My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question

[Guest]

I would not have been comfortable even at 16/17 when I may have had the body to pull it off. I suppose it also is a comfort zone issue.

 

I can even speak with some authority about that, because in my early twenties, I both had the body to wear some of those things and had the feeling that, "Hey, I look good in it, so I might as well seize the day!" So, going out with girlfriemds, yep, we wore some things that now make me cringe. Part of me wishes my mom would have said, "Danielle, really you're lovely enough without showing all that," of course, I wouldn't have listened.

[MercyA]

I'm happy to be a Judgy McJudgerson and say those dresses are ridiculous. They're way too short, they're immodest, and they look really uncomfortable to boot.

 

I was at a bridal shower at which the bride-to-be wore an extremely short dress, and I admit I kept wondering what she was thinking. She had to sit up in front of everyone. She couldn't really cross her legs OR not cross her legs and basically you just had to avert your eyes. I kept hoping she'd stay covered up in wrapping paper. :) I'm positive she didn't think anything beyond "this is a cute little lacy dress." This was an educated, professional young lady. Obviously she wasn't trying to look sexy for a bunch of church ladies. It's just...does no one think about this stuff anymore?

[Carrie12345]

Hmmm, what do you do if you drop something? Wait for someone else to pick it up I guess. Now I am not just showing my age but also how clumsy I am. :)

 

 

You bend at your knees.

 

Yup.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm no princess, but you won't catch me in public bending at the waist even in jeans. Nobody needs to look over and see my rump sticking out.  Bend your knees, ladies!

 

Come to think of it, I try to avoid the waist bend around the house, too.  That's not so much about my butt as it is about falling out of my bra.  :lol:

[Caroline]

Well...I suppose. Do these tight things stretch? I would be in fear of losing my balance and falling over completely especially since one wears high heels in this situation. I could may be do it in ballet flats. :)

 

As I said in another post I would never have been comfortable in something this short. I also find the long skirts / dresses so much more elegant.

 

Maybe these girls are more agile than you.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's not what I mean. I don't mean if a line gets crossed in a mini dress that the girl deserved it or, "Well, you wore a dress so short, what do you expect?" Not what I mean.

 

I'm saying, nationally, we're having this conversation about preventing sexual violence against women, but this ought not mean we're going to dress as nakedly as possible and then say it has nothing to do with the dress. I do see something ironic about these two things haplening simultaneously.

 

It's like this: I don't want my car to be broken into and stolen, so I don't leave it sitting with the windows down and the keys on the seat. Doesn't mean the windows can be smashed in broad daylight anyway (in fact, this did happen to me), but just because the car can get stolen either way doesn't mean it's not prudent to reduce the likelihood. Also, if your car is a Cadillac, I'm not saying, "Well, you have a desirable car, so, what do you expect?" No; people driving a Cadillac don't deserve car theft more than old beater-drivers. But you might as well lock it and bring the keys with you.

 

The two bolded statements seem inconsistent.

[MedicMom]

I would not have been allowed to wear that as a teenager, nor will I allow my daughter to wear something that short.

 

Beyond that I don’t really care what other people do.

[Reefgazer]

You're not imagining it, it's everywhere. Many young women seem to think stylish = ass and boobs visible; I think it's a byproduct of our generally cheapened culture. I was sitting in the car at a red light yesterday and a young lady was crossing the street wearing a dress so short you could see her ass; she looked ridiculous, although I assume she thought she looked cute.

[unsinkable]

Yup.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm no princess, but you won't catch me in public bending at the waist even in jeans. Nobody needs to look over and see my rump sticking out. Bend your knees, ladies!

 

Come to think of it, I try to avoid the waist bend around the house, too. That's not so much about my butt as it is about falling out of my bra. :lol:

This is actually funny, in an ironic way.

 

If you can't bend over in your outfit without showing your bum, your outfit is not the problem. You are. You need to bend at the knees, not the waist.

 

Waist Bender Shaming

 

:lol:

[Corraleno]

It's not what I mean. I don't mean if a line gets crossed in a mini dress that the girl deserved it or, "Well, you wore a dress so short, what do you expect?" Not what I mean.

 

I'm saying, nationally, we're having this conversation about preventing sexual violence against women, but this ought not mean we're going to dress as nakedly as possible and then say it has nothing to do with the dress. I do see something ironic about these two things haplening simultaneously.

No it's not ironic, because sexual assault has nothing to do with short dresses. Nothing.

