, he can deny that it’s there at all, and he can remain his innocent daughter’s shining knight a little while longer.   I’ve always been bugged by the whole "Daddy’s little princess" bit, but when it continues into adolescence, yikes. I’ve seen the damage it does in my teens in youth group.

Of course, these are the musings of a childless man!

And for what it’s worth, the fashions at Modest By Design are very inexpensive.  They also, frankly, are hideous to my Los Angeles eyes.  Tell me, my readers who live elsewhere, does this look like an attractive outfit for going out?  Should I teach in this?   And check out this princess dress for little girls, which comes with the following caption:

This dress is fit for a little Princess! Whether you are a Flower Girl or on a date with your dad, you will look your best. Embroidered bodice, with an organza overlay full skirt, back zipper, and organza ties to make the perfect fit.

Emphasis mine.  Gotta love writing a description for a dress for pre-teens in the second person.

Sizing up

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on May 2, 2005
in Body, Clothing and Fashion, Eating disorders, Feminism and Vanity
. 10 Comments

I can’t express how grateful I am for the many challenging and interesting responses I’ve gotten to my three posts last week about teens and sexual ethics.  I’ll have more to say on the topic soon, I’m sure, but for now, still need some time to reflect and digest.  I do urge folks to read Lynn Gazis-Sax’s two splendid posts in response to mine:

1.  Teens and Sex

2.  Does True Love Wait?

Then, read her third (very candid) post about her own experience:

3.  De-Flowering (the PG-13 version)

On a "lighter" note, the LA Times had a much-welcome article in the business section yesterday: What’s with Women’s Clothing Sizes?  It touches on a topic that always comes up in my women’s history class: the utter arbitrariness of sizing for women (which contrasts with the more sensible guidelines for men’s sizes.)

Women through the ages have griped about not being able to find clothes that fit properly. Their predicament is getting new attention as manufacturers, retailers, researchers and entrepreneurs wrestle to inject some sense into apparel sizes, the smallest of which have sunk to a mind-bendingly low 00 in some U.S. stores.

Most apparel manufacturers and retailers size clothes arbitrarily, often as a competitive tool. That makes it virtually impossible to get everybody on the same page.

To be fair, "women throughout the ages" have not had the gripe that the article’s author, Leslie Earnest, suggests they did.  After all, before the nineteenth-century industrial revolution, virtually all clothes were made (by hand) to fit a specific woman.  A wealthy woman might have a seamstress, a poorer woman might make it herself (or have it made for her by her mother), but in no instance were clothes mass-produced with sizes upon them.   However humble the garment, it was made to fit the individual woman.  That contrasts sharply with today’s experience where women struggle to fit themselves into certain sizes.   The clothes are no longer made for us, we try and re-make ourselves for them. (Most historians trace "sizing" back to the American Civil War.)

American fashion has only briefly had a uniform sizing system for women’s clothing.  In 1949, the Mail Order Association of America and the National Bureau of Standards joined forces to create a common standard based upon some 15,000 American women.  In 1958, the fashion industry announced the standards:

The sizing designations recommended in the published standard combined a bust size number (in even sizes from 8 to 38) with one of three letters - tall (T), regular (R), or short (S) - indicating height, and with a symbol to indicate hip girth: either slender (-), average (no symbol), or full (+). For example, a tall woman with a size 14 bust who was slender in the hips would be considered size 14T-. This combination of signifiers would place the consumer into one of four trade classifications: either misses’, women’s, half-sizes (shorter women), or juniors’.

The standard began to be widely ignored in the 1970s, and was officially withdrawn in 1983.  As the Times article points out, "vanity sizing" plays a decisive role here:

What’s known as vanity sizing has a lot to do with the off-the-wall state of affairs in the off-the-rack clothing industry. And were there a vanity sizing contest, baby boomer retailer Chico’s FAS Inc. might win: Its garb comes in 0, 1, 2 and 3. A size 1 at Chico’s is equal to an 8 or 10, said a spokeswoman for the retailer, which also makes liberal use of elastic waistbands.

More often, vanity sizing simply takes what might once have been considered, say, a 12 and turns it into a 10 or even an 8, generally depending on the price tag. This works better than Prozac — so long as a woman sticks with one retailer or brand.

The smallest size appears to be the 00 found at American Eagle Outfitters and Abercrombie & Fitch Co., teen retailers that work to accommodate the leanest of young females.

Vanity sizing may indeed lead to increased sales.  (The joy of fitting into a size 8, let’s say, when one had previously never been smaller than a 10, might be a strong incentive to buy the garment as "proof" of one’s new "slimnness", even if that slimness is a fiction.)  But it’s not healthy for women’s self-image, as this brief essay at Fab Fit points out:

…the downside of this strategy with respect to the consumer is the fact that when that consumer goes to a different store and tries on a different brand of jeans that uses a true sizing scheme, the consumer may start to feel insecure about their size knowing that last week they bought a pair of jeans that was a size 5 and this week they had to buy a pair that was a size 9. In short, the manufacturers that are using the vanity sizing system are perpetuating society’s unrealistic standards for thinness which is compounding the problems with eating disorders and women’s negative body images.

