Not the whorification of ladyhood! Anything but that!
Published by Kyso Kisaen November 21st, 2007 in Culture, Douchebag on Feminism, For the ladies, HUH!?, Historical Wankery, Sex, WankersVia Echidine & Pam, another undergrad guy lets us know what boys want, and that’s a good thing because most of us would never have guessed that the boys want us to set things up so that they may have more opportunities to act on their own Elizabeth & Mr. Darcy fantasies. Turns out, girls in boys clothes are icky, just like boys are!
Also, the Architect from the Matrix is currently residing in Texas, where he majors in history.
Dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world. Such has been the case since the western man adopted pants to replace the tunic in the sixth century (an aspect of the West’s Germanic barbarian heritage).
Women, the more refined sex, kept the tunic-reminder of our barbarian heritage and unlike men, made it look good. Obviously. Or maybe the whole sixth century was an aspect of our barbarian heritage.
Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs.
Without the dress, we’d be shitting indiscriminately in any hole we could find, which is not terribly ladylike. This is the actual second sentence of the whole essay. Pause for a second to let that sink in, because it’s only gonna get better.
Dresses are the indelible image of womanhood because of the symbolic nature of pants and dresses. If all fashions are symbolic, dresses in particular symbolize womanhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true lady, the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility. These defining aspects of womanhood are immutable.
So the immutable defining aspects of womanhood are defined by what some guys say they are defined by (objectively, by the by, by definition because they’re MEN, and are in complete agreement with each other on this topic), and dresses symbolize this immutably, because if there is anything more carved in stone than an actual stone carving, it’s fashion. Ever go to a fashion museum? Boring as all hell - nothing’s changed in like 500 years, just a bunch of tops with skirts attached to them.
It goes without saying that when women as a whole stopped being living statues devoted to walking around symbolizing passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love (!!!?!), piety and fertility, we failed as a gender. Because, really, what the hell else are we supposed to be doing? When our men come home after a hard day of wearing pants, striking masculine poses with props like axes or shotguns, and gazing heroically into the future, don’t they deserve to rest their eyes on a beautiful woman, floating around the house in an ankle-length dress that camouflages her boring mortal legs actually working? I think we all know the answer to that.
The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women.
Well, maybe, in the sense of we’ve always had penises and vaginas and have found that of all the wonderful ways to make these naughty bits happy bits, penis-in-vagina has been a consistently great way to do so, plus it results in kids, which is an excellent reason for struggling population-thin groups to codify it as the best, nay, the mostest mandatory way to get our bits off. How we convince members of the opposite sex to do dirty dirty things with us is a bit more elastic, but don’t let that stop you…
What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of femininity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period.
…from making a complete ass of yourself.
What’s not sexy is feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the “new woman.”
Actually, we were only directly responsible for Bloomers, which never really caught on. If I had to lay actual blame for pants on something that has happened in or around the sexual revolution, or what some people call “feminism”, then I’d go just a scoach farther back and blame, you know, WWII. Rosie was not riveting in a skirt, after all. Fun Fact: when Dior came out with the post-war New Look, a glamorous fashion line that become the iconic 50’s look that our history-challenged sexists love so much, women who participated in this sexy, ultra-feminine fashion, especially European women, were harshly criticized. Why, you ask? Because it turns out that being a floating, elegant paragon of femininity is incredibly wasteful. We’re talking scads and scads and scads of cloth required to erase all traces of yucky mortal masculinity. In fact, at lunch I was at the library trying to find a book that would tell me how to do my hair in 40’s style and a vintage dress book had the following anecdote: Dior’s glam look was so controversial in a war-torn Europe that when he tried to stage a fashion show in a public square, ordinary women took time out of waiting in the food lines to rip the outfits right off the model’s backs. Other women, however, used whatever cloth they could get their hands on to make those damned flouncy skirts, including the cloth that had previously covered their windows during air raids.
Like all fashions, pants are symbolic of something - in this case masculinity - through their allowance of physical activity. Dresses, the antithesis of pants, symbolize femininity through grace and elegance. Men find elegance in women to be attractive, and dresses are a physical manifestation of femininity. The wearing of pants by women represents the masculinization of the fairer sex, which is not at all attractive.
It’s really hard not to give this a reading that says: Men like it better when women can’t move. And it’s true that if you compare say, me to that statue of Venus, she is way more elegant. But in my defense, I have to eat and she doesn’t and men really spent a long time making the trading-looks-for-food gambit a really bad idea, so I’m going to just have to put on my pants and go to my job, as unsexy as that may be.
The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood. In discarding feminine dress, women seem to have symbolically discarded femininity and modesty (the virtues of women) in favor of sexual virility, promiscuity and immodesty (the vices of men).