 

It's like this: I don't want my car to be broken into and stolen, so I don't leave it sitting with the windows down and the keys on the seat. Doesn't mean the windows can be smashed in broad daylight anyway (in fact, this did happen to me), but just because the car can get stolen either way doesn't mean it's not prudent to reduce the likelihood. Also, if your car is a Cadillac, I'm not saying, "Well, you have a desirable car, so, what do you expect?" No; people driving a Cadillac don't deserve car theft more than old beater-drivers. But you might as well lock it and bring the keys with you.

Dressing "modestly" (however one defines that) does not protect women from sexual assault. Saying "I don't mean that the victim deserved to be assaulted, I just mean she could have prevented it by wearing a longer dress" is bullshit.

 

The irony here isn't that women are wearing short dresses while the country has a conversation about sexual harassment and assault, the irony here is that people are still suggesting that women are complicit in their own harassment and assault if they don't dress "modestly" enough.

[livetoread]

Until men fully accept that they should not have access to women’s bodies without explicit consent - consent that can be revoked at any time for any reason - we are going to be having these conversations. We are going to question all the ways we as women DIDN’T give explicit consent but still somehow carry some responsibility. Ugh.

 

I was just having a conversation with my 16 yo daughter about the messages girls get around being sexy, and she commented that it seems to boil down to something like this:

 

Be sexy, but only if you are trying to impress me and give me access to your body. Otherwise you’re a tease and a slut. You should be sexy for me to make me feel better about myself and give me enjoyment, but if you aren’t doing it for me and make that clear, you are bad.

Edited October 22, 2017 by livetoread

[OrganicJen]

Oh, please no! If we want to go back let us go back a decade further. The 70s were not were fashion should revert to IMHO.

Yes and what I think is even worse is that I've also been seeing a return of some of the 80s oversized blazers.

[ktgrok]

I don't like dresses that short just because I find them like a train wreck..can't look away, but don't want to look. I mean, how does one get into a car in that without flashing people? Now, if they are wearing shorts under it, I guess that's better...although really, if the shorts under that are short enough not to show then are they really shorts, or just underwear?

[livetoread]

I don't like dresses that short just because I find them like a train wreck..can't look away, but don't want to look. I mean, how does one get into a car in that without flashing people? Now, if they are wearing shorts under it, I guess that's better...although really, if the shorts under that are short enough not to show then are they really shorts, or just underwear?

I admit, I look because I’m fascinated, and I have to say that I’ve never seen anything. I’ve thought, okay, she’s going to do “xâ€, surely now, but nope. It’s amazing. Clearly some superwoman ability that I lack because I’d be showing all sorts of stuff no one wanted to see, lol.

[MercyA]

We know that cars are more likely to be broken in to if it is easy to do so, and if there are valuables in plain sight. BUT as far as I know there is NO evidence that what you wear makes you more or less likely to be a victim of sexual violence, so the analogy doesn't hold up. 

 

IF dressing with a longer skirt made it less likely you'd be raped, then yes, it might be worth discussing as a safety issue. But there is not evidence that is true. 

 

Some interesting thoughts and research on that here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5344900/

[Guest]

No it's not ironic, because sexual assault has nothing to do with short dresses. Nothing.

 

 

Dressing "modestly" (however one defines that) does not protect women from sexual assault. Saying "I don't mean that the victim deserved to be assaulted, I just mean she could have prevented it by wearing a longer dress" is bullshit.

 

The irony here isn't that women are wearing short dresses while the country has a conversation about sexual harassment and assault, the irony here is that people are still suggesting that women are complicit in their own harassment and assault if they don't dress "modestly" enough.

I am not saying one could absolutely prevent it by wearing a longer dress. I'm talking about reducing liklihood. I said that in my example. My car window was smashed in at a park in broad daylight while watching a soccer game, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be wise to lock up the car anyway.

 

How can someone honestly say it makes not one shred of difference whether a beautiful young woman is wearing a tiny, sexy dress vs. a brown corderoy skirt to her ankles? Even in those sponsored PSA reports about how to prevent being attacked, one recommendation is that clothing is more difficult to remove, along with things like having an umbrella because it can be used as a make-shift weapon.

 

As my sister so eloquently said when someone we knew was convicted of sexual abuse, "I don't care if she danced naked on his desk, he still cannot do that." Quite true. But also, dancing naked on a man's desk is not a good way to be assured of your safety.

[Carrie12345]

No it's not ironic, because sexual assault has nothing to do with short dresses. Nothing.

 

 

Dressing "modestly" (however one defines that) does not protect women from sexual assault. Saying "I don't mean that the victim deserved to be assaulted, I just mean she could have prevented it by wearing a longer dress" is bullshit.

