Comments about physical appearance

[mahagonny]

Might be interesting; scroll past, please, if you need to.

How internet addiction interfaces with life: today I was hanging out in my office when two colleagues, one woman and one man, came in to say hello. Our department has a lot of affection in it, just kind of a vibe that took hold, even though many of us don't know each other well, and a FB page where people put up all kinds of levity. Male colleague said to me 'did you see [Female colleague's childhood] photo on FB? It's precious!' (Shows me the photo on his screen.) He exclaims  'so cute.' I said, with a teaspoonful of enthusiasm 'that's great! I love it.' But having spent several consecutive days looking at this thread, I stopped short of saying 'what an adorable photo.' But then I felt like I was being parsimonious with praise for my new friend, and maybe too forgiving to the man. I could have said 'you photograph well; excellent poise' but it sounds stuffy. Thanks a bunch, all you brilliant PhD's.

[Caracal]

It is much easier for men to not be noticed much. In fact, most men's clothing is sort of designed for that purpose. You can choose levels of formality, but the idea tends to be the same which is not to stand out in any particular way. It actually gets more like this the more formal you get. At the level of black tie, men are all actually wearing the same thing. Women's clothes really don't work that way.

They could. As you note later:

The point is that men's clothes are designed so you can dress this way. My impression is that lots of academic women do try to find a sort of uniform that does the same thing mine does, but it is far more complicated because to look plain as a woman is its own sort of clear statement, that people notice and draw conclusions about.

Ever hear how embarrassing it is if two women happen to be wearing the SAME dress at an event??? Quelle horreur!!!
Women expect to stand out.

See how many discussions there are about how, as women age, they become "invisible"; i.e. they cease to be able to automatically get attention from men.

Attention is, like almost anything else, not inherently good or evil. Sometimes it's desireable, and sometimes it's not. (There's a reason one of the common superpowers is invisibility.)The choice everyone gets to make every day is whether, on balance, it's going to be more worthwhile to try to be noticed or to try to fly under the radar.


The one choice we don't have is who is allowed to notice us, and who isn't.

I'm struck by the way you just sort of don't believe culture matters. Sure, everyone can make choices about what they wear, but we all have to do so within a set of constructs and ideas that govern how other people might perceive our choices. Clothes are a kind of language and the meanings of that language are heavily inflected by gendered ideas. Try to imagine, for example, what it would take for anything you or I wore to be seen anyone as "inappropriately sexy" for a professional environment. No shirt? Mick Jagger style leather pants? Now imagine what could be judged in that way for a woman and I hope you can see the difference. This isn't because, as you seem to imagine, women are just making random choices to dress in a more daring fashion. Women have to dress within a context where women's bodies are generally more sexualized than those of men, and there are also different meanings being attached to their choices.

Men aren't described as dowdy or plain if they dress to blend in, but women can be, or can at least be thought of in that way. On the other side, blending in is basically the norm with men and isn't associated with anything particularly negative. I try to dress in a way that flatters me, but again, I don't think I'm ever going to be told I'm flaunting my sexuality because that isn't how the vocabulary of men's clothes works. It also means that I can dress in a way that makes me feel good about myself without dealing with lots of other people's thoughts about it. Seriously, I dress in a coat and tie, which is pretty unusual on my campus, and I can basically count on two hands the number of comments I have received in seven or so years of teaching about what I wear. I tend to appreciate those comments because they come so rarely, but I think I'd start to feel differently if they were constant. Just because someone wants to dress in a flattering way doesn't mean they want everyone to pay more attention to their clothes and their body than anything else. So sure, of course people make choices, but just seeing those choices as isolated individual acts is a weird way to look at it.

[marshwiggle]

I'm struck by the way you just sort of don't believe culture matters. Sure, everyone can make choices about what they wear, but we all have to do so within a set of constructs and ideas that govern how other people might perceive our choices. Clothes are a kind of language and the meanings of that language are heavily inflected by gendered ideas. Try to imagine, for example, what it would take for anything you or I wore to be seen anyone as "inappropriately sexy" for a professional environment. No shirt? Mick Jagger style leather pants? Now imagine what could be judged in that way for a woman and I hope you can see the difference. This isn't because, as you seem to imagine, women are just making random choices to dress in a more daring fashion. Women have to dress within a context where women's bodies are generally more sexualized than those of men, and there are also different meanings being attached to their choices.

