Home › Blogs › figleaf's blog

Long Dresses, Closets, and Girl Cooties

Tue, 2007-11-27 23:34 — figleaf

Hmm. This seems to be the third post (after this and this) inspired by Ryan Haecker of Daily Texan Online pean to women in long dresses. Which is sort of funny since the first time I saw it I just rolled my eyes and moved on.


Photo by Flickr user ClothesHorseWhisperer.
Used under a Creative Commons license.

This one’s a bit trickier. I’ve been hard on the guy, and in a way he deserves it, but especially since I feel more sorry about his indoctrination than I do angry about his feeble inability to distinguish women from men without iconic attire (“Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs.”) And since I don’t know anything about Haecker beyond his five-paragraph essay it’s really not appropriate for me to question his personal life. And so while I’m going to say his essay inspired this post I want to make it clear that nothing about this post should be construed as questioning the sincerity of his heterosexuality.

That said, one wonders how, say, Senator Larry Craig, or former Rep. Mark Foley, or former Rev. Ted Haggard, or former Rep. Edward Schrock, or former Washington State Rep. Richard Curtis, or any of the hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of men and women who’ve closeted their sexual orientations behind arms-length, “sex for reproduction only” marriages would feel about Haecker’s line of reasoning.

Women should be visually interesting (in “elegant,” “graceful,” and “modest” fashion, of course) but sexually disengaged? Check. Women should be virtuous (though, surprise! very understanding) in the face of men’s vices? Check. Women should stay in the home while their husbands travel (with perfectly understandable stops in Minnesota men’s rooms?) Check.

Again, I don’t mean to suggest that Haecker is a closeted gay man, not at all, at all. I’m just saying that if I was a desperately conflicted and self-repressed gay man trying mightily to pass for straight I could do worse than attempt to form a relationship with the kind of woman who prefers “the flowing elegant dresses of tradition” against “the more degenerate and immodest dresses of our present culture.” I might even have entirely different reasons for decrying the breakdown of the symbols of dress. Because, after all, “pants are symbolic of something – in this case masculinity” cuts both ways, right?

Wed, 2007-11-28 09:47 — 1775 (not verified) #permalink

I suspect young Mr. Haecker would argue that Joan of Arc’s conviction be reinstated (it was, of course, nullified after the fact; little comfort to Joan who had long since been incinerated and dumped in the Seine), as the main charge upon which she was convicted was that of wearing men’s clothing.

[Yup. Although, of course, the truth is that it wasn’t strictly illegal for a Frenchwoman to lead an insurrection against the occupying English. The cross-dressing rap, while definitely a capital offense, was the best they had. Still, it’s also worth mentioning that when Marlene Detrich wore her tuxedo in (working from memory here) Blue Angel Nights, it caused a huge scandal. Now we just think it’s hot. :-) Thanks, Bunny. —fl]

Wed, 2007-11-28 09:41 — 1775 (not verified) #permalink

Oh, one can find writing like this all the time from the young and yet-unthoughtful. Hopefully education helps.

What he does not seem to realize is that the idea of dresses themselves, especially dresses to differentiate men from women, is a social construct. In many cultures (and he seems to be a biblical fundamentalist) men wear flowing dress-like garments, too. At what point did western men start wearing pants? Spartans, Scots, and medieval men in tunics aside, the transition to pants for men was vaster than empires and more slow. And in many cultures, the differentiation of dress by gender has not been so marked.

And why do we need to differentiate between men and women on restroom signs so much? We need more unisex bathrooms for families and for disabled people who need assistance. And usually the words “men” and “women” are common enough for foreign language speakers to understand quickly enough (or all they have to do is observe who comes in or out of a particular bathroom).

So basically the underlying assumptions of his entire argument are wrong. I have to admit I love wearing long dresses and skirts, but I wear them because I like them, not because someone’s going to nail my burqua to my forehead if I don’t. I’d object if someone mandated it.

He’d be on stronger ground if he said he loved dresses and wished more women would wear them. As is, he’s going to alienate any woman. And, ironically, I think he’d find as many feminists wearing skirts and dresses as women of any other persuasion. Funny how he thinks he’s oppressed by feminism. He’s oppressing himself.