 

The irony here isn't that women are wearing short dresses while the country has a conversation about sexual harassment and assault, the irony here is that people are still suggesting that women are complicit in their own harassment and assault if they don't dress "modestly" enough.

If anything, these messages are resonating with men who date rape. They hear that wardrobe implies consent and run with it.

 

Look at real life prostitutes and other sex trafficking victims. The overwhelming majority are not pretty girls in revealing clothing. The men willing to victimize aren't fueled by normal perceptions of "sexy".

 

It ain't about clothes.

[Guest]

Equating human beings to food being served on platters and Cadillacs vs. beaters is not going to save you in this argument.

 

The only way to eliminate sexual violence is for assailants to quit. My scariest moments never involved a skirt, or even alcohol for that matter. Looking back, they were all in situations that I was taught were "safe". No one from my scantily clad days ever harmed me. The people who did had no interest what I was wearing.

 

Let me repeat that. The people who did had no interest in what I was wearing.

Alright, well my quip about "a platter" could have been better considered; I was reaching back on something a comedian said once. He was talking about women wearing push-up bras and said it was like putting their boobs "on a platter."

 

But I stand by my car example because what I said is proving my point. A Cadillac owner does not deserve to have her car stolen because it's a desirable car; a beautiful/busty/sexy/whatever woman does not deserve to have her boundaries crossed simply because she looks nice.

[J-rap]

Those dresses were popular as formal-type dresses 5-10 years ago in our area, but I haven't seen them as much here in recent years.  Or if I do, they're more likely to be casual summer dresses/skirts, not dressy.  Or they're they're a culotte/romper style dress.  One of my dd's does like to wear shorter dresses/skirts occasionally, but always wears a pair of shorts under them, or leggings.

 

I don't think the hemline is any different than the mini-skirts of the 60's, which my sister and I used to wear.  That doesn't make it good or bad, just that it's a style that comes around.  However, in the 60's, girls weren't as bare on top, and underwear provided more coverage!  haha

 

 

[Pam in CT]

re "body parts on a platter" and #MeToo

...I have some other thoughts I know are totally taboo, because nationally, we're finally having the conversation about #metoo and unwanted interest and line-crossing and I see something ironic in putting body parts on such a platter if we're also having this much-needed conversation about line-crossing...but I know that there's only one tiny step from posting that to someone yelling "victim-blaming"...and that's not what I mean, but...*sigh*

 

It's a hard sort for me as well, Danielle.

 

 

As a lot of other posters have already pointed out, there is no degree of "modesty" that protects women from harassment and assault and rape.  Literally none.  Young girls are assaulted by their stepfathers and uncles at home and by their teachers at school and and by doctors in examining rooms and by choir directors and youth pastors in their houses of worship.  Women are assaulted in neck-to-toe coverage and in burqa.  There is no uniform that works as an amulet against assault.

 

I know you know that.

 

 

Then do not even go there. Not even slightly.  Do not go near a "line-crossing" and follow it with "that's not what I mean" cause that is what you mean. It absolutely is. Women wearing burqas get harassed and raped. Nuns get harassed and raped. It has nothing to do with clothing. So if you don't want to imply that it does....then don't write about "line crossing" and "putting body parts on a platter" Just don't. 

 

We know that cars are more likely to be broken in to if it is easy to do so, and if there are valuables in plain sight. BUT as far as I know there is NO evidence that what you wear makes you more or less likely to be a victim of sexual violence, so the analogy doesn't hold up. 

 

IF dressing with a longer skirt made it less likely you'd be raped, then yes, it might be worth discussing as a safety issue. But there is not evidence that is true. 

 

Equating human beings to food being served on platters and Cadillacs vs. beaters is not going to save you in this argument.  

 

The only way to eliminate sexual violence is for assailants to quit. My scariest moments never involved a skirt, or even alcohol for that matter.  Looking back, they were all in situations that I was taught were "safe".  No one from my scantily clad days ever harmed me.  The people who did had no interest what I was wearing.

 

Let me repeat that.  The people who did had no interest in what I was wearing.

 

No it's not ironic, because sexual assault has nothing to do with short dresses. Nothing.
 

Dressing "modestly" (however one defines that) does not protect women from sexual assault. Saying "I don't mean that the victim deserved to be assaulted, I just mean she could have prevented it by wearing a longer dress" is bullshit.
 
The irony here isn't that women are wearing short dresses while the country has a conversation about sexual harassment and assault, the irony here is that people are still suggesting that women are complicit in their own harassment and assault if they don't dress "modestly" enough.

