Comments about physical appearance

[mahagonny]

I'm not sure that this will get through, but let me try again:

Do you think black women wear tiny braids just because it's pretty? Do you think black people wear dreadlocks and cornrows because it's a cultural style? Black people's hair is different from white people's hair. It requires different care, different hairstyles, and different maintenance in order not to be damaged. This is why dress codes and rules about hair styles are so fundamentally racist: they're not just banning a cultural mode of appearance specific to black people (which would be bad enough); they are in fact banning a biologically necessary component of physical care that is specific to properties of black people's hair.

It's not hard to learn more about this. It shows up in fiction (for example, Americanah, by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie); it shows up in non-fiction (for example Don't touch my hair, by Emma Dabiri); it shows up in news stories (for example: this kid whose dreadlocks were no problem in high school, but had to be cut off if he wanted to walk at graduation).

When you comment on this woman's hair, you may have thought you were commenting on some component of personal adornment, but in fact you were probably making a comment about basic body maintenance. Imagine the following exchange; you are going up to buy a hot dog at a fair ground, and the teller, a white woman, is putting on some sunblock. She apologizes for the wait, and you say, 'oh, not a problem. The sunblock really makes your skin shine. It looks very nice.' Kind of weird and creepy, right? She wasn't putting on sunblock to make herself pretty; she was putting it on because her body required it as basic maintenance.

Now, I don't know if that's the case with your grocery store clerk. Maybe she chose those beads carefully and wanted to look nice. Or maybe not. But you can't know. That's why you don't make personal comments about people's appearances.

One final thought: 'Obviously she wanted it; look at how she was dressed!' is a very, very bad attitude to take about other people's appearances.

You're not getting through, And I'm not going to try to get through to you. (Italics wars)

[marshwiggle]

Do you think black women wear tiny braids just because it's pretty? Do you think black people wear dreadlocks and cornrows because it's a cultural style? Black people's hair is different from white people's hair. It requires different care, different hairstyles, and different maintenance in order not to be damaged. This is why dress codes and rules about hair styles are so fundamentally racist: they're not just banning a cultural mode of appearance specific to black people (which would be bad enough); they are in fact banning a biologically necessary component of physical care that is specific to properties of black people's hair.

It's not hard to learn more about this. It shows up in fiction (for example, Americanah, by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie); it shows up in non-fiction (for example Don't touch my hair, by Emma Dabiri); it shows up in news stories (for example: this kid whose dreadlocks were no problem in high school, but had to be cut off if he wanted to walk at graduation).

When you comment on this woman's hair, you may have thought you were commenting on some component of personal adornment, but in fact you were probably making a comment about basic body maintenance. Imagine the following exchange; you are going up to buy a hot dog at a fair ground, and the teller, a white woman, is putting on some sunblock. She apologizes for the wait, and you say, 'oh, not a problem. The sunblock really makes your skin shine. It looks very nice.' Kind of weird and creepy, right? She wasn't putting on sunblock to make herself pretty; she was putting it on because her body required it as basic maintenance.

As someone eloquently put it:

"O, reason not the need: our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous:
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life's as cheap as beast's: thou art a lady;
If only to go warm were gorgeous,
Why, nature needs not what thou gorgeous wear'st,
Which scarcely keeps thee warm."

Physical need and appearance are not mutually exclusive. For the example of sunblock; some people would wear a hat instead. And of those who would wear a hat, many would choose something they felt stylish. Living in a place with real winter, I see people choose lots of coats, scarves, hats, etc. that are not optimal for warmth (as Lear noted) and even cost more than warmth would require.

And many people, have made those kinds of choices, are pleased when people comment favourably on them. It is not universally viewed as some sort of power-driven mind game.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[mahagonny]

Do you think black women wear tiny braids just because it's pretty? Do you think black people wear dreadlocks and cornrows because it's a cultural style? Black people's hair is different from white people's hair. It requires different care, different hairstyles, and different maintenance in order not to be damaged. This is why dress codes and rules about hair styles are so fundamentally racist: they're not just banning a cultural mode of appearance specific to black people (which would be bad enough); they are in fact banning a biologically necessary component of physical care that is specific to properties of black people's hair.