Men aren't described as dowdy or plain if they dress to blend in, but women can be, or can at least be thought of in that way.

There is a lot of room between "daring" and "dowdy or plain". Factors in women's clothing that can make a big difference, and can fit anywhere on that spectrum:

• Height of heel
• Neckline
• Length of hemline

For factors like those, the choice is not "nun" or "exotic dancer"; there is a lot of room in the middle. As you point out, men's clothing (especially for professional settings) doesn't have that same range of possibilities. The freedom women have to vary those things also allows them to communicate more by their choices.

On the other side, blending in is basically the norm with men and isn't associated with anything particularly negative.

Why is "blending in" negative for women?

Just because someone wants to dress in a flattering way doesn't mean they want everyone to pay more attention to their clothes and their body than anything else.

Many of the people one will come in some form of contact in a day, (such as on a bus, walking in hallways, etc.),  will only be aware of a person's appearance, so that's all they will be able to pay attention to. The only way to minimize that is to dress in order to "blend in"; i.e. to attract no more attention that average.

[ciao_yall]

I'm struck by the way you just sort of don't believe culture matters. Sure, everyone can make choices about what they wear, but we all have to do so within a set of constructs and ideas that govern how other people might perceive our choices. Clothes are a kind of language and the meanings of that language are heavily inflected by gendered ideas. Try to imagine, for example, what it would take for anything you or I wore to be seen anyone as "inappropriately sexy" for a professional environment. No shirt? Mick Jagger style leather pants? Now imagine what could be judged in that way for a woman and I hope you can see the difference. This isn't because, as you seem to imagine, women are just making random choices to dress in a more daring fashion. Women have to dress within a context where women's bodies are generally more sexualized than those of men, and there are also different meanings being attached to their choices.

Men aren't described as dowdy or plain if they dress to blend in, but women can be, or can at least be thought of in that way.

There is a lot of room between "daring" and "dowdy or plain". Factors in women's clothing that can make a big difference, and can fit anywhere on that spectrum:

• Height of heel
• Neckline
• Length of hemline

For factors like those, the choice is not "nun" or "exotic dancer"; there is a lot of room in the middle. As you point out, men's clothing (especially for professional settings) doesn't have that same range of possibilities. The freedom women have to vary those things also allows them to communicate more by their choices.

On the other side, blending in is basically the norm with men and isn't associated with anything particularly negative.

Why is "blending in" negative for women?

Just because someone wants to dress in a flattering way doesn't mean they want everyone to pay more attention to their clothes and their body than anything else.

Many of the people one will come in some form of contact in a day, (such as on a bus, walking in hallways, etc.),  will only be aware of a person's appearance, so that's all they will be able to pay attention to. The only way to minimize that is to dress in order to "blend in"; i.e. to attract no more attention that average.

All I can say is, now that I am a lady who has (ahem) "achieved a certain age" I can dress with a little more flair and dare than I could in my more nubile years without fear of being accused of "asking for it." My collarbones are free! Men in my age range might notice but they have pretty much calmed down... or at least act as if they have. And Viagra is a lot of work.

Also having achieved such an age, I now go sleeveless pretty regularly for the usual tedious medical reasons. Enough time at the gym keeps my arms pretty well-toned that I'm not self-conscious. I had a hot flash during a meeting in which the conference room was around 50 degrees, started shedding layers and a few of the guys jokingly decided to use me as a furnace. Thanks, fellas. ;->

If the younger guys say about me "I can tell she used to be pretty fly" or whatever it is they say these days, then that for me is a great compliment. 