 

I understand why your "body parts on a platter" metaphor is so volatile... and I certainly concur that assault has nothing to do with skirts.  

 

But there is a broader, cultural messaging context in which it is important to consider: Why IS it, that women put body parts on display in a manner that men simply do not?  What's going on there, what's driving it, and who does it serve?

 

Why IS it, that it is far more likely to be FEMALES who wear shoes we can't run in (or even stand in grass or uneven gravel), who wear pencil skirts that render us unable to climb into an SUV, who wear clothing that does not adequately protect us against the cold, who get manicures that render us unable to perform Activities of Daily Living, who spend literally billions of dollars on cosmetic and hair care industries that keep us polished and groomed and accessible?  

 

Who's being conditioned into thinking of themselves as subject and who as object?  

 

To me there *is* a relationship between all those dynamics and #MeToo.

 

 

 

 

re mixed messaging: "be sweet" v "be hot" v "be available" v "be ashamed" 

Until men fully accept that they should not have access to women’s bodies without explicit consent - consent that can be revoked at any time for any reason - we are going to be having these conversations. We are going to question all the ways we as women DIDN’T give explicit consent but are still somehow carry some responsibility. Ugh.

I was just having a conversation with my 16 yo daughter about the messages girls get around being sexy, and she commented that it seems to boil down to something like this:

Be sexy, but only if you are trying to impress me and give me access to your body. Otherwise you’re a tease and a slut. You should be sexy for me to make me feel better about myself and give me enjoyment, but if you aren’t doing it for me and make that clear, you are bad.

 

 

This.

[Lady Florida.]

I was in high school in the 70s when mini skirts and micro mini skirts were popular (though we couldn't wear them to school). I wore them at that age. I'm not bothered by their comeback.

[poppy]

I would wear those linked dresses.

For my husband.

In the bedroom.

 

Growing up and going to college in Florida, I'm used to spaghetti straps and short shorts. I think it's the fact that these are dresses that bothers me. You want to sit you bottom on a park bench in THAT?

 

But I sacrifice nothing in the name of fashion.

 

My mom's wedding dress was that short.  1969.  She was a proper Catholic,  not particularly showy, just wanted something pretty for her wedding, and that was the fashion.

 

I'm in the "eh, it's pretty normal" camp.

[Corraleno]

I am not saying one could absolutely prevent it by wearing a longer dress. I'm talking about reducing liklihood. I said that in my example. My car window was smashed in at a park in broad daylight while watching a soccer game, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be wise to lock up the car anyway.

 

How can someone honestly say it makes not one shred of difference whether a beautiful young woman is wearing a tiny, sexy dress vs. a brown corderoy skirt to her ankles? Even in those sponsored PSA reports about how to prevent being attacked, one recommendation is that clothing is more difficult to remove, along with things like having an umbrella because it can be used as a make-shift weapon.

 

As my sister so eloquently said when someone we knew was convicted of sexual abuse, "I don't care if she danced naked on his desk, he still cannot do that." Quite true. But also, dancing naked on a man's desk is not a good way to be assured of your safety.

 

 

People can honestly say that what a woman wears doesn't make a difference in whether she is assaulted because what a woman wears doesn't make difference in whether she is assaulted.

 

One in four women in this country report having been sexually assaulted (touched sexually against their will), and many more than that have been subjected to sexual harassment and unwanted advances — do you really think that those millions of women were all dressed inappropriately? Do you think that every woman who was harassed or assaulted by Harvey Weinstein must have been wearing a low-cut, super short dress??? I've been sexually harassed by two bosses to the point of quitting my job, and I was always dressed totally professionally. I have been assaulted while wearing jeans and a flannel shirt.

 

Continuing to insist that girls who do not dress "modestly" enough are inviting sexual harassment and assault only empowers men to use what a woman is wearing as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. It's totally untrue, it's damaging to women, and it needs to stop.

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by Corraleno

[Seasider]

Yes, those are commonplace here. My first thought - whether the dress is short, tight, low cut, whatever - is usually about comfort. Skin tight with sequins may look glamorous but I wonder how it may feel when you're needing a full breath, kwim?

 

FWIW, my girls have been wearing athletic shorts beneath their dresses since kindergarten.

[Caroline]

This is actually funny, in an ironic way.

 

If you can't bend over in your outfit without showing your bum, your outfit is not the problem. You are. You need to bend at the knees, not the waist.

 

Waist Bender Shaming

 

:lol:

These dresses definitely discriminate against waist benders.