It's not hard to learn more about this. It shows up in fiction (for example, Americanah, by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie); it shows up in non-fiction (for example Don't touch my hair, by Emma Dabiri); it shows up in news stories (for example: this kid whose dreadlocks were no problem in high school, but had to be cut off if he wanted to walk at graduation).

When you comment on this woman's hair, you may have thought you were commenting on some component of personal adornment, but in fact you were probably making a comment about basic body maintenance. Imagine the following exchange; you are going up to buy a hot dog at a fair ground, and the teller, a white woman, is putting on some sunblock. She apologizes for the wait, and you say, 'oh, not a problem. The sunblock really makes your skin shine. It looks very nice.' Kind of weird and creepy, right? She wasn't putting on sunblock to make herself pretty; she was putting it on because her body required it as basic maintenance.

As someone eloquently put it:

"O, reason not the need: our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous:
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life's as cheap as beast's: thou art a lady;
If only to go warm were gorgeous,
Why, nature needs not what thou gorgeous wear'st,
Which scarcely keeps thee warm."

Physical need and appearance are not mutually exclusive. For the example of sunblock; some people would wear a hat instead. And of those who would wear a hat, many would choose something they felt stylish. Living in a place with real winter, I see people choose lots of coats, scarves, hats, etc. that are not optimal for warmth (as Lear noted) and even cost more than warmth would require.

And many people, have made those kinds of choices, are pleased when people comment favourably on them. It is not universally viewed as some sort of power-driven mind game.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

That's why I mentioned that I was not at work. When you're out in public, the accepted norms are the norms of society, not the preening 'woke' culture that permeates academia. And do you know what happens to some of these folks who are vigilantly looking around for more bigotry and bias? Eventually one of their enlightened pals finds something in some utterance that was unacceptable, and they get the scorn. Oh, the tragedy. Thanks for common sense. Some people start losing some of theirs when they get the doctorate.

And this part of my reply back on page one was just sarcasm. And I can see from a couple of the posters here that it was well placed:

However, these were not my thought processes. My thought process was if we're going to maintain the male white supremacy thing, there's going to be work involved, so I'll do my share.

[Kron3007]

I get that this can easily cross a line, but compliments on appearance can be fine, it is all about context.  I recently purchased a new shirt and have received a few compliments on it at work. None crossed any lines and were well within societal norms.  The shirt in question is a little different than my normal dress, so the comments are not that weird.

That being said, I have also received comments about my appearance that did cross the line.  As a white male, they didn't really bother me (they were complimentary), but if I were in a more vulnerable position they may have and they would not have been considered acceptable.

My point is, that this is not a black and white issue.  Complimenting someone on a new shirt for example seems fine to me, but this depends on context/situation.  I personally avoid any such comments, but there is nuance involved here and complimenting a woman's hair could be done, or could be in appropriate depending on various details that we done have. 

[Ruralguy]

I stay away from complimenting people on appearance at work.

[Caracal]

I get that this can easily cross a line, but compliments on appearance can be fine, it is all about context.  I recently purchased a new shirt and have received a few compliments on it at work. None crossed any lines and were well within societal norms.  The shirt in question is a little different than my normal dress, so the comments are not that weird.

That being said, I have also received comments about my appearance that did cross the line.  As a white male, they didn't really bother me (they were complimentary), but if I were in a more vulnerable position they may have and they would not have been considered acceptable.

My point is, that this is not a black and white issue.  Complimenting someone on a new shirt for example seems fine to me, but this depends on context/situation.  I personally avoid any such comments, but there is nuance involved here and complimenting a woman's hair could be done, or could be in appropriate depending on various details that we done have.

Exactly. There aren't actually rules. You just need to be attentive to context and someone else's potential feelings. There's nothing particularly woke or PC about that. It is just this crazy liberal idea called "manners," which suggests that you shouldn't go blundering around saying things without considering how others might feel about them. To take an example, as a guy, I don't think I'd tell a female colleague, that I liked their dress. I don't think that I would get reported for sexual harassment, but I do think that it is possible a colleague could perceive that kind of comment as uncomfortably sexual. On the other hand, I wouldn't have the same worries about that kind of compliment with a friend. That's because we: a. have the kind of relationship where I can feel fairly confident that I know whether they would find the compliment flattering and not creepy b. Have a relationship where they would feel comfortable telling me that they didn't appreciate that comment, if for some reason I had misjudged and c. They are free to not hang out with me if they actually thought I was a creepy dude.

