I've been enjoying the fascinating discussion on clothing (7's tight
clothes, loose flowing clothes favored by some SCA members, etc), and am
reminded of a nifty essay by Deborah Tannen (a linguist) where she relates
attending an academic meeting with several other women and several men. I
am going from memory here; the piece resonated strongly with me, but if I
saved it, it's buried under piles and piles of paper.
My summary may not be the most accurate in terms of details, but I think I
am conveying the overall point fairly. She describes what the women are
wearing: it's important to remember these women are all academics. So, one
was wearing a suit and skirt, another a fairly tight, lowcut dresss, a third
a very long flowing loose outfit (three contrasting outfits, all with
"matching" shoes and makeup choices). And Tannen looked at the women, and
then the men who were all wearing generic academic male attire (slacks,
shirts, jackets, a tie or two), and thought that no matter WHAT women do
they are "marked."
The term "marked" is use specifically in linguistics as the opposite of
"unmarked." An unmarked usage in linguistic terminology is what is normal
and passes unnoted. A marked term is abnormal, is foregrounded or catches
people's attention. For example, in English MOST clauses are structured
Subject/Verb/Object. Not every "sentence," but enough so that variations
have to be handled in a certain way. Other languages do not structure their
clauses this way, but that's another post.
Applying the linguistic terminology to dress means that men have "unmarked"
clothing to wear: certainly there are clothes which are not appropriate for
a male professor to wear, but there's a 'uniform' which more or less
signifies 'professor.' I noticed when I was in graduate school in the late
seventies, most of my male friends acquired some facial hair, jackets with
leather elbows, and a few even took up pipes by their second year in the
program. (I think most of them outgrew it a few years later, heh heh.)
However, there's no 'unmarked' uniform for a woman in academia (and perhaps
by extention other areas of society): that is, a woman who chooses to dress
in clothing which is perceived by others (and perhaps herself) to emphasize
her sexuality is "marked" in one way; a woman who chooses to dress in
clothing which is perceived by others (and perhaps herself) to downplay her
sexuality is "marked" in another way. And the marking always seems to be on
the virgin/whore spectrum. There is no neutral space: "professor" -- a
woman is always a "female professor" (or lady professor). And that's a
white woman--no doubt an African American woman who is a professor is always
identified as "African American woman professor." And that marking stands
out as "different than the neutral norm," and as "minority."
I see women making different choices every day on this campus. Recently,
friends and I were discusisng one woman who had drastically changed her
attire because (we had heard) of her worries that she would not be granted
tenure (she's the only woman in her small and we think dysfunctional
department) This all is a loaded issue, so I'm certainly not going to name
any names. But basically she's begun dressing in much
tighter, shorter, lower cut etc. clothing--and voting/pushing her
department's party line in committees, etc.
Yet if she doesn't get tenure--well.
If what Tannen is saying is true, and I think it is, it doesn't make much
sense saying that any one item of clothing proves a woman is liberated (or
using or not using makeup)--the meaning is constructed which implies any
clothing has the potential to become marked as demaaning/asking for it/etc.
in a patriarchal culture where women are assigned the "marked" position.
Robin
tighter clothes, shorter skirts, low cut tops, etc. She's also begun
voting/speaking the party line in committees, etc. All the untenured women
I know have spent time debating what and how to wear.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:27 PDT