Comeback when stranger calls you "dear"?

[marshwiggle]

It makes sense, given that difference, that women-on average-spend more time thinking about clothes than men-there's more to think about. If you have to spend more time thinking about something, you're more lily to get interested in it. Again, it's not universal-plenty of women don't find fashion very interesting. 

I saw a documentary a few years back, about women (In Afghanistan, maybe?) who wear burqus. But when they are alone with other women, they take off their burqas and underneath they're wearing designer clothing, jewellery, makeup etc. Clearly, that's not inspired by men. That's entirely for other women.

[dismalist]

Somewhere in the national musician's local newspaper, there was a great article about the issue, with the (female) author saying something like, "The reviewers never miss describing the woman's appearance, clothes, and feminine appeal, as if they had to uphold some kind of charm-school standard while being competent on their instrument. You don't expect to see the same reviewer saying something like, 'He had a gorgeous tux, a tight tooshie, and a fine waved do' before commenting on his riffs.'"

It must be pointed out that when reporters mention "She's wearing a Vera Wang dress" on the red carpet, that's not for the (at least straight) male audience. Women place more emphasis on women's appearance than they do on men's.

That's why it's a structural inequity. We all participate in it-you can't avoid it.

Think about the claim you're making. Sure, you are right that media directed more at women spends more time on fashion. You can overdo this point. There's GQ, Esquire and a whole host of smaller operations that do, in fact, cover fashion from a male perspective. But, sure there's more of it for women. Why is that? Well, there's actually a lot more to cover. All the men at the academy awards are wearing the same thing. Not exactly-there are choices around the margins-what kind of lapel will the tux have, should you wear a cummerbund or not-you could always do something crazy and have the tux or the tie be non standard color! Again I promise you that there is more coverage than you would think about these choices directed mostly at straight men. But still, there's just a much, much larger range of options for women and more to say about those options.

That's not just at the academy awards, women just have a lot more options in how they dress for almost anything. I actually wear jackets and ties to teach, but I have one suit. It's a nice suit, its dark grey, it fits well. If I'm going to a wedding, or a funeral, I'm going to wear that suit. Chances are that my wife probably can't wear the same thing to a wedding and a funeral.

It makes sense, given that difference, that women-on average-spend more time thinking about clothes than men-there's more to think about. If you have to spend more time thinking about something, you're more lily to get interested in it. Again, it's not universal-plenty of women don't find fashion very interesting.  In the process of trying to get a better teaching wardrobe, I got interested in men's tailored clothes and once you do that, you start noticing things on other people. But, there's a structural difference that explains pretty clearly why more women are more interested in fashion. That structural difference is what Mamselle is talking about. I'm sure some male musicians spend time on their clothes and appearance and it makes them feel more prepared and confident for a performance. However, I'm also sure that lots of them just wear the cheapest acceptable version of whatever is standard because nobody really pays too much attention and they just want to concentrate on their playing. Women can do that, but they can't count on everyone ignoring what they wear or how they look.

Guys, try a pinch of evolutionary biology! :-)

[ciao_yall]

Somewhere in the national musician's local newspaper, there was a great article about the issue, with the (female) author saying something like, "The reviewers never miss describing the woman's appearance, clothes, and feminine appeal, as if they had to uphold some kind of charm-school standard while being competent on their instrument. You don't expect to see the same reviewer saying something like, 'He had a gorgeous tux, a tight tooshie, and a fine waved do' before commenting on his riffs.'"

It must be pointed out that when reporters mention "She's wearing a Vera Wang dress" on the red carpet, that's not for the (at least straight) male audience. Women place more emphasis on women's appearance than they do on men's.

That's why it's a structural inequity. We all participate in it-you can't avoid it.

