Feminism and fashion

Why not? Just finished an essay by Ursula K. Le Guin musing on the terrible things women do to their feet. I am blessed with having feet that have always given me extreme pain when forced into fashionable shoes.

On a different note, I like this trend: Brides Say Yes to the Pants http://nyti.ms/209SwIw

But i wonder why they still feel they have to wear white, unless it's just to stand out. The first time I got married, I wore a beautiful black linen sundress. That one didn't last. The marriage, not the dress. The second time I wore a long jacket over a tank top and skirt but opted for cream and blush. It took me a long time to find something I liked and I would have gone with a color if I had found something that I felt really represented me. I didn't consider pants, though, although the two bridesmaids wore black and one chose a pant suit.

When my brother was married it was on Halloween so everyone was in costume. She dressed in this long flowing blue-green thing that was the ocean. My brother was a pirate.

I wore a teal dress, but then nothing about our wedding was standard lol, we were alone, in Italy. :P I think the white bride's dress is just kind of tradition now, I don't think nearly anyone these days really thinks of "pure virgin white" about their dress, lol.

I wear zero drop shoes, discovered them a few years ago and never looked back. I've never found heels comfortable so I very very rarely wore them, but I am short (not that I mind it, but) and on occasion I'd see ones I thought were cute and decently priced so I'd get them, but I'd wind up wearing them like half a dozen times maybe so yeah. Comfort is what I cared about. And then I learned that even regular shoes are still awful for feet because they all have a heel, even if it's not a giant spiky heel, and they have thick inflexible soles. Our feet/bodies were not made for such things, it really messes with us, and makes us walk very unnaturally. I will never wear those kind of shoes again, and any random person who cares about what I put on my feet? Too bad for them.

>3 .Monkey.: I am always looking for shoes that will be kind to my feet. Do you have any brands you recommend?

I agree about the white dress. At least you can be reasonably sure no one else will wear white.

Although I would never pay so much money for something I'd only wear once. White is not my color.

>2 southernbooklady: I love the idea of getting married in costume.

My husband and I got married in my mother's living room wearing stuff we already owned. Mine outfit wasn't white either. I don't understand the whole "bride" thing and never wanted to be one in that sense of spectacle. My ego is fine, I don't need that kind of "validation", and I certainly don't need to be the center of attention. I consider the decision to marry a pretty private one, anniversaries, too, so low key was the way to go.

As far as shoes go, something interesting happened when I started to go basically barefoot for years (not working and then working from home allowed me to do this) or wearing 0 drop shoes; my feet are stronger and more flexible and so high heels don't bother me like they used to. Granted, I don't wear them a whole lot, but I have a few pairs that I like in summer. I can walk in them for hours and I'm fine. When I wore shoes all the time, heels hurt.

>4 sturlington: The pair I've been wearing for a few years now is Merrell Vibram, if I recall, the original "Pace Glove" (there's v2 & v3 since, at last check). The Merrell Vibram Barefoot line is good stuff, my husband has the guy ones, "Trail Glove" I think it was, and a different even thinner one as well. Also http://www.vivobarefoot.com/ has nice things. And if you like truly bare feet, http://xeroshoes.com/ is the way to go. Their DIY pair was my husband's favorite ever, though he seems to have moved on to the newer non-DIY version instead these days, he wears them like 75% of the year. ;P

>5 Bookmarque: Yeah, the idea of a whole big to-do for a wedding was kind of quite anxiety filled for me, I was quite happy things turned out the way they did with no fuss! :D

What Freedom Looks Like

On the surface, the argument is about the trend — call it that — among a growing number of fashion brands to offer Islamic, or “modest” collections.

As long as Dolce & Gabbana don't drop everything else for the abayas, who cares? If DKNY and Chanel are already selling coveralls in the Middle East, why wouldn't they offer them in the West too?