[ergative]

I'm struck by the way you just sort of don't believe culture matters. Sure, everyone can make choices about what they wear, but we all have to do so within a set of constructs and ideas that govern how other people might perceive our choices. Clothes are a kind of language and the meanings of that language are heavily inflected by gendered ideas. Try to imagine, for example, what it would take for anything you or I wore to be seen anyone as "inappropriately sexy" for a professional environment. No shirt? Mick Jagger style leather pants? Now imagine what could be judged in that way for a woman and I hope you can see the difference. This isn't because, as you seem to imagine, women are just making random choices to dress in a more daring fashion. Women have to dress within a context where women's bodies are generally more sexualized than those of men, and there are also different meanings being attached to their choices.

Men aren't described as dowdy or plain if they dress to blend in, but women can be, or can at least be thought of in that way.

...
For factors like those, the choice is not "nun" or "exotic dancer"; there is a lot of room in the middle. As you point out, men's clothing (especially for professional settings) doesn't have that same range of possibilities. The freedom women have to vary those things also allows them to communicate more by their choices.
...

I think you've unwittingly supported Caracal's point. You say that there's room in between 'nun' and 'exotic dancer'. Sure, there is--but all that means is that women must be evaluated on a sliding scale, a spectrum that is defined by sexuality. On the nun end, sexuality=minimum. On the exotic dancer end, sexuality=maximum. In between, sexuality varies.

We don't evaluate men's clothing on a scale from 'priest' to 'chippendale dancer'. We can evaluate them on a scale of 'formal' to 'casual', or 'neutral/blend-in' to 'striking/stand-out', but those two endpoints don't differ in the sexual coding of the clothing.

Just because women are free to choose how far along the sexuality scale their wardrobe choices put them doesn't mean they are free of that scale. They will always be evaluated in terms of their sexuality. They may have more variety, but they're still chained to sexual evaluations of their appearance in ways that men are not.

(Unless they're too old to be sexual--and even if they are 'too old', let's pause a moment and consider the different connotations of 'cougar' vs. 'silver fox'.)

[mahagonny]

I'm struck by the way you just sort of don't believe culture matters. Sure, everyone can make choices about what they wear, but we all have to do so within a set of constructs and ideas that govern how other people might perceive our choices. Clothes are a kind of language and the meanings of that language are heavily inflected by gendered ideas. Try to imagine, for example, what it would take for anything you or I wore to be seen anyone as "inappropriately sexy" for a professional environment. No shirt? Mick Jagger style leather pants? Now imagine what could be judged in that way for a woman and I hope you can see the difference. This isn't because, as you seem to imagine, women are just making random choices to dress in a more daring fashion. Women have to dress within a context where women's bodies are generally more sexualized than those of men, and there are also different meanings being attached to their choices.

Men aren't described as dowdy or plain if they dress to blend in, but women can be, or can at least be thought of in that way.

...
For factors like those, the choice is not "nun" or "exotic dancer"; there is a lot of room in the middle. As you point out, men's clothing (especially for professional settings) doesn't have that same range of possibilities. The freedom women have to vary those things also allows them to communicate more by their choices.
...

I think you've unwittingly supported Caracal's point. You say that there's room in between 'nun' and 'exotic dancer'. Sure, there is--but all that means is that women must be evaluated on a sliding scale, a spectrum that is defined by sexuality. On the nun end, sexuality=minimum. On the exotic dancer end, sexuality=maximum. In between, sexuality varies.

We don't evaluate men's clothing on a scale from 'priest' to 'chippendale dancer'. We can evaluate them on a scale of 'formal' to 'casual', or 'neutral/blend-in' to 'striking/stand-out', but those two endpoints don't differ in the sexual coding of the clothing.

Just because women are free to choose how far along the sexuality scale their wardrobe choices put them doesn't mean they are free of that scale. They will always be evaluated in terms of their sexuality. They may have more variety, but they're still chained to sexual evaluations of their appearance in ways that men are not.

(Unless they're too old to be sexual--and even if they are 'too old', let's pause a moment and consider the different connotations of 'cougar' vs. 'silver fox'.)

Did you remember to factor in where the subject fits in on the gender continuum? They might be only 65 7/8 per cent female. I'll have more for you later; stay tuned.

