>Practicality and ornament needn't cancel one another out entirely.
I agree with this completely. My feeling is that it's entirely possible to
dress attractively and still be practicable - but it seems that much of
women's fashion is not designed towards this end, which is one of the
central points I was trying to make. When much of what is generally
perceived as 'sexy' or 'attractive' for women's wear is constrictive of
movement to some degree, I think there's something wrong with the picture.
>And I know plenty of women who wear frills and
>heels who can also hold their own *extremely* well in any business or
>intellectual discussion. They present their intelligence through what
>they say, not what they wear.
Once again, I agree with this. My statement was:' Now, if you're dressing
for an event or a life where you don't have to worry much about moving or
safety or practicality, that's all peachy keen. ' I don't assume a person
is less or more intelligent based on what they're wearing, unless what
they're wearing is unsuitable for the work that they're doing. I probably
wasn't as clear on this as I could have been. What I see in my life is a
lot of women wearing clothes that they themselves find uncomfortable in
order to fit a certain image, and I have some serious questions about the
trade-off they've chosen to make. It was one thing when there were fewer
dress options for the professional women - now it seems that there's a much
wider gamut of accepted professional wear for women, and some of it's
comfortable and practicable as well as being attractive. So, if a woman's
wearing clothes that she finds uncomfortable and impracticable in order to
fit an image, I question her choices.
>And, on some deep nasty little level of
>myself, I find it difficult to respect people who'd respect me if I were
>wearing overalls and galoshes, but assume that I was a "bimbo" if I were
>wearing a ball-gown and sequinned slippers. In my book, that's
>suspiciously sexist . . . just my $.02!
If you're wearing that gown and slippers for physical labor, you've lost my
respect. If you're wearing it at a ball, I'll probably be jealous
(especially if you've got a sparkle wand and glitter crown!). Either way,
I'm not going to assume you're a 'bimbo' based on the clothes you're
wearing - that's a behavioral issue.
And to bring this all back to science fiction literature, clothing is often
extremely relevent to the treatment of women in these stories - the dresses
in the Handmaid's Tale announced the status of the wearer and kept their
bodies well hidden; the wrist chains worn by the Drytown women in the
Darkover novels were clear indicators of the way women were regarded in
that society; the women of Whileaway seem to dress as they please with a
keen eye to comfort and practicality; in Mattapoisett everyone pretty much
wears what they want and it all sounds comfortable. The more equal the
society presented, the less likely anyone is to be wearing daily clothes
that aren't comfortable, practicible, and attractive. So, when I'm reading
a story where the women are presented as being equal but are still stuck in
a fashion prision, it leads me to wonder how throughly the author has
investigated the concept of equality. Kinda like the original Star Trek,
where the women were presented as being, well, almost equal (unless they
wanted to be captains) but were stuck in miniskirts and 'helping' roles.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:26 PDT