quote:Originally posted by London: But isn't that why women never achieve anything / there are no female geniuses etc (delete as appropriate): because they're planning stupid shit like what to wear on Christmas Day and whether that slate-grey/ moss green shrug will accentuate or detract from the silkysmooth-whisperline of hairs above their upper lips?
Today I am wearing: knuckle dusters and a snarl of derision.
Do you write for the Daily Mail London or are you labouring under the delusion that you're being cute and ironic? Either way - feel free to kiss my very pointy kick-arse boots.
Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Today I am wearing: knuckle dusters and a snarl of derision.
Do you write for the Daily Mail London or are you labouring under the delusion that you're being cute and ironic? Either way - feel free to kiss my very pointy kick-arse boots.
Well, what aspect of what I'm saying don't you agree with? Are you arguing that women have made scientific or artistic acheivements on as considerable a scale as men? Are you arguing that focusing on such transient fripperies as what to wear on Christmas day is as valid an achievement as, I don't know, the discovery of penicillin? Or simply that an interest in fashion needn't preclude one from an equal interest in politics, and to assume that it does is part of the traditional downgrading of anything traditionally associated with 'the feminine'? What's got your goat, lady?
posted
I've never been paid £2 a word by the Mail. That can't be their standard freelance rate. I don't think I got anywhere near half that.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
From reading the Bill Brydon science book it is painfully obvious that women haven't made scientific acheivements on as considerable a scale as men for the simple reason that, for an awfully long time, they simply weren't allowed to.
posted
Oh, on Saturday (Sunday?) I came across reruns of the now incredibly dated and ponderous Dawson's Creek on Five, in which some alpha--girl postulated that women were so obssessed with fashion because they were essentially insecure and desperate for acceptance.
Posts: 1583
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by London: Incidentally, the Mail do pay two pounds a word.
Don't get excited, chickens. The two pound figure is probably granted only for long words like antidisestablishmentarianism, floccinaucinihilipilification or honorificabilitudinitatibus.
quote:Originally posted by London: Well, what aspect of what I'm saying don't you agree with? Are you arguing that women have made scientific or artistic acheivements on as considerable a scale as men? Are you arguing that focusing on such transient fripperies as what to wear on Christmas day is as valid an achievement as, I don't know, the discovery of penicillin? Or simply that an interest in fashion needn't preclude one from an equal interest in politics, and to assume that it does is part of the traditional downgrading of anything traditionally associated with 'the feminine'? What's got your goat, lady?
Incidentally, the Mail do pay two pounds a word.
Well, young master London (since we're being sneeringly archaic) - I was not actually arguing any of those points, which lets face it you did not originally make in your flippant dismissal of womankind.
As briefly as possible -
a) Women have proven themselves perfectly capable of scientific and artistic achievements. See Marie Curie etc. They have not always had either the opportunity or, crucially the recognition of their achievements that men have. Go away and look up Ada Lovelace and Rosalind Franklin if science is your thing.
b) Women do not have a stranglehold on either transient fripperies or pointless activity. I give you Sunday league football, FHM magazine, any number of hobbies involving electronic gadgets, compiling lists of best bands on internet forums (and activity I have partaken of alongside many blokes).
c) I would agree with you that there's been a traditional downgrading of any field associated with the "feminine".
d) But I would also add that women in the workplace (underpaid) are under pressure to impress and conform in their appearance in a way that men aren't. See numerous Daily Mail (pound of flesh a word) articles about wearing just the right amount of makeup to get promoted.
e) I am very humbled that you could drag yourself away from making an important scientific breakthrough to benefit all mankind (sic) - to engage in putting down a few inconsequential women.
Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Bandy: From reading the Bill Brydon science book it is painfully obvious that women haven't made scientific acheivements on as considerable a scale as men for the simple reason that, for an awfully long time, they simply weren't allowed to.