Think about the claim you're making. Sure, you are right that media directed more at women spends more time on fashion. You can overdo this point. There's GQ, Esquire and a whole host of smaller operations that do, in fact, cover fashion from a male perspective. But, sure there's more of it for women. Why is that? Well, there's actually a lot more to cover. All the men at the academy awards are wearing the same thing. Not exactly-there are choices around the margins-what kind of lapel will the tux have, should you wear a cummerbund or not-you could always do something crazy and have the tux or the tie be non standard color! Again I promise you that there is more coverage than you would think about these choices directed mostly at straight men. But still, there's just a much, much larger range of options for women and more to say about those options.

That's not just at the academy awards, women just have a lot more options in how they dress for almost anything. I actually wear jackets and ties to teach, but I have one suit. It's a nice suit, its dark grey, it fits well. If I'm going to a wedding, or a funeral, I'm going to wear that suit. Chances are that my wife probably can't wear the same thing to a wedding and a funeral.

It makes sense, given that difference, that women-on average-spend more time thinking about clothes than men-there's more to think about. If you have to spend more time thinking about something, you're more lily to get interested in it. Again, it's not universal-plenty of women don't find fashion very interesting.  In the process of trying to get a better teaching wardrobe, I got interested in men's tailored clothes and once you do that, you start noticing things on other people. But, there's a structural difference that explains pretty clearly why more women are more interested in fashion. That structural difference is what Mamselle is talking about. I'm sure some male musicians spend time on their clothes and appearance and it makes them feel more prepared and confident for a performance. However, I'm also sure that lots of them just wear the cheapest acceptable version of whatever is standard because nobody really pays too much attention and they just want to concentrate on their playing. Women can do that, but they can't count on everyone ignoring what they wear or how they look.

Guys, try a pinch of evolutionary biology! :-)

You mean like in the past, when men were the ones who paid a lot more attention (than women) on how they dressed?

[nebo113]

Seems to me that some folks on this thread are mainsplaining to women why women dress the way they do and for whom.

[mahagonny]

Seems to me that some folks on this thread are mainsplaining to women why women dress the way they do and for whom.

Gender non-binary-splaining, in my case, if/when such explaining does occur.

[Caracal]

Somewhere in the national musician's local newspaper, there was a great article about the issue, with the (female) author saying something like, "The reviewers never miss describing the woman's appearance, clothes, and feminine appeal, as if they had to uphold some kind of charm-school standard while being competent on their instrument. You don't expect to see the same reviewer saying something like, 'He had a gorgeous tux, a tight tooshie, and a fine waved do' before commenting on his riffs.'"

It must be pointed out that when reporters mention "She's wearing a Vera Wang dress" on the red carpet, that's not for the (at least straight) male audience. Women place more emphasis on women's appearance than they do on men's.

That's why it's a structural inequity. We all participate in it-you can't avoid it.

Think about the claim you're making. Sure, you are right that media directed more at women spends more time on fashion. You can overdo this point. There's GQ, Esquire and a whole host of smaller operations that do, in fact, cover fashion from a male perspective. But, sure there's more of it for women. Why is that? Well, there's actually a lot more to cover. All the men at the academy awards are wearing the same thing. Not exactly-there are choices around the margins-what kind of lapel will the tux have, should you wear a cummerbund or not-you could always do something crazy and have the tux or the tie be non standard color! Again I promise you that there is more coverage than you would think about these choices directed mostly at straight men. But still, there's just a much, much larger range of options for women and more to say about those options.

That's not just at the academy awards, women just have a lot more options in how they dress for almost anything. I actually wear jackets and ties to teach, but I have one suit. It's a nice suit, its dark grey, it fits well. If I'm going to a wedding, or a funeral, I'm going to wear that suit. Chances are that my wife probably can't wear the same thing to a wedding and a funeral.

It makes sense, given that difference, that women-on average-spend more time thinking about clothes than men-there's more to think about. If you have to spend more time thinking about something, you're more lily to get interested in it. Again, it's not universal-plenty of women don't find fashion very interesting.  In the process of trying to get a better teaching wardrobe, I got interested in men's tailored clothes and once you do that, you start noticing things on other people. But, there's a structural difference that explains pretty clearly why more women are more interested in fashion. That structural difference is what Mamselle is talking about. I'm sure some male musicians spend time on their clothes and appearance and it makes them feel more prepared and confident for a performance. However, I'm also sure that lots of them just wear the cheapest acceptable version of whatever is standard because nobody really pays too much attention and they just want to concentrate on their playing. Women can do that, but they can't count on everyone ignoring what they wear or how they look.