I'd actually feel really differently about complimenting a colleague's coat, or bag. Students, because of power imbalances, are a different deal. I guess I could imagine saying I liked a students shirt only if it had a TV show from my childhood or a minor league baseball team from my hometown. The point is, asking people to evaluate context and other people's reactions isn't absurd.

[marshwiggle]

Exactly. There aren't actually rules. You just need to be attentive to context and someone else's potential feelings. There's nothing particularly woke or PC about that. It is just this crazy liberal idea called "manners," which suggests that you shouldn't go blundering around saying things without considering how others might feel about them.

Do you mean "liberal" as in classical liberal, or do you mean "liberal" as in modern left? If you mean the latter, then I might point out that monarchies and aristocracies, (probably usually identified as traditionally "conservative"), tend to be be rather picky about "manners"; it's the hippies and free spirits on the left who tend to think people should be free to interact more or less however they see fit.

No particular ideology has a corner on human decency and respect for other people, and no particular ideology rules out people being jerks.

[mamselle]

I think there might have been a bit of nuanced sarcasm involved there...

M.

[Hibush]

This topic is in the higher-ed news today.
Shorts in winter in Minnesota, Wisconsin etc?

The question is "How should these people be appropriately shamed?"

[mahagonny]

I get that this can easily cross a line, but compliments on appearance can be fine, it is all about context.  I recently purchased a new shirt and have received a few compliments on it at work. None crossed any lines and were well within societal norms.  The shirt in question is a little different than my normal dress, so the comments are not that weird.

That being said, I have also received comments about my appearance that did cross the line.  As a white male, they didn't really bother me (they were complimentary), but if I were in a more vulnerable position they may have and they would not have been considered acceptable.

My point is, that this is not a black and white issue.  Complimenting someone on a new shirt for example seems fine to me, but this depends on context/situation.  I personally avoid any such comments, but there is nuance involved here and complimenting a woman's hair could be done, or could be in appropriate depending on various details that we done have.

Agree. There's another line that gets crossed, too. That line is when someone sees  or concludes that they, as a straight white male, are being identified for additional distrust, rules and lecturing. The end of the Golden Rule, of 'giving your neighbor the benefit of a doubt.'

I think there might have been a bit of nuanced sarcasm involved there...

M.

!

[Descartes]

So, here's an honest, related question.  Although I love trolling on some online media, it's not my intent here, and I guess you'll just have to take my word for it (or don't.)

The premise of this entire conversation lies in the idea that men are always coming around and seemingly looking for something.  The implication is that men are always flirting, always looking for sex, however you want to say it.  The response from the women about how inappropriate this is and the lamenting of this activity seems to advance the idea that "men always want it, women often don't."  So we have the stereotype, which is probably pretty accurate, that men are always on the hunt and always have it on their minds, while women largely do not, or at least only do in certain circumstances and otherwise want to be left alone.

I recently observed a funny posting on social media from a much younger, very liberal woman.  She said something to the effect that it's a patriarchal idea meant to keep women in their place that women don't love sex just as much.  No, she claimed, women love sex, think about sex, are into sex every bit as much as men and women in fact think the same as men about it.

I find this claim dubious because if her claims were true, and women were thinking about sex just like men, they likely wouldn't find the comments about appearance and the public come-on's to be wrong. 

Imagine if the role were reversed; what if women suddenly started acting uncivilized with men, going up to men on the street and saying "You're HOT" and going up to men at school and work and saying "Those pants look great on you, you've got a tight ass!"  I'd wager that most men would think "this is my lucky day" and immediately try to engage in conversation to go back to his place rather than be offended.

It seems to me that the people posting here AND the liberal young woman can't both be correct (generally speaking, of course.  In an individual case they could be.)  On the whole, either women are just like men (really into sex, always on the mind) or they're not (want men to leave them alone at school, work, and on the street.)

And ideas?

[mahagonny]

So, here's an honest, related question...
And ideas?

Yeah. A lot of people wish for things, but they don't know how much trouble it would be to have them. Then men I know who have fast, easy winners with women eventually get women to leave them alone, mostly. Because life is too chaotic if you don't.