A point that I was going to make too. In their role of carers and housewifes, when were they going to be out in the lab conducting experiments and cooking up new medicines?
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: Oh, on Saturday (Sunday?) I came across reruns of the now incredibly dated and ponderous Dawson's Creek on Five, in which some alpha--girl postulated that women were so obssessed with fashion because they were essentially insecure and desperate for acceptance.
And also, I would agree with the above to a certain degree. Most of the females on here [from what I can gather] are intelligent and articulate and not too likely to follow fashion trends just because of the media. But I would think that most females under the age of around 35 just aren't like this. The media puts immense pressure on girls to be a certain way. Body, hair, clothes. They are all perceived to be a symbol of success and popularity. If you are a fat girl with mousey-greasy hair and wearing a Demis Roussos flowered kaftan, people just ain't going to take the time to find out if you have a sterling personality lurking underneath.
-------------------- Call that a contribution? Posts: 1162
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: And also, I would agree with the above to a certain degree. Most of the females on here [from what I can gather] are intelligent and articulate and not too likely to follow fashion trends just because of the media. But I would think that most females under the age of around 35 just aren't like this. The media puts immense pressure on girls to be a certain way.
I dunno. I don't think women can blame the media for any of this - it's hardly as though anyone's exempt from this aspirational advertising guff. Everyone, at every stage of their life is bombarded with ideas of what you should be looking like, how you should be acting, what you should be driving. Why are women so much more likely than men to be affected by these things?
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: And also, I would agree with the above to a certain degree. Most of the females on here [from what I can gather] are intelligent and articulate and not too likely to follow fashion trends just because of the media. But I would think that most females under the age of around 35 just aren't like this. The media puts immense pressure on girls to be a certain way.
I dunno. I don't think women can blame the media for any of this - it's hardly as though anyone's exempt from this aspirational advertising guff. Everyone, at every stage of their life is bombarded with ideas of what you should be looking like, how you should be acting, what you should be driving. Why are women so much more likely than men to be affected by these things?
Because there is a whole load more of the advertising/general media directed that way. It's not often you will see a picture of a sexy man, wearing something revealing, sprawled across the bonnet of a car to sell it. There are pictures of thin, beautifully made up and polished women every where you look. And a lot of women feel that this is what they are being measured against. If there were pictures of women of say, size 16, with their hair a bit squizzy and a pair of jeans and a t-shirt on advertising stuff it would make these "normal" women feel more comfortable about how they look and not feel that these glossy chicks are some kind of benchmark. But as we all know, that wouldn't sell the products, would it?
And VP - I'm not I don't prefer that to the one that I have now!
posted
Perhaps one reason why fashion marketing is so effective is the way it is teamed with fashion critique. It's become okay to be hyper-critical of minor flaws. Pick up any celeb mag, and the fashion selling parts are outweighed by headlines of "CELEBS IN ARMPIT STUBBLE DISASTER!" or "CELEBRITY HAT HORROR!". Blokes' lifestyle mags and guides don't seem to do this quite so much. I'm only talking about "Zoo", and "Nuts", as these are the only ones I am in contact with. Marketing seems to be carried out using style guides, the same as in the female mags, but it's backed up mostly by tales of blokey wit, prowess, and love of cars, babes, and footie. It flatters the men into identifying with brands, rather than scares them. Maybe it's only a matter of time.
These critical articles that point out physical 'flaws' and fashion 'disasters' can only fuel insecurity. The mags then offer solutions, which is usually to dress either like Kate Moss (ACNE!) or Kylie (BOOB JOB!). Trinny and Susannah have paved the way for this cold war girl vs. girl approach to fashion. In order to survive, everybody has to be an expert, hence the kind of talk that Kovacs mentions, which ten years ago would have been relegated to the designer's studio. Of course, fashion has always been about attempting to look better than your neighbour, but it seems as if resentment and jealousy are now things to be celebrated. In the end, we're all losing out
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: Because there is a whole load more of the advertising/general media directed that way.
