Men vs Women gymnastics-why different clothes/moves?

[Corraleno]

52 minutes ago, maize said:

Editing to add that you didn't answer the question asked. Why are females and males expected to show different amounts of skin? Why is the amount of clothing coverage being marketed to women so different from what is being marketed to men? 

Females are not expected to show more skin, they are allowed to show more skin, in the sense that they have a much wider choice of clothing styles than men do if they want to show more skin. It's not as if all women are forced to wear off-the-shoulder sundresses whether they want to or not. For every off-the-shoulder sundress at Target, or any other store, there are about a thousand outfits that are more covered up. What the heck is wrong with allowing women to wear whatever they want and show as much skin as they want?

[Wheres Toto]

40 minutes ago, EmseB said:

We could also argue the female form is objectively more beautiful than males. That's what I would argue but it's really neither here nor there. I don't think one slate of Target ads, or even tons of Target ads is indicative of anything. I could go over to BR and find a woman fully dressed in a nice business suit, I would guess. (ETA: Nope, it was bootcut/flared jeans, a sweater, and a leater motorcyle jacket ETAA: a big ad for crew neck sweaters for her).

I just truly don't understand what world people are living in where women are expected to show more skin? I live in a world where some females show more skin. I walk around every day about as covered as the males in those Target ads and have no problems doing so. I buy some of my clothes at Target. But advertising pretty sun dresses with shoulders showing is not pinging my objectification/sexy meter any more than seeing David Beckham in a nice suit doing an ad for cologne or something. I truly don't understand. Are women seeing those ads and thinking they have to walk around with bare shoulders? I see those ads and think, "That's pretty, but I need something that I won't get sunburned in," and click over to the t-shirts. Who are the women seeing those ads and feeling pressured to wear exactly what they see even though they don't want to show their shoulders? That is a real problem, but not one of advertising I don't think.

 

I agree.  I managed to avoid that whole cut-out shoulders look that was so big last year.  

I'm wondering what kind of social pressure people are feeling to dress or look a certain way.   Do people actually say something?   Do you get dirty looks if you stray from the acceptable?   

Given my choice I'd wear tshirts, hoodies, jeans or leggings, have long hair (my hair short takes too much work and shaved would need too much upkeep), not wear bras, not wear make-up, not dye my hair, wear sneakers or Uggs.   And other than wearing a bra when I'm teaching classes, that's pretty much how I dress.    I have female friends/acquaintances with everything from crew cuts to hip length hair, who wear heavy makeup to no makeup, dress extremely fashionable and put together or slouch around in comfy clothes, and everything in between, hair colors from all over cotton candy pink to blue tips to purple highlights to natural white or grey.  Nobody seems to be feeling pressure to meet an arbitrary standard.  

[Garga]

3 hours ago, MysteryJen said:

But all I am seeing is women judging women's choices and trying to hide being tired arguments about biology, sex, and "society" to do it.

If you are seeing judging, it’s not intended in my posts.  I am not judging women’s choices in the way you think. I personally think women are gorgeous and I love to watch a before and after thing where the woman comes in looking one way and they use makeup and clothes to make her look just gorgeous.  I love that and think it’s amazing how beautiful all those products can make a person.

In my day-to-day life I mostly wear what I like, which happens to be a lot of coverage because I get cold.  I have friends who wear less because they run hot.  About once a week I spend 30-40 minutes curling my hair because I look really pretty with it curled.  For me and the others on this thread who are wondering about social mores, this isn’t about saying, ‘Oh, you’re so BAD for wanting to look young and beautiful!”  It’s not like that.  I know one poster came across that way, though I think she did it unintentionally, but not the others.  The others are just saying, “I wonder why women have *these* options and men have *those* options?  Why is it different for the sexes?”

I feel like I’m making logical statements and being met with an emotional response.  I am not feeling emotional in this discussion at all.  

1 hour ago, maize said:

The question is, what is it within our culture that leads us to put female bodies on display in ways that male bodies are not put on display.

We could I suppose hypothesize that male bodies or male skin are viewed as too ugly or shameful to be made visible...

 

This is a good point.  I don’t think men are anywhere near as attractive on the whole as women.  When I watch pairs figure skating, it’s like the guy isn’t even there, because the woman is so much more beautiful to watch, even if he is in a colorful costume. It’s like I don’t see him, because she’s just so pretty that she’s all I want to look at.  I don’t want to see men less clothed.  I don’t really understand the love of kilts and sleeveless shirts for men, because I don’t like it.

But...I am a product of m y society, so do I feel that way because men truely are uglier? Is it a personal thing only?  Have we been conditioned to think men aren’t as fun to look at as women?  What about those Renaissance (not sure if I have my time correct) men with their wigs and codpieces and checkerboard leotards and eye makeup.  Men were allowed to be very colorful in their clothing back then. Though, I guess they were pretty covered from head to toe, but they had more options for decoration for sure.  At least the rich ones did.

1 hour ago, Frances said:

Exactly. And at the same time, what is considered socially acceptable for men to wear is more narrow. Young men are starting to change that, but it seems like women have more freedom in clothing and grooming choices. I don’t deny that in some cases women may feel societal pressure to look a certain way. But I think it is not the case for most women the majority of the time.

It’s not the topic of this thread, but we could also ask why are men so much more limited in their choices for clothing and grooming?

 

Yes, we could also ask that.  That’s a great point.

 

I wish I’d quoted it, but someone up thread was talking about how women throughout human history have been prized for their childbearing ability.  Men have been prized for their power and protective ability.  It made me think of birds.  In many cases, the female bird is brown and unremarkable because she is responsible for staying on the nest and protecting the eggs and needs to blend in so that predators can’t find her.  The male is prized for being bright and colorful, so that if a predator shows up the male bird gets seen and he sacrifices his life by being eaten so the female can live and care for the young.

