shoes
What were we talking about? Oh, yes, shoes.
Okay, so have you ever asked yourself why a tall woman might wear heels? Because it does something to the shape of her calf muscle that the culture tells her she should display.
Are you with me so far? And why do women generally (in industrialized societies) -- tall or short -- wear skirts, apply face makeup, why do they shave their legs and their armpits (leaving aside fluid dynamic concerns specific to competitive swimmers and cyclists)? I am thinking it is because they are conforming to cultural norms, they are doing something the existing culture tells them they "should" do.
But what does it mean for a woman to wear a skirt? I mean, this is not (as near as I can tell, not having myself worn one) a particularly functional piece of clothing -- well, except maybe for one function: it can easily be moved aside for sexual access.
Sorry, is that too blunt? But I have a difficult time imagining any other origin for this differentiation between the conventional clothing of males versus females, though I suppose I am willing to consider suggestions. Okay, you are saying that wearing a skirt makes it a lot easier to squat to urinate, without completely exposing yourself. Point taken. But apart from that -- I mean, it seems to me this remains an issue only if you are pissing outdoors (which I will treat as essentially historical), or maybe in a public toilet with no doors on the stalls -- am I perhaps being unsympathetic here? -- apart from that . . .
. . . and not to get sidetracked, but I do not understand why a male would stand to urinate in his own home, as it tends to splash, so this whole subgenre of "humor" about "leaving the seat up" completely escapes me . . . though you do occasionally read in the paper where some kid has been beaten to death by his brutal, stupid father for sitting to piss -- which should tell you something about how deeply ingrained these cultural norms really are, at least among people who do not try to think for themselves.
Anyway, in the view I am putting forward here, in an industrialized society, the skirt is at least a vestigial emblem of the subordination of females to males. I mean, okay, wear the skirt, or the dress, but at least be aware what it signifies, and wear it by choice, with some sense of irony, not by compulsion.
Similarly with face makeup: the woman paints her face in order to be "presentable" in public, and specifically to make herself "attractive," sexually, to males. What kind of culture requires that an entire sex hide her natural appearance, that she smooth everything out, that she put forward what amounts to a continuous mating display?
Oh, there he goes again, everything is sexual with him. Excuse me. But then ask yourself why men are not required to do this, or anything like it. Jackets and ties have an entirely separate, though probably equally stupid, history, but they do not require males to disguise themselves -- and at the level of the skin, no less -- as children.
Yeah, sorry, we have to take the depravity here up yet another notch: what about the shaving of leg and armpit hair? What the hell is that about? I will tell you what it is about, it is about infantilizing a woman, and at the same time presenting her to males not merely as a sexual object, but as an object some part of whose sexuality derives from her being childlike. I happen to think that is sick, but what do I know? Well, okay, one thing I do know is that an adult female does have body hair. Again, go ahead, shave it off, but at least acknowledge that you are doing it (if you are doing it without irony) in order to conform to what amounts to a pervasive sexual fetish.
What were we talking about?
Okay, so have you ever asked yourself why a tall woman might wear heels? Because it does something to the shape of her calf muscle that the culture tells her she should display.
Are you with me so far? And why do women generally (in industrialized societies) -- tall or short -- wear skirts, apply face makeup, why do they shave their legs and their armpits (leaving aside fluid dynamic concerns specific to competitive swimmers and cyclists)? I am thinking it is because they are conforming to cultural norms, they are doing something the existing culture tells them they "should" do.
But what does it mean for a woman to wear a skirt? I mean, this is not (as near as I can tell, not having myself worn one) a particularly functional piece of clothing -- well, except maybe for one function: it can easily be moved aside for sexual access.
Sorry, is that too blunt? But I have a difficult time imagining any other origin for this differentiation between the conventional clothing of males versus females, though I suppose I am willing to consider suggestions. Okay, you are saying that wearing a skirt makes it a lot easier to squat to urinate, without completely exposing yourself. Point taken. But apart from that -- I mean, it seems to me this remains an issue only if you are pissing outdoors (which I will treat as essentially historical), or maybe in a public toilet with no doors on the stalls -- am I perhaps being unsympathetic here? -- apart from that . . .
. . . and not to get sidetracked, but I do not understand why a male would stand to urinate in his own home, as it tends to splash, so this whole subgenre of "humor" about "leaving the seat up" completely escapes me . . . though you do occasionally read in the paper where some kid has been beaten to death by his brutal, stupid father for sitting to piss -- which should tell you something about how deeply ingrained these cultural norms really are, at least among people who do not try to think for themselves.
Anyway, in the view I am putting forward here, in an industrialized society, the skirt is at least a vestigial emblem of the subordination of females to males. I mean, okay, wear the skirt, or the dress, but at least be aware what it signifies, and wear it by choice, with some sense of irony, not by compulsion.
Similarly with face makeup: the woman paints her face in order to be "presentable" in public, and specifically to make herself "attractive," sexually, to males. What kind of culture requires that an entire sex hide her natural appearance, that she smooth everything out, that she put forward what amounts to a continuous mating display?
Oh, there he goes again, everything is sexual with him. Excuse me. But then ask yourself why men are not required to do this, or anything like it. Jackets and ties have an entirely separate, though probably equally stupid, history, but they do not require males to disguise themselves -- and at the level of the skin, no less -- as children.
Yeah, sorry, we have to take the depravity here up yet another notch: what about the shaving of leg and armpit hair? What the hell is that about? I will tell you what it is about, it is about infantilizing a woman, and at the same time presenting her to males not merely as a sexual object, but as an object some part of whose sexuality derives from her being childlike. I happen to think that is sick, but what do I know? Well, okay, one thing I do know is that an adult female does have body hair. Again, go ahead, shave it off, but at least acknowledge that you are doing it (if you are doing it without irony) in order to conform to what amounts to a pervasive sexual fetish.
What were we talking about?
posted by zach bender at 6:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home