[Mbelle]

I have seen the short dresses too and actually they are shorter and tighter than the photos in the links. Also many of them with lots of cleavage showing.  I think my reaction is because it's high school age students.  If these were young adults going clubbing it would not be so shocking.  

[Murphy101]

Every one of those dresses are longer than my prom dress in 1990.

 

On a very thin very long legged woman, it’s not as short as you think. Probably a 6-8 inches from her crotch by my speculation based on her hip.

 

And there’s nothing wrong with not wearing underwear *as long as they know how to properly wear the dress* bc often the friction between underwear and dress is the main cause of the dress riding up and also the easiest way to avoid panty lines is to ditch the undies.

 

I have more issue with some of those plunging necklines than the skirt length. I’m not a fan of the combo of mini skirt and plunging neckline.

[MegP]

When a child is sexually assaulted,  no one goes around saying, "Well , what was the 6 year old wearing? "

 

But when a woman is sexually assaulted, they do.

 

This is victim blaming and not ok.

[Murphy101]

A woman isn’t raped bc of the dress she wore. That’s just flat out bullshirt.

[Lady Florida.]

 I saw a mom who is 49 and she wore a tunic as a dress. It hit her right at her groin/bum line. She could not bend down even the slightest. It was literally the shortest "dress" I had ever seen....even on a teen or 20something. I admit, that while I am usually a whatever-floats-your-boat type of person, I did raise my eyebrows when I saw her. To me it just screamed, "trying too hard to hold on to my youth and beauty" and it was the opposite of attractive due to that. 

 

Yes! When I was teaching high school I once had a student tell me, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that if you wore it the first time you aren't allowed to wear it when it comes back. :D

 

Editing to say she wasn't admonishing me for wearing something I was "too old" for. We were just discussing fashion cycles.

 

Yup.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm no princess, but you won't catch me in public bending at the waist even in jeans. Nobody needs to look over and see my rump sticking out.  Bend your knees, ladies!

 

 

 

Good advice for those of us with back problems too.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[Stacia]

Why IS it, that it is far more likely to be FEMALES who wear shoes we can't run in (or even stand in grass or uneven gravel),

 

Completely off-topic...

 

This comment made me think of the movie Baby Driver (which is the best movie I've seen this year & is now ds' favorite).

 

One of the main characters is a woman who is part of the gang who pulls off various heists. She is presented as sexy, etc.... (She's in a relationship with one of the other gang members.) But, I noticed that the times she was on a robbery job, she wore sensible shoes (tennis shoes), which proved a good thing as they had to run sometimes.

 

I was SO glad to see that in the movie, rather than having her fleeing a crime scene in heels while her male co-criminals were running in flats. I don't know if she insisted on that, the male director did it, the costuming group or what, but it was nice to see it.

 

And now that I think of it, the love interest of the main character was often wearing short/mini-dresses & low-heeled boots. Didn't notice any wardrobe malfunctions.

 

Anyway, just my little side bar....

[Guest]

 

 

People can honestly say that what a women wears doesn't make a difference in whether she is assaulted because what a woman wears doesn't make difference in whether she is assaulted.

 

One in four women in this country report having been sexually assaulted (touched sexually against their will), and many more than that have been subjected to sexual harassment and unwanted advances — do you really think that those millions of women were all dressed inappropriately? Do you think that every woman who was harassed or assaulted by Harvey Weinstein must have been wearing a low-cut, super short dress??? I've been sexually harassed by two bosses to the point of quitting my job, and I was always dressed totally professionally. I have been assaulted while wearing jeans and a flannel shirt.

 

Continuing to insist that girls who do not dress "modestly" enough are inviting sexual harassment and assault only empowers men to use what a woman is wearing as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. It's totally untrue, it's damaging to women, and it needs to stop.

No, but HW was regularly having access to beautiful women. It's not as though modeling and acting is not well known for using power to get women. The entire business of modeling and largely true for female roles in acting is bent on holding women up as sexually attractive ideals. That is the whole context of the word "model." This is the archetype for feminie beauty, thus, this woman is a "model" of how to present.

[Guest]

BTW, I wasn't even thinking of r@pe in particular. I was thinking of unasked-for "feels" or ogling. Geez. If your skirt is only 1" from your crotch, your date could practically break a rule you might have just by trying to brush a cookie crumb off your lap.

 

My meaning is closer to what Pam in CT said. I am thinking about what we say about being objectified and how that relates to what we might do that encourages objectification.

 

Also, just tangentially, but I have started only in the last year or so to think about dress shoes in terms of the ability to flee if necessary. I think SKL brought this up once and I really took it to heart.

