Marathon Woman

I spent a good part of yesterday with the television on--and, not just that, but tuned in to "What Not to Wear." They were having a marathon, and I actually knew someone on one of the episodes (she was one of the coworkers who has left), though I didn't see her yesterday, and it's completely mindless and i was puttering around baking and thus didn't have to pay close attention. Whatever. It was interesting, in a sort-of-train-wreck kind of way.

On one hand, let's assume that everyone wants to present himself or herself in a good light; we all want to be "attractive," in some sense of that word. I'll even grant that many of us, probably most of us, choose at least the occasional piece of clothing or style of dressing that does not present us in a particularly flattering manner. The single biggest mistake I saw people making is wearing clothes that do not fit properly. Most of the women profiled on the show--and it is always women--are normal-sized, some even tending to be significantly larger than what we see in the media, but there's not a lot of fashion or style advice out there for normal people. (Not that I would really know, in that I don't shop in stores or read the publications that sell clothes. I get a lot of catalogues, so I see what's being sold in that way.) The women were an interesting mix, as well: a firefighter from California; a single mom from Virginia who wants to sell real estate; a campaign lawyer from Chicago; a court reporter from Florida.

A lot of the suggestions were helpful, although, perhaps because of the similarities in body type among many of the women, there was a striking similarity to the suggestions. In most cases, you could even see how the women could translate at least some of what they were learning back in to their normal lives: wear this type of fabric, or this type of cut, rather than that one; emphasize this feature by wearing this type of garment; draw attention to this part by doing that thing.

But.

(You knew that was coming.)

If I never hear the word "feminine" again, it will be too fucking soon. I do not regard "feminine" (or "masculine") as a desirable state, nor as something to which one should aspire or devote any effort. Seriously, people--the world will be a better place if we dump that word and all of its brethren (or sisteren, as the case may be). The show with the firefighter was the most severe offender, not surprisingly, as it was all about how she could get rid of her superhero t-shirts and she could stop buying her clothes in the junior department (both of which are true statements, actually) and Be More Feminine when she's not on duty. Several of the dresses they picked out WERE flattering on her, and she might well want to wear them, but it is not about "femininity" per se. Although, of course, for the patriarchy, it is always precisely about the femininity.

The other thing that was getting on my last nerve--and, of course, it was not unrelated--was their insistence on putting everyone in heels. Not necessarily high ones, but heels. I categorically refuse to wear them--and I cannot imagine men agreeing to wear some article of clothing that caused similar pain and inhibited mobility in similar ways. And that's the essential point here: Yes, fine, those strappy little heels may make the line of her leg look longer, but they also prevent her from walking quickly--or running, if need be--and they are bad for her feet, legs, and back. They are a FAIL.

I think that's the difference between heels and makeup. I could easily argue that makeup is a waste of time and money, that it sucks money out of women's wallets that they could spend on their retirement funds, etc., and there's some truth to that. For better or worse, in addition to being a way to play with one's appearance and with decoration, it's also a nod in the direction of patriarchally approved looks (and all women have to make some of those choices, give some indicators that they are Compliant or suffer the consequences), though, as those things go, it doesn't cost that much time or money. More to the point, makeup may be wasteful or pointless, but it does not cause physical harm. It does not keep the wearer from walking or running; it does not cause bunions; it does not cause backaches or foot pain. Makeup could be compared to shaving facial hair. Most men spend some time shaving or grooming their facial hair; some men look good with beards or mustaches, and other men not so much. Either requires some effort, on a nearly daily basis.

Another thing on the show was the hair. Every single woman who had long hair ended up with her hair chopped off. Of course the stylist made them look good; that's not the point. The question is, what does it take to maintain that hair? How much time each day? How much time at the hairdresser? How much money? The answer to all those questions is: a lot.

The thing with clothes is that we have to wear them. It doesn't take any more effort to buy or wear flattering clothing than it does to buy or wear unflattering clothing. With hair, though, some styles require way more effort and expense and upkeep. The firefighter was a good example. She has really beautiful hair (she had it long), and I really didn't think the cut they gave her did any more for her than the way she had been wearing it, and it will require more upkeep, what with the trimming and shit, and it will be more difficult to get it out of her way when she's working, because the shorter bits are too short to be put into a braid or ponytail. Show her ways to arrange it when she wants to dress for something other than fighting fires--fine, no problem. But why give her a cut that is going to be a complete pain to maintain? Personally, I'd want a style that can look acceptable with minimal effort all the time, rather than one that either looks great (with much effort and expense) or ragged and unattractive.

And, really, that's what was at the heart of the whole thing that eventually started to bug me. We all want to wear things that make us look good, and we don't always have the best ideas about what those things are. Fine; I'll accept that. But there are considerations other than how things look, and the thing to do is to take those considerations into account, not dismiss them as fear of expanding one's horizons or whateverthefuck. The Gendertest comes in handy here, too: can you imagine asking a member of the opposite sex to do whatever it is you're suggesting, at the frequency and expense you're suggesting, and having that person comply happily and willingly?

Comb one's hair? Sure. Get it cut occasionally, so it's not too ragged? No problem. Spend some time grooming the face, either with makeup or shaving? Okay. Wear clothes that are of a color and cut that are flattering? Also okay. Wear footwear that hobbles you and causes pain? Not so much. Institute grooming routines that require a lot of extra time or money or both? Also not so much. I'm willing to devote about a half an hour a day to this stuff--including the shower. Winter takes a little longer, because I have to grease my whole body or it flakes away to nothing and because I have to wear more clothes so I don't freeze my ass off. But that seems to be a reasonable amount of time, and my (relatively limited) experience suggests that it's about what men spend, too.

Anyway. My ranting is fading here. I've decided I have to actually leave the building today. (My friend has a cold, so we're theoretically getting together tonight instead of last night.) I did laundry this morning, which was the first I left my apartment since Wednesday night; baby steps, people.