[nescafe]

To go back to the OP. Yes, I am female and I tend to get comments like this, mostly the "you don't look like a professor" variety.

One particularly grating experience happened at a paper workshop I presented at last Fall. A male presenter (20 years my senior) met me outside the seminar room and asked me if I could get him a bottle of water.

"Um, I'm not the coordinator."
"Oh, you're not? Who are you?"
"<name.> We're presenting on the same panel later."
<flustered> "Oh. Well... you don't look like a professor. Are you sure you're not a student?"
<withering glare as I let him hang in the awkward silence he'd created for himself in that moment>

Bonus: during our panel, the same guy ran over-time by a full ten minutes. The chair (also an old white man) then aggressively cut my presentation off early to make time for Q&A.

[Kron3007]

To go back to the OP. Yes, I am female and I tend to get comments like this, mostly the "you don't look like a professor" variety.

One particularly grating experience happened at a paper workshop I presented at last Fall. A male presenter (20 years my senior) met me outside the seminar room and asked me if I could get him a bottle of water.

"Um, I'm not the coordinator."
"Oh, you're not? Who are you?"
"<name.> We're presenting on the same panel later."
<flustered> "Oh. Well... you don't look like a professor. Are you sure you're not a student?"
<withering glare as I let him hang in the awkward silence he'd created for himself in that moment>

Bonus: during our panel, the same guy ran over-time by a full ten minutes. The chair (also an old white man) then aggressively cut my presentation off early to make time for Q&A.

I am male and got this type of comment quite a bit when I first started as faculty and people would often think I was a grad student or postdoc.  This can just be a simple mistake, although I'm sure it can also have sexist roots.  Unfortunately, I don't seem to get this anymore...

I have also been in the other side of this when I asked a female professor who's lab she was in.  This was just because I didn't recognize her and she looked too young to be faculty.  I don't think this had anything to do with her gender...

[present_mirth]

So, here's an honest, related question.  Although I love trolling on some online media, it's not my intent here, and I guess you'll just have to take my word for it (or don't.)

The premise of this entire conversation lies in the idea that men are always coming around and seemingly looking for something.  The implication is that men are always flirting, always looking for sex, however you want to say it.  The response from the women about how inappropriate this is and the lamenting of this activity seems to advance the idea that "men always want it, women often don't."  So we have the stereotype, which is probably pretty accurate, that men are always on the hunt and always have it on their minds, while women largely do not, or at least only do in certain circumstances and otherwise want to be left alone.

I recently observed a funny posting on social media from a much younger, very liberal woman.  She said something to the effect that it's a patriarchal idea meant to keep women in their place that women don't love sex just as much.  No, she claimed, women love sex, think about sex, are into sex every bit as much as men and women in fact think the same as men about it.

I find this claim dubious because if her claims were true, and women were thinking about sex just like men, they likely wouldn't find the comments about appearance and the public come-on's to be wrong. 

Imagine if the role were reversed; what if women suddenly started acting uncivilized with men, going up to men on the street and saying "You're HOT" and going up to men at school and work and saying "Those pants look great on you, you've got a tight ass!"  I'd wager that most men would think "this is my lucky day" and immediately try to engage in conversation to go back to his place rather than be offended.

It seems to me that the people posting here AND the liberal young woman can't both be correct (generally speaking, of course.  In an individual case they could be.)  On the whole, either women are just like men (really into sex, always on the mind) or they're not (want men to leave them alone at school, work, and on the street.)

And ideas?

I don't see a contradiction there. It's quite possible to like sex while being reasonably choosy about which people you are willing to have sex with. And men are choosy too, it's just that men simply don't hit on the women they aren't attracted to, so they don't really notice they are choosy until and unless a woman they're not attracted to hits on THEM. If it suddenly became the cultural norm for all sorts of women -- of all ages and levels of attractiveness -- to start going up to men on the street and telling them how hot they are, without any particular regard for whether those men are single or showing any sign of interest, I would wager that quite a lot of men would discover that they didn't like it, however much they may like sex in general. And they would start liking it even less if women were usually larger and stronger than they were, and 5% or so of those random women refused to take no for an answer and instead became aggressive, and there was no way to tell in advance who those 5% were.