Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!daemon
From: netcom!onymouse@apple.com (John DeBert)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: The issue of physical appearance
Message-ID: <12231@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 23 Jun 89 20:41:55 GMT
References: <18464@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Sender: ambar@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: NetCom Services - Public Access Unix System (408) 997-9175 guest
Lines: 79
Approved: ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu

In article <18464@paris.ics.uci.edu>, williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) says:

> In article <18423@paris.ics.uci.edu> ames!claris!apple!netcom!onymouse@ncar.UCAR.EDU (John DeBert) writes:
>> By dressing the same as all the other men, you show
>>that you are reliable, dependable and predictable. You show that you
>>are like all the other men, thatyou are what society expects a man to
>>be, i.e., mature, responsible, "masculine," entirely predictable and
>>therefore dependable...

> 	Question.  If that is truely the way men judge others, then
> wouldn't the obvious trait -- dressing non-standardly have the
> opposite effect?  Wouldn't this even, perhaps on an unconscious level,
> even be more of a problem for women?  Women generally take pride in
> not wearing the same as another.  And they are obviously going to be
> attired differently than a man.  Isn't this a built-in problem then if
> women want acceptance in the work place?

For some strange reason, people generally want all men to be the same.
By `people,' I am referring to women as well as men. In Western society,
it seems that there is a strong emphasis placed on conformity among men.
It is so deeply ingrained in society that to dress in the standard tie,
vest, business suit and so on automatically means that such a person is
someone who is dependable and so on, regardless of the person's true
character. Dressing non-standardly automatically implies unreliability,
shiftlessness and other negative aspects.

Women are affected by the same attitude in similar ways: Dressing
conservatively, she is automatically seen as being more competent than
one who does not. Dressed fashionably or provocatively, she is seen as 
immature, a `floozie,' `tart,' or some such.

Women are still not generally accepted in the workplace - not to the degree
that men are - but they are tolerated. A woman is more likely to be acccepted
if she dresses and acts conservatively. She doesn't have to work four times
as hard to prove that she's at least half as good as a man, only about twice
as hard.

> 	It seems that men's perceptions of what is important relating
> to attire must be changed.  The measure of this, truely, then it would
> seem, would be when men can dress anyway they choose without censure
> by other men.

Everybody's perceptions must change. Everyone has been taught from birth
what is acceptable and what is not. It is on the television every minute
of every day. It is constantly taught in schools (they still use social
propaganda materials from the fifties!) and is still in many books, movies
et cetera.

> 	In a side discussion I had with someone else, I mentioned that
> for true equality of the sexes, areas in which women have freedom and
> men don't must be addressed at the same time as the other side of the
> coin.  My reasoning there was that progress must be made in both
> 'camps'.  But using the reasoning on dress matters, it seems that
> men's strictures in areas of emotion and dress, at least are a covert
> sign of men's superiority.  So either women will have to change and
> start dressing in dull drab blue's and black's, or they will have to
> convince men that it is 'ok' to dress non-drab.

I think that men are locked into tighter limitations than are women. Women
are `permitted` to do virtually anything while men are not. Whatever women 
do, it is not taken as seriously as it would be if a man were to do it. 
I have a lot of trouble figuring that out but it seems to be true. For
example, gay men are far more hostility (by other men, usually) than are
lesbian women. Lesbian women are treated with hostility by other women, true,
but it is far less overt than the hostility shown by men to other men and
they are tolerated much more even by women than are gay men.

Men's strictures on emotion and dress do not imply any kind of superiority.
Rather, such strictures are not evidence of superiority. 
Too often, underneath the surface of a conservative man, one finds an
enormous sense of insecurity and repressed feelings, amongst other things.
Many so-called conservative men are truly incapable of dealing with emotion
in a mature manner, if at all. 

I think rather, that women tend to be much more emotionally mature than
are men.

JJD
onymouse@netcom.UUCP