Guys, try a pinch of evolutionary biology! :-)

You mean like in the past, when men were the ones who paid a lot more attention (than women) on how they dressed?

Every bird species I can think of, if there's any flamboyant feathers, colors or neck puffery going on, it's always the male birds. I'm sure there are lots of just so stories about why humans are different but I doubt I'd find any of them particularly, since as ciao says, this pretty clearly isn't some universal thing in human society.

[Caracal]

It makes sense, given that difference, that women-on average-spend more time thinking about clothes than men-there's more to think about. If you have to spend more time thinking about something, you're more lily to get interested in it. Again, it's not universal-plenty of women don't find fashion very interesting. 

I saw a documentary a few years back, about women (In Afghanistan, maybe?) who wear burqus. But when they are alone with other women, they take off their burqas and underneath they're wearing designer clothing, jewellery, makeup etc. Clearly, that's not inspired by men. That's entirely for other women.

I don't get that many compliments about my clothes, probably because nobody much cares what middle aged professor's wear, but almost all the compliments I have received have been from other people who wear men's clothes. That's not any more surprising than if I said that the people who complimented me on my backhand were other people who played tennis. Those are the people who are likely to have a lot of detailed thoughts about backhands.

[dismalist]

Somewhere in the national musician's local newspaper, there was a great article about the issue, with the (female) author saying something like, "The reviewers never miss describing the woman's appearance, clothes, and feminine appeal, as if they had to uphold some kind of charm-school standard while being competent on their instrument. You don't expect to see the same reviewer saying something like, 'He had a gorgeous tux, a tight tooshie, and a fine waved do' before commenting on his riffs.'"

It must be pointed out that when reporters mention "She's wearing a Vera Wang dress" on the red carpet, that's not for the (at least straight) male audience. Women place more emphasis on women's appearance than they do on men's.

That's why it's a structural inequity. We all participate in it-you can't avoid it.

Think about the claim you're making. Sure, you are right that media directed more at women spends more time on fashion. You can overdo this point. There's GQ, Esquire and a whole host of smaller operations that do, in fact, cover fashion from a male perspective. But, sure there's more of it for women. Why is that? Well, there's actually a lot more to cover. All the men at the academy awards are wearing the same thing. Not exactly-there are choices around the margins-what kind of lapel will the tux have, should you wear a cummerbund or not-you could always do something crazy and have the tux or the tie be non standard color! Again I promise you that there is more coverage than you would think about these choices directed mostly at straight men. But still, there's just a much, much larger range of options for women and more to say about those options.

That's not just at the academy awards, women just have a lot more options in how they dress for almost anything. I actually wear jackets and ties to teach, but I have one suit. It's a nice suit, its dark grey, it fits well. If I'm going to a wedding, or a funeral, I'm going to wear that suit. Chances are that my wife probably can't wear the same thing to a wedding and a funeral.

It makes sense, given that difference, that women-on average-spend more time thinking about clothes than men-there's more to think about. If you have to spend more time thinking about something, you're more lily to get interested in it. Again, it's not universal-plenty of women don't find fashion very interesting.  In the process of trying to get a better teaching wardrobe, I got interested in men's tailored clothes and once you do that, you start noticing things on other people. But, there's a structural difference that explains pretty clearly why more women are more interested in fashion. That structural difference is what Mamselle is talking about. I'm sure some male musicians spend time on their clothes and appearance and it makes them feel more prepared and confident for a performance. However, I'm also sure that lots of them just wear the cheapest acceptable version of whatever is standard because nobody really pays too much attention and they just want to concentrate on their playing. Women can do that, but they can't count on everyone ignoring what they wear or how they look.