This isn't true - you're just noticing the stuff that's directed at you.
quote: It's not often you will see a picture of a sexy man, wearing something revealing, sprawled across the bonnet of a car to sell it. There are pictures of thin, beautifully made up and polished women every where you look. And a lot of women feel that this is what they are being measured against.
I don't know what kind of advertising they have in Cornwall, but I can honestly say that every single day I see images of topless men with buff abs trying to sell me stuff to make me look like them. I don't know how that counts as "not often", but every single shaver, aftershave, underwear, deoderant and car ad follows pretty much that formula. It's also hardly a rare thing to see women getting "what they want", and what they want is a handsome, toned, wealthy looking fella who bears almost no relation to me. I'm not asking for sympathy, obviously. I'm capable of dismissing this imagery as aspirational bollocks with little relevance to the real world, and I credit women with the same ability.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm sure that you could tie in some kind of post-feminist thread into this as well. I'm not going to, because I've already proven an outrageous lack of insight into the world of fashion. But I bet you could. It's interesting what thorn says though, about crediting women with enough intelligence to be able to withstand the marketing. Not being a woman, I don't know for sure, but it seems as if by turning the focus onto editorial driven marketing, it causes readers to then discuss the products. It is no longer a case of the ad people telling the readers, but the readers telling each other. It's an environment that has been partly manufactured, but mostly just tended to, and as such, cack-handed "topless in black and white" approaches that are used to sell things to men are no longer appropriate for the female market.
quote:Originally posted by London: But isn't that why women never achieve anything / there are no female geniuses etc (delete as appropriate): because they're planning stupid shit like what to wear on Christmas Day and whether that slate-grey/ moss green shrug will accentuate or detract from the silkysmooth-whisperline of hairs above their upper lips?
Rather than acting like a dribbling teenboy in the audience of an all-girl wrestling match, I should offer useful comment.
Firstly, we have no way of knowing, but I presume it's not the case that the women on HB Fasion do nothing but plan their outfits and post about them. Most people would not take such care over what they're wearing if they weren't going to work; I assume from the styles and the prices that many of these HB contributors must be professional women. Constructing your own professional image and visual brand is not trivial and frivolous, and I'm sure someone could argue that they're taking control over their projected selves, manipulating the way people respond to them.
Secondly, I wasn't messing around when I said I felt there was a form of poetry in those posts. Admittedly, I selected the phrases that chimed most resonantly for me, but some of the words they use for colours are fantastic. Maybe they're just using terms they've picked up from the magazine or store description. But surely also, fashion is an art, a language. Is it frippery to be expert in such a field, any more than it would be girly timewasting to enjoy a knowledgable discussion of, say, chord progression or calligraphy?
Thirdly, we could look at a forum of boys' hobby-chatter and draw the conclusion that these people do nothing but obsess about gigabytes, GTA, woofers, weights. Nobody would use a Star Wars forum, with all its intense debate about nonsense, as evidence that men will never achieve anything in society; it represents only a single strand of people's lives.
NB. I was interrupted in the middle of writing this post for 45 minutes! the impertinence! so I wouldn't be surprised if the discussion has moved on in my absence
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I'm capable of dismissing this imagery as aspirational bollocks with little relevance to the real world, and I credit women with the same ability.