I appreciate the compliment, but it’s really drafty up here on this pedestal and the wind is blowing right up my petticoats. I hate to break this one to you, kid, but you can’t hold half the population accountable for making you feel better about the flaws of your own half. Some men like the sex and the violence, but then so do some women. Some women like the home and the kids, but so do some men. It is simply not the responsibility of women to return to wearing corsets and bustles to remind men that they shouldn’t run around being boozy sexhounds. We tried that method all ready and it didn’t work and women routinely got shafted by it. We won’t be doing that one again. So stop asking.
The ideal form of a true lady is a constant, immutable aspect of humanity, and this strange new development can only represent a bizarre aberration of a perverse and ignoble culture. Dresses are an essential part of any true lady’s attire, and they should be worn.
Sounds to me like someone is just pissed off because he can’t wear a monocle in a room full of women in halter tops and jeans. Sorry dude, but the 1850’s are over. Put away the watch on a chain and the cravat until next halloween. We are not your supporting cast.
Because no feminist has ever worn a dress, ever. The two are completely incompatible and never the twain shall meet. *looks in mirror* Oh, crap… never mind.
This guy has got to be the most square, insufferable white dude ever. Wow. His writing comes off as stuffy, forced, and pseudo-intellectual, and is almost as bad as his opinions on “femininity.” He can use big words and talk like Jane Austen characters! Golly gee, I’m impressed, let me throw on a peasant skirt and bat my eyelashes for him right now!
Good luck with the casual sex, dude. No really, cause you won’t be having any.
“What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of femininity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period.”
Ummm, let’s see: Marilyn Monroe vs. Elizabeth Taylor vs. Katharine Hepburn, America Ferreira vs. Thandy Newton vs. Lucy Liu vs. Aishwarya Rai, vs. Jennifer Lopez (etc., 1000 times over…)
Yup, no differences between any of those fine ladies…
Wait, so they don’t make cleanroom suits with skirt attachments so you can look ladylike whilst toiling away in the name of science? I’m shocked.
“Wait, so they don’t make cleanroom suits with skirt attachments so you can look ladylike whilst toiling away in the name of science? I’m shocked.”
Actually, the solution in Ryan Haecker’s world is much simpler. He thinks Kyso and all other “ladies” need to stay at home, raising freckled, tow-headed children, and preparing tasty, nutritious, and economical meals for their hardworking husbands.
Remember, “Like all fashions, pants are symbolic of something - in this case masculinity - through their allowance of physical activity.” See, women do not perform “physical activity” (except to give birth - over and over again).
No pants, no cleanroom, no career, no jostling for dominance in marriage.
Now, isn’t that better? (…wearing best Stepford Wives smile…)
How many times does he have to say “immutable”? Seriously. Get some real diction and syntax, dude.
The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible
It’s true because he says it is, goddammit. Now take off that dress, open your legs, tell him how big he is, and fucking have an orgasm before he slaps you in the mouth.
Man, don’t you wish feminists would stop killing the concept of sexy?
Wow, he managed to generalise from his own preferences to half of mankind without a touch of awareness. Even though we’ve all seen it before, I’m still impressed in a dismayed kind of way.
The ideal form of a true lady is a constant, immutable aspect of humanity
That word…it does not mean what you think it means.
If dresses and femininity and the womanly form are immutable, you wouldn’t have to scold us into compliance!
“If dresses and femininity and the womanly form are immutable, you wouldn’t have to scold us into compliance!”
To be fair, Shira, logic is really not a strongpoint for the kind of guy who says stupid things like “The ideal form of a true lady is a constant, immutable aspect of humanity”.
He may have even had to get somebody else to write it for him…
So… if I wear pants and a skirt at the same time that means what? Or is that sort of like being a bearded lady?
Just out of curiosity, am I the only one who finds the term “lady” to be vaguely offensive? I just associate it with people trying to make women “behave”.
I think he cribbed this from one of the kazillion articles, from the early part of the twentieth century, that men wrote whinging about women cutting off their hair.
OMG!!! Short hair and pants!!!whatever shall they do, they won’t know who to mug.
I love the bit where he says that all dresses are more modest than all pants. Maybe he’s assuming we don’t wear anything above the pants? That’s the only way I can make sense of that line. We can forgive him the mistake, because he’s clearly never met a woman in his entire life.
In addition to all the other reasons this guy’s ridiculous, any potential historian who uses terms like indelible, objective and immutable should be forced to take remedial classes until they get the whole “change over time” thing.
Not to mention getting a cross-cultural history class or two in…
Thene, don’t you understand that other cultures are dangerous? They have “other” ideas, and “other” ways of seeing the world. No good American should or would tolerate that.
I’m sure Ryan Haecker wants very badly for all other cultures to “go away” - with extreme prejudice, if you know what I mean…
So… if I wear pants and a skirt at the same time that means what?
Woah, that’s just madness! Also, there’s no such things as kilts and Catholic priests and I believe some Buddhist monks are totally cross-dressers.
I agree this is creepy coming from a history major, but then there’s always one in every department I guess. My school had a history major write a column for the school paper, and his whole semester was themed “history is written by the victors for a reason, and anything that suggests there’s more to it is shameful revisionism.” I guess if the peer-reviewed journals and conferences won’t take your stuff, the collegiate press will take pretty much anyone.
This guy is a complete tool, though. Have you ever seen women working in dresses in a situation where pants are more practical? Bunching up the skirt between your knees = not elegant. The sheer quantities of foundation garments required to pull of the most diaphanous and feminine looks? Not comfortable, practical, or cheap. The luxury of running around perfectly gowned and coiffed all day? Not attainable for most of us peasants.
And that’s not even mentioning the disadvantage you put a whole group in when you artificially constrict their physical freedom because it’s pretty or more noble or whatever crap he’s fantasizing. Remember the last tsunami? More women than men died because their modest robes bogged them down, and they were too modest to ditch the clothes and keep running. Sure, 99.99% of the time agility-crippling clothes won’t actually kill you, but it’s still unconscionable to make it that much harder for 50% of the population to evacuate the burning building just so that you can continue projecting your princess fantasies on them. Hell, how long would high heels last if there was no such thing as the elevator?
The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood.
WHAT.
JUST. WHAT.
I love how men like that wield, “Do this or I won’t want to fuck you” as a threat. To me, it’s a win-win situation. So some crazy misogynist finds me unattractive because I wear pants. At what point am I supposed to treat “not being approached for sexual purposes by a horrible person who thinks I’m inferior to him” as anything but a joy and a pleasure? I mean, I hear, “Do this and I won’t find you attractive,” and all I hear is all the more reason to do that.
Remember the last tsunami? More women than men died because their modest robes bogged them down, and they were too modest to ditch the clothes and keep running.
Feature, not a bug, methinks.
WHAT.
JUST. WHAT.
I’m reminded of the Dilbert cartoon in which two engineers are assigned to review a marketing publication for accuracy. Wally hands the copy back to her saying “I’ve circled all the words you won’t find in any dictionary.”
This guy also parallels the nice guy whose column lectured his female friend on how women have no one to blame but their vulgar selves if men are pigs, before hinting that he’d make a great boyfriend.
The obliviousness is so astonishing it’s almost adorable.
I took the liberty of looking up his myspace page: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=78247346
Gosh! I wonder just why he’s so bitter about women!
Wow. , Miss Robyn. Just…wow. I’m a little disturbed at how close I came to not being kidding about the monocle thing. Dude, it was supposed to be a joke.
That guy’s profile may well be the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time! He should join the cast of SNL or something, or at least start writing for the Onion! I just can’t stop laughing! It’s fantastic!
Wait, he’s serious?
No, no he’s not.
No, this is the part where you tell me that he’s not serious.
Do you mean to tell me that he actually used the word whorification (or unword I suppose) SERIOUSLY?
*weeps for humanity*
Eeek, and one of his top friends is someoone calling themselves “the protector of italian virgiinity.”
it’s amazing the bitterness and anger…
sorry ladies…but ask any real man - he prefers feminine women
and skirts/dresses are part of the equation
i fear so many younger women have no idea of how to be feminine -
don’t worry, you can learn (and unlearn your feminist brainwashing)
start by wearing skirts/dresses more than your jeans
You are not all men. You don’t speak for me, so please stop assuming you do.
I had no idea I was depriving fred of the chance to leer at me. I will commence showing (a properly modest amount of shaved) leg immediately.
With the 70s and 80s back in style, I just loving vintage clothing from the thrift shops. You can find designers like Chanel and Armani for cheap there.
Most guys I know don’t care about dresses or skirts. I actively dislike them; you can’t *do* so many things in them without getting them damaged, scratching the hell out of your legs or worse, plus my impression is that they do a piss-poor job of keeping you warm, and worse, they’d be much more prone to getting caught in machinery (I suspect my three year old daughter’s present fondness for dresses as everyday wear won’t survive these discoveries). In fact, the only thing I can think of that dresses and skirts are better for than pants are discrete quickies. Am I missing anything?
I submit that if being “feminine” (whatever the hell that means) is incompatible with wearing practical clothes and doing active jobs, let it be forgotten. It’ll be missed about as much as smallpox.
Am I missing anything?
They’re better for squatting on the ground and taking a piss, which is especially useful since toilets haven’t been invented yet.
They’re better for squatting on the ground and taking a piss, which is especially useful since toilets haven’t been invented yet.
Delicate and feminine! That image is almost ethereal.
Are they cooler in the summer?
I found skirts to be more comfortable in a humid office, but the kinds of skirts that are most comfortable (long & loose) are also the least practical for some of the situations I find myself in at work, and they’re not ‘professional’ if your office has a restrictive dress code.
A tailored skirt can be just as uncomfortable as pants in the summer. Skirts can also be pretty warm, but that involves leggings or layering; again, possibly less practical/professional than pants that do the same job, even if you can score for comfort. YMMV.