Guys, try a pinch of evolutionary biology! :-)

You mean like in the past, when men were the ones who paid a lot more attention (than women) on how they dressed?

Every bird species I can think of, if there's any flamboyant feathers, colors or neck puffery going on, it's always the male birds. I'm sure there are lots of just so stories about why humans are different but I doubt I'd find any of them particularly, since as ciao says, this pretty clearly isn't some universal thing in human society.

Yeah, evolutionary biology can't make very specific predictions on account reproductive success also depends on environment and blind luck in addition to behavior. So we get a lot of variety. Though I believe ciao is largely incorrect, even today there are differences in how much weight men put on clothing all over the world. And as Marsh pointed out, even the hidden under the burqa exists, an observation confirmed long ago by my wife, the doctor.

But to get back to the original, more specific question, in public commentary on male and female musical performers, compare e.g.

Hilary Hahn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mNJ43S1RIQ and her jingle jangle with

Itzhak Perlman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cokCgWPRZPg in his tux.

What in hell is a commentator gonna comment about Perlman's suit? Hahn's jingle jangle positively invite commentary! And she was not forced to wear that stuff. The operative question is why she is wearing it!

Then take this female performer from Iceland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT_63UntRJE&t=35s Very unalluring dress, properly so for a classical concert, but a whole lot of skin! Why? If I showed that much skin, crowds would disperse!

[mahagonny]

Fortunately gender is now not a binary situation but only a continuum. So neither Perlman nor Hahn is favored or discriminated against vis-à-vis societal expectations. Problem solved.

[Caracal]

Itzhak Perlman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cokCgWPRZPg in his tux.

What in hell is a commentator gonna comment about Perlman's suit? Hahn's jingle jangle positively invite commentary! And she was not forced to wear that stuff. The operative question is why she is wearing it!

There actually probably is a lot to say about his tux. I'm pretty sure it's bespoke. The lines are pretty clean-even though he's contorting his body in ways you wouldn't normally be doing in a tux if you weren't playing a violin. If you look at the arm holes, they seem to be cut much wider than what you would normally see in men's tailored clothing. If you're wearing a normally proportioned tailored coat, the thing, you aren't that limited in arm movement, but the thing you can't really do with ease is cross your arms around in front in the way someone does when they play a violin. Somebody has to have really known what they are doing to make that work. If they just cut extra wide arms without modifying the suit in other ways it would look pretty silly.

[mamselle]

Seems to me that some folks on this thread are mainsplaining to women why women dress the way they do and for whom.

Yep.

And the point wasn't about clothes, it was about how certain forms of address can be subtle ways of grooming victims, or maintaining categories of submissive status among various groups or classes of people.

Which was somehow, conveniently, passed over.

M.

[dismalist]

Itzhak Perlman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cokCgWPRZPg in his tux.

What in hell is a commentator gonna comment about Perlman's suit? Hahn's jingle jangle positively invite commentary! And she was not forced to wear that stuff. The operative question is why she is wearing it!

There actually probably is a lot to say about his tux. I'm pretty sure it's bespoke. The lines are pretty clean-even though he's contorting his body in ways you wouldn't normally be doing in a tux if you weren't playing a violin. If you look at the arm holes, they seem to be cut much wider than what you would normally see in men's tailored clothing. If you're wearing a normally proportioned tailored coat, the thing, you aren't that limited in arm movement, but the thing you can't really do with ease is cross your arms around in front in the way someone does when they play a violin. Somebody has to have really known what they are doing to make that work. If they just cut extra wide arms without modifying the suit in other ways it would look pretty silly.

That must be broadcast to a wider audience! :-)

Here's somebody who can also swing arms around while violining:

Anne Sophie Mutter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg_7lbsCKUc Note the quantity of skin. It's all voluntary. Solicitation of public comment is obviously intentional.

I suppose Itzhak Perlman could go topless!

[secundem_artem]

Itzhak Perlman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cokCgWPRZPg in his tux.