Good! I am glad that someone has made this point! We all have a choice as to whether we want to live our lives according to the impossibly high aspirational standards set by glossy magazines and the like. I once received a subscription to Glamour magazine (yes, lol, I know) and having read the first two issues, decided to donate the next ten to my local GP’s surgery without actually reading them. The truth is, as much as I ignore or refuse to conform to the Hollyoaks brand of beige attractiveness increasingly promoted as covetable, I found reading Glamour a crushing and slightly depressing experience. I would go so far as to suggest that, in the 2 copies I read at least, the magazine promoted acquiring a Beach Babe Bikini Body, a Perfect Tan Without Ageing and a Wardrobe Full of Manolos as the only achievements a woman should ever be bothered to strive for. Even the token ‘serious’ articles harked back to how spectacularly important the right make up, hairstyle and outfit are. In fact, the article that caused me to banish the magazine to a germ infected waiting room was one about how a woman can never expect to be taken seriously, further her career or meet a man with honourable intentions if she has curly hair. I mean, honestly. Whilst I can sit back and relax in the knowledge that I quite sensibly made a choice not to continue to read such guff, it does concern me that not every other woman will react in the same way as me. For example, women with self esteem issues may feel more compelled to strive for something that they think will guarantee them affirmation and acceptance. More impressionable women, perhaps girls more than women, may feel the same. They may read magazines like Glamour and interpret it as some sort of Gospel for Womanhood. So yes, it is important to recognise that such imagery and rhetoric is aspirational bollocks with little relevance to the real world and that women have the ability to dismiss it. However, I would place equal importance on recognising that not all women are able to or choose to do this.
-------------------- They give you a pen as fat as a modest cock and you're expected to dab it on the page, as though you were mopping the dregs of an afternoon Tommy. Posts: 1847
| IP: Logged
posted
Sidney, one of my non-bogroll-buying housemates has a subscription to Glamour. Please can I come and live with you?
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
-------------------- They give you a pen as fat as a modest cock and you're expected to dab it on the page, as though you were mopping the dregs of an afternoon Tommy. Posts: 1847
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by OJ: b) Women do not have a stranglehold on either transient fripperies or pointless activity. I give you Sunday league football, FHM magazine, any number of hobbies involving electronic gadgets, compiling lists of best bands on internet forums (and activity I have partaken of alongside many blokes).
quote:Originally posted by Kovacs: Thirdly, we could look at a forum of boys' hobby-chatter and draw the conclusion that these people do nothing but obsess about gigabytes, GTA, woofers, weights. Nobody would use a Star Wars forum, with all its intense debate about nonsense, as evidence that men will never achieve anything in society; it represents only a single strand of people's lives.
I think my gripe with fashion, dressing-up and artifice is that it is an end in itself. These things you cite as male equivalents – football, technology, music – they’re conduits to something else. Sure, boys obsess about football, but it's also a game they can, if they so choose, enjoy themselves, getting exercise, experience the thrill of competition and fresh air. Technology is a means to an end, whether that end is to listen to music, communicate with others, or simply kill a few hours enjoying a video game. Compiling a best band list entails engagement with that band’s music, both on CD and possibly live: an obsession with music is more likely than not going to inspire the listener to pick up their own cheap guitar or synth and mess around creatively. A gamer unpacking an X-box has hours of entertainment ahead: whereas a new sequin-bedecked top isn’t going to replace TV or reading as the number one thing to fiddle with after work on a weeknight, it is? The only pleasure derived from that top, once the purchase is completed, is the pleasure of appearing, of seeming, of being admired.
Which leads into your other points.
quote:Originally posted by OJ: d) But I would also add that women in the workplace (underpaid) are under pressure to impress and conform in their appearance in a way that men aren't. See numerous Daily Mail (pound of flesh a word) articles about wearing just the right amount of makeup to get promoted.
quote:Originally posted by Kovacs: Constructing your own professional image and visual brand is not trivial and frivolous, and I'm sure someone could argue that they're taking control over their projected selves, manipulating the way people respond to them.
Of course, these women have to dress a certain way to be promoted. (Be promoted into an industry which is no doubt staffed entirely by women at lower levels, with males taking up all the positions of real power at the top.) They must spend their salaries (a salary which still, in 2004, sits at about 80% of what an equivalent male will earn for an equivalent job) on adorning themselves, to better present themselves to achieve their aims. I just can’t buy this fashion obsession as a reasonable way for anyone to spend their time and money.
quote:Originally posted by Kovacs: But surely also, fashion is an art, a language. Is it frippery to be expert in such a field, any more than it would be girly timewasting to enjoy a knowledgable discussion of, say, chord progression or calligraphy?