But there's that word again, "modest". I don't care what other women wear as long as they are not thereby issuing a moral judgement on what I'm wearing. If your getup is "modest" and mine by your lights is the opposite of modesty (not a good thing, obviously), then you need to find another, non-inflammatory term to describe yours. Why can't "islamic" do?

Isn't there a disconnect in the concept of "modest" fashion? Fashion is designed to be noticed -- it's raison d'etre is to make a statement. That seems inherently antithetical to "modesty" -- in any of its shades of meaning -- to me.

>8 southernbooklady:

Religious clothing and symbols also make a statement. I think what's problematic is when it goes beyond "look here, I belong to this or that cult" to the "and you're a sinner/you'll burn in hell because you don't" implication when moral judgements such as "modest/not modest" are appended to dress. It's really hard to divorce insistence on "modesty" from slut-shaming. The more so when so much of that insistence IS about slut-shaming.

>9 LolaWalser: I think what's problematic is when it goes beyond "look here, I belong to this or that cult" to the "and you're a sinner/you'll burn in hell because you don't" implication when ethical judgements such as "modest/not modest" are appended to dress.

I don't disagree, but fashion as an industry is driven by the pursuit of "style," whatever that means. It's an individualistic, outward-focused, of-this-world pursuit. It leans towards non-conformity. And it appeals to vanity.

The point of religious dress is to take that pursuit off the table completely. So the notion of, say, an "Amish line" of dresses seems like an oxymoron. An "Islamic line" of clothes carries the same kind of weirdness to me.

But all that is beside your point, and yes, the last thing we need is a bunch of prurient people bitching at women whose skirts stop above the knees.

>10 southernbooklady:

The point of religious dress is to take that pursuit off the table completely. So the notion of, say, an "Amish line" of dresses seems like an oxymoron. An "Islamic line" of clothes carries the same kind of weirdness to me.

I agree, that's an excellent point. It's a "let's be vain without vanity" project.

Religious hypocrisy.

I'm putting this in the fashion thread because I think this is a fashion. First women are pressured to remove all pubic hair, now to get surgery to change the appearance of their labia. Where does this pressure come from? The article does not mention the normalization of pornography but I think that's a likely culprit. Still, this is yet another form of a very old obsession with conforming women's bodies to meet some sort of societal ideal without regard for the harm and pain it causes the woman. As Ursula K Le Guin compared modern footwear to footbinding, this can be compared to female genital mutilation.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/increase-in-teenage-genital-surgery-pro...

Ugh. I just really don't even have any words for this kind of crap.

Ugh indeed. To think I was shocked when a friend said her ten-year-old was fussing about her "horrible" "hairy" legs and wanted to start shaving...

*sigh* I know I was in the upper years of elementary school when some girls first started talking about it and whether they did/ought to start and whatnot. I'm not sure when I started. All I know is I always hated it with a passion, and quit doing it several years ago. My mother, of course, is horrified, but fortunately for all, she lives on another continent and is only with me 2 wks of the year. My husband, thankfully, couldn't give a crap, as they're not his legs and it's not his time spent fussing over it.

Oh god, that whole site! *cringes and runs*

I went to high school with him. He was my class's prom/homecoming king.

Ewwww. I hate shopping and my husband guilts me into going with him and helping him pick clothes. I guess he isn't an alpha male. On the plus side, he doesn't wear the docker-polo uniform anymore.

That's obviously because you only think of yourself.

Well, of course. I'm the one who has to look at him. :-)

As for Dolce & Gabbana and the other companies who have included more modest fashions among their offerings, cheers to them. Clothing companies that actually take note of what customers want--a step forward for everyone.

You would think that merchants who sell clothing would try to please customers, wouldn't you? There are many women who want dresses with sleeves, but apparently, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, some designers have decided that sleeves are frumpy! Also, where are the running shorts and workout pants with functional pockets? Women want pockets, and we get catalogues (for example, Norm Thompson), bragging about the "clean lines" of their pocketless pants. Well, no pockets, no purchase.