[He’s clued in enough to mention men switching from tunics in the 6th century. All the more reason to think maybe he’s pulling everybody’s leg since pretty much anyone who’s studied at least a little history recognizes that modern, or even ancient attire is still pretty recent. Thanks, B. —fl]

Wed, 2007-11-28 11:33 — 1775 (not verified) #permalink

If you click on the comments feature, http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2007/11/28/Opinion/Editors.Note.AdDressIng.The.Hype-3119369.shtml,
the editors do note that Haecker apologized for the piece on his FaceBook page. The Daily Texan editors defend his right to expression.

So my response at this point is that it’s good he’s continuing to think about the issue and rethink what he said (though I don’t know the specifics of the apology or his beliefs).

He might not have run into this problem had he looked to substantiate his claims with some kind of evidence. He implies/says that sexually attractive qualities are innate (“objective”), but that’s simply not so. Men have a range of tastes, and a preference for heftiness in Western culture has given way to a preference or fetish for thinness. Certainly coverings for the body are culturally contingent.

Hilarious that it is a 5-paragraph theme. Someone should train him out of that. But the scary thing is you run into all kinds of similarly romanticized beliefs in the south. But you can’t go sailing, biking, jogging, hiking in a dress. And who wants to be indoors in Austin?

The other thing you run into in Southern college editorials is a “was she asking for it” kind of argument, i.e., was she wearing a dress when she was raped? And, ironically, implications that women shouldn’t go around at night without escorts since it’s dangerous (which almost sounds like a threat rather than a concern). Such arguments do run close to the line of thinking of the judges in the Saudi Arabian case.

[And, of course, the thing is that when men are indoctrinated into believing themselves the involuntary, reflex, can’t-help-it “sex class” then it actually makes sense that they’d blame women. And throughout history that’s pretty much been the way it’s worked — for instance the nominally celibate Leo Tolstoy kept almost violently throwing himself upon his wife, which her diary keeps bitter track of, yet he perpetually blamed her for it. This too is a form of learned helplessness feminism innoculates me from and therefore can innoculate anyone! And if the guy is serious? Well, mighty oaks spring from little nuts and all that. Instead of scorning him outright I’m going to hope he can steer that energy and outrage to good purposes… instead of what he’s been doing! :-) Thanks, B! —fl]

Wed, 2007-11-28 09:16 — 1775 (not verified) #permalink

First, I’d like to know what year Haecker wrote this article? Or is living in?

“...feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the “new woman.”

The “new woman”? Women have been wearing pants as a regular part of daily attire both casually and professionally for what, 30 years?

Second, I’m baffled by his equation.

+Elegance = femininity
-Elegance = masculinity

He negates entirely the ability for a man to exude elegance and assert his inherent masculinity. Apparantly, Mr. Haecker has never been to France, or Italy, or even New York. Where men easily combine grace and style and a definite “manly” composure. Does he think that women who wear pants suddenly adopt a macho attitude?

The man is not of this time or place, apparently.

Eve

[Yeah, as Sharon points out, the guy may be just be trolling… though that doesn’t necessarily explain how he wound up with an opinion piece in the UT-Austin daily rag. But yeah, whatever. For the record, on women and pants? Hillary Clinton’s not that much older than I am so I know the context it came from, but I still crinched a little during the debate the other week when she said “This pantsuit, it’s asbestos tonight.” Sure, they were a new concept back in 1974 but since a “pantsuit” is really just a women’s suit with, you know, pants, couldn’t we possibly stop calling them something special and just say “suits” instead? She’s so not the only candidate I cringe at, and certainly not the most fuddy-duddy, so it’s not like I wouldn’t support her cheerfully if she’s nominated. But I digress. Anyway, if the guy’s serious he’s scary, and if he’s not then he’s still at least a little creepy. (See, for instance, his MySpace essay on “functional and innate modesty: the exhibitionism of women”.) Thanks, Eve. —fl]

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.