So, maybe there’s a little something to how women are considered most beautiful when they’re young so they can find a mate and reproduce, but it doesn’t matter as much for men to look a certain way, as long as they help protect the family (maybe not the same in today’s Western society, but this was an issue in the past when life was more violent.).  And why wouldn’t we want want to look beautiful even if we’re no longer young?  It’s nice to be beautiful.  So, we wear the makeup and color the hair, or do whatever it is that makes us feel beautiful to the other humans.  

I’m not judging it.  It’s just what we do and it’s fascinating.  It’s fun to try to figure out what makes us tick—as individuals and as a group.  I’m not always physically comfortable curling my hair for 40 minutes, as it makes my arms start to ache, but I have to tell you, I feel amazing when my hair is curled because I feel beautiful.  Sometimes what we do is uncomfortable or expensive, but we like the tradeoff of how we look to  the other people.  I only curl my hair on days I know others will see me.  I don’t bother when I’m just at home.

And men have their own issues to deal with.  It would be fun to talk about those, but I think we’d need some men to chime in.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Garga

[Jean in Newcastle]

3 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

In the context of sports, though, females often don't have a choice. If you want to play volleyball and are a female, you are basically required to wear shorts that are basically underwear. Out here, the same is true of soccer, and boy doesn't sliding on grass bare legged sound safe. 

In stores where I live, the choice for females are short shorts (nothing longer), short skirts (again, no long skirts), skinny jeans, jeggings, and leggings as far as pants go. In fact, I have to buy my clothes online because of how limited the selection of non-revealing clothing is. That's not choice for females but wearing the only clothes available and accepted by society. (I don't wear clothes based on what society thinks I should, but have you ever been a teen girl?) Also, yes, people do comment on the fact that I wear longer skirts, non-skinny jeans, and shirts that show off all of my "assets". 

Surely you don’t think that I reached middle age without having gone through my teenage years. We have lots more clothing choices for girls and women since the 60’s and 70’s when I was young. Hems were quite shorter actually in the sixties. And you do have the choice of online shopping which of course we didn’t have in the 60’s and 70’s. 

[hshibley]

2 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

In the context of sports, though, females often don't have a choice. If you want to play volleyball and are a female, you are basically required to wear shorts that are basically underwear. Out here, the same is true of soccer, and boy doesn't sliding on grass bare legged sound safe. 

 

Here boys and girls soccer uniforms are basically all the same. My kids played travel soccer and high school soccer for years. Occasionally the club would offer the girls the option of ordering women’s cut uniforms. The only difference with the cut of women’s uniform was the top. The women’s tops fit the girls a lot better. Both boys and girls teams wear compression shorts under their uniforms. It’s such standard practice that the length and color of the compression shorts are regulated by both the state classic league and the high school league. So boys and girls are dressing the same. 

[Corraleno]

18 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

In the context of sports, though, females often don't have a choice. If you want to play volleyball and are a female, you are basically required to wear shorts that are basically underwear. Out here, the same is true of soccer, and boy doesn't sliding on grass bare legged sound safe. 

In stores where I live, the choice for females are short shorts (nothing longer), short skirts (again, no long skirts), skinny jeans, jeggings, and leggings as far as pants go. In fact, I have to buy my clothes online because of how limited the selection of non-revealing clothing is. That's not choice for females but wearing the only clothes available and accepted by society. (I don't wear clothes based on what society thinks I should, but have you ever been a teen girl?) Also, yes, people do comment on the fact that I wear longer skirts, non-skinny jeans, and shirts that show off all of my "assets". 

Are you seriously saying that no store anywhere near you carries women's pants other than skinny jeans, jeggings, and leggings? Target sells multiple styles of regular women's jeans in a huge range of sizes from petite to plus. In the summer they sell capris, maxi dresses, long-sleeved gauzy tops, and lots of covered-up styles. I don't remember if they sell board shorts, but Macy's certainly does. I have a teen daughter, who happens to like skinny jeans (which are also worn by most of her male friends, BTW), but I also know for a fact that Target sells regular girls jeans, and DD has no trouble finding the oversized hoodies and flannel shirts she likes to wear on top. I'm not buying the argument that women's clothes are so sexualized it's impossible to find "modest" clothes anywhere.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Corraleno

[Wheres Toto]

Target definitely sells boot-cut jeans and sweatpants and long skirts and long bermuda length shorts and board shorts and rash guards.   I have a Target red card so it's one of my go-to places to shop for clothes, for me and the kids.

Older dd is a manager at a trendy clothing store in the mall.  They sell club-wear dresses and skirts, sexy tops etc. but even that store also sells basic non-skinny jeans, flannel shirts, and denim jackets.   

Younger dd actually likes to shop in the men's department for hoodies and tops, and she also wears hand-me-down sweats from her brother.  She only wears jeggings (no regular jeans), leggings and sweat pants.    

And yes, the teen boys in my classes are wearing skinny jeans artfully shredded.   Plus Google Jason Mamoa if you think men aren't objectified and shown wearing few clothes.  (not that I'm complaining, you understand).

[Frances]

On 2/17/2019 at 10:37 AM, kdsuomi said:

 

In the context of sports, though, females often don't have a choice. If you want to play volleyball and are a female, you are basically required to wear shorts that are basically underwear. Out here, the same is true of soccer, and boy doesn't sliding on grass bare legged sound safe. 

In stores where I live, the choice for females are short shorts (nothing longer), short skirts (again, no long skirts), skinny jeans, jeggings, and leggings as far as pants go. In fact, I have to buy my clothes online because of how limited the selection of non-revealing clothing is. That's not choice for females but wearing the only clothes available and accepted by society. (I don't wear clothes based on what society thinks I should, but have you ever been a teen girl?) Also, yes, people do comment on the fact that I wear longer skirts, non-skinny jeans, and shirts that show off all of my "assets". 

I’m curious where you live because it is so different here. And capris are everywhere here in the stores and also all different types of jeans.

And boys and girls wear very similar clothes for soccer.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Frances

[Corraleno]

25 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Well for one thing, 'aspiring to beauty' is costly and uses time and focus that could otherwise be spent on more important things. Tell me one of those 'many simple ways' that doesn't cost in time and money ? 