>5 Bookmarque:, you mentioned people "bitching" at women with above-the-knee hemlines. Would it surprise you to know that I have been scolded by strangers on the street for wearing ankle-length skirts? Would it surprise you to know that I spent a miserable year in elementary school being taunted by brainless bullies because at the age of twelve I wasn't yet wearing makeup and short skirts and heels. These girls (they were all female) were wearing heavy makeup and false eyelashes, nylon stockings and heels, and skirts as short as they could get away with, to elementary school. They really did look as though they were trying out for the Junior Hookers Association (or Juvenile Hall at least). And maybe you won't be surprised to learn that some of them weren't around for high school graduation.

> 12 As for the elective genital mutilation you mention, I feel that it should be outlawed as a criminal waste of medical resources. Talk about brainless. Yes, I do think that young women who worry about the shape of their private parts are brainless.

>22 orsolina: Searching for pants with pockets that don't fit like sausage casings or make me look like I'm preparing for a flood has been my full-time occupation recently.

>22 orsolina: Would it surprise you to know that I have been scolded by strangers on the street for wearing ankle-length skirts? Would it surprise you to know that I spent a miserable year in elementary school being taunted by brainless bullies because at the age of twelve I wasn't yet wearing makeup and short skirts and heels. These girls (they were all female) were wearing heavy makeup and false eyelashes, nylon stockings and heels, and skirts as short as they could get away with, to elementary school.

Right. Boys can wear almost anything they want and no one gives them any crap, but girls can't wear anything they want without someone bitching at them for not dressing the way they should. Fashion seems to be an industry dedicated to the idea that women will never be able to look the way they should while at the same time putting them down for it.

>23 sturlington: Try L.L.Bean. They offer a variety of styles, inseam lengths, and sizes, and since many of their products are geared toward active pursuits, their jeans, twills, and corduroys wear well and have good pockets. Also, their customer service people are generally really helpful.

My sister wears relaxed-fit Levi's with a lower rise than I will wear. So that's another option if you're looking for jeans. And I'll bet you can find other brands that offer a relaxed fit.

>24 southernbooklady: I work at a great university and very seldom (if ever) encounter such problems. I haven't paid any attention to popular "culture" for decades. And it does make a difference, when one does meet with the kind of treatment I got from those "mean girls" (who also taunted me for liking classical music, books, and sports), if one has no respect for the losers who are dishing it out.

I think body-shaming fits with this topic...

London Mayor Cracks Down on Ads Promoting Unhealthy Body Image

An estimated 12,000 ads appear annually in London’s transport network, and Mr. Khan was following through on a campaign pledge in imposing restrictions on them.

Transport for London said in a statement that it would not allow ads that “could reasonably be seen as likely to cause pressure to conform to an unrealistic or unhealthy body shape, or as likely to create body-confidence issues, particularly among young people.”

Graeme Craig, the agency’s commercial development director, said the new rules were necessary because passengers were a captive audience.

>26 LolaWalser:

I was wondering what the response of this group would be to that.

Well, I don't know about this group, but it's notable critics are saying it's a Muslim's ploy to get nudity and women off posters... :)

I like nudity and I think there should be more of it in public--but it has to be equal opportunity, not just nubile women. Venuses and Davids 50-50, and hold the fig leaves.

That said, ads promoting anorexic looks and those with demeaning or threatening messages are poison. Or maybe all ads are poison. Yeah, I'll go with that.

>28 LolaWalser: Yeah, how about less ads in general? They are all visual pollution, as far as I'm concerned.

>29 sturlington:

True. I always feel ambivalent saying this because in one way it correlates with poverty, but the sight of the panorama of Havana a few years ago, without a single sign screaming at you--just the architecture in the lilac sky--is one of the most beautiful things I ever saw.