[Guest]

Yes and what I think is even worse is that I've also been seeing a return of some of the 80s oversized blazers.

Yeah. That was a bad, really ugly loook. Not sure why I thought my shoulder should be bigger than my head.

[Wheres Toto]

My oldest wears dresses like that and did in high school.  She wears bike shorts with a 2-3" inseam under them and the shorts didn't show so that's about how long the dresses were.   DD has very long legs (so the dresses looked even shorter) and was a dancer so had a slim muscular build.  She did pointe so moving around on high heels was nothing to her.   Most of her dresses had some stretch to them so squatting down to pick something up, or sitting down didn't really cause them to ride up much.  They basically stayed tucked under the butt.

 

To get into a car wearing a dress like that, you put your back to the seat, sit down and swing your legs in, keeping your knees together.   ;)

[Murphy101]

No. Objectification is about power. I have power over THINGS. Not people. When a woman is objectified by a man, it’s not about what she is wearing or how she looks. It’s about a man looking at her and thinking about possessing an object. It doesn’t matter what she wears or how she looks. Because it’s not about her. It’s about him. a man who views a woman like that doesn’t do so because of anything she does, he does it because he views himself as better than all women anyways. Thus they are things he is entitled to, he might even have convinced himself he is doing them a favor.

[OrganicJen]

Yeah. That was a bad, really ugly loook. Not sure why I thought my shoulder should be bigger than my head.

Lol!!

[Lady Florida.]

No. Objectification is about power. I have power over THINGS. Not people. When a woman is objectified by a man, it’s not about what she is wearing or how she looks. It’s about a man looking at her and thinking about possessing an object. It doesn’t matter what she wears or how she looks. Because it’s not about her. It’s about him. a man who views a woman like that doesn’t do so because of anything she does, he does it because he views himself as better than all women anyways. Thus they are things he is entitled to, he might even have convinced himself he is doing them a favor.

 

Exactly. And if HW had been in any other field, even one where women were simply average looking, he would have been no different. He was asserting his power over them, not reacting to their beauty.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Continuing to insist that girls who do not dress "modestly" enough are inviting sexual harassment and assault only empowers men to use what a woman is wearing as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. It's totally untrue, it's damaging to women, and it needs to stop.

 

I think I might need to repost this several times, because I don't think we can say it enough. And let me tell you, it is not usually MEN who are talking about whether women are dressed modestly. Women need to think long and hard about how they are complicit in fostering this attitude. 

[Pam in CT]

re Who Looks, Who's Looked At, and objectification

BTW, I wasn't even thinking of [email protected] in particular. I was thinking of unasked-for "feels" or ogling. Geez. If your skirt is only 1" from your crotch, your date could practically break a rule you might have just by trying to brush a cookie crumb off your lap.

My meaning is closer to what Pam in CT said. I am thinking about what we say about being objectified and how that relates to what we might do that encourages objectification.

Also, just tangentially, but I have started only in the last year or so to think about dress shoes in terms of the ability to flee if necessary. I think SKL brought this up once and I really took it to heart.

 

FWIW, I don't myself think of women's choices in fashion and cosmetics and hair care etc as "encouraging objectification" so much as absorbing the cultural surround-sound.

 

It is our culture, that girls and women expect to be looked at, and boys and men expect to look at us.  Not just in the entertainment industry, not just the models, not just the young and slim, not just the Hollywood powerful.

 

And there does seem to me to be a relationship between the subject/object and power dynamics of I expect to look/ I expect to be looked at... and I expect to grab / I guess it's... normal to be grabbed.

 

 

No. Objectification is about power. I have power over THINGS. Not people. When a woman is objectified by a man, it’s not about what she is wearing or how she looks. It’s about a man looking at her and thinking about possessing an object. It doesn’t matter what she wears or how she looks. Because it’s not about her. It’s about him. a man who views a woman like that doesn’t do so because of anything she does, he does it because he views himself as better than all women anyways. Thus they are things he is entitled to, he might even have convinced himself he is doing them a favor.

 

x 1,000

[Guest]

No. Objectification is about power. I have power over THINGS. Not people. When a woman is objectified by a man, it’s not about what she is wearing or how she looks. It’s about a man looking at her and thinking about possessing an object. It doesn’t matter what she wears or how she looks. Because it’s not about her. It’s about him. a man who views a woman like that doesn’t do so because of anything she does, he does it because he views himself as better than all women anyways. Thus they are things he is entitled to, he might even have convinced himself he is doing them a favor.