I think both Garga and I know the social penalty for looking like a hairy legged harridan is rather high - if not, wjhy suggest 'ankle length tunics' to disguise said hairy legs ? Why does my butch hairy legged daughter get social pressure to move from the female category to the male category - 'cos women aren't 'supposed' to be hairy, and it makes other people uncomfortable.

lol on biology, sex and society being 'tired arguments'....those are some of the material and cultural facts that have the most influence on us as a species. I mean, in many ways, what else is there ?

lol also on 'let others love you as you really are ' ?  But also, 'it's natural to decorate ourselves in pursuit of beauty' ? Which one is it ?

I'm super frustrated that people are so defensive about their individual 'choices' (its often somewhat coerced) to engage with social pressure and expectations when the convo is about systemic issues. I mean, I do shave my legs, and color and blow dry my hair, and remove my upper lip hair, and put color my face. So it's not like I'm wagging my warty hairy finger at anyone. I just prefer to analyse why I feel social pressure to do these things - things that cost me money, and time I can ill afford - rather than tell myself fibs about 'choice'.

That is so patronizing — all the other women in the world would agree with you if only they would stop lying to themselves. 🙄

Basically you are saying that since you don't like shaving your legs or dyeing your hair or wearing makeup, yet do those things anyway because you don't feel confident enough to buck those societal trends, you want every other women to give those up so that you won't stand out for your choices. And the fact that most women don't actually share your preferences is because we're too stupid to know that we've been manipulated into choosing things we really don't want.

There are plenty of women who don't dye their hair, or wear makeup (including me), or routinely shave body hair (including me), and who really could not give a rat's ass what other people think of those choices, and who are still perfectly happy to let other women make the choices that they feel good about.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Corraleno

[Frances]

26 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Come out with me and dd some time. 

Yes, she gets looks. (She dresses in male clothes, she has a shaved head, and she has very hairy legs). 

She's gotten abuse - 'ya dyke!' 'ya lezzo'.

She gets overt pressure from parts of the extended family - 'let me take you to get your legs done, why don't you try on this pretty dress'

She gets overt pressure from the images that surround us, none of which normalise a female dressing as confortably as a male, and refusing to engage in female beauty practices.

When she goes to job interviews or placement she has to femme up. 

 

I’m sorry that your daughter is being treated that way. But don’t you think a male wearing more traditional women’s clothing, make-up, etc. would get as much if not more pressure to conform to societal standards? Pereonally, I think long light flowing skirts are one of the most comfortable things in the world. But I don’t think most men would feel free to wear one.

I had a friend in grad school who shaved her head and got nothing but compliments all of the time. I was so envious that she had the facial structure to completely rock the look. And that was more than twenty five years ago.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Frances

[MysteryJen]

On 2/14/2019 at 7:35 PM, moonflower said:

Bluegoat, I don't disagree with you about the commercial nature of the sexualization of women's clothing (and makeup, and hair, and etc.)

But I don't think it's like a grand conspiracy of people at the top or companies who run certain industries to do this to women.  I think it's a natural outcome of the role of women in human groups as sexual objects (instead of sexual subjects, broadly speaking).  It doesn't necessarily trouble me that women are presented as having enhanced physical attributes, largely keyed in to emphasizing youth and potential reproductive success, because biologically and historically those are things that women trade on and are selected for. 

What bothers me is when these things are promoted in contexts where they are not appropriate, either because the age range is wrong (12 year old girls don't reproduce, and neither do 50 year old women) or because it is not a situation in which you want to encourage people interacting sexually (even subconsciously), like a mixed-gender workplace, or because the woman is no longer available, in a healthy and stable society, for pursuit (i.e. she's married).

Now that we have preteen girls wearing sexualized bathing suits and makeup, old women dyeing their hair and wearing tight skirts and heels, and married women in the workplace doing all of the above (except the bathing suits, I guess!), it is destabilizing and imo degenerate.

This is the post that moved the conversation from just "hey having a social conversation about societal pressure and women's clothing" to a group of women (particularly those who are 50-year women) feeling attacked and demeaned for choices about hair, makeup, and clothing.

I had no idea that liking to dress well, fashionably and presenting my idea of my physical best to the world is destabilizing and degenerate.

I find this attitude to be as anti-woman as anything I have read in a while.

 

 

[Frances]

On 2/17/2019 at 12:37 PM, StellaM said:

 

lol, the mothers in those articles were saying 'it's really hard to buy gender neutral stuff for girls in Target'. Were they just not looking hard enough ?

I

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Frances

[Corraleno]

4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

lol, the mothers in those articles were saying 'it's really hard to buy gender neutral stuff for girls in Target'. Were they just not looking hard enough ?

Clearly not, because my DD buys most of her clothes at Target and she and her male friends wear virtually identical clothes.

Also, it should be noted that the description of "sexualized" clothes in one of those articles referred to jeans for little girls that had embroidery on the back pockets. This was deemed to be inappropriately sexualized because it would make people look at little girls' butts. That is beyond absurd. Do people really think that embroidery on the back of a child's pair of jeans is going to make grown men look at an 8 yr old and think "ooooo, dat ass"? Or that a little girl is going to look at those jeans and think "oh I want these, because people will look at my butt"? Anyone looking at an 8 yr old's butt, whether it has flowers on it or not, and thinking it looks sexy has their head screwed on wrong — and that goes for both pedophiles and the modesty-police who think embroidered jeans pockets = sexually enticing.

[hshibley]

3 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Well, I've got a male with shaved legs, long hair, who wears make up and pinkety pink and NO! He doesn't get called a 'faggot', no-one in the family is suggesting he grows his body hair, and the males he sees up on billboards are a mixture of manly man, androgynous and fabuolous. So...idk. It seems to me that society is way more accepting of male 'trangression' than it is female.

A. That’s horrible for your daughter. 

B. Maybe it’s an Australia thing? My daughter 20 shaved her head last summer. The reaction was generally pretty positive. She was mistaken for a boy a couple of times at work by customers, but she works fast food and those uniforms are pretty shapeless. It wasn’t people being derogatory it was people not paying attention to their server. 