True confession:  I suspect it’s because of my odd build, but women’s jeans tend to fit me better than men’s jeans do.  I’ve got a couple of pairs of women’s jeans that I’ve bought in the last couple of years, and before the jokes start, I’m not alone.    (See this long commentary too.) In shopping for jeans, I’ve run into what I’m convinced is a healthy dose of vanity sizing — and I confess, I’ve made some purchases accordingly. 

Bike shorts, the pope, and burning private papers

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on April 8, 2005
in Christianity, Clothing and Fashion, Memories, Men and Masculinity, Modesty, People, Politics and Vanity
. 22 Comments

I’m home from the car dealership.  Inge (I named my Solara after an Austrian great-aunt of mine) is feeling much better with her mirror restored to working order.   I will do a better job of backing out of the garage, I promise!

I threw my bike in the car on the way, and was able to get in a nice ride in the hills while they worked on the Toyota.  I stopped off to get some food on the way back to the dealership and forgot that most folks will stare when men wander around in public in tight-fitting bike shorts and jerseys.  At my favorite taco stand on North Fair Oaks (where I stopped for lunch) a little boy said very loudly, "Mama, I can see his thingie!"  Great.  Just great.  I write posts extolling modesty, and yet I seem to have caused a scene at "La Estrella" this morning and frightened small children.   I guess that’s what I get for once again falling off the vegetarian bandwagon.

Russell Fox has a terrific post up about the Pope and leftist politics.  It’s a long one, but a worthy read.  I liked this bit very much:

No, for this man (JPII) , democracy and freedom were basically a means, important primarily because of what they make possible:
the realization of a spiritual, meaning-full, non-materialistic
culture, and that means a culture that never treats human beings as
merely "material"–no matter if they are young or old, rich or poor, or
for that matter, a condemned murderer, an enemy soldier, in a
persistent vegetative state or even a fetus. For a great many
conservatives in America today, a (unfortunately usually quite partial)
attachment to these spiritual absolutes is common, but the ability to
make it part of a socio-economic and cultural argument is lacking…

Preach it, brother Russell. 

Jonathan Dresner, my fellow Cliopatriarch, is a bit troubled by the pope’s desire to have his personal notes destroyed:

…as an historian, I have deeply mixed feelings about this: as an
historical figure, the late Pope’s personal papers could be extremely
valuable sources for answering questions we haven’t even considered
asking yet. It saddens me — and piques my curiosity — as an
historian, to see such valuable materials intentionally destroyed. This
isn’t an accident, a side effect of war, archival degradation or
deaccession, theft, etc. It’s a deliberate closing of avenues of
investigation and understanding. On the other hand…  I
respect the desire to be remembered for public works and words, without
the added complications and ambiguities that private papers and drafts
could instill.

Jonathan puts it perfectly.  I’d love to read his private papers, for just those reasons.  At the same time, I know how easy it is for one’s personal, unedited musings to be misconstrued.    In my work as a medievalist, of course, I never encountered diaries or journals or private notes; I dealt with the Calendar of Close Rolls and other crown documents.  As a gender historian, however, I am aware of how complex and dangerous a task it is to reconstruct a life from personal papers.  (I always think of how controversial the work of one of my heroes, Lillian Faderman has been — especially when she argues that women living more than a century ago can accurately be called "lesbian" based upon tantalizing fragments in personal letters and diaries.)

In my home office, I have my private journals that date back to my college years.  I wrote things in those journals that I would never want revealed to the outside world.  I would never want my children to read them, much less an historian (should my life ever merit professional interest).  Though there is much within their pages that reveals how I became who I am, these little volumes are mainly filled with embarrassing self-obsession and a whole litany of unpleasant and tawdry stories rendered in painful detail!

Every so often, I make a resolution to destroy all these journals.  I know I must do so before I have children old enough to read them.  I rarely, if ever, glance through them anymore.  I don’t dwell these days on who I’ve been and where I’ve been and who was with me at the time.   But yet, I can’t quite seem to bring myself to toss them, or burn them.  Part of me claims it’s the historian in me, but that’s a professional excuse.  I know that there is little good that can come of having these old documents lingering around, but part of me still wants to cling to them for just a little while longer.  Somehow, part of me wants to hold on to the man who I was, even if the accounts of what that man did and thought are painful and humiliating.  Cicero said,  "There is pleasure in the calm remembrance of a past sorrow".  He was right.  But I’m not sure it’s always a healthy pleasure.  I think the time to dump or burn the journals is coming soon. 

I think it needs to happen before I marry my fiancee later this year.