Did you see the link Mercy A posted? I did not read it fully yet, but it's talking about this. We give cues to people in society through our clothing all the time. We use clothing cues to say all sorts of things about ourselves: our profession, our religion, our economic status, our age, how we want people to view us; i.e., I'm yuppie, I'm funky, I'm traditional, I'm a rebel, I'm a party girl, I want to blend in, I want to stand out, I'm athletic, I'm artsy. Clothing choices do communicate things, so why pretend there's no such thing as clothing that does invite "looking"?

 

I'm 100% in favor of raising my sons to not see any woman as an object for his enjoyment and to always stay far from any lines of questionable consent no matter what she might be wearing and no matter whether she's stone-cold-sober or three sheets to the wind. But I also have no qualms about telling my daughter that clothing choices make a difference in how "available" a guy is likely to think she is.

[Tanaqui]

So, skipping most of the discussion, I have to say - most of those dresses don't look that short to me. A couple of them do, but not to the point where I'd grab my child in horror and lock her in her room. (I might refuse to spend my money on it and say "Use your own allowance", but that's about it.)

 

...this is perhaps not the best place to tell the story of the time my mother bumped into my sister when my sister was wearing a corset, a micromini, and fishnet tights, is it? Or the time my sister bumped into my foster sister wearing less, in winter, and chewed her out for not changing when she got where she was going? "Hypothermia is not attractive!"

[SKL]

I haven't noticed this on my feed, possibly because most of my friends are more conservative or older.

 

My kids would not be allowed to wear that unless they had something very safe underneath.

 

I don't think my kids would want to, though.  They tend to prefer covering their legs.

[Pam in CT]

re climbing into a vehicle with a pencil-cut:

My oldest wears dresses like that and did in high school.  She wears bike shorts with a 2-3" inseam under them and the shorts didn't show so that's about how long the dresses were.   DD has very long legs (so the dresses looked even shorter) and was a dancer so had a slim muscular build.  She did pointe so moving around on high heels was nothing to her.   Most of her dresses had some stretch to them so squatting down to pick something up, or sitting down didn't really cause them to ride up much.  They basically stayed tucked under the butt.

 

To get into a car wearing a dress like that, you put your back to the seat, sit down and swing your legs in, keeping your knees together.   ;)

 

 

:lol:

 

And if the vehicle is a high-rise SUV like my husband's, and you're only 5'4 like me, you start out by standing on tiptoe with your butt pressed against the passenger side seat, then grasp the car roof with your hands and pull your weight up as you slide back until your legs are dangling loose below you like a 5 year old's sitting on the big-girl chair, and *then* you scoot back inch-by-inch until you can put your back to the seat, then follow the above instructions.

 

 

Which is just as on-its-face ridiculous as shoes that can't function in grass or sand or gravel (which don't get me wrong I WEAR).

 

 

 

ETA to LOL as well over Tanaqui

 

...this is perhaps not the best place to tell the story of the time my mother bumped into my sister when my sister was wearing a corset, a micromini, and fishnet tights, is it? Or the time my sister bumped into my foster sister wearing less, in winter, and chewed her out for not changing when she got where she was going? "Hypothermia is not attractive!"

 

Indeed...

Edited October 22, 2017 by Pam in CT

[SKL]

I also notice that the models in the links are pretty slim - the legs in particular.  Most adolescent girls have more meat on their bones and would have a hard time carrying that style off.

[Guest]

Also, my DH and I have talked about how news tv shows sometimes (often) have anchors sitting on a couch for part of the show. It is so noticeable how awkward this is for the female anchors if their dresses are any shorter than their knees. They are sitting there, looking contorted and uncomfortable, often with a hand in the center of their laps because the dress is taunt across the thighs otherwise and the camera points right up their skirts unless they sit side-saddle or push the dress down with a hand.

 

Especially considering some recent stories about how one particular news channel treated it's female anchors ("Arch those backs, girls, stick out your chests!"), I hardly think it is an accident. The show producers seem to want a "Basic Instinct, Sharon Stone" moment or at least the threat of one.

[SKL]

re climbing into a vehicle with a pencil-cut:

 

 

:lol:

 

And if the vehicle is a high-rise SUV like my husband's, and you're only 5'4 like me, you start out by standing on tiptoe with your butt pressed against the passenger side seat, then grasp the car roof with your hands and pull your weight up as you slide back until your legs are dangling loose below you like a 5 year old's sitting on the big-girl chair, and *then* you scoot back inch-by-inch until you can put your back to the seat, then follow the above instructions.