[hshibley]

14 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

lol, the mothers in those articles were saying 'it's really hard to buy gender neutral stuff for girls in Target'. Were they just not looking hard enough ?

Yes. If they were at the target in my town. There’s a variety of cuts of jeans and t shirts both plain and with graphic prints. 

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, StellaM said:

For the time poor, cash poor mom, whose options (here) are K Mart, Target and Big W (all cheaper stores widely accessible), why shouldn't they have an expectation that the store profiting from their need for children's clothing provides age appropriate clothes ?

I have never been to any Target or WalMart, anywhere in this country, that did not offer plain, unsexualized jeans, tee shirts, sweatshirts, etc. It is ridiculous hyperbole to insist that there are literally no clothes available in those stores that aren't totally sexualized and inappropriate.

[Frances]

19 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Well, I've got a male with shaved legs, long hair, who wears make up and pinkety pink and NO! He doesn't get called a 'faggot', no-one in the family is suggesting he grows his body hair, and the males he sees up on billboards are a mixture of manly man, androgynous and fabuolous. So...idk. It seems to me that society is way more accepting of male 'trangression' than it is female.

That hasn’t been my experience at all, but I know we live in different parts of the world. Do you regularly see men wearing skirts and dresses?

[Corraleno]

6 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Ah yes, the 'it's you, it's not the manufacturers' argument is addressed in at least one of the articles.

These moms aren't policing girls who wear girly clothes...they are asking that the stores that profit from their custom provide clothes more appropriate to the age of their girls.

You guys are all so weird. I can't believe you've got your knickers in a twist about some articles where some moms said 'I'd like more child appropriate clothes, thanks.'

Actually the women with their knickers in a twist are the ones who think jeans with embroidery on the back pockets are not "child appropriate" — and who for some strange reason were unable to locate all the plain jeans and solid-color tee shirts that those stores also sell.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Corraleno

[Farrar]

7 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Actually the women with their knickers in a twist are the ones who think jeans with embroidery on the back pockets are not "child appropriate" — and who for some strange reason were unable to locate all the plain jeans and solid-color tee shirts that those stores also sell.

This is my experience too. I do think there is a market for an increased number of options for gender neutral clothes and more play-friendly plain girl clothes... but there are plenty of very plain options at Target, Wal-Mart, Children's Place, etc. Sometimes when I see people complaining, it turns out they think that shorts that fall right above the knee are scandalous or that embroidery on the back pockets is sexualizing kids. Like, no.

[Wheres Toto]

31 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Well, I've got a male with shaved legs, long hair, who wears make up and pinkety pink and NO! He doesn't get called a 'faggot', no-one in the family is suggesting he grows his body hair, and the males he sees up on billboards are a mixture of manly man, androgynous and fabuolous. So...idk. It seems to me that society is way more accepting of male 'trangression' than it is female.

I guess that's one difference.  I think in most of the US, women "non-conforming" is much more accepted than men "non-conforming".  

I live in the NYC metro-area and neither gets that much attention, but IME men are more likely to get negativity than women.   In fact, among younger dd and her friends being a "tom boy" is MUCH more accepted than being a "girly-girl".  It seems to be a matter of pride among her group to NOT dress frilly, wear makeup, do your nails, shave, etc.  

[Frances]

On 2/17/2019 at 12:53 PM, StellaM said:

 

Frances, I like you, and I say this not to be mean, but having the time to pick through things - not all moms have that. Having the time to go looking at shops out of the norm - not all moms can do that - they might not have transport, they might not have time. 

I did exactly what you did - but I was privileged to be able to do that - I had time. 

For the time poor, cash poor mom, whose options (here) are K Mart, Target and Big W (all cheaper stores widely accessible), why shouldn't they have an expectation that the store profiting from their need for children's clothing provides age appropriate clothes ?

 

On 2/17/2019 at 12:53 PM, StellaM said:

 

Frances, I like you, and I say this not to be mean, but having the time to pick through things - not all moms have that. Having the time to go looking at shops out of the norm - not all moms can do that - they might not have transport, they might not have time. 

I did exactly what you did - but I was privileged to be able to do that - I had time. 

For the time poor, cash poor mom, whose options (here) are K Mart, Target and Big W (all cheaper stores widely accessible), why shouldn't they have an expectation that the store profiting from their need for children's clothing provides age appropriate clothes ?

I would prefer that the big chain stores offer better stuff for girls. I’d also prefer that they take the stupid logos off just about all clothing. But if people keep buying it, what incentive do they have to change? And it’s not just time strapped, poor parents that are buying that crap. 

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Frances

[Wheres Toto]

52 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

My dd couldn't ever fit into the Target jeans in her size, because they make them too skinny, and she's always been a short curvy girl with hips. 

Every maxi dress I looked at this summer ('cos I like to cover my legs re said hairiness) was off the shoulder or spilit up the side. 

Another thing I've noticed is that Target and Kmart (might be different in the US) have flimsier materials. So the cheaper you have to shop, the less coverage you get. A K Mart  t-shirt on me clings and is sort of see through.

If I go to the more expensive stores, my options are far greater. But if I had to shop just at K Mart ? Good luck to me dressing 'modest'. Unless I dressed from the men's section, which is not designed for the female body.

 

I'm a very bottom heavy, curvy (on the bottom) size 16 who can't wear anything tight around my knees but want jeans that don't fall down all the time and I can find jeans at Target.  They carry a LOT of different sizes and styles.  I'm wondering if part of the difference is US versus Australia (I am right that you are in Australia?).  Maybe Target doesn't carry the same clothes there.  KMart doesn't even exist here anymore.

[Wheres Toto]

37 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Clearly not, because my DD buys most of her clothes at Target and she and her male friends wear virtually identical clothes.