While I’m not arguing with the seductiveness of a specific, unfamiliar vocabulary – I spent the morning on a train entranced by lines like ‘polyurethene body atop Eiffel tower construction of chrome legs’ in a book about chair design, ffs – I can’t buy fashion as an art. Chord progression is relating to songs, music, a form that communicates with many others, durable in recorded form – fashion is but an appearance, specific only to the viewer, transitory, ephemeral. It’s an illusion. Momentary. It appears, it does not do. Fashion is a sop to women. Women have yet to achieve as men have achieved. Blame biology or culture as you wish: I see trivial obsession with fashion as an additional factor hampering women from engaging with the real issues that hold them back.
posted
Obviously there is more pressure on women to be into fashion within our/their culture than on men, but that is changing, and will continue to do so.
Obviously people should have the sense or wherewithall to take as much or as little notice of this as they see fit. Obviously some won't. There is a difference between an interest and an obsession.
I don't find these terms particularly exciting or alien, but then I understand/understood the majority of them without explanation, having had some interest in 'fashion' from a design perspective.
I would also take issue with London's suggestion that an interest in fashion is de facto uncreative, surely the combination of clothes in outfits is creative in itself? Not to mention people who make, or customise, their own clothing?
-------------------- Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light... Posts: 3770
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by London: A gamer unpacking an X-box has hours of entertainment ahead: whereas a new sequin-bedecked top isn’t going to replace TV or reading as the number one thing to fiddle with after work on a weeknight, it is? The only pleasure derived from that top, once the purchase is completed, is the pleasure of appearing, of seeming, of being admired.
Blame biology or culture as you wish: I see trivial obsession with fashion as an additional factor hampering women from engaging with the real issues that hold them back.
/ends
A lot of this debate has already been had whilst I've been off having meetings - very unfashionably clad today, I might add....
But I'm going to both agree and disagree with London. There are so many factors hampering, tripping up and otherwise booby-trapping women's lives that I'm sometimes driven to outbursts of aggressive "kiss my boots" behaviour.
I have been known to post in the Handbag fashion forum, which anyone who knows me IRL might find rather ironic. The body fascism, the self-esteem crushing ideas of being fashionable to fit in, be taken seriously, be liked etc. that are perpetuated there sometimes frustrate me incredibly. Which is probably the perverse reason, I have been known to engage with it - as a sort of counterbalance. See numerous fights about the word "chav".... So yes, I do agree to an extent that a trivial obsession with appearance could be a factor holding women back.
But as I think Benway has said previously, fashion can be a form of creative expression. It can also be used to subvert, to rebel, to reinforce counter-cultural group identities etc.
To dismiss all that because it's also part of consumerism - which is a wider force you might like to argue keeps us all on the treadmill and stops us from engaging with the real issues - is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To mix a few metaphors....
Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
posted
It's 'dress to impress', isn't it. Yes, you can dress to express your own creativity, but the vast majority of people buy clothes that will make themselves look good. And good generally equates to various things, depending on circumstance: worksmart; datesexxxy; casualcool. Even people who like to think they're alternative tend to conform to a civilian uniform. Yes, yes, we're all like peacocks flashing our be-jewelled wares (only in reverse: male fashion doesn't quite have the sparkling display aspect of ladiesware yet).
Anyway! Today I purchased a veritable treasure trove of frills and fripperies:
brown tweedy a-line skirt with faux-pleat panelling and string tie belt.
peppermint t-shirt with cut-out pattern detail and slight gathering under the bust.
dusty pink v-neck short-sleeved fine-knit sweater with mock pearl button detail at the waist and lace and pearl edging.
Wow!
-------------------- the more brilliant her smile, the closer she always seemed to disaster Posts: 1057
| IP: Logged
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic