Display:
I was amused to see the foolish comment the other day that suggested that women dress to attract men. This is almost never true. Women (and men) largely dress to accrue (or feel they're accruing) status. Teenage girls aren't (in the main) dressing for the boys, its a duel to the death among their peer group. This is also true of adults.

The way men and women derive status from clothes differs - men get a lot from the way their partners dress, for a start.

Cospedal is increasing her personal status with this bit of showing off.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 06:31:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's just a coincidence that the way that women don't dress to attract men emphasises their sexuality and attracts men?

How often do you see women competing to be as unsexy as possible? It's not all that hard for anyone to make themselves look like a sack of potatoes, but - outside of a few radical feminist groups - women who are competing purely for the approval of other women inexplicably don't seem to do this.

It may not be conscious, but it's a bit of a stretch to pretend that attraction is irrelevant.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 07:38:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, status is tied up with sex anyway, but how much of how women dress is actually aimed at men? Most men aren't all that subtle: a bit of boobie and/or a bit of leg and a smile and off you go. That's before we even start discussing the assorted fashions that are distinctly unsexy: see runway models for a start.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 07:56:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree. Men note and comment on how women look, but I've seldom heard men comment on how a woman is dressed (shoes can be an exception in certain situations).

As far as I can see, most of the effort is made for the benefit of other women, who can appreciate all the nuances of what's going on.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 08:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not saying it's either or - but I am saying that sexual signifier are a core driver. Otherwise it would be sex neutral or sex negative, which clearly it mostly isn't.

Fashion shows are a special case, because they're there as art that glorifies the designer, not the model - who's usually anonymous, and literally just there as a walking showroom dummy.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 08:58:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
but I am saying that sexual signifier are a core driver

I'm not disputing that point.

However, it seems to me that the point of showcasing sexual signifiers through clothing is (usually) only secondarily to be attractive to men - it's sheer overkill for us simple male souls - and primarily to assert/maintain status with other women. Haute couture is the extreme form of this clothing arms race (as are, presumably, stupid hats at Ascot), but even on the H&M level, there is far more going on in women's fashions than most men are capable of recognizing.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 10:22:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Far more going on in women's 'fashions' than I am capable of recognising. Most of it looks like overpriced shit on hangers to me.

Ad astra per aspera
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 11:39:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Wales:
Most of it looks like overpriced shit on hangers to me
I see you have good taste :)

Now seriously, it would seem safe to assume you don't feel inadequate for not keeping up with that kind of fashion?

Why, then do you say upthread you sometimes feel inadequate for not wearing make-up? What is the difference between fashion and make-up? And, given the bewindering variety of make-up, both in intensity and in style, does your reaction depend to the average amount and style of makeup around you?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 12:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are many different kinds of fashions and you can assert your identity and personality through your clothing.  It can get quite tribal in some respects.

I can be smart when I need to be and look professional when it is required and I accept that as something I should comply with when I work.  Sometimes I like knowing that I look smart. When I feel like it I'll dress up for a night out.

Most of the time I prefer to be warm and comfortable and that rules out most fashion fads for me.  I'm not going to wear something that I'm uncomfortable in and look stupid in.  I know I am not going to find much to identify with on any level with others who are serious about wearing silly shit, mostly.

But make up is slightly different. Some make up goes with the associated fashions and I couldn't care less for that.  But some make up when subtlely done is meant to make women look prettier or more feminine and smarter. I'm not pretty or photogenic or especially elegant and the fact that I don't wear make up seems to compound that and make me feel like I am not feminine enough to meet other people's standards.  Fortunately I have plenty of good friends who like me just the way I am so I am not (usually) subject to any pressure from them, it is just that broader feeling of being judged on how I look that I find hard to come to terms with.

My dislike of make up actually stems from a childhood phobia and even if I felt brave enough to put make up on I wouldn't know how to and nor would I be comfortable with it.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 12:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I remember reading polls that the majority of men didn't like (1) long painted fingernails, (2) platform shoes, at the time these were en vogue.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 08:27:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Status and sex are so tied up that teenage girls and young women, as you rightly say, involved in ferocious peer group competition, are all the same fighting on ground that displays secondary sexual characteristics and visually suggestive "underwear arrows" that draw attention to these. Status is also how high you score in the sexual attractiveness rankings.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 08:39:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The other day I was in the underground and there were four teenage girls occupying the seats in front of me. They were all dressed identically, in two colours with ballerina shoes, jeans, a top and a light knitted jacket, and a large crescent or kidney-shaped handbag. The only difference was the colours - one of them wore white and brown, another one white and red, another one white and green, another one white and blue. In this instance they weren't dressed provocatively. Peer pressure is brutal.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 08:49:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You'll find the same thing in business meetings, where everyone is wearing a suit.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 08:59:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, why should I feel societal pressure to conform so I have to spend several times more to dress for work than I would if I were in an environment where most people dressed casually or informally?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 09:04:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because it keeps the peons out, of course.

Now, places that dress "casually" usually also have a dress code. If you show up in a suit at a physics department meeting, people will probably assume that you are Up To Something...

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 01:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Outer ware is a billboard, if you like, for social signaling: rank, status, in-group adherence, and so on.  Wearing a suit to a physics meeting sends the message 'I'm a member of an Out-Group' at an In-Group gathering.  Naturally they are viewed with suspicion and hostility just like all the Pink Baboon experiments.

I'll grant physicists, unlike baboons, won't mob, bite, and drive the intruder away.  

(If there is anybody watching.  :-)

by ATinNM on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 02:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In my experience, if you want to fit in among most physicists it is important to dress in a way that signals that you do not care about your appearance. The ideal would be to be all mind, and not have a body. If you appear vain, you have out-defined yourself from the group. Of course, this becomes a standard that is very hard to acheive for women, as women are defined by being body.

These conclusions are based on swedish physics departments, but might hold for western physics departments in general. Heard there are lots of indian women in physics, so they might have other norms.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 at 02:01:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a hilarious scene in American Psycho when the protagonist meets his peers and they compare business cards.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 09:09:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series