Also, it should be noted that the description of "sexualized" clothes in one of those articles referred to jeans for little girls that had embroidery on the back pockets. This was deemed to be inappropriately sexualized because it would make people look at little girls' butts. That is beyond absurd. Do people really think that embroidery on the back of a child's pair of jeans is going to make grown men look at an 8 yr old and think "ooooo, dat ass"? Or that a little girl is going to look at those jeans and think "oh I want these, because people will look at my butt"? Anyone looking at an 8 yr old's butt, whether it has flowers on it or not, and thinking it looks sexy has their head screwed on wrong — and that goes for both pedophiles and the modesty-police who think embroidered jeans pockets = sexually enticing.

 

18 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Actually the women with their knickers in a twist are the ones who think jeans with embroidery on the back pockets are not "child appropriate" — and who for some strange reason were unable to locate all the plain jeans and solid-color tee shirts that those stores also sell.

 

I noticed that in the article too.   That and tops that "give the appearance" of having breasts, but didn't explain what that meant.  A v-neck?  Scoop neck?  Sweetheart necklines?   I know at least one person commented on the other article with the padded bras that she had girls who developed young and were more comfortable with the bit of padding between their buds and shirts.   I remember slight padding on training bras back when I was a kid so that's not anything new and I never thought about it meaning they were sexualized.

And Target does sell boys jeans with decorative elements.  Colored piping on the sides, designs on pockets, etc.  I'm also seeing a lot more pastel colors in mens/boys clothes these days.   

Do you think little girls only like things sparkly and frilly and "pretty" because they've been brain-washed to think that way?   I have one girl who always loved pink and frilly and sparkly, and one that prefers plain, subtle and detests pink.  I never had a problem finding clothes for either one of them.  

[Corraleno]

8 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Why do girls jeans need pink embroidery ? Because girl means 'like pretty' ? It's not morally shocking to see girls in embroidered jeans; it is quite undeniable that only the girls jeans are 'decorative' - why ? because being decorative is coded female ? Why ? Decoration makes biological sense at certain parts of the life cycle, but why do we encourage girls to be decorative ?

I've bought for girls, because I have girls. I am not an evangelical conservative (not that there's anything wrong with that) and absolutely, girls clothes from 6 up are different to boys clothes, and not just in fit. Why ?

These are interesting questions.

Calling 'prude' is a really lazy way of shutting down a conversation.

 

You just totally changed the argument on the "embroidered jeans" thing. The article you linked upthread explicitly objected to embroidered jeans because they attract attention to girl's butts. Now you're saying the problem is that there is any kind of decoration at all on girl's jeans? So again we're back to why should girls who want embroidery on their jeans, or anything else decorative, be allowed to have those choices? There are plain jeans and tee shirts available for girls who want plain clothes. And there are clothes with embroidery, or ruffles, or photos of puppies, or whatever, for girls who want those. Why is that a problem???

Why not ask why boys can't have more decoration and variety in their clothes instead of insisting that there's something wrong with decorative clothing for girls?

[EmseB]

Kind of a tangent, but arguably the coolest teacher in my high school had silver hair and very short close hair cut (almost shaved) and she got nothing but compliments for it. She was a frugal environmentalist and age did not dress flashy. Jeans and tshirts and sandals/clogs. She did nothing to make herself cool, but the kids thought she was awesome. This was the '90s and maybe growing up with teachers like her has made me think that the days of being oppressed by societal standards for female dress and style were/are over.

[Farrar]

12 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Why do girls jeans need pink embroidery ? Because girl means 'like pretty' ? It's not morally shocking to see girls in embroidered jeans; it is quite undeniable that only the girls jeans are 'decorative' - why ? because being decorative is coded female ? Why ? Decoration makes biological sense at certain parts of the life cycle, but why do we encourage girls to be decorative ?

I've bought for girls, because I have girls. I am not an evangelical conservative (not that there's anything wrong with that) and absolutely, girls clothes from 6 up are different to boys clothes, and not just in fit. Why ?

These are interesting questions.

Calling 'prude' is a really lazy way of shutting down a conversation.

They don't. And those are interesting questions. But also, my point is just that when people are complaining that there are zero options at Target, at least in the US, typically there are plain options. What I see is that a lot of the time, it's that people who are interested in "modest" clothes want to use it as a way to complain about how they don't think the non-plain options are "appropriate" and how they don't think there should be anything but the plain and most covering options.

The other things you're asking are not things I sought to even begin to address in my comment.

I never called you a prude here. Saying someone is calling you names when they're not is also a really lazy way of shutting down a conversation.

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

I was referring to the women in the article being called prudes, not myself. 

It's super that US Target is better. If it doesn't apply in your country, that's all you have to say. If pre pubescent clothing for boys and girls in the US is basically the same clothes, that's great.

If girl athletes wear the same style gear as boy athletes, great.

I don't know why you put modest in quote marks. 

Frankly, I don't think little kids clothing needs to be decorative. Mostly they just need play clothes that wear well.  I'm not sure that consumer choice should be the king here. Let's not give little girls the message that girl = decoration.

 

So girls (along with their mothers) should not get to choose their own clothes, because you don't think girls "need" more than plain, undecorated clothes? It's wrong for girls to want to wear decorative clothing, therefore their choices should be restricted for their own good? 

 

[Farrar]

I responded to a single point to agree with it in a narrow way with my own experience. And now I am the upholder of all the points that you don't like and must answer all the questions you feel deserve answers and am somehow responsible to respond to an article from two full pages ago in this thread. So confused right now. Seriously.

[moonflower]

girls jeans at Wal_mart (we don't have a target) are on average and in aggregate tighter and lower cut than boy's jeans at Wal-Mart, on average and in aggregate.

In fact, I don't know that you could always find a pair of girls jeans that are as loose as the looser boys jeans.  girls jeans more often have spandex for stretch, and they need it. (because they are too tight to wear otherwise).

Decoration doesn't bother me at any age, and I am quite willing to accept that females are more inclined naturally to self-decoration than males, at least in some societies. ETA: but there is some decoration whose purpose is to enhance physical features that are selected for biologically for the purpose of successful sexual reproduction (that is to say, they make you sexy).  Extending these decorations to clothing of girls who cannot and should not be sexually available is problematic, imo.

I am not inclined to think that 7 year olds girls are more inclined to tighter clothing than boys; that doesn't make sense to me.  Teenagers, sure, girls are biologically selected for in different ways from boys and so for girls in the looking for a reproductive mate stage, it makes sense (not saying they do this consciously, but the drive/behavior makes biological sense).  It doesn't make sense for a small child.

 

Also, I don't understand the point of the discussion about there being choices available for looser or non-sexualized girls clothing (or women's clothing, for that matter) if you jsut look.

I'm not talking about what choices people have if they look carefully.  I'm talking about what choices they make on the aggregate and what is advertised to them on the aggregate; if small girls' clothes are on average tighter and more revealing, and they definitely are, that says something.  To say it doesn't matter because you don't have to buy them misses the point.

Edited February 17, 2019 by moonflower

[moonflower]

8 hours ago, hshibley said:

 You keep reducing women’s motivation to a simple x=y. Some people run and do experience a runner’s high. Plenty of runners never do. This is something commonly discussed on running blogs. Many people exercise for a variety of reasons - prevent or reverse type 2 diabetes, prevent or mitigate deterioration due to muscle loss balance loss in old age, prevent osteoporosis, help mitigate hormonal swings in menopause. All of these reasons have been mentioned in exercise threads on this site. None of these reasons have anything to do with sexual attractiveness or men. Women are more complex that that. 

 

I am like 100% sure I said exactly this, and agreed with exactly this.  I think I even said, "I totally agree."

My question was how this applies to makeup and tight clothing.  What is the physical mechanism that makes people want to wear makeup and tight clothing?  It doesn't produce endorphins of itself (a person raised ferally on a deserted island isn't going to get endorphins from tight clothing, but they are going to get them from running).  It doesn't actually promote health, although it does sometimes simulate health (or at least youth, which correlates with health).  

 

[moonflower]

15 hours ago, moonflower said:

 

Ugh I had a great response to this and it just disappeared!  Bah! Fie!

It went something like:

I totally agree that there's a natural biological mechanism for people enjoying running, separate of social norms.  Exercise produces endorphins, right? I can believe that some people enjoy it for its own sake (not me! what I enjoy is cookies.)

I struggle to see what the biological mechanism is for wearing makeup or tighter clothing than men wear, unless it is a drive to appear more youthful or to enhance physical features that determine reproductive viability.  I get that it makes people feel good, of course  - but why do they feel good?  Does it just come out of the blue, poof! like that?  If so, why does the same thing or something similar feel good to so many different people in the same society (but more people of one class, women, than of another class, men)?  If there is a reason it feels good, what is the reason?  If the reason isn't biologically driven (that is to say, if it's not to enhance or suggest reproductive viability), and it doesn't have an innate mechanism (it doesn't produce endorphins in say someone living on a desert island who has never seen makeup or high heels before, in the way that running produces these endorphins), then surely it's possible and even likely that the good feeling is socially driven?

 

Yep!  bolded my response so it is clear that I agreed that running has lots of reasons people might do it that are separate of social pressure or reproductive drive.

[Jean in Newcastle]

People can’t be reduced to biological impulses. We are more complex than that. People wear makeup to hide flaws, to accentuate certain features, to be artistic, to make a statement...

Edited February 17, 2019 by Jean in Newcastle

[Corraleno]

So I looked at the Target Australia website, and there are in fact tons of plain, modest options for women: plain bootcut or straight leg jeans, wide-legged jeans, knee-length bermuda shorts, plain tee shirts, long-sleeved oxford-style button-down shirts, cardigans, long-sleeved dresses, long-sleeved zip-front one-piece swimsuits, board shorts, etc. I didn't see a single item of clothing in the girls's sections that I would consider sexualized or inappropriate, although apparently some people think leggings and short shorts are by definition too sexy for children (I disagree). But there were plain as well as decorative tops, sweatpants, hoodies, plain long-sleeved dresses, mid-length shorts, chinos, etc. There were lots of unicorns and rainbows and flowers, but that is what a lot of girls want, and there were plain options for girls that don't. The proportion of plain to decorated tee shirts was higher for boys, which is a bit different from what I generally see here in the States, where the ratio of plain to graphic tees is more even for both boys and girls.

The funniest thing, though, was this is the photo on the first page of the website: a man and woman wearing very unisex looking business suits, lol:

[Jean in Newcastle]

37 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes, people are subject to biological AND cultural influences.

And simple choices.  You know.  That they make.  Without being somehow tricked into it by their biology or the culture. 

[AmandaVT]

On 2/14/2019 at 10:08 PM, frogger said:

So I've learned a bit about sports here.

 

I don't have much to add, except for the fact that it really didn't make a pretty picture (actually had me somewhat laughing)  when someone's post had me envisioning a male in a female gymnast's leotard. 

 

Carry on.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, so someone may have posted this already - but, for your viewing pleasure @frogger  😂

 

 

[hshibley]

17 hours ago, moonflower said:

 

I totally agree that there's a natural biological mechanism for people enjoying running, separate of social norms.  Exercise produces endorphins, right? I can believe that some people enjoy it for its own sake (not me! what I enjoy is cookies.)

 You wrote that people run for the endorphin surge. I wrote that plenty of people never experience an endorphin surge and run for other long term goals. People are not defined by biology. 

(I’d multi quote if I knew how 🙄)

[maize]

29 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

And simple choices.  You know.  That they make.  Without being somehow tricked into it by their biology or the culture. 

 

Culture has a huge impact though on the choices people make. 

Tell me, what percentage of people in Tokyo are likely to eat tamales for lunch sometime this week? What percentage of people in El Paso are likely to eat onigiri? How many women in Seattle will put on a sari in the morning? How many women in London will put on the layered skirts and bowler hats common on the Bolivian Altiplano?

If everyone's choices of what to eat and what to wear were independent of culture a woman in Jamaica would be as likely to wear a sari as a woman in India, and I ought to be just as likely to opt for a bowler hat before going out as my Cholita friends.

Yes we make choices. But we make them within the context of broader social and cultural norms and expectations. Talking about elements that make up some of those cultural expectations does not negate the reality of individual choices.

[Corraleno]

4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

BTw, first page of girls 1-8 AU Target ? Pink, fluffy, tighter. 

First page of boys 1-8 ? No pink, no fluff, jeans are visibly looser.

First page girls 7-16 - lots of teen styles, shorter shorts, pink. Leggings and track pants which I know from experience are only good for skinny girls.

First page boys 7-16. Baggier pants, shirts.

Oh no, not PINK! That's horrible, those poor girls being forced to choose the pink shirts instead of the white or gray or navy ones that are also available. And we should definitely get rid of all those stretchy comfortable leggings and sweat pants and replace them with baggy non-stretchy cargo pants. For their own good.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Just now, maize said:

 

Culture has a huge impact though on the choices people make. 

Tell me, what percentage of people in Tokyo are likely to eat tamales for lunch sometime this week? What percentage of people in El Paso are likely to eat onigiri? How many women in Seattle will put on a sari in the morning? How many women in London will put on the layered skirts and bowler hats common on the Bolivian Altiplano?

If everyone's choices of what to eat and what to wear were independent of culture a woman in Jamaica would be as likely to wear a sari as a woman in India, and I ought to be just as likely to opt for a bowler hat before going out as my Cholita friends.

Yes we make choices. But we make them within the context of broader social and cultural norms and expectations. Talking about elements that make up some of those cultural expectations does not negate the reality of individual choices.

I am not discounting the fact that biology and culture makes an impact on people.  But I used the conjunction "and" on purpose.  Because it isn't just biology and culture.  I have a friend here in Seattle (not Indian) who indeed will often wear a sari and also shaves her head.  That's her choice.  She understands biology and culture.  She also makes choices because she uses her brain and her ingenuity and her personality etc. Fortunately we live in a time and place where she can do that.  I realize that that points to a culture change that allows for those choices but it doesn't negate the fact that those are choices. 

PS - you can indeed buy tamales in Tokyo. 

[maize]

Just now, Jean in Newcastle said:

I am not discounting the fact that biology and culture makes an impact on people.  But I used the conjunction "and" on purpose.  Because it isn't just biology and culture.  I have a friend here in Seattle (not Indian) who indeed will often wear a sari and also shaves her head.  That's her choice.  She understands biology and culture.  She also makes choices because she uses her brain and her ingenuity and her personality etc. Fortunately we live in a time and place where she can do that.  I realize that that points to a culture change that allows for those choices but it doesn't negate the fact that those are choices. 

PS - you can indeed buy tamales in Tokyo. 

And you can get onigiri in El Paso. Probably anyway, I haven't actually checked but a variety of international food options are available in most cities. 

My point was that culture absolutely influences which choices are common and which are not. Cultures can change, but humans are not ever going to become culture-less individuals making independent choices in a void.

I really could decide to get myself a bowler hat and wear it every day, but within the context of the culture I live in I would be making a very unusual choice.

[Corraleno]

20 minutes ago, maize said:

And you can get onigiri in El Paso. Probably anyway, I haven't actually checked but a variety of international food options are available in most cities. 

My point was that culture absolutely influences which choices are common and which are not. Cultures can change, but humans are not ever going to become culture-less individuals making independent choices in a void.

I really could decide to get myself a bowler hat and wear it every day, but within the context of the culture I live in I would be making a very unusual choice.

No one here has disagreed in any way with the above statement, so I'm not sure what your point is? Some choices are more commonly available than others, but less common choices can still be made.

Saying that form-fitting clothing is more available for women than for men doesn't mean that all women feel compelled to choose that, or that men can't choose the less available options. And in fact, looking at all the teens I know, the most common choices by far, for both boys and girls, are tight pants, loose oversized tops, and sneakers. I can't even remember the last time (if ever) I saw one of DD's male friends in baggy pants. Green or purple hair may be an uncommon choice in some parts of the country, but people can still choose it. I've even seen older men and women here with colored hair — and even beards. I see all kinds of interesting and unusual clothing choices, and no one really bats an eye. The attitude here is generally "you do you."

Edited February 18, 2019 by Corraleno

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

if they were comfy, that would be fine. 

They're not comfy for many girls. Having jeans and leggings with the extra room the boys clothes have would be comfy for those girls.

Sometimes they can buy from the boys section, but sometimes the boys clothes, cut differently because boys bodies are different, don't fit either.

You would have died in the 70's. All of us kids from progressive families were in dungarees. Baggy dungarees. Great for climbing, and playing in the mud. 

It's so weird to think dressing girls in pink is progress.

 

Believe it or not I survived the 70s just fine! I was in high school, college, and grad school in the 70s, and I wore a lot of denim overalls with flannel shirts and sneakers in high school, as well as short shorts and tank tops, and whatever else I wanted to. Sometimes I shaved and sometimes I didn't. Sometimes I wore all black and sometimes I wore bright pink or yellow. If we'd had leggings and yoga pants back then, I would have worn them all the time because they are way more comfortable to me than jeans.

It's so weird to think there's anything wrong with girls wearing pink or any other color they want. And even weirder to think that restricting girls' and women's clothing choices to dull colors and shapes that hide their bodies would be "progress."

[maize]

39 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

No one here has disagreed in any way with the above statement, so I'm not sure what your point is? Some choices are more commonly available than others, but less common choices can still be made.

Somehow there is a lot of misunderstanding and talking past each other on this thread. Whenever someone posts about cultural trends, someone seems to jump in with "but people can make choices not in line with those trends" as if that negates the significance of a trend.

If we were talking about racism as a cultural trend would you accept "but individuals can choose not to act in racist ways and I know this person who totally doesn't act racist so cultural racist tendencies don't matter and talking about them is judgmental" as a response?

 

ETA and no I am not equating racism and clothing choices. I'm trying to make a point about culture and why talking about culture is a totally different thing from talking about individual choices.

Edited February 18, 2019 by maize

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, maize said:

Somehow there is a lot of misunderstanding and talking past each other on this thread. Whenever someone posts about cultural trends, someone seems to jump in with "but people can make choices not in line with those trends" as if that negates the significance of a trend.