[ergative]

We're talking about how people are perceived, not how they identify. I honestly think it would be great if AFAB transmasculine people could escape the sexuality coding of women's clothing; and I can certainly imagine that AMAB transfeminine people might want to get on that scale without being called weirdos and perverts and blocked from public bathrooms. But to the extent that they are misperceived and misgendered, and brought into internet arguments as humerous flippancies rather than respected as individuals with their own set of challenges, they can't.

[mahagonny]

We're talking about how people are perceived, not how they identify. I honestly think it would be great if AFAB transmasculine people could escape the sexuality coding of women's clothing; and I can certainly imagine that AMAB transfeminine people might want to get on that scale without being called weirdos and perverts and blocked from public bathrooms. But to the extent that they are misperceived and misgendered, and brought into internet arguments as humerous flippancies rather than respected as individuals with their own set of challenges, they can't.

For all we know, I've been complimenting women who used to be men on their appearance, and they've been enjoying it, and they wish you'd shut up.

[ergative]

We're talking about how people are perceived, not how they identify. I honestly think it would be great if AFAB transmasculine people could escape the sexuality coding of women's clothing; and I can certainly imagine that AMAB transfeminine people might want to get on that scale without being called weirdos and perverts and blocked from public bathrooms. But to the extent that they are misperceived and misgendered, and brought into internet arguments as humerous flippancies rather than respected as individuals with their own set of challenges, they can't.

For all we know, I've been complimenting women who used to be men on their appearance, and they've been enjoying it, and they wish you'd shut up.

I hope you're right. I deeply hope that all of your personal comments about women's appearances are welcomed and make the recipients feel valued and respected and for their sake, I hope that this will continue to be the case.

[Caracal]

We're talking about how people are perceived, not how they identify. I honestly think it would be great if AFAB transmasculine people could escape the sexuality coding of women's clothing; and I can certainly imagine that AMAB transfeminine people might want to get on that scale without being called weirdos and perverts and blocked from public bathrooms. But to the extent that they are misperceived and misgendered, and brought into internet arguments as humerous flippancies rather than respected as individuals with their own set of challenges, they can't.

For all we know, I've been complimenting women who used to be men on their appearance, and they've been enjoying it, and they wish you'd shut up.

I don't really think the point is that you are never supposed to compliment a woman. You just might want to be aware of the context.

[mahagonny]

We're talking about how people are perceived, not how they identify. I honestly think it would be great if AFAB transmasculine people could escape the sexuality coding of women's clothing; and I can certainly imagine that AMAB transfeminine people might want to get on that scale without being called weirdos and perverts and blocked from public bathrooms. But to the extent that they are misperceived and misgendered, and brought into internet arguments as humerous flippancies rather than respected as individuals with their own set of challenges, they can't.

For all we know, I've been complimenting women who used to be men on their appearance, and they've been enjoying it, and they wish you'd shut up.

I don't really think the point is that you are never supposed to compliment a woman. You just might want to be aware of the context.

That could be what they think the point is, but I'm not convinced. They are trying to overhaul our norms of behavior without talking in a way that makes them trustworthy. They could be peddling research and having a villain gives it more life. They're working for Donald Trump, but they don't know it. It may be that the particular context of my incident could be interpreted more than one way, but they think their way is the only correct way to look at it.

[Ruralguy]

I have to admit, maybe if a woman was walking around my campus with a Yankees cap on the day after the next time they win the World Series, I *might* say "nice hat!." In that case, I'd hope the context is obvious.

[mahagonny]

I have to admit, maybe if a woman was walking around my campus with a Yankees cap on the day after the next time they win the World Series, I *might* say "nice hat!." In that case, I'd hope the context is obvious.

And anyway, if they want to fire you, it's a lot of trouble. Like they have to have a reason, that sort of thing. I wouldn't guess you were thinking that way, just saying that's how it is, only, typically, for the minority of faculty.

[Ruralguy]

Well, typically that sort of "appearance" comment would have to be either sustained or egregious for significant action to be taken (with a lot of space between "nothing" and "getting fired").