>24 southernbooklady:

Boys can wear almost anything they want and no one gives them any crap

Times have changed. When I was in high school, one of the male teachers thought it his duty to stand in the hallways and remonstrate with any boy who did not have his shirt tucked into his pants.

>31 lilithcat: But still they have not changed that much. Boys cannot wear feminine clothes without getting crap. They cannot wear pink or sparkles. (I see this all the time with a friend's son--his father is very threatened when his son wants to wear anything that his sisters like.) They cannot wear skirts or dresses.

How about ads that reflect a variety of ages, genders and shapes? Sure, it'd mean that it wouldn't all be eye candy, but it would mean that we wouldn't be conditioned to think that the only acceptable bodies are twenty and of a certain shape.

>33 RidgewayGirl: I really love the few ads I've seen that have had inclusive groups, it's quite a nice change and I wish more would do it.

>34 .Monkey.: And it might help to de-condition all of us from feeling uncomfortable whenever someone who has a less than perfect body puts on a swimsuit. Which is pretty much everyone who doesn't get photoshopped as they go about their lives.

Indeed. And not just that, but leggings and other form-fitting clothing, too.

I'm posting this in recently active threads, so apologies for the non sequitur:

Vote on the group TOS:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/224406#5618895
http://www.librarything.com/topic/224406#5619215

Getting older? Have a child? Just don't want to bother anymore? God forbid you get the dreaded mom hair! Mom Hair: It Exists. Now What to Do About It. http://nyti.ms/28LZza9

An actual quote from the actual New York Times:

"It's not just your hair that's changing. Your body is, too. You might not be at the weight you really want to be yet. And the truth is, long hair can be a little bit of a distraction. When you go short, you are more exposed. There's less, literally, to hide behind."

>38 sturlington: That made me want to throw up. The next in a long line of fake trend pieces about women in NYT. Remember the one about how "so many" Ivy League women are opting out of the workforce to be stay-at-home mothers? It was clearly a case of the writer knowing ONE person in their UWS circle who had a daughter who did this and voila, Important Trend Piece About Women.

Isn't that just breathtakingly stupid? I've had short hair since I was ten, I have NEVER felt bad about my body (with the exception of a couple of early adolescent years at the same time I had let my hair "grow out"), and I'm not a mom (not by choice, by circumstance). I've seen this nonsense about how short hair is "aging"--I looked ten years older (and a bit heavier, too) when I grew it for a short time several years ago. What's really aging on a middle-aged or older woman is long loose hair. I don't feel "exposed" with short hair, I feel younger, more attractive, and even smarter! And it's great for swimming and other sports.

The whole "mom jean" concept is stupid, too. As far as I can tell, mom jeans are jeans that actually fit, that have functional pockets, and that have a waistband that sits AT THE WAIST. In other words, the only sort of jeans that I would ever consider wearing at any age. I sometimes see women wearing jeans so tight they actually have trouble walking in them. Guess those are not "mom jeans."

>24 southernbooklady: Boys can wear almost anything they want and no one gives them any crap

I just saw this and have to say that I think it's completely, utterly wrong. Boys, starting around age 4, are forced to become super-sensitive about their appearance — particularly that they appear in no way whatsoever girlish — if they are to avoid ostracism.

To watch, as a high school teacher, what happens to any boy who dares to dress outside the style of some identifiable and acceptable male category is to watch a painful tragedy unfold before you.

>41 librorumamans: particularly that they appear in no way whatsoever girlish

Isn't it telling that the worst thing a boy can do is dress like a girl.

>42 southernbooklady: Oh yes, absolutely. Or, worse, be like a girl — whatever that may mean in a time or place: to use your body to be creative, to show sensitivity, to respond visibly or audibly to beauty, to create beauty ... the list goes on and on.

Girls of all ages will want this “paper doll” set:

http://www.librarything.com/work/28620926

A glimpse inside:

Unless they're Native American, in which case they'll probably want to burn them.

https://thewire.in/world/ruth-bader-ginsburg-sherrill-v-oneida