If we were talking about racism as a cultural trend would you accept "but individuals can choose not to act in racist ways and I know this person who totally doesn't act racist so cultural racist tendencies don't matter and talking about them is judgmental" as a response?

Racism is always bad, in every instance and in every context. There is no context in which racism is just one "choice" among several equally acceptable options. Do you really think that is a valid comparison to clothing choices?

I'm not being sarcastic, I literally do not comprehend how women choosing to dye their hair or wear yoga pants or tank tops parallels people choosing to hate other people on the basis of skin color???

[Garga]

9 minutes ago, maize said:

Whenever someone posts about cultural trends, someone seems to jump in with "but people can make choices not in line with those trends" as if that negates the significance of a trend.

ETA and no I am not equating racism and clothing choices. I'm trying to make a point about culture and why talking about culture is a totally different thing from talking about individual choices.

 

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

Racism is always bad, in every instance and in every context. There is no context in which racism is just one "choice" among several equally acceptable options. Do you really think that is a valid comparison to clothing choices?

I'm not being sarcastic, I literally do not comprehend how women choosing to dye their hair or wear yoga pants or tank tops parallels people choosing to hate other people on the basis of skin color???

 

Corraleno, you have just proven Maize's point. 

[Corraleno]

11 minutes ago, Garga said:

Corraleno, you have just proven Maize's point. 

Her edit wasn't there when I responded.

And I still don't understand the point of saying "it's like racism..." and then saying "no I don't mean it's like racism..."?

These are parallel statements: "Some white people think black people are inferior." "Some men think women are inferior."

These are not parallel statements: "Some white people think black people are inferior." "Some women like to wear form-fitting clothes and dye their hair and wear makeup."

Racism and misogyny are both wrong, always and in every context. Is the implication then that wearing fitted clothes and makeup is also wrong? What is the logic here in choosing racism as parallel to women's clothing choices?

[Frances]

On 2/17/2019 at 1:31 PM, StellaM said:

 

The shops near the bus depot I bet my bottom dollar are even worse. 

I think an incentive to change comes when people say 'Hey, we don't like this'! But when other women, feeling defensive,  mock them as prudes...well...that probably undercuts the impact somewhat.

\

No, actually they aren’t. I don’t know if you have them in Australia.

I wish people would just stopping buying the stuff. Market forces should eventually work.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Frances

[Corraleno]

Of course people's choices are influenced by the culture they live in. With specific reference to clothing, there are cultures where the only choice for women is to be covered literally from head to toe, with only eyes visible, while men have much greater freedom to wear what they want and expose more skin. There are (or have been) cultures like Maoist China where men and women's clothing options were basically limited to the same plain, basic, unisex uniform. In our culture, women have options that range from very fitted clothing that is overtly sexual and shows a lot of skin to totally covered up turtleneck sweaters and baggy pants or long skirts or even denim jumpers.  

I don't understand the logic behind the argument that women in our culture would be better off if they had fewer choices, and those choices were restricted to looser clothing that covered much more of the body. And that women should stop dyeing their hair and wearing makeup, since men don't do those things. I don't think that trying to make women hide their bodies and their sexuality and dress more like men is somehow empowering or liberating to women.

Literally no one is arguing that women's choices aren't influenced by the culture they live in. Some people seem to be arguing that if women would just examine those cultural influences, they would recognize that it's exploitive and objectifying and oppressive to women for them to wear clothes that are more fitted or show more skin than men. Then their eyes would be opened to the unarguable fact that dyeing hair and wearing makeup and wearing fitted clothing = advertising their sexual availability to men, and we would all stop shaving our legs and "wasting" money on makeup and start wearing plain trousers and high-necked baggy shirts and flat shoes, so we wouldn't be ogled and objectified by men.

Some people just don't seem to be able to accept that it's possible to understand that argument, to recognize the influence of Western culture on our clothing choices, and still think it's fine to for women to have a full range of choices, and to wear what they want, wear makeup, dye their hair, etc.,  without feeling like they're the passive, unwitting victims of male exploitation and objectification.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Corraleno

[maize]

47 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Of course people's choices are influenced by the culture they live in. With specific reference to clothing, there are cultures where the only choice for women is to be covered literally from head to toe, with only eyes visible, while men have much greater freedom to wear what they want and expose more skin. There are (or have been) cultures like Maoist China where men and women's clothing options were basically limited to the same plain, basic, unisex uniform. In our culture, women have options that range from very fitted clothing that is overtly sexual and shows a lot of skin to totally covered up turtleneck sweaters and baggy pants or long skirts or even denim jumpers.  

I don't understand the logic behind the argument that women in our culture would be better off if they had fewer choices, and those choices were restricted to looser clothing that covered much more of the body. And that women should stop dyeing their hair and wearing makeup, since men don't do those things. I don't think that trying to make women hide their bodies and their sexuality and dress more like men is somehow empowering or liberating to women.

Literally no one is arguing that women's choices aren't influenced by the culture they live in. Some people seem to be arguing that if women would just examine those cultural influences, they would recognize that it's exploitive and objectifying and oppressive to women for them to wear clothes that are more fitted or show more skin than men. Then their eyes would be opened to the unarguable fact that dyeing hair and wearing makeup and wearing fitted clothing = advertising their sexual availability to men, and we would all stop shaving our legs and "wasting" money on makeup and start wearing plain trousers and high-necked baggy shirts and flat shoes, so we wouldn't be ogled and objectified by men.

Some people just don't seem to be able to accept that it's possible to understand that argument, to recognize the influence of Western culture on our clothing choices, and still think it's fine to for women to have a full range of choices, and to wear what they want, wear makeup, dye their hair, etc.,  without feeling like they're the passive, unwitting victims of male exploitation and objectification.

Who exactly is saying women should have fewer choices?

[maize]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

 

I wish people would just stopping buying the stuff. Market forces should eventually work.

Well there's this whole marketing thing that tells us what we should buy...