What in hell is a commentator gonna comment about Perlman's suit? Hahn's jingle jangle positively invite commentary! And she was not forced to wear that stuff. The operative question is why she is wearing it!

There actually probably is a lot to say about his tux. I'm pretty sure it's bespoke. The lines are pretty clean-even though he's contorting his body in ways you wouldn't normally be doing in a tux if you weren't playing a violin. If you look at the arm holes, they seem to be cut much wider than what you would normally see in men's tailored clothing. If you're wearing a normally proportioned tailored coat, the thing, you aren't that limited in arm movement, but the thing you can't really do with ease is cross your arms around in front in the way someone does when they play a violin. Somebody has to have really known what they are doing to make that work. If they just cut extra wide arms without modifying the suit in other ways it would look pretty silly.

That must be broadcast to a wider audience! :-)

Here's somebody who can also swing arms around while violining:

Anne Sophie Mutter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg_7lbsCKUc Note the quantity of skin. It's all voluntary. Solicitation of public comment is obviously intentional.

I suppose Itzhak Perlman could go topless!

Wut?  I see more skin on my female students pretty much every day.  Belly shirts, spandex shorts (usually with PINK) written across the arse.  It's never occurred to me that there was any kind of solicitation of comments intended.  In one on one meetings with such students my internal mantra is "Look at their eyes.  Look at their eyes.  Look at their eyes."  Comments, I strongly suspect, are decidedly unwelcome.

[mahagonny]

Wut?  I see more skin on my female students pretty much every day.  Belly shirts, spandex shorts (usually with PINK) written across the arse.  It's never occurred to me that there was any kind of solicitation of comments intended.  In one on one meetings with such students my internal mantra is "Look at their eyes.  Look at their eyes.  Look at their eyes."  Comments, I strongly suspect, are decidedly unwelcome.

\

So the clothes are there in the mall, and they can be purchased by young women who want comments, don't want comments, want better grades, want clothes that can be donned in 2 1/2 minutes, want to cause you to think things that shouldn't be voiced for the fun of it, want to be like their girlfriends, or...
These days on campus my rule is I may not comment an another's appearance other than to say 'you look well.'

[dismalist]

Itzhak Perlman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cokCgWPRZPg in his tux.

What in hell is a commentator gonna comment about Perlman's suit? Hahn's jingle jangle positively invite commentary! And she was not forced to wear that stuff. The operative question is why she is wearing it!

There actually probably is a lot to say about his tux. I'm pretty sure it's bespoke. The lines are pretty clean-even though he's contorting his body in ways you wouldn't normally be doing in a tux if you weren't playing a violin. If you look at the arm holes, they seem to be cut much wider than what you would normally see in men's tailored clothing. If you're wearing a normally proportioned tailored coat, the thing, you aren't that limited in arm movement, but the thing you can't really do with ease is cross your arms around in front in the way someone does when they play a violin. Somebody has to have really known what they are doing to make that work. If they just cut extra wide arms without modifying the suit in other ways it would look pretty silly.

That must be broadcast to a wider audience! :-)

Here's somebody who can also swing arms around while violining:

Anne Sophie Mutter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg_7lbsCKUc Note the quantity of skin. It's all voluntary. Solicitation of public comment is obviously intentional.

I suppose Itzhak Perlman could go topless!

Wut?  I see more skin on my female students pretty much every day.  Belly shirts, spandex shorts (usually with PINK) written across the arse.  It's never occurred to me that there was any kind of solicitation of comments intended.  In one on one meetings with such students my internal mantra is "Look at their eyes.  Look at their eyes.  Look at their eyes."  Comments, I strongly suspect, are decidedly unwelcome.

Sure. Broadcasting to various audiences! [You just got caught in the flak. :-)]

I merely suggest that female musical performers choose their attire to maximize benefits to themselves. Money for sure. But why money? Charlie Darwin might claim that the benefit is competition for reproductive fitness.

Talking about it helps -- the chat increases market size!

Put differently, there is nothing sinister going on here.