 

 

Which is just as on-its-face ridiculous as shoes that can't function in grass or sand or gravel (which don't get me wrong I WEAR).

 

Ugh this reminds me of a business meeting I had to attend with my boss and his SUV.  I was wearing a very decent (to my knees) business skirt suit, but I needed to be dressed for rock climbing to get into that vehicle.  After that I wore longer pleated skirts so I had more mobility.  :p

Edited October 22, 2017 by SKL

[Barb_]

Did you see the link Mercy A posted? I did not read it fully yet, but it's talking about this. We give cues to people in society through our clothing all the time. We use clothing cues to say all sorts of things about ourselves: our profession, our religion, our economic status, our age, how we want people to view us; i.e., I'm yuppie, I'm funky, I'm traditional, I'm a rebel, I'm a party girl, I want to blend in, I want to stand out, I'm athletic, I'm artsy. Clothing choices do communicate things, so why pretend there's no such thing as clothing that does invite "looking"?

 

I'm 100% in favor of raising my sons to not see any woman as an object for his enjoyment and to always stay far from any lines of questionable consent no matter what she might be wearing and no matter whether she's stone-cold-sober or three sheets to the wind. But I also have no qualms about telling my daughter that clothing choices make a difference in how "available" a guy is likely to think she is.

That research Mercy posted helps me to understand why I, a liberal with six daughters, have such an incredibly hard time parsing my reactions on this subject. Pam's post was helpful too. I need to think about it some more. Edited October 22, 2017 by Barb_

[OrganicJen]

What I'm curious about is what exactly is the intent of women or girls who dress that way. When I look back to when I wore more revealing clothes in my youth, I think I was hoping to get attention from men for my looks. But when I look back now I realize that the men who I got that attention from are the ones who I later learned weren't who I actually wanted as life partners etc, and that the men who were a better match for me were the ones who were attracted to me no matter what I wore. Personally, I wish I had received better education from strong female role models about this when I was young, because I think I would have dressed differently for certain periods of my life if I had. I'm not implying that girls who dress this way are making a mistake or don't have strong female role models in their life at all, I'm just saying that I think in my own life some of my wardrobe choices were made for the purpose of hoping to be viewed in a certain way by men and I wish I had had some role models in my life who would have helped me to better understand how to develop my own fashion sense instead of dressing in a way I felt other people wanted or men would find physically attractive. So I'm curious if I'm in the minority that I regret dressing in skimpy clothes at certain times in my life and feel like I did it for the attention, or if most women who wear highly revealing clothes are actually just doing it because it reflects their personal style and nothing more. I don't think when I did it, and I'm not even talking about as revealing as the dresses we are talking about today, it was a reflection of my style, I think at that time I was hoping to be objectified and looking back I really regret ever portraying myself that way, but this may not be at all what other women feel, it's just my personal experience regarding skimpy clothes and how far they differ from my personal fashion taste, even back when I did wear them.

[Pam in CT]

Also, my DH and I have talked about how news tv shows sometimes (often) have anchors sitting on a couch for part of the show. It is so noticeable how awkward this is for the female anchors if their dresses are any shorter than their knees. They are sitting there, looking contorted and uncomfortable, often with a hand in the center of their laps because the dress is taunt across the thighs otherwise and the camera points right up their skirts unless they sit side-saddle or push the dress down with a hand.

 

Especially considering some recent stories about how one particular news channel treated it's female anchors ("Arch those backs, girls, stick out your chests!"), I hardly think it is an accident. The show producers seem to want a "Basic Instinct, Sharon Stone" moment or at least the threat of one.

 

 

Exactly.  That's an excellent example of how this works structurally, in that case through explicit on-the-job expectations and direct instructions, though, not (merely) via individual agency and choice.  You want that anchor job, put on the skirt, do the hair and the face, and arch those backs, girls.

[maize]

A culture in which women are expected/encouraged to dress in uncomfortable and impractical ways in order to show off the sex appeal of their bodies objectifies women.

 

A culture in which women are encouraged/expected to dress in uncomfortable and impractical ways in order to hide any possible sex appeal of their bodies likewise objectifies women. In my opinion, both extremes contribute to abuse of women.

 

I want a culture where women dress primarily for comfort and practicality. If you will be swimming, wear something that works well to swim in. If you will be dancing, wear something that works well to dance in. If you will be walking, wear something that works well to walk in.

 

If women are generally expected to wear either significantly less than or significantly more than men engaging in similar activities I take that as a sign that women are being objectified.

Edited